Tag Archives: communism

The line between good and evil in individual hearts – and across society

Posted on by

I was recently rereading an abridged version of The Gulag Archipelago and came across one of the most famous lines:

Photo by George Becker on Pexels.com

But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.

This line gets at the nature of human beings and the fate of every individual. But as I read the sentences around this quote, I picked some sociological leanings. Here is more of the passage:

So let the reader who expects this book to be a political expose slam its covers shut right now.

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good an evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.

An individualistic reading may not be the only one. Solzhenitsyn argues this issue faces every person. Individuals did make choices for evil and good but a these do not take place in a vacuum. At the same time, we can be swayed toward evil. He mentions “various circumstances.” Those might be our reactions to situations but it could also be about the people and norms around us. How much harder is to choose good when the people and institutions around us are pushing a different direction? The archipelago described in the book is not solely the result of one person; it was a system developed over time that involved millions. By the time Solzhenitsyn encountered the gulag, it had been operating for decades and would continue to do so.

Translating communism into urban design principles

Posted on by

Here is a look at how the Soviet Union designed cities:

With this assumption, Soviet planners made some logical steps to promote density. They built nurseries and preschools as well as theatre and sports halls within walking distance to worker’s homes.   Communal eating areas were arranged. Also, wide boulevards were crucial for marches and to have a clear path to and from the factory for the workers. The goals of the “socialist city” planners were to not just transform urban planning but human behavior, helping such spaces would breed the “urban human”…

Alexei Gutnov and his team set to create “a concrete spatial agenda for Marxism”. At the center of The Communist City lay the “The New Unit of Settlement” (NUS) described as “a blueprint for a truly socialist city“. Gutnov established four fundamental principles dictating their design plan. First, they wanted equal mobility for all residents with each sector being at equal walking distance from the center of the community and from the rural area surrounding them. Secondly, distances from a park area or to the center were planned on a pedestrian scale, ensuring the ability for everyone to be able to reasonably walk everywhere. Third, public transportation would operate on circuits outside the pedestrian area, but stay linked centrally with the NUS, so that residents can go from home to work and vice versa easily. Lastly, every sector would be surrounded by open land on at least two sides, creating a green belt.

Gutnov did acknowledge the appeal of suburbia — “…ideal conditions for rest and privacy are offered by the individual house situated in the midst of nature…”, but rejected the suburban model common in America and other capitalist countries. Suburbs, he argued, are not feasible in a society that prioritizes equality, stating, “The attempt to make the villa available to the average consumer means building a mass of little houses, each on a tiny piece of land. . . . The mass construction of individual houses, however, destroys the basic character of this type of residence.”

The author is insistent on comparing these to current planning practices but let’s be honest: all urban planning is based on some sort of ideology. Many Americans may prefer suburbs to these Soviet cities but suburbs have their own logic based around private property, individualism, and local control. In other words, neither Soviet cities or American suburbs “just happen”; there are a series of historical events, decisions made by key leaders (often in government and business), and meanings that contribute to particular spatial landscapes.