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.
My parents were Ukrainian and Russian. I speak Russian.
I traveled to the Soviet Union in 1976. I had few illusions about life under the Soviets, my parents saw to that.
However, even I was blown away with the hell on earth that Communists had created on SO many different levels. We tend to focus on the economic differences, however, that is just minor compared to the murderous oppression.
The surprise for me was the "class structure" in the Soviet Union. It was clear and out in the open. The elites ran the country with disdain for the average Russian. As they say...some are more equal than others.
To illustrate how awful conditions were in the Soviet Union, both my parents forced to live in Germany as SLAVES from 1941 until the end of the war in 1945. The German owner of my mother fed his dogs before his slaves then feeding the leftovers to his slaves. He also left them in the barn when the US Air Force bombed at night, while the dogs were taken into the bomb shelter. BOTH my mother and father viewed their time in Germany as a IMPROVEMENT over their lives in the Soviet Union.
No, there was no "workers paradise." Russia was never a "paradise" for lower classes. But what they've had during "developed stage of socialism" was probably better in terms of social protection than what they've had during Tzarist times.
Quote:
Something tells me if Soviet citizens were waiting in line for limited amounts of clothing, food and other basic consumer goods, the health care system may of had shortages as well.
If we talk about 60ies til mid eighties, there were no "shortages of clothing" per se, there was shortage of QUALITY clothing, that's true. And since food was dirt cheap in state stores - yes, there was a shortage of it in some regions, but not all. It was always available at the markets, but few could afford the price of food there though. As for health care - as I've already said; there was outdated equipment, shortage of some imported medications, but there was no shortages of hospitals, doctors, nurses, maternity wards and ambulances.
Quote:
Yes, that, and shorter wait times were the "only" differences. Bad news is that those were probably significant differences.
?
Quote:
People can be pretty creative when facing restrictions. Perhaps western printed material was smuggled in, copied and distributed?
"Western printed material?" Soviet state was controlling the "freedom of thought" and it was prohibiting the anti-soviet propaganda, ( what's been known mostly as "samizdat" as long as it was printed in Russian language. For example "The Animal Farm" ( which was anti-Soviet literature when translated into Russian) was not regarded as such technically speaking, in its original English language. And not too many people were interested in reading "Samizdat" for the reasons that it was dangerous -it's number one, and number two, many actually sincerely believed that their lives were good enough under the Soviet system, comparably to the capitalist system. That is if we are talking about the workers/peasantry class. The intellectuals willing to risk their well-being were mostly among the "intelligentsia class" and particularly among those that were not particularly successful in their professional lives.
Quote:
Other sources might have come from trips to Finland, or trips to less socialized eastern European allies.
What "trips to Finland"? Such trips were prohibited to your average Soviet citizen; as for trips to other EE countries - they were controlled pretty strictly in this respect as well.
Quote:
I am not telling you that. The US has never pretended that all citizens have equal access to any type of goods or commercial services. We did, however, pretend that all citizens had equal access to constitutional freedoms. That, however, is a seperate matter.
No, the US have different kind of pretences of course, since its' a machine that's run in a different manner.
And there were evidently plenty of other people who were content to do the minimum and let the all provident state keep providing. Likewise, there were others who would have benefitted their society via creating businesses, or even entire industries, but this was largely illegal.
I've already said that this was precisely what caused the downfall of the Soviet system. See, Communism in its ideal form is a biblical concept. In order to run system like this, you need to have the "ideal" ( or at least "idealistic") group of people. Otherwise one-party system can become a powerful tool in hands of wrong people, who don't have any check and balances in place. But as you remember, after the Soviet Revolution Russians abolished religion all together and were operating on totally different premises, denying the inborn negative qualities of human beings and ascribing them strictly to results of poverty/no access to "proper development" and insisting that the negativity of human nature can be corrected, and thus Communism can be a very real thing in very real life. ( I was surprised to come across similar connotations in American psychology, pertaining to the 60ies.)
But since obviously this approach was wrong, the whole premises of "communism" has been faulty as well, as much as Russians in the upper echelon responsible for developing the ideology, were insisting on prohibition of exploitation ( i.e. hired labor,) that private business can't exist without.
Had they timely acknowledged the unrealistic nature of their ideology and allowed private sector exist along with the government sector, the Soviet system in Russia would have had a solid future, instead of a nose-dive. That's the way I see it.
Stalin was far more pragmatic in this matter; the private sector (granted - not at full swing) was still allowed to exist under him. But then, again he was not a dumb peasant - the kind that came after him.
Quote:
I dont know. Given the fact that neither Russia nor any of the former states have a socialist system today, I would say that a majority were willing to esape communism- and then did exactly that.
Don't forget that this didn't happen without American involvement, so to speak about these matters is too simplistic, without taking many factors in consideration.
My wife is in medical field and had seen firsthand more than a few examples of the Soviet "medical care". She says the results of a Soviet-performed appendix surgery looked like they were part of a Texas Chainsaw Massacre filming gone wrong.
What year are we talking about? Because by the end of the eighties ( when I already left the country) they didn't have even scalpels left for operations.
It was not a case however only 15 years prior to that.
Quote:
And you're contradicting yourself with regard to the doctor's pay. So the best doctors were being paid under the table - wasn't this a strong enough impetus to become a better doctor ?
No. This was an extra bonus, because first of all, these people were motivated by their own talent, by respect they've had in society (doctors, teacher often underpaid in Soviet society were still very much respected,) and their desire to help others.
Quote:
Remove monetary reward (or punishment in the form of tort law), and how do you force the doctor or a nurse to do their job properly when everyone is making the same regardless of results ?
Well here is your answer - SOME are always motivated by money; in fact it's the only thing that they are motivated by. SOME are not. Money comes as a nice bonus, but that's not the primary source of motivation. And that's what differs Russian culture in its core from American culture if I make the long story short.
Quote:
Didn't the party bosses in the USSR have a dedicated medical system separate from the rest ?
No, not the "party bosses" overall, but those specifically working in Kremlin. They did have their own clinic. However as it has been noted in Soviet society - "do you think that the members of American parliament have the same medical care as the rest of population?"
My parents were Ukrainian and Russian. I speak Russian.
I traveled to the Soviet Union in 1976. I had few illusions about life under the Soviets, my parents saw to that.
However, even I was blown away with the hell on earth that Communists had created on SO many different levels. We tend to focus on the economic differences, however, that is just minor compared to the murderous oppression.
The surprise for me was the "class structure" in the Soviet Union. It was clear and out in the open. The elites ran the country with disdain for the average Russian. As they say...some are more equal than others.
To illustrate how awful conditions were in the Soviet Union, both my parents forced to live in Germany as SLAVES from 1941 until the end of the war in 1945. The German owner of my mother fed his dogs before his slaves then feeding the leftovers to his slaves. He also left them in the barn when the US Air Force bombed at night, while the dogs were taken into the bomb shelter. BOTH my mother and father viewed their time in Germany as a IMPROVEMENT over their lives in the Soviet Union.
Go to Cuba or North Korea before it is gone to get a sense of the hopelessness.
I've heard this sentiment before, but I have my doubts about it. I don't believe that "feeding someone after feeding dogs" is an improvement of any kind, even in Stalin's Russia. As for the "hell that Communists had created" ( and particularly back in Stalin's times,) one has to remember that Stalin inherited the country that was 90% agrarian and mostly illiterate - not some advanced European country "destroyed by damn Communists", that some are trying to imply. Not to mention the devastation that Civil War left there only fifteen years prior to that. So I'd say the ugly, dumb capitalism of Tzarist Russia is first of all to blame for its inadequacy and inability to keep up with the Age of Enlightment, the necessary changes that the rest of European countries timely undergone, for clinging to "God-given privileges" for too long and denying rights to its own compatriots on this ground.
As Russian classic once said "God forbid we should ever witness a Russian revolt, senseless and merciless" - and that's what Communism in Russia essentially was - a revolt against unrestricted power of capitalism.
Communism, just like any other system of economics, works perfectly well as long as the right checks and balances are put in place. The folly of ALL systems and governments is corruption. Even capitalism is rampant with corruption. Hell even a dictatorship actually "works" as long as the dictator has the best interests of the people in mind. One could argue that a dictatorship is a BETTER form of government as long as the dictator is "good" as it removes politics and barriers and allows things to get done.
I would agree with this notion, except for when so much power is put into one's person hands, and there is no "check and balances," such power can get to the "wrong hands" as well, and can be used adversely.
Quote:
But they dont teach you this line of thinking in school and on talk radio, instead they just shout out "capitalism good, communism bad" and leave out the "oh btw keep tabs on your leaders and those with the wealth/power."
The only way to "keep tabs" on your leaders I'd guess under the circumstances is not to allow them to be put in pocket of those with money, which is increasingly difficult in the Western World, in the US in particular.
There were many bad things in the USSR, but wealth was distributed way more even, and minimal salary was enough for I people to survive.
Those who didn't believe in the crap that was pouring from TV, radio and newspapers, were living in "internal emigration." Those who did believe didn't need anything else.
The gap between rich and poor was even worse than in any capitalist system, most of their people were very poor, unhappy and living in squalor, and the those at the top had it far better than those below.
The wealthy were just approximately 1% of the population. As an aside, a relative knew a doctor there who made money on the side. Trouble was he couldn't spend it because there was nothing to buy.
There were many bad things in the USSR, but wealth was distributed way more even, and minimal salary was enough for I people to survive.
Those who didn't believe in the crap that was pouring from TV, radio and newspapers, were living in "internal emigration." Those who did believe didn't need anything else.
The wealthy were just approximately 1% of the population.
Which means what? What kind of "wealth" are we talking about? And what's more important - what years?
Quote:
As an aside, a relative knew a doctor there who made money on the side. Trouble was he couldn't spend it because there was nothing to buy.
This was increasingly a picture in the second part of the eighties, when after all Gorbachev's "Perestroyka" escapades the shortage of goods became very visible.
Because earlier, money were buying if not goods in the regular stores, then goods on the black market, second hand stores, or so-called "certificate" Beryozka stores.
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.
Such trips were prohibited to your average Soviet citizen; as for trips to other EE countries - they were controlled pretty strictly in this respect as well. 
