© Linda Ferrari. The Communist Congress Centre “Buzludia” in Kazanlak, Bulgaria.
Buzludia was one of the countless monuments erected in central Bulgaria glorifying the socialist ideology. This photograph is part of an upcoming book by Linda Ferrari Socialist Monuments in Bulgaria 1944-89: A Visual Introduction. See more of her work here.
When I saw the title “shadows of socialism” I thought this might be a pictorial of the suffering under obama. Well, it certainly foreshadows what is to come. Thanks!
Thank god those times have passed!
Socialist? Actually, no. That’s a communist symbol on the ceiling. They were a communist bloc country. Communism and socialism are NOT synonyms.
a) Stefanie, the letters “USSR” stand for “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
b) Hopefully Jim is being facetious.
Yes A….just like North Korea is officially called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
James: And the USA isn’t technically a Democracy, but rather a Republic. That doesn’t change the fact that Stefanie is wrong.
If you want to get technical about it, the USSR was never even a communist state, but rather a totalitarian regime at the high point of its might. Lenin’s Bolshviks fought a socialist revolution. You can even read the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article on the Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussr
“…Soviet Russia, was a constitutionally socialist state that existed on the territory of most of the former Russian Empire in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991.”
It’s an awesome place. Equally impressive from the outside (http://ontheroad.adventure-antarctica.de/2009/07/17/veliko-tarnovo-to-plovdiv/). Looks like a communist spaceship on a mountain top.
The form mangled URL above. The correct one is: http://ontheroad.adventure-antarctica.de/2009/07/17/veliko-tarnovo-to-plovdiv/
Stefanie, I admire your ambitious stupidity!
Socialism is a word that can be used to describe such a huge breadth of political thought that it becomes effectively meaningless.
Clearly Bulgarian “socialism” has very little in common with Swedish “socialism” or the political philosophy of Tony Blair.
Shadows of totalitarianism would be a rather more realistic, but less poetic, title.
This is strange, but I can only see portion the post, is this the internet website or my internet browser? I think I should restart.
Because of the grand sweeping breadth of many of these words, Communism would technically be more fitting in this sense. Despite the soviet bloc never truly embracing Marxist communism (along with the dissolution of government and complete equity in possession of goods), nor can we say that they are truly characterized by their command economies. In the strictest sense, socialism describes the “socialization” of nearly all industries in a national economy (either by complete incorporation of government and commerce via government controlled industries, or through a centrally planned economy where government policies override all corporate executive decisions.). Although this definition of socialism does fit the description of the soviets, it is not a complete description of all that they stood for. They fought and operated under the veil of perfecting a Marxist communist utopia, so in that sense wouldn’t Communism be the ideal descriptor of their establishment? Sure if you want true accuracy we should probably title this article Shadows of Single Party Totalitarian Regimes with Centrally Planned Economy ruled by Cults of Personalities and Appeal to Marxist Idealism. But that’s not nearly as catchy…
Because of the grand sweeping breadth of many of these words, Communism would technically be more fitting in this sense. Despite the soviet bloc never truly embracing Marxist communism (along with the dissolution of government and complete equity in possession of goods), nor can we say that they are truly characterized by their command economies. In the strictest sense, socialism describes the “socialization” of nearly all industries in a national economy (either by complete incorporation of government and commerce via government controlled industries, or through a centrally planned economy where government policies override all corporate executive decisions.). Although this definition of socialism does fit the description of the soviets, it is not a complete description of all that they stood for. They fought and operated under the veil of perfecting a Marxist communist utopia, so in that sense wouldn’t Communism be the ideal descriptor of their establishment? Sure if you want true accuracy we should probably title this article Shadows of Single Party Totalitarian Regimes with Centrally Planned Economy ruled by Cults of Personalities and Appeal to Marxist Idealism. But that’s not nearly as catchy…
USSR is a socialist union, as is it is a dictatorship, and neither of the two phrases adequately represent the complete notion of the country. They aspired to be commies, so let’s call them as such.
We have monuments just like this in Detroit, Shadows of Capitalism.