Crémieux Profile picture
Aug 23, 2023 17 tweets 6 min read Read on X
One of the best pieces every published in The Atlantic is this 97-year-old piece by "A Woman Resident in Russia".

In it, she described the chaos that resulted when Communists destroyed the institution of marriage.

Let's read about what happened when Soviets ruined marriage🧵
"To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did."

Russia boasted it had no illegitimate children. True. They eliminated the "illegitimate" category. Image
"Men took to changing wives" and 300,000 abandoned children resulted. Image
"It was not... unusual... for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions." Image
"I recall another victim of the breakdown of families ties.... She was divorced by her husband after their first child was born. He then married another woman, had a child by her, deserted both, and returned to his first wife, by whom he had a second child." Image
Not all women suffered from the breakdown. Some exploited it.

"Women of light behavior" would blackmail men into paying alimony. Image
Some men found ways to profit from this as well.

They would trick a woman into marriage, use her as an employee on the farm, and then divorce her when the season was through. Image
It wasn't just rural areas that buckled under the effects of marriage dissolution.

One group of students became indignant at accusations of licentiousness and declared that having sex was the only real amusement left, so they deserved free abortions. Image
Some chapters of the League of Communist Youth decried people who wouldn't do hook-ups and even organized circles to encourage free loving. Image
The Communists were ideologically committed to the idea that the state should rear the children.

This proved too expensive, so this "annoying test of Communist theories" could be given a failing grade. Image
The debates over a new, free-love abiding law took place in the Tsar's throneroom, with its gilded walls and vaulted ceilings, and the throne, replaced with a simple wooden platform. Image
The opposition to the law suggested it would abolish marriage, destroy the family, legalize polygamy, and ruin the peasantry.

Trotsky and Soltz offered contradictory explanations for their positions. Image
Smidovich and Kollontai provided their own opinions as well.

Kollontai wanted a social insurance scheme, like a sovereign fund for abandoned kids. Incidentally, she was the ambassador to Norway. Image
"If opinion on the proposed law is divided in the cities, the feeling in the villages, where eighty per cent of the Russians live, is overwhelmingly against it."

Here's what one peasant spokesman had to say: Image
"The... circulation of revolutionary ideas on the desirability of abolishing the family has not... eliminated old-fashioned passions of love and jealousy."

"Even Communist women have been known to commit suicide because their husbands' attentions were diverted elsewhere." Image
The Soviets eventually did crack down. Free love could not last, and this brief experiment in it led them to abandon attempts to bring it about.

The Communists simply couldn't uproot human nature.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

Jan 13
American military veterans have a suicide problem.

Some have theorized the reason is deployment-related trauma.

Leveraging the random assignment of new soldiers to units with different deployment cycles, Bruhn et al. found that was wrong.

Deployment did not increase suicides. Image
Looking only at violent deployments (ones with peer casualties), there aren't noncombat mortality effects either.

What explains veteran suicide rates? Image
The reason seems to be that the proposition is wrong: veterans do not have increased suicide risk.

This may seem surprising, but it's not!

Their suicide rates are elevated over the general population because most of them are young White men. That group has a suicide issue. Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 12
That aspect is probably not that unrealistic, unfortunately.

Across the OECD, on average, just 55% of 15-to-16-year-olds got this question right, and no country saw 80% get it.

Most people globally *do* struggle even reading simple tables. What else?

Thread.🧵 Image
That table-reading question is "Level 3", which, amazingly, corresponds to an already-high level of ability, by global standards.

This is a simpler Level 1 question, but with this, 92% of the OECD got it, including just 65% of Brazilians and 53% of Peruvians. Image
Level 2!

Just 77% of the OECD got this, with less than half of the Mexican population being up to the task.

In fact, only Asian countries got over 90% on this trivial question. Image
Read 9 tweets
Jan 10
Credit card rewards are a great way to redistribute billions of dollars from people who are bad with money to people who are good with it.

With the advent of rewards cards (red), there's lots of cross-subsidization of people with high credit scores by people with low scores. Image
Curiously, the degree of cross-subsidization is not just an income thing.

People with high incomes (green) and moderate incomes (yellow) take fewer rewards at low credit scores, although they take more at high credit scores. Image
What does this do demographically? Spatially?

Credit card rewards transfer money from uneducated to educated, poor to rich, Black to White, and rural to urban. Image
Read 5 tweets
Jan 7
The host of NPR's This American Life once tried to raise a pit bull with his now ex-wife.

He let the dog ruin his life🧵

He ended up getting it on Prozac and Valium, feeding it kangaroo and ostrich, and making excuses for the many times it would attack people.Image
Ira Glass' wife had a dog before they got married, but it died right before the ceremony.

That dog was a pit bull and it was a rescue, so they decided it would be good to rescue another one.

Per him, it originally came with the "slave name" Marley, which he changed to Piney. Image
Shortly after taking him home, Piney seemingly developed severe allergies to whatever he was eating.

So, Ira and his wife got him set up with a doctor. In fact, they got him set up with four doctors.

And they started spending more time cooking for the dog than for themselves. Image
Read 18 tweets
Jan 5
Pit bulls were bred to fight.

Animals in nature are not like that. Tigers and lions? They don't seek out combat. Nature doesn't seem to want to breed them into unrelenting killers.

This is why Britain banned the sport of "lion baiting"🧵 Image
The nature of "baiting" is torment.

The idea is to put large, powerful animals like bulls or lions in the ring with several dogs, and the winner lives.

The sport has existed for thousands of years. One of our first records is of Indians showing it to Alexander the Great. Image
The first record in England comes from 1610 and features King James I requesting the Master of the Beargarden—a bear training facility—to provide him with three dogs to fight a lion.

Two of the dogs died and the last escaped because the lion did not wish to fight and retreated. Image
Read 18 tweets
Jan 4
There are ZERO rich countries that haven't embraced markets. Image
You could say something like 'Ah, but this is just because the economic freedom index is constructed that way.'

No, it's not. We can all go and read how it's made. It's detailed every year. Failed excuse. Moreover, this has unintended predictive power:

fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/…Link: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-of-lights-at-night-suggests-dictators-lie-about-economic-growth
You could say 'Ah, but this is about sanctions.'

That makes no sense.

For one, there's no supportive pattern of sanctions. For two, you can develop in near-autarky, and before post-WW2, that was comparatively what the most developed countries were dealing with. Link: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(