Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unlike you - I lived there. It was a class society. I don't comprehend, how someone can deny that...
In the context of classes!
There is no such thing as classless society. There are always leaders and followers. There is always a class of those with power and those with none There were always classes in soviet society even if not as pronounced as elsewhere. Since the days of Brezhnev there was a class of the economically privileged working in a grey area of soviet economy.
This has nothing to do with Yavlinsky whose ideas and even words you misrepresented way too many times here.
We are talking about your own misconceptions here not Yavlinsky's.
There are no "misconceptions" on my part, but the lack of knowledge on a subject on your part, clearly.
Quote:
Like the fact that you believe that American middle class is comprised mainly of small business owners or that to build middle class in Russia you have to "give people" the coffee shops, barber shops or small stores. People with no prior business experience. Sure.
That has got nothing to do with "American middle class" - you need to listen more and to *** less about things you only THINK you know. Same case case as with ROL))))
PS. As far as "business experience" goes - there was already plenty by 1990, because people were already running plenty of co-ops by that time...
No, Gaidar effectively turned second world country into a third world country, with general population losing its social benefits and creation of oligarchy. From that point on, the oligarchy became the only law above anything and everyone else. That's what created the corrupt crap-hole, in which you are living now in total denial. To not understand the difference between Yavlinsky's approach, his ideas of putting wealth in many hands, giving opportunities to general population,vs Gaidar's thuggery is like not noticing elephant in your room.
Quote:
BTW, don't forget that there was a private sector, and it wasn't small at all.
"Private sector" you say? Care to tell us what were the laws that governed that "private sector" in Soviet times?
Quote:
Yeah, everyone earned almost exactly the same incomes... And you blame poor rebel for living in a fantasy.
Everyone was earning different incomes of course, but this didn't make any difference as far as Western definition of "classes" goes, because money were not the driving force behind the society, unlike in Western countries and America in particular. The "private property" ( if Russians had any) was not allowed to be source of income ( except for growing vegetables at one's "dacha" or in a garden around village house,) not to mention that there was no "NASDAQ" or "Dow Jones" for them to see their money growing, (even if they could stash any.) Practically all the niceties they've had ( apartments, public transportation, education and the rest) although quite comparable to European standards, was something that government was providing for them, and government basically owned people in return. Their property rights were at bare minimum ( even village houses that some owned, were under strict regulation,) and what kind of access to goods they had was determined by the class they belonged to, not necessarily by the amount of money they were earning. A good example - the workers on many factories were making more than engineers, but no matter how much the workers were making per month, they didn't have access to the kind of goods that those who worked abroad had, even if they were making equal amount of money. It was really all about status and system of distribution- not so much about "class" in Western understanding of it. Western "middle class" has direct relation to private property, and private property/money in its turn give middle class their say in political matters. That's what western democracy is based on. Russia, ( unlike the West) didn't have "middle class" in this respect neither in tzarist times, nor in Soviet times.
Yavlinsky understood this difference very well, that 's why he was concerned with creation of institutions, that were directed at establishing private property rights for general population first of all. And if you have middle class, you have pluralism of opinions and money to support different political parties. That's how you assure democracy. However if you put all the money in few hands, these few scumbags will get busy with installing the laws that suit only their own interests, suppressing anyone else, and if anyone else, understanding the nature of the game will try to get political funding for opposition from abroad, they'll be immediately vilified as "foreign agents." That's what's taking place in Russia now, and that's the direct result of slimy Gaidar's reforms.
I am sorry Ruth, given your previous and naive posts on the topic I just don't see you solving any problems... lol
Sorry you don't agree with the thread topic. Why are you participating, then? As I said, the point of this thread is to discuss serious issues, not to take pot-shots and regurgitate tired old Cold War lines.
You'd be surprised at the level of people's business acumen. As I posted earlier, there were remarkably promising small businesses and co-ops in the early 90's, but the oppressive tax structure crushed most of them. The economists didn't figure out that high taxes stifle business. Nor did they realize that small businesses are crucial to a viable economy. The state ended up paying the equivalent of welfare to everyone whose business went under after tax time rolled around. Not very smart.
No, Gaidar effectively turned second world country into a third world country, with general population losing its social benefits and creation of oligarchy.
How would it be different under Yavlinsky's plan, if most cash and business knowledge were in the few hands?
It is obvious that people would buy the very same things they were buying with vouchers - most nothing at all, and others something that they understood, which either didn't survive long, or provided very little ROI. Like a share of a Moscow's GUM that costs a couple hundred rubles today.
While a few people would buy out Gazprom, Rusal, great factories...
Quote:
"Private sector" you say? Care to tell us what were the laws that governed that "private sector" in Soviet times?
There were 250,000 coops in 1990. Individual farmers also belonged to the private sector - and they produced most food.
Quote:
Everyone was earning different incomes of course, but this didn't make any difference as far as Western definition of "classes" goes, because money were not the driving force behind the society, unlike in Western countries and America in particular.
I don't say it was just as dramatic as in US, but it was very noticeable. It wasn't uncommon at all for good-earning intelligentsia to avoid poor intelligentsia - some even despised them more than the working class.
Quote:
Their property rights were at bare minimum ( even village houses that some owned, were under strict regulation,)
On paper - yes. But in practice it was almost exactly like it is today - here and everywhere.
Quote:
and what kind of access to goods they had was determined by the class they belonged to, not necessarily by the amount of money they were earning.
Absolutely false. Money could buy anything, while jobs provided only something, if anything at all.
Quote:
A good example - the workers on many factories were making more than engineers, but no matter how much the workers were making per month, they didn't have access to the kind of goods that
That engineers had?
Quote:
those who worked abroad had, even if they were making equal amount of money.
Those working abroad were paid in foreign currencies, and paid very nicely - that's why they had access to foreing goods. It's no different today - you may ask Grey about incomes of sailors, who go to Japan or elsewhere.
Quote:
Western "middle class" has direct relation to private property, and private property/money in its turn give middle class their say in political matters. That's what western democracy is based on. Russia, ( unlike the West) didn't have "middle class" in this respect neither in tzarist times, nor in Soviet times.
Ownership of an apartment/house in US and SU was basically the same. It was in the form of a social rent, but it was no different than ownership - only renting was problematic.
All goods were owned without any restrictions. Period.
Rubles were just as good as dollars. Sure, you couldn't easily buy some goods at state prices - but if you value everything at them, Soviet incomes by consumption PPP will be higher than American, which is not something I'd do.
The only very significant difference, is that in SU people (especially those, who didn't work and therefore earn much) could get lots of goods much below market values .
In RE and early SU the middle class generally consisted of serednyaki - almost all people were peasants, after all. That's very different from modern middle class, but such comparison doesn't make sense.
Quote:
if anyone else, understanding the nature of the game will try to get political funding for opposition from abroad, they'll be immediately vilified as "foreign agents."
For receiving money to overthrow the government. Like it happened in Ukraine, Georgia, and many other countries.
Nothing stops me and other middle or any class people to finance any legal opposition. And believe me, CPRF, SR, LDPR, and even pathetic Yabloko are financed very well. They just can't persuade the majority of people to vote for them. More money won't help them in any way.
There are no "misconceptions" on my part, but the lack of knowledge on a subject on your part, clearly.
That has got nothing to do with "American middle class" - you need to listen more and to *** less about things you only THINK you know. Same case case as with ROL))))
PS. As far as "business experience" goes - there was already plenty by 1990, because people were already running plenty of co-ops by that time...
You are misinterpreting Yavlinsky's words and create an elaborate conspiracy theory on based on a single book on the subject. No erasure. Most Russians, most of the 130 million of them had no business experience in 1990 and Russian "business schools" were still teaching Marxist absurdity as contemporary economics. No, most of Russian had no business experience or education. And no, Russia with its obsolete industry could not rival American in the past 50 years.
You are talking about creating Russian middle class not even understanding what middle class is.
You are misinterpreting Yavlinsky's words and create an elaborate conspiracy theory on based on a single book on the subject. No erasure. Most Russians, most of the 130 million of them had no business experience in 1990 and Russian "business schools" were still teaching Marxist absurdity as contemporary economics. No, most of Russian had no business experience or education. And no, Russia with its obsolete industry could not rival American in the past 50 years.
So far I showing much better knowledge of a subject, where you keep on showing your ignorance.
Quote:
You are talking about creating Russian middle class not even understanding what middle class is.
Sorry you don't agree with the thread topic. Why are you participating, then? As I said, the point of this thread is to discuss serious issues, not to take pot-shots and regurgitate tired old Cold War lines.
You are hilarious. I have a minor in economics from a good college but still would not consider myself an economist and or attempt to solve complex economic issues or answer questions that actual economist can't agree upon. Now you are a linguist. What makes you think you have a grasp of macroeconomics that allows you to have an educated opinion on complex economic issues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
You'd be surprised at the level of people's business acumen. As I posted earlier, there were remarkably promising small businesses and co-ops in the early 90's, but the oppressive tax structure crushed most of them. The economists didn't figure out that high taxes stifle business.
You are joking, right? Every economist in the world is aware of the impact taxes have on business. Its simply another expense item that affects their bottom line. Adversely. Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Nor did they realize that small businesses are crucial to a viable economy. The state ended up paying the equivalent of welfare to everyone whose business went under after tax time rolled around. Not very smart.
They did, they did but what interest had Russian elites with soviet nomenklatura resumes, in creating or supporting another class that would compete with them economically and eventually politically? The truth is that the Communists elites only implemented enough reforms to trick the west to pump $50B into Russian economy, economy that these communist elites controlled. Once $50B got transferred - democratic and economic "reforms" in Russia were over. Potemkin villages, anyone? Lol.
Read this:
GRIGORY YAVLINSKY: When Yeltsin with Gaidar started to implement their plan at the beginning of '92, they took the opposite approach -- they started with the complete liberalization of prices, with the protection of the Soviet monopolies, which exists until today. They protected Soviet monopolies and liberalized the prices, so it was not the liberation of the economy from the Soviet [economic model]. In fact, it was not a liberation of the economy from the Soviet monopolies, it was a liberation of the Soviet monopolies. That's why they got 2,500 percent inflation. That's why monopolies still exist today. That's why the nomenklatura [elite members of the Soviet Communist Party] are on the top of the process today. That's why we failed with the whole story
Most Russians, most of the 130 million of them had no business experience in 1990
You are right, but the same is true for US - so don't put SU in a bad light, because of that.
Quote:
And no, Russia with its obsolete industry could not rival American in the past 50 years.
Stop repeating this BS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
