Feridun Gürgöz’s political memoirs (3)

A home visit in Moscow

PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3

Mehmet Bozışık and Cemal Kıral

In the previous instalment of this series, we referred to Feridun Gürgöz’s visit to Moscow in the summer of 1987, focusing in particular on his shopping trip to a special store reserved for members of the Central Committee. After this experience-one that, in his own words, “left him bitterly regretful”-Gürgöz goes on to recount a visit he paid to a private home during his stay in Moscow, a deeply poignant episode.

During his time in Moscow, Gürgöz visited Mehmet Bozışık (1901-1998) [*], one of the veteran figures of the historical Communist Party of Turkey (TKP), together with Cemal Kıral (1932-2019) [**]. Bozışık then took them to the home of a retired Russian woman worker he knew. The conversation they had with this elderly woman-who lived in a tiny room in a communal flat in a damp-smelling apartment block in central Moscow and survived on a monthly pension of only 60 roubles [***]-left a profound impression on Gürgöz. He recounts the episode as follows:

Comrade Bozışık took us as guests to the home of a Russian woman he knew. She was a retired worker and at the time received a pension of 60 roubles. Her home was a tiny single room in a communal flat in a large apartment block. They shared a small kitchen with the other residents. As one entered the building, a heavy smell of damp caught in the throat. The entrance, the stairways and the corridors all had a bleak and neglected appearance. I remember thinking that such a sight was hardly fitting for the very centre of Moscow. There was hardly any furniture in the poor woman’s room. What caught my attention was a loudspeaker hanging on the wall; I later learned that its cable came down from the floor above. In other words, whenever the radio was switched on upstairs, whatever music or news was being broadcast there could be heard in her room as well. As I stood there thinking about this, I suddenly found myself remembering the time when I was living as a tenant in 1953 on Portakal Yokuşu in Ortaköy, Istanbul. Our Armenian landlord had run a cable down from his radio to our floor and hung a loudspeaker there. Whatever was playing on the radio upstairs, we would hear downstairs as well. But that was 1953-this was 1987!

The poor woman, displaying the best hospitality she could with what little she had, offered us whatever there was in her home: she had sliced a couple of tomatoes and put a few cherries on a plate for us. And of course she made tea. Through Comrade Bozışık we spoke with her at some length. She told us about the hardships of trying to live on 60 roubles and complained that nothing was available anywhere. As I listened, I found myself thinking: these people had fought heroically for the revolution; they had fought against fascism; they had saved humanity. They did not deserve such a wretched life-they deserved something far better. Yet I could not bring myself to touch the tomatoes or the cherries she had offered us. I only drank the tea. Then I left the house deep in thought. Why? Why? (Feridun Gürgöz, Saat Geri Dönmüyor, Tüstav Yayınları, April 2007, Istanbul, pp. 116-117)

The type of housing Gürgöz describes is a typical example of the kommunalka-the “communal flat” system that remained widespread in Soviet cities for many decades. Owing to chronic housing shortages, especially in major urban centres, several families were often forced to share the same flat, with spaces such as the kitchen, bathroom and corridor used collectively. After the Revolution, the nationalisation of housing and the subdivision of large apartments for allocation to different families eased the housing shortage in the short term. However, from the 1930s onwards, as urban populations grew rapidly, this system proved unable to provide a lasting solution. As a result, millions of people were compelled to live for decades in such communal flats, where privacy was extremely limited.

A corridor in one of the kommunalka-communal flats that were widespread in Soviet cities. In these shared apartments, several families lived together, using kitchens and other facilities collectively, and privacy was extremely limited.

The cable-connected loudspeaker that caught Gürgöz’s attention was also a typical feature of everyday Soviet life. For many years, Soviet cities made widespread use of a wired broadcasting system known as the radiotochka. Instead of owning an independent radio receiver, many households simply had a basic loudspeaker mounted on the wall. Through this centrally transmitted network, listeners could hear music programmes, news bulletins and official announcements. In the post-war period in particular, the relatively high cost of radio sets and the Stalinist police state’s desire to keep broadcasting under centralised control contributed to the spread of this system. Gürgöz’s noticing the loudspeaker hanging in the room and recalling a childhood memory from Istanbul points to this distinctive feature of Soviet everyday life-a practice that by the 1980s had become technologically and socially outdated.

Gürgöz’s account of this scene is the product of a deeply sincere and humane observation. Yet it also captures a moment in which the broader historical realities of the twentieth-century Soviet experience intersect with an individual tragedy. The repeated question “Why?”, with which Gürgöz ends his recollection, is naturally an expression of moral indignation. Yet the answer to that question cannot be sought simply at the level of individual choices or personal failings. The situation he describes is the outcome of specific historical and material conditions that must be examined seriously. And this is precisely the principal weakness of Gürgöz’s book. [We pointed to this weakness at the very beginning of the first instalment of this series.]

In the kommunalka-communal flats widespread in Soviet cities-the kitchen was the main shared space for several families and the focal point of everyday life.

In the years following the October Revolution, the devastating effects of the civil war, the failure of the anticipated revolutions in Europe, and the prolonged international isolation created favourable conditions for the bureaucratisation of the Soviet state. The bureaucratic system of rule that emerged in this context succeeded, on the one hand, in achieving rapid industrialisation and building a major military power; yet, on the other, it failed to establish a social order capable of steadily raising the living standards of the very masses who had carried out the revolution.

Gürgöz’s sense of injustice arises precisely from this historical paradox. In the struggle against fascism, millions of people made immense sacrifices, and the Soviet people paid one of the heaviest prices in human history. Yet the social order established after the war failed to create a level of prosperity that met the expectations of the generations who had borne those sacrifices. The modest and hardship-filled life of the elderly woman worker whom Gürgöz visited together with Kıral and Bozışık is a reflection, in everyday terms, of this profound historical contradiction. Thus the question “Why?”, which Gürgöz asks as he leaves that small room, is directed not only at the life of that elderly worker, but at an entire historical experience.

[*] Member of the Central Executive Committee of the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TİP), Aegean Regional Secretary of the TKP, and member of the TKP Central Committee.

[**] Known as “Boz Mehmet”. He joined the TKP in 1927 and went on to serve as a member of the TKP Central Committee.

[***] In the mid-1980s, the average pension in the Soviet Union was roughly 75-90 roubles. In this context, the 60-rouble pension received by the elderly woman whom Gürgöz visited was below average, yet not unusual. At the time, this monthly income corresponded to roughly one-third of an average worker’s wage. It should also be borne in mind that, given the chronic shortages, queues and distribution problems widespread in the Soviet economy, even people with the same nominal income could experience different degrees of impoverishment. Moreover, shortly after Gürgöz’s visit to Moscow in the summer of 1987, as capitalist relations of production began to spread through the Soviet economy in successive shock waves, pensioners and millions of other low-income people would become the first-and among the hardest hit-in the process of capitalist restoration.