"The Socialist Construction Of Philately In The Early Soviet Era"

I just came across this fascinating read about how philately was monitored and controlled by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union during the Lenin/Stalin Era. Party apparatchiks ran the state-sponsored philatelic organization (the only legal one in the country at the time), regulated how and what stamps could be traded, and even tried to define the meaning and purpose of philately, and much more. Among other things, selling or trading stamps could literally be a dangerous activity that could land you in prison for the crime of "speculating".

https://www.jstor.org/stable/179216

The link takes you to the first page of an 18-page article. You need to register with the site (free) to read the whole thing.

This was utterly fascinating to me on multiple levels. I'm a student of history, having taken college courses on Russian history, and have read at least a dozen books on the revolutionary period and the dictatorships of Stalin and Lenin. I'm very familiar with all of the major historical events of this era - the revolution and subsequent civil war, the NEP, collectivization and famine, the Great Purge of course WWII. I can name most of the major figures of the era off the top of my head and can tell you their ultimate fate under the Stalinist system.

All that being said, I think this article might have driven home the nature of totalitarianism more than just about anything else. The show trials and gulags (rightly) get all the attention, but the connection of those events to oneself is - for most people - pretty abstract. The fact that they even tried to control one's hobbies - even devoting party personnel and resources to it - is a much more direct connection for me. Just....wow.

Interesting, a book about the politics inhabiting philately and the thread is here. Other threads disappear when politics enter philately..This is as confusing as the current thread discussing fake cancels being added to unused stamps to make them more saleable. https://goscf.com/t/83418

No connection or allusion whatsoever to current events today - in any country - was implied, nor should it be inferred from my comments or the article itself. Any comments trying to make a connection to current events, personages or policies - no matter how tangential - would be completely out of place, in my opinion. This is strictly posted for historical information purposes.

I absolutely hate (hate! hate!) it when someone sees the need to put comments about current political events where they don't belong, and frankly, every time I see it happen, I'm one step closer to staying away from this forum, as I already do from most social media. I'm no moderator (thank God) but I'd say comments about Soviets running philatelic organizations would be completely appropriate. Somehow tying that to something totally unrelated happening today pretty much makes one a troll, in my opinion.

[/soapbox]

IMO the real danger is not that political commentary relevant to a topic takes place but rather that one person can "disappear" it when it does. If comments are personal attacks I can see removing them, but if the comments are merely "uncomfortable" for some because the information runs contrary to their beliefs removing them does seem wrong, regressive and contrary to having a free, honest and open discussion about a topic. Usually censorship comes about when one side needs to control a discussion because they are unable to verbalize a good counter-argument.

In any case it seems a fools errand to try and divorce politics from the highly political subject of philately. Kind of like discussing automobiles but forbidding any mention of engines.

Where is it written that there are time period and geographic parameters vis-a-vis when politics becomes acceptable to discuss?

Is Russian politics from the early 20th Century OK but not current politics? What is the rational behind that?

For myself, if a discussion is going places I don't feel comfortable with I have the option of not looking at it and enjoying the hundred other threads about stamp identification and "what is this cancel?" and "is this rose carmine?" Etc. Like TV I just change the channel.

Ultimately though I understand that this forum, although public by nature of its membership, is at the same time private and if the management says "don't pee in the pool" we can't pee in the pool.

PS: I notice that Linn's and the American Philatelist always delve into politics. So do auction houses such as Siegel and Harmer and Schuyler Rumsey in their amazing postal history auction catalogs.

While I have stepped aside from Moderating any political related threads for several reasons, I do have experience in this topic. As such, the following is my opinion as Don, not as Don the Mod.

Artful started this thread and as thread starter should have some influence in its intended scope. For example, a thread starter should be able to say, 'I'd like to keep this thread discussion about The Socialist Construction Of Philately In The Early Soviet Era. Artful did not say this in this post but it is implied in the way he named the thread.

This should be considered by other posters when they reply especially if it is implicitly said. If other members want to expand the scope, they can start their own thread including in the General section if it is not specifically about philately.

I understand (please believe me) that sometimes there may be gray areas of cross over and/or some members who are capable of double entendre and other word smithing slight of hand that can bait others into sending a thread off topic.

My personal recommendation is that thread starters be implicit in the desired scope of the thread since this should help everyone understand better. But at the end of the day this is mostly about consideration for other community members and fellow hobbyists and trying to stick to the intended scope of the thread.
Don

My dad was a collector in Russia in the 50s as a kid and he said he was trading stamps with other people on the street and almost got arrested for speculation

Fortunately. most countries never got to the level of that era of Russia with regards to how or what one collects, but the fact is that stamps ARE political, and always will be by their very nature. That is part of what makes them fun, of course.

Stamps are political and stamps are released to drive an agenda. Each stamp, new or old, has an issuing back story; like it or not, agree with it or despise it.

It should be no more or less upsetting to discuss the issuing agenda of 19th, 20th or 21st Century, as contentious as the subject may be, but sadly many cannot do so. That is the nature of politics.

I love an article about the historical aspect of stamp collecting.


Peter

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm comfortable with just about any topic under the sun and can hold my own in any honest an open discussion, and have no problem admitting when I'm in over my head or admitting that someone else might have a better argument. But I come to this forum to read and discuss philately and its history. To me, it's a bit of a respite from the rest of the world, TBH, and I'd rather leave current partisan politics out of it altogether.

Politics is inherently intertwined with some topics, of course. Where I get frustrated is when someone brings current partisan politics into a topic that isn't inherently political and/or is totally unrelated to today's political landscape. That drives me nuts regardless of whether I agree with a poster or not. When it happens, it's often in the form of a snide comment or dog whistle of some sort and not an overt political attack, but it still drives me nuts that some people feel a need to do that.

Just FYI that I used that as the title of the thread as it's the exact title of the article I linked to. It's actually a scholarly piece - footnoted with multiple original (Russian) sources - from a non-philatelic publication, which is partly the reason I was so surprised to come across it.

One needs look no further than the current Scott catalogues to understand the futility of your hope. Then current politics changed how the catalogue was set up for decades; volume one is no longer includes the countries of British Empire. The US Specialized contains images so offensive to some that those images, in the real world, have been eliminated.

Here in lies the issue, folks en mass, are not too bright today about history as can be noted by the phrase, "Phony as a 3 Dollar Bill." Except of course there were real US $3 Bills; many with the completely apolitical, well then, not now, image of Santa Claus.



To make matters even more interesting, he, St. Nick, came on other denominations. He also had his name on the bank for some of his bills.





Yet an image and concept as simple as Santa Claus now drives political and generational division today as some view Santa as "trauma inducing" and thus avoids the concept. Thus is an example of why in any discussion today on any topic the words and ideas you use are both seen through political lenses and likely offensive to someone or many someones. I am not saying it is bad nor good, just that it is.


Here is a The Rest of The Story about Santa's Bill: