How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals? Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend? Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state? If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?
>>1034127
There was way more time spend standing in lines and pondering where one could get some necessary stuff, for one. Also since wages were fixed regardless of performance, plenty of people didn't do shit at work.
Wages were free to spend buuuut there wasn't much to actually spend them on. Black market was there, of course, but actual market prices were crazy expensive compared to salaries people got.
No, they had centralized plans they had to abide to. Almost nothing was actually decided within the business itself. This being said, there were small legally allowed ways of extra income, like selling your stuff on the farmers' market or repairing clothes.
To a shoe repairman, duh.
>>1034127
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dFdKjhgt3k
>>1034127
>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?
Yes, the problem was you couldn*t buy shit
>>1034160
>There was way more time spend standing in lines and pondering where one could get some necessary stuff, for one. Also since wages were fixed regardless of performance, plenty of people didn't do shit at work.
Not infrequently the most active laborers would be intimidated by their co-workers not to work so hard and set too high of an example for the rest.
>>1034127
First of all, the shelves in shops were fucking empty.
In communist Poland even if they had something to sell, you couldn't buy all the goods without ration cards. Notable examples of goods requiring stamps are chocolate, sugar and meat. This was caused by shortage produced crap.
And as mentioned above, there was a lot of standing in lines.
>>1034127
> How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals?
Which ones? Take Japan, USA, and Spain: all wildly different.
Within those parameteres - more-or-less similar. Social Services were better, ultra rich did not exist (though rich and priveleged still did) and society was more puritanic, but less violent about it.
> Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?
Well, yes.
I.e. if one wants to get anal, taxes are not "free to spend". Also, in theory all Soviet citizens were shareholders of USSR. I.e. they got "profit", since "wage" implies strictly paid labor. In practice, only kolkhozs and worker cooperatives were operating as such.
> If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?
Well, there were private individuals in the shoe repair business, if that's what you are asking.
But USSR had special houses dedicated to the ... "odd jobs", I guess would be the name (picrelated - Дoм Бытa). If you needed your shoe/watch/jewelry/TV/radio/[whatever] repaired, hair cut, or something else that needed to be done (personal clothes sewn, for example), - they had all the necessary things and trained specialists.
> Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?
Most of the time (except 28 years: 1960-1988) USSR had "private" (as in "non-state"; worker-owned) businesses. That included factories with thousands of workers. Additionally, kolkhozes always had a lot of freedom in their affairs (unlike sovkhozs).
If we are talking about everything else, yes. A bit like working in a huge corporation. Depending on situation you might've gotten quotas to meet or additional oversight. Worker collectives also had much more rights, both de facto (via Party) and de jure.
Big businesses generally had their own additional services (restaurant/cafe, tour operators for holidays, shops, ...) for workers with cheaper prices and better quality. It happens in the west too, but it was more pronounced in USSR.
A relic from the hungrier times: during war communism of Civil War the best chance to get food was via "cooperatives of consumers" that were tied to each business.
Polack here
You were paid money just like everywhere else. The difference was that you couldn't get fired from the job because having a job was mandatory and enforced by law. Unemployed people were harrassed by the police.
When you had money there were notorious shortages. You had wait in longass lines and the ones who got to the shop earliest got the all the good stuff. To get a card you needed a government ration card first even if you had the cash. In the 70's you could build an entire solid house for 1000 dollars, which is why a lot of people were emigrating to earn dat dolla.
In short, it wasn't biting poverty - you lived well enough, a worker could afford holidays in the balkans or at the black sea every year, an apartment and a car. Nobody was starving and there were no homeless people.
On the other hand everything you had was kinda meh-tier, there wasn't flashy stuff around like in the west, even communist dignitaries lived in commieblock apartments.
At least in Poland, nobody really bought into that communist stuff, people would joke about it and just get on with it, very few real believers.
hope this gives you guys a picture
>If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?
You could go to a government owned shoe repair business or just see a guy who repairs shoes.
At least in commnunist poland private enterprise was never banned and you were free to do it - the government shat on these in a major way with taxes and legislation but there were private self made millionaires in Poland in the seventies already - the state tolerated them and they were maintaining low key profiles.
Also one other thing - organized crime disappears under communism due to the massive infiltration apparatus the state maintains. It was safer on the streets back then than it is now.
From what I've picked from my Russian girlfriends parents (grew up primarily in 70-80's Russia) life was not all that different.
Remember that western GDP and development did not overtake Soviet Union until the end of 70's arguably, during 50's and 60's living conditions in Russia were on par with most of Europe, not comparable with Land of the Plenty (America in 50's and 60's) but still very good living.
Main issue what I hear from them is that there was nothing to do in Soviet Union as young person. There was no real youth culture, you didn't have really any luxuries to spend your money for. Yes you would get a salary, have nice healthcare and social services, but you would not be able to travel freely, go to concerts or throw hippy artistic parties like you could in the west. Besides the average working life, you had very little to work towards, the system did not reward people for working hard or trying their best so most people adapted to work as little as they could. No one learned to care for public property as it used to be that some state mandated worker used to take care of those lawns and maintenance of buildings or gather the rubbish from streets. Its very visible now if you visit Russia or most post Soviet countries, you will very quickly notice that no one gives shit about "public" property. There will be trash almost everywhere, buildings running down without repairs even with people living there, because no one wants to take care of the "public" property that was once handled by the state.
>>1034345
> The difference was that you couldn't get fired from the job because having a job was mandatory
No.
> enforced by law.
> Unemployed people were harrassed by the police.
No.
If you spent too much time unemployed (half a year, at least, IIRC) you might get assigned a mandatory job somewhere. You did not get "harrassed".
Also
> Soviet Poland
> police.
Google before shitposting.
> notorious shortages.
> longass lines
And I'm out.
Communism sounds pretty comfy desu.
>>1034364
>Soviet Poland
Poland was never at any point of time a part of the Soviet Union
the rest of your points can be safely disregarded if you didn't even know that
>>1034371
I'm not going to lie, it was very comfy for people with zero aspirations and dreams, at the very least in USSR. You could enroll into university then get assigned to one of numerous research institutes to a junior position and basically be set for life. The nanny state would take care of everything else, you didn't even need to work at your job most of the time.
/r9k/ would love USSR probably.
>>1034358
> Main issue what I hear from them is that there was nothing to do in Soviet Union as young person.
No.
> There was no real youth culture, you didn't have really any luxuries to spend your money for.
Not really. Though, if youth culture is limited to getting shitfaced, then I might agree that it was less developed in USSR.
> would not be able to travel freely
To the capitalist states, you mean? Well, it was not impossible.
As for the inner USSR itself, that would be very explicitly - No.
> go to concerts or throw hippy artistic parties like you could in the west.
This is just dumb. No, seriously. What does this even mean? No concerts or parties in USSR?
> system did not reward people for working hard or trying their best
No.
> No one learned to care for public property as it used to be that some state mandated worker used to take care of those lawns and maintenance of buildings or gather the rubbish from streets
No.
> Its very visible now
25 years after USSR fell and 30 years after Gorbachev's market reforms?
![051228150842b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Jm0frWR.jpg "051228150842b[1].jpg")
>>1034407
>if youth culture is limited to getting shitfaced, then I might agree that it was less developed in USSR
>>1034358
>Main issue what I hear from them is that there was nothing to do in Soviet Union as young person. There was no real youth culture, you didn't have really any luxuries to spend your money for. Yes you would get a salary, have nice healthcare and social services, but you would not be able to travel freely, go to concerts or throw hippy artistic parties like you could in the west.
This is true, I've actually asked people about this since I work in events.
They did have huge parties though, you would get a big sound system, pay off the local party member/cop by hooking him up with some young sluts, and you would throw a big party in the woods or whatever.
Apparently this was very common in Poland at least.
I'm a communist, but living in the USSR/Eastern Bloc sounds like fucking hell to me.
I already living in a overbearing Nanny-State (Australia) where we have fucking curfews, cops are raiding all the clubs, coming down on all the raves and shit, places aren't allowed to sell alcohol after 10pm etc.
I legit don't understand why anybody would want to live in such a controlling state, where your entire life is dictated by a bunch of old conservative geriatrics who are circlejerking over their past and don't let culture progress at all.
Stalin culturally killed the USSR.
>>1034462
Would you mind explaining how USSR was controlling things?
>>1034462
>claims to be communist
> clubs, raves, and alcohol regulated
> muh entire life is controlled
>>1034474
Everything that went to print, on air etc had to be approved by the state censors. The USSR was very strict on culture and everything had to conform to a "Socialist" (read: Classical, Russiocentric) ideal.
This meant for example, entire genres of music were banned, like Jazz and if you were caught playing Jazz or Punk or whatever, you could be thrown in prison for years. Many musicians, artists etc were thrown into prison for "bourgeois music".
The ironic thing is, the USSR and eastern bloc circlejerked to old high-culture, like classical, opera, ballet etc, while throwing away actual working class movements like Jazz, Rock, Electronica.
How in fuck was Jazz, a music created by subjugated black workers "bourgeois"? Because "bourgeois" really meant, it wasn't Russiocentric..
>>1034503
Socialism is supposed to result in thriving social activities/life and artistic freedom as people have more time to engage in such pursuits thanks to the automation and elimination of labour.
Socialism is not supposed to be a tightly controlled Stalinist circlejerk where music gets banned for being "wrong".
God imagine being forced to listen only to US pop music and anything else was illegal.
>>1034462
>Communist
>Doesn't like an overbearing state
I don't know why you care about nightlife anon, your not old enough to go.
>>1034556
> This meant for example, entire genres of music were banned, like Jazz and if you were caught playing Jazz or Punk or whatever, you could be thrown in prison for years. Many musicians, artists etc were thrown into prison for "bourgeois music".
>live poor as shit
>earn almost nothing with horrible working conditions
>milk and bread is considered a luxury
>if you happen to be caught doing something the elite didnt like you'd be sent off to a gulag
Communism is horrible.
>>1034392
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People%27s_Republic
Soviet means "Council" or is indicative of being apart of the Eastern Bloc, you fucking retard.
>>1034127
Everyone was able to study, no matter where they came from , and it was for free (you had to be at least average to stay in uni) , every child could learned reading and writing.
Also you had the right to have a job and a home. So neither homelessness nor jobless people.
In the constitution was reasoned, how the laws work, not like in western countries (e.g. "free speech", nice, but how to make sure everyone can say his opinion?)
>>1034599
Your greentext sounds exactly like an uneducated guy, living in a western country without a job or a better chance to live.
Remember: the paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor.
>>1034671
But no you see in a capitalist society he has the FREEDOM to start his own business, and be his own boss!
>>1034556
> entire genres of music were banned, like Jazz and if you were caught playing Jazz or Punk or whatever, you could be thrown in prison for years
Eddie Rosner (aka Soviet Louis Armstrong) was caught illegally crossing the border, not playing Jazz. He even spent next 7 years of "incarceration" (he had the right to go to the city) organizing and playing in jazz-bands (4 years in Khabarovsk and 3 years in Komsomolsk).
In 1940-1946 and 1954-1971 he was quite officially playing Jazz throughout the Soviet Union and on the central television.
So - no. Jazz was clearly not banned.
As for Punk - there might've been some truth. I can only remember some lunatics claiming that KGB was fininacing Sex Pistols to overthrow British government, but I can't name any punk band making it big in USSR itself.
>>1034676
Well, that would true for USSR as well (before 1960). He'd also have a right to get a loan from Central Bank.
He wouldn't get a right to hire workers, though. Any workers would have to be contracted as shareholders.
>>1034676
Don't know if you're ironic , but let's assume you're serious:
No money no business, maybe he could receive a credit from a bank, but only if he says "you can get my house when I fail", and then you have the risk, especially when you can't hold up with the market
>>1034718
The system works!
>>1034364
>If you spent too much time unemployed (half a year, at least, IIRC) you might get assigned a mandatory job somewhere. You did not get "harrassed".
In my country, if you didn't report to your workplace for three days, the police would go looking for you.
>Everyone was able to study, no matter where they came from
Unless they had the "wrong" parents (business owners, opponents of the regime etc.)
>>1034774
>> If you spent too much time unemployed
> In my country, if you didn't report to your workplace
Do you even English?
> Unless they had the "wrong" parents (business owners, opponents of the regime etc.)
Bullshit. They would've had problems getting into some prestige universities (MGIMO, for example), but that's it.
>>1034127
>How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals?
Typical Soviet day:
- wake up
- go to work
- work
- go home
- cook some shit
- eat it
- time to sleep
Is it different from capitalistic society?
>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?
Yes. Workers spent their wage to buy food, clothes and other stuff.
>Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?
There were no such thing as business. The only free trade was in food markets, there people from villages were selling their goods.
>If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?
There were state organised centers with household goods and services.
>>1034802
> The only free trade was in food markets
No.
>>1034810
Yes. All other shit was black market. Like ethanol exchange.
>>1034792
>Do you even English?
Do you have a point?
>Bullshit.
Who are you trying to fool here? The government kept files on citizens to asses their political attitudes (kádrový posudek). Different academic fields had different requirements of ideological purity. Some people were simply not allowed to study at all.
>>1034859
> Do you have a point?
You mean, besides pointing out the fact that you don't understand the words you quote?
> Some people were simply not allowed to study at all.
Go kill yourself, kid.
>>1034893
Is this the best you can do? I mean, you sound like a fanatic.
>>1034848
> Yes. All other shit was black market. Like ethanol exchange.
Stop lying, please.
I remember a Serb coworker saying they'd all cover for each other when one felt like ditching work
>>1034943
>>1034802
> There were no such thing as business. The only free trade was in food markets, there people from villages were selling their goods.
This is not true.
Even during the worst crackdown against private enterprises it was perfectly Okay to sell things you've made yourself, as well as your own things (i.e. old TV set or whatever you didn't need).
During this crackdown (Zastoi) it was Not Okay to participate in "trade" - i.e. selling multiple items of the same type you did not make yourself (or your co-workers) and bought explicitly with the intention of selling.
>>1034556
not even a commie, sound based desu
how accurate is this? were conditions better in larger cities?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBFMMbUFI8
>>1036762
Accurate for the end, the oil crisis and Perestroika had completely obliterated production in the Soviet economy largely caused by liberalization. Since the Soviet economy was based on productive units all over the place, say a gear was made in Estonia, a wheel was made in Kazakhstan, when Perestroika happened and all that central planning stopped, say a tractor broke down, well you're fucked.
Conditions were far better a decade before.
>>1036762
> how accurate is this?
It's not.
Something was needed something to justify Yeltsin's coup and his subsequent dictatorship. "It's for your own good" is the oldest trick in the book.
Problems begun in 1988, when Gorbachev granted to his supporters (corrupt Soviet bureaucracy) too much power (via free market reforms) and they abused it immensely. But it wasn't as bad, as what followed. When Gorbachev's attempt at introducing dictatorship to USSR failed, Yeltsin took over and then the real shortages begun.
Something like 95% of the "empty shelves" pictures were actually made not during USSR (practically all of those 5% were made during last years of USSR), but later - when Yeltsin was in charge.
I've even seen pictures from late 90s-early 00s presented as "authentic pictures from USSR".
>>1037950
Do you have any proof of this
>>1037954
Yes. Give me $5k and I'll write you a whole fucking book with sources and photos.
And - no. I'm not going to spend several months arguing with anon who's only response to everything is "do you have proof?"
>>1036762
in Czechoslovakia, one of the most well off countries of the eastern bloc, goods shortages were not uncommon - not talking about luxury goods (which, in socialist times, would encompass such "luxuries" as basic electronics, not just cars and the like)
basic everyday goods like menstrual pads or toilet paper would sometimes be scarce, as would fruit like tangerines or bananas or fresh meat, or even underpants (yes, underpants) - the scope of goods that were lacking is incredibly broad, depending on what part of the bureaucratic planning behemoth failed
these were not some pseudo-bullshit-mystical hearsay occurences of toilet paper not being available "somewhere", because "my brothers friends aunt told me", but genuine shortages that were so noticeable and bad they made it to state controlled media - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qUqFy2FEU (in Czech, a report on the lack of TP - includes such gems as "When was the last time you had toilet paper in stock?" "Thursday last week")
>>1038053
> 1988
>>1038059
yes, in response to a poster asking about a video from the 80s Soviet Union
>>1034556
This is the worst attempt to describe socialist realism I've ever seen.
>>1037954
Just use google, what he's saying is true. I was watching this great period tv documentary about post-ussr russia the other day, kids selling candy bars on the streets for $800, people using wheelbarrows of cash to buy cars for $1mil. It was a mad house, and is absolutely where they got all the pictures from.
Fun fact: In Estonia people could see western television broadcasts from Finland.
So you were on the wrong side of the Iron curtain, but you could see glimpses of mcGyuver
>>1038071
He was just saying that all the shortages were after they introduced market reforms in the late 80s right before the fall. So your point is meaningless to the discussion.
In the heyday there were definitely people starving in the furthest reaches of fucking Uzbek and shit like that, but it wasn't widespread in the civilized areas by any means. (also they are still starving in Uzbek now)
>>1034371
that's why the collapse was so catastrophic
imagine millions (literally) of mindless neet-drones (so called "engineers") who had all their basic needs taken care by the STATE unplugged out of the dead system
it's a monumental shift in psychology, for many it was too much to adapt
in modern russian phrase "former member of intelligentsia" means "homeless" for a reason
>>1038560
>in modern russian phrase "former member of intelligentsia" means "homeless" for a reason
that is just excellent
>>1034556
>Jazz, Rock, Electronica
> banned
i must have imagined listening to shitloads of jazz and rock on central fucking radio and TV and buying LPs in "Melodiya" shops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodiya
Rock'n'roll was frowned upon as devil in the west too, and it was a generational thing not something to do with current regime.
>lose ww2
>rebel against dumbfuck stalinist regime
>get rewarded with liveable life
>only requirement is that you dont openly go against the system
i dont get the memes about ebin foot shortages and terrible suffering
all of my grandparents were none party members and had ok jobs like teachers or accountants
they built their own houses and traveled the eastern block, while today i cant even get my own place
>>1038643
I guess if you can't relate to it, it must have never happened. That's the only possible explanation.
So is capitalism basically a pyramid scheme?
Those who are "first" profit the most, and they also have the most information that helps them either secure their position or bail out before the scheme starts faltering.
They also tell you that capitalism is the best shit ever and when it fails it's actually something else that is the problem and endless rationalizations. Meanwhile those on the lower levels of the pyramid aren't any better off than they would be under other systems, except with they are told "one day this could be you!" while pointing at the top portions of the pyramid.
[spoiler]I say this while acknowledging that as a first worlder with a computer and internet access I'm somewhat "in" on the so called scam[/spoiler]
>>1038656
capitalism is any economic system with the free exchange of goods for capital
anything beyond that is a mess of economic theory and politics, all heavily confused by vested interests
>>1038656
Depends.
Do you like centralization (of power), do you like descentralization or are you in between?
If you like centralization you're probably a communist, monarchist or fascist.
If you like descentralization you are a democrat.
If you like the in between choice you are a keynesian capitalist or a corporate capitalist.
:^)
>>1038643
Eh. Housing is more of a global problem these days.
A few decades ago, practically everyone in the West could also easily afford a decent home. The idea that 20-somethings struggle with housing is a very recent invention anywhere.
>>1034859
My mother got into medical studies, even though her father owned a bakery and had dosh. In Poland you only had affirmative action for workers and peasants.
>>1038688
free exchange of goods and trade has existed ever since 3000 bc.
It has nothing to do with capitalism, which is who owns the means of production, which in the case of capitalism is the capitalist, not the state, king, or the nobleman.
>>1038656
everything is always the fault of the poor ppl, remember that, its never the greedy shitstains gubbling up every penny they can steal
>>1034127
>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?
Sure, in state shops or on the 'second economy'. Under Stalinism at least there were pretty substantial wage differentials.
>Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?
Sort of. Most of the actual in-depth planning of production was done by industrial ministries that owned hundreds of firms. 'Centrally coordinated' would probably be a better term for their organization as Gosplan only played a mostly advisory role. Directors of enterprises couldn't do much but they were obliged to realize profits and seemed to have found ways to make the fixed prices more flexible for their own benefit.
>>1038643
> i dont get the memes about ebin foot shortages and terrible suffering
The idea is that you shouldn't even consider changing status quo.
Even if you are homeless and can't afford healthcare, it is much better than TOTALITARIAN SOVIET UNION. So shut up and work, like an obedient consumer.
Germans want communism back, Germans miss the DDR.
The Wall:
Sure, it was hard to get out but even harder to get in. No Muslims, no rapefugees.
Economy:
Sure, there weren't 60 different kinds of dragon dildos and anal creams available but there was also no unemployment and people helped each other out instead of trying to bring each other down.
Patriotism:
Sure, we had sex with the Russians in a way, but patriotism was still encouraged and no one promoted racial and cultural suicide.
Culture:
Poisonous Burger culture was mostly kept out of the country. No McDonalds, no Hollywood, no SJW degeneracy. The DDR was undeniably GERMAN.
Religion:
being a Jesus in the DDR was easier than being a Jesus today in a SJW shit hole that is increasingly becoming Americanized.
Downside:
The sexualized surveillance was shit, of course. Secret police and everything. But we have the same today.
Also:
The part of Germany that was communist is the part now, were 30.000 people march through the streets to rally against Merkel, mass-immigration, against the Islamization adn the Americanization of Germany. It's the part of PEGIDA, LEGIDA, Björn Höcke, people in Heidenau literally attacking the refugee-protecting police at night and then hiding in their neighbor's houses. West Germany is the "Refugees Welcome" SJW part.
50 years of Soviet occupation has obviously done less damage than 50 years (and counting) of American occupation.
Capitalism = free flow of capital.
No wall can keep money in or out.
Therefore, people from outside your country can get their hands on you through their 'investing' in your national industries.
its because in 80s USSR start convert into capitalism. Lines and shortage of food its a sign of late 80 and early 90 when soviet economy collapsed
>>1034166
thanks, will watch.
>>1034356
I thought organized crime became a big problem in the later years of the Soviet Union? (although it got even worse after its end)
>>1038643
The soviet union was part miracle part hell.
Lets not forget that it was devastated by a huge civil war, WW1 and WW2. Not to mention it was still a monarchy at the start of the 20th century with a mostly uneducated populace.
The soviet union gave full rights to all people, no segregation, women rights good education for everyone. Free classes, take up any sport, any interest and anyone could afford it.
It was amazing and yet also horrible because it was build on the back of slave labor and yet was there any other way? Hard to say.
There were advantages and disadvantages.
Fucktards who think going to concerts and reading E magazines is what makes life grand would like it less but you had all the good stuff any intelligent person wanted.
Hiking, skying, any kinds of sports and clubs you wanted.
At some point they could have gone on to a much better route but there were a few mistakes made in the 60's 70's that fucked the soviet union bad.
>>1038688
>This is what school students are being taught in the US.
Yugoslavia was GOAT desu
>>1038688
Why is the American education system so wrong?
>>1040041
There were three surges of organized crime in USSR:
1) 20s/early 30s - those ended with kulak purges
2) late 40s/early 50s - postwar clusterfuck
3) late 80s/early 90s - Perestroika reforms
>>1040105
The key difference between economics and Marxism is that economics (at least tries) to base itself off of empirical observations, whereas Marxism just flat out says anything that disagrees with theory is a misobservation at best, an outright lie at worst.
>>1040119
That might just be the stupidest thing I've seen on this board
you belong on /int/ or /pol/
>>1040119
This is beyond silly.
Even if we take Soviets - they were very keen on practice and pragmatism. Are capitalist methods effective? Implement them!
For example, Taylor's management ideas (for capitalist factory!) were effectively made mandatory read for Party members.
Only during Khruschev reign were some retarded ideology-based (revisionist ideology) decisions.
>>1040277
> there were some
>>1034462
Is Jugoslavija the only real example of a functioning Socialist state?
>Free healthcare
>Very good healthcare to the extent that people from France, Germany and UK were flying over for operations and procedures.
>Free education
>Brilliant "arts thinkers" and science programmes so advance, they sold rocket technology to both the Russians and Americans
>Free housing
>Comfy and roomy homes easily capable of withstanding the schizophrenic weather that the Balkans endures (freezing winters, boiling summers)
>Comprehensive transport links
>You want to go to the coast? Jump on a train. Need to see your girlfriend's parents in another state? Smooth roads linking city to city.
>Full employment
>Work weighing you down? Enjoy more mandated leave than most countries in Western Europe
>Worried about overbearing external influences?
>Don't worry. Tito is playing both the Yanks and the Ruskies.
>SUCCESSFULLY
>>1040975
Maybe if you were a Serb you'd live this good live you're describing.
>>1034127
>How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals?
Same shit mostly.
You go to work or school and then you go home.
>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?
Most of the enterprises were state owned, although there was a considerable shadow economy.
>Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?
No hell no. State businesses had quotas to meet: 5 tons of bread in a month, and you would receive a fixed wage as a manager or a worker for example. Now, if that bread was of good quality that's another story. I do distinctly remember rocks in my bread, so that tells you the standards of the food.
Most goods and services were of passable quality though.
>If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?
The dude in the corner. Or the state shop and wait days for it to be done.
>>1041116
>I do distinctly remember rocks in my bread, so that tells you the standards of the food.
That's what you need free market competence.
In every free market society anything like that would mean bankruptcy.
>>1041166
Oh yeah no doubt. I'm hesitant to make generalizations, but for almost all products I think that's true. I think for food especially given how influential yelp is over a restaurant's fate.
>>1040063
>Not to mention it was still a monarchy at the start of the 20th century
Oh my, Britain, Japan and Norway are monarchies still. Somehow they are more or less OK, no need for 10 years of starving and forced labour to get the job done.
>with a mostly uneducated populace.
Pic related. Hereditary dumbs will remain dumb even if they can write twits and read McDonalds signs.
Only Estonia and Latvia dumbed down after expelling all the literate and cultured Germans and Swedes.
>>1041047
unironically albanian
Born in cuba, visited back like 5 times. It's really not bad, it's not as great as living in democracy imo but it's ok. Definitely no wear near Africa level and things get way better with each return
>>1039577
In the DDR:
>There were no homeless
>Everyone could get a cozy job where you only worked 1-2 hours per day and sat around the rest of the day
>Even with such a job you could still afford a car
>Food was cheap
>The radio still played Volksmusik instead of american nigger music
>You could leave your home unlocked and nobody would rob you
>>1041231
Cuba:
>Ahead of the US in life expectancy
>99.8% literacy
>94% high school graduation rate
>Education and healthcare for all citizens
>Hunger completely eradicated
>Poverty completely eradicated
>One of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world
>B-but socialism can never work! E-every socialist state has failed! It only works in racially homogeneous countries!
>>1041231
You should be careful about generalizing Cuba because the people there are mostly supported by the money sent back by people from the US.
>>1041275
Mississippi reporting. People have it better in Cuba than most of the South, that I can guarantee.
>>1041281
Again, supported by the backs of Cubans in the US. And Cuba has a lower price level than Mississippi so the money sent back buys more.
>>1040277
>Khruschev's coup-detat
yes khrushka removed stalin
khruska was the end of ussr
>>1041220
>still monarchies today.
Why post shit? Now I got to clarify even thought you know exactly what i was talking about? Get a life.
>>1041270
>Ahead of the US in life expectancy
Okay, I'm just going to say this because I don't feel like getting into an argument with someone that's this ignorant.
Comparing raw statistics across different locations with totally different sampling populations being influenced by thousands of different variables and then exclaiming that that is caused by another variable ("socialism") is the epitome of stupidity.
>>1041291
But dont forget that cuba has suffered because of ambargo and other pressures from capitalist swines.
The truth of the matter is that capitalists are like the greedy asshole who screwes everyone.
As long as you got one of those you cant have proper socialism.
>>1041351
>But dont forget that cuba has suffered because of ambargo and other pressures from capitalist swines.
What?
You do know that the US is the only country in the world who doesn't trade with Cuba right? Literally the rest of the world trades with it. In fact one of Cuba's largest trading partners is Canada.
Cuba's woes are due to a horribly mismanaged economy which was totally reliant on the Soviet Union's charity. Cuba has been for the past 60 years essentially a huge manchild that has never done anything productive and relied on other people for aid.
>All these western commies shitting out utter delusions about USSR
I am eastern European, and holy fuck what is this fucking shit. How do you people even fucking exist?
Jesus, /his/ seems to turn more and more into some bizzaro /pol/ everyday.
>>1041371
So tell us how it really is...Oh wait, you only have your limited personal experience.
>>1041388
>Oh wait, you only have your limited personal experience.
Yup. And those of my friends, and family, and countrymen, and neighboring countrymen, and...
Each and every one shitting over Soviet Union passionately.
All lies though. Life in USSR was on par with the west ;^), even better! Also black is white and north is south.
Seriously though, you western commies deserve catching preemptive bullets to your heads, before you destroy your own countries.
>>1041446
>comes from commie country has one sided criticism of communist countries
>comes from western country has one sided criticism of capitalist countries
So you are all different sides of the same coin...
>>1041610
Grass is always greener ect. ect.
I'm quite happy to be where I am myself.
>>1041610
If only he didnt experience both of it
You western cucks are fucking annoying allready with your love for communism, just compare two germanies and korea for fucks sake
>hurr my special type of communism was never trieed
>>1041651
east germany was best germany....north korea is best korea
>>1041651
As the KFA delegate I say in DPRK I've never seen anyone starving something I've seen in Germany
>>1041610
No. Life in USSR was objectively shittier than one in the West. Now - not so much, main difference is absolute income values. But back then, people in USSR were more or less cut off from every distraction (save alcohol) that could make everyday life less grey and dreary.
It's strange how little westerners value their rich and entertaining lives and even more so, are willing to exchange them for some delusional pipe-dreams.
>>1041680
POLISH FAG plz
>>1041683
I'm not polish. But consider this - if every ex-soviet country utterly despises Soviet times (save for a few old bydlos, incapable of adjusting to new a system), how the hell could living in USSR be good?
>>1041709
>if every ex-soviet country utterly despises Soviet times
>>1034407
There really wasn't any kind of youth culture. Not like I'm the U.S. by a long shot. No 1st job, no buying 1st car and becoming your own man. No comic books, or stupid toys, no tv sets everywhere, no high school drama, no rock and roll, no parents expectations, no arcades no barbie, no GI Joe, no pet rock and all the endless stupid consumer shit the States used to crush the USSR.
>>1041709
And how many people despise or have very harsh criticisms towards the US?
The soviet union went down in flames(not least because of US interference) so it is colored in an even worse light.
>>1041846
Why do you need youth culture? Look what Youth culture is doing right now..Its a nightmare the proportions of which we will only come to understand in a few decades.
>>1041666
memes are not facts, Satan.
>>1034911
He's an ardent supporter of a failed state what do you expect.
>>1034562
Governments/states are like parents, the more you rely on them the more they'll tell you what to do. A government powerful to feed you and clothe you can tell you how to dress. In the real world socialist programs are run by institutions.
>live in USSR
>queue for food in store
>no meat or anything
>>1034952
I can't believe you posted that unironically.
>>1034952
hello, 2010 memes
>>1034952
>tripfag
>posted a fucking demotivator
nigga
>>1041921
i am not mememing though
>>1042035
may-may-ming?
>>1041270
I don't even know where to begin with someone this indoctrinated.
>>>/leftypol/
>>1042135
if you guys defend a neocon bitch(pinochet), why can't i do the same with cuba :)?
>>1041270
Ok Cuba is really not one of the most ethnically diverse countries on Earth. In fact ethnic problems exist to this day.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/13/amid-sweeping-changes-in-us-relations-cubas-race-problem-persists.html
>>1041281
I have family in Cuba, my uncle was swimming in Cuban pussy trying to get off the island. Cuba's economy is 3rd world, sure as a tourist it's ok, and the island receives plenty of aid from abroad, but it's fields are mismanaged, and it's economy is gradually becoming more open to privateization.
>>1041270
You aren't seriously trying to compare an island with a population that only exceeds that of NYC by 3 mil with a population of 320 million.
>>1042149
Pinochet was a tyrant but you can't pretend for a second that Cuba's in a better place than Chilé. Sorry but the capitalist dictator put together a more successful economy that your commie one.
>>1042135
I'm from leftypol and fuck cuba.
It's not really worse than most capitalist countries tho but still. Pol is more of a hive-mind (even if it's gotten better these days) than we are.
>>1041674
>say in DPRK I've never seen anyone starving
Jesus Christ. That's "muh Western propaganda" conspiracy tier anon.
>>1042282
Depends on what you mean by worse, is it liveable, sure. But are you gonna really make a stamp on the world, well most people won't, your chances in Cuba are just worse.
That being said. After reading this thread can you honestly believe some of the stuff said. I mean we got >>1041674 over here unironically saying that people in the DPRK are doing great. I mean I can't even guarantee that the DPRK exists but if we just assume that the information we have is credible, all legitimate sources point top massive issues with starvation in the DPRK.
>>1042276
>Sorry but the capitalist dictator put together a more successful economy
>>1039577
>hurr durr the only options on earth are communism and capitalism
>>1042348
I don't believe any of the blind declarations of love people here are making to soviet(-like) dictatorships. I can analyse and extract the good and the bad of the marxist-leninist tradition, but I'm from a communist tradition which was very harsh against the soviet union and the little children it has spread from the very beginning. Now you could go and tell me "you're one of those 'my special brand of cummunizim has never been tried before'". But really it's not as simple ; there are a lot of things I think really worked out well in the history of communism, it's just that the people who had the same ideas has I do would never have done the things necessary to keep the power and implement a radical change the people would not want. That's the whole story of the soviet unions ; to say it in a very naive way, if actually good people kept the power there (which was in fact impossible because they were weak), they would not have succeeded in reaching communism, but they would have failed without hurting in anyway the civil society.
Now I think you see my point but I'm tired, so my theoretical powerlevel is very low, and this post is way too long. All I meant to say was that people in this thread defending unconditionnally soviet countries (for example) are lacking historical perspective.
>>1034127
It was the same, only poorer. People didn't really reported you if you complained that shit only happened during the worst of the purges.
>>1034190
This is a dramatic oversimplification.
What they buy doesnt matter, what they are exporting does.
>>1042276
Wow! Everyone is just obsessed with consumerism! What a time to be alive!
Thanks Neoliberal Capitalism™!
>>1039577
this
Life was actually preddy good in poland.
Sure you didn't have Pepsi and Spearmint bubble gum and 'fashionable' murcan clothes, but you had actual food, not tainted by any corporate profit boosting chemical. Fish, meat, eggs, milk, bread, you name it. Shit was healthy, bottle of milk had only one ingredient - whole milk.
sex was as easy as any autist (we were all autists in eastern europe) walking down the street to a random qt stranger and taking her to the sauna. simple and sweet.
pussy and food was plentiful
>>1043666
Like, i know people there still blame communism for why Poland is still shit, but seriously, just as an example look what the USSR did in 27 years, it went from a feudalistic, poverty ridden & war torn country that's people had been subject so social and economic divide for millenia to the most powerful country in the world with vast agricultural and industrial capability that was battling off a much more technically advanced enemy to retake half of Europe.
Like, surely if communism could do that in such a short period of time, the much better system of capitalism could have easily made things twice as good in these 27 years post communism?
>>1043686
>agricultural ability
They were literally importing grain from the US so they wouldn't starve lmao
>>1043731
>importing grain
The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus, Paine viewed private property as necessary while at the same time asserting that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.
Can someone explain me what the fuck is this Youth Culture he >>1041846 is talking about?
>>1043666
> didn't have Pepsi
Why? USSR had quite a lot of Pepsi since the 70s.
>>1043731
> They were literally importing grain from the US so they wouldn't starve lmao
Not really. They wanted to eat more meat, but had problems with feeding cattle. Ended up feeding cattle with grain (which was retarded, but hardly "sign of starvation").
Check the meat consumption: it rose at the same time USSR begun importing grain.
>>1044780
what he meant was that there was no access to dragon dildos and anus flavored bubblegum back then for youths like him to find an appropriate outlet for their frustrations and imbalances
>>1041846
thats because boys became men pretty quick with their first encounters with natasha, tanya, elena, frida, and pizda
no time for beating around the bush with your lame "youth culture" when you were drowning in slimy pizda
>>1044895
Truly a horror of unmeasurable proportions.
>>1042863
Private ownership of the worlds wealth, AND the means of GENERATING further wealth leads inexorably to the conclusion of a single, tight-knit group of superwealthy, with no interest in sharing power, and a minumum of that collossal fee going to bread, circuses and the strong right arm of state-endorsed violence to silence dissent.
>>1045929
This.
Anyone who believes that superwealthy will be routinely swayed by religion/nationalism/[insert some propaganda] - is a moron.
>>1034358
Patrick?
