Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

world war 3

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 534
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 May 2004, 05:05
Komsomol
Post 24 Dec 2004, 10:56
Im offended I was only stating in the book they had only conscripts instead of full service forces. I knew this to be un true I was just saying in the book if the Russians eliminated these setbacks they would have conquered Europe.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Sep 2004, 01:53
Komsomol
Post 24 Dec 2004, 21:20
Uncle Joe wrote:
Im offended I was only stating in the book they had only conscripts instead of full service forces. I knew this to be un true I was just saying in the book if the Russians eliminated these setbacks they would have conquered Europe.


You are offended? Listen, my friend, for Tom Clancy offends me more. The guy has no idea how Soviet Tech works, has primarily shoddy research, and is an all-out liar on some (most) occasions.

He censors his books so that USA always has the upper hand in tech, when it tends to be the other way around.
When we hang the Capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
-Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 39
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Nov 2004, 15:18
Pioneer
Post 29 Dec 2004, 00:20
interrupt_00h wrote:
Whiskey wrote:
But Soviet Union failed to recognize and produce those items/services which were considered luxury in 60s but which became standard products even among lower classes in 70s and 80s.


Which ones, exactly?

For example women's pantyhoses and men's white shirts were popular products for black market trade and could be sold 4-5 times higher than purchase price in west.
Quote:
Whiskey wrote:
I have visited Soviet Union late 70s


How old was you when it happened?

I have visited Soviet Union and Russia half a dozen times in 20 years. At first time in 70s I was 12.

Quote:
Whiskey wrote:
But I argue that Soviet Union lived in debt from the late 60s to the start of the Perestroika trying to produce services it couldn't afford.


...

"Debt", what "debt"? What do you mean by "debt"? "Debt" to whom? To itself? Don't be ridiculous.


Debt in the basic sense: consuming more than one could afford.

Even my first visit to SU (and confirmed in later visits) showed that SU has "purchased" more than it could afford. The older buildings of Leningrad were quite good shape, but when it came to new buildings or repairs to older ones the quality was inferior. Even so that one professional carpenter in our group said that he would be kicked out from his job if he would produce such lousy job.

SU had many professionals who did high quality work, but due to military needs it didn't have enough of them to even maintain the quality of maintenance work in civilian targets, not to mention producing new consistently with good quality.

Quote:
Economical conditions in USSR in 1985 was at the peak, MUCH better than, say, in in 1925, 1935, 1945 or in 1955.

However, neither in 1925, nor in 1935, nor in 1945, nor in 1955 SOVIET UNION DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. It is true that Soviet economic output was higher in 1985 than in any previous date, but the demands from that economy were even higher, so the ability of Soviet economy to provide the services was in fact lower in 1985 than even in 1945.
Quote:
Cold War is about POLITICAL conflict.

Whoever puts his agent to opponent's office, wins.

I have never thought Soviet system so inherently instabile that one person could throw it to any direction he wishes. In western democracies there are limits and watchdogs for individual leaders so that no single person can upset the system. Were those methods absent in Soviet Union?
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 29 Dec 2004, 06:37
Impostor Whiskey wrote:
For example women's pantyhoses and men's white shirts were popular products for black market trade and could be sold 4-5 times higher than purchase price in west.


Since black market is product of perestroika, and perestroika is capitalism, what it has to do with socialist planned economy?

Your point only proves that it was capitalism which creates deficit.



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
I have visited Soviet Union and Russia half a dozen times in 20 years. At first time in 70s I was 12.


That means in majority age, you only visited USSR during perestroika. Is it correct?



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
Debt in the basic sense: consuming more than one could afford.


Ever heard of "ostatochnoye snabzheniye"?


Surely you don't.



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
Even my first visit to SU (and confirmed in later visits) showed that SU has "purchased" more than it could afford.


Four questions:

1.What could 12-year-old boy see in economy just by visiting country?

2.What could adult man see in economy just by visiting country?

3.What could economist see in economy just by visiting country?

These three questions are rhethorical, since the answer to all these questions is the same: NOTHING.

4.What do you mean by "purchased"?



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
The older buildings of Leningrad were quite good shape, but when it came to new buildings or repairs to older ones the quality was inferior. Even so that one professional carpenter in our group said that he would be kicked out from his job if he would produce such lousy job.


Great. Now, tell me, what has CARPENTER to say about block-structured concrete??? Did you ever been to Leningrad - REALLY?

I want to tell you one thing - on this forum, I "cracked" a dozen of impostors so far.

Some of them were pretty easy to crack - one pretended to be Canadian military engineer, but could not even name the parts of assault rifle correctly.

Some of them were harder - they pretended to be ex-Spetsnaz, and they even posted photos, but I cracked them on little details - like "double-clips", military gear, stuff like that.

Now, I cracked YOU. You are IMPOSTOR

Not just you never been to Leningrad, but you also never been to continental Russia.

Otherwise, you would know, that American "semi-tropical" architecture is not present in Russia, because IT IS MUCH COLDER HERE!

I live in quite big flat, but only wooden stuff I have inside is tables, chairs and other furniture.

Your impostering is revealed.



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
SU had many professionals who did high quality work, but due to military needs it didn't have enough of them to even maintain the quality of maintenance work in civilian targets, not to mention producing new consistently with good quality.


Since you are impostor, you do not know, that each new generation of civilian blocs were not worse, but better, than previous.

For example, by simply looking at bloc, you can say what generation it belongs to.

So, your ridiculous claim is nothing more than ridiculous claim.



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges here. It is true that Soviet economic output was higher in 1985 than in any previous date, but the demands from that economy were even higher, so the ability of Soviet economy to provide the services was in fact lower in 1985 than even in 1945.


LOL! You are not just impostor, you are also idiot.


In 1945, half of population was living in trenches, since half of all housing was destroyed.

There was shortage of everything, even the most basic stuff.

By 1985, average Soviet citizen had flat in the bloc, car and dacha.

Ever heard of "kvartira-mashina-dacha"?



Impostor Whiskey wrote:
I have never thought Soviet system so inherently instabile that one person could throw it to any direction he wishes. In western democracies there are limits and watchdogs for individual leaders so that no single person can upset the system. Were those methods absent in Soviet Union?


There were. But they didn't work when WEAPONS were used.

In case you don't know, fall of USSR was not "without a single shot", but was result of civil war, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dead.

Just a few photos for you:


Quote:
Photo 1: "Burning Hell - Supreme Soviet besieged"

Image





Photo 2: "Last Stand - this photo became symbol of anti-capitalist resistance"

Image





Photo 3: "Defences Breached - tanks approach Supreme Soviet"

Image





Photo 4: "Alfa KGB Spetsnaz Supersoldier - this time, on WRONG side"

Image





Photo 5: "Bejtar's Victim - Israeli Bejtar snipers shoot at crowd from rooftops"

Image





Photo 6: "Close Combat - Yeltsin's tanks are shelling Supreme Soviet"

Image





Photo 7: "Fallen Fortress - siege has ended, with democrats victorious"

Image


Soviet cogitations: 534
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 May 2004, 05:05
Komsomol
Post 29 Dec 2004, 07:51
Ive been looking for photos about that thanks Interrupt_00h! Damn to think many do not know of the civil war, including me until now.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 39
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Nov 2004, 15:18
Pioneer
Post 29 Dec 2004, 16:01
interrupt_00h wrote:
Impostor Whiskey wrote:
For example women's pantyhoses and men's white shirts were popular products for black market trade and could be sold 4-5 times higher than purchase price in west.


Since black market is product of perestroika, and perestroika is capitalism, what it has to do with socialist planned economy?

That occurred at 70s. You said perestroika started in the middle of 80s. So your explanation doesn't hold water.

Quote:
Impostor Whiskey wrote:
I have visited Soviet Union and Russia half a dozen times in 20 years. At first time in 70s I was 12.


That means in majority age, you only visited USSR during perestroika. Is it correct?

If you consider 21 as majority age, that's correct.
Quote:
1.What could 12-year-old boy see in economy just by visiting country?
2.What could adult man see in economy just by visiting country?
3.What could economist see in economy just by visiting country?

These three questions are rhethorical, since the answer to all these questions is the same: NOTHING.

4.What do you mean by "purchased"?

What can be said about economy, when new buildings start to fall apart only 2-3 years of use? When repairs of old buildings are done with mismatching materials, low quality and only marginally better than unrepaired? At west the common answer is that there is no money/resources to do proper job. What is the answer in Soviet world?
Quote:
Impostor Whiskey wrote:
The older buildings of Leningrad were quite good shape, but when it came to new buildings or repairs to older ones the quality was inferior. Even so that one professional carpenter in our group said that he would be kicked out from his job if he would produce such lousy job.


Great. Now, tell me, what has CARPENTER to say about block-structured concrete??? Did you ever been to Leningrad - REALLY?

...

Now, I cracked YOU. You are IMPOSTOR

Not just you never been to Leningrad, but you also never been to continental Russia.

Otherwise, you would know, that American "semi-tropical" architecture is not present in Russia, because IT IS MUCH COLDER HERE!

I live in quite big flat, but only wooden stuff I have inside is tables, chairs and other furniture.

Your impostering is revealed.

Un fortunately you are wrong. I'm not American but Finn, so I know a little bit more about cold. (Although we do not have Siberian temperatures here, but more like the ones in Leningrad.)

You have metal doors in your apartment? Even though building structure is made of concrete, it doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work to be done to carpenters. Doors, baseboards, painting, papering, cupboards, floorboards... Some are even qualified to do tiling etc.

My favoured road to Russia is over the border at Vaalimaa border crossing, short stop in Vyborg and then to Leningrad. I'd prefer the older coastal road, as the old villas in Zelenogorsk are very beautiful. The new road isn't so beautiful although much faster.
Quote:
Impostor Whiskey wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges here. It is true that Soviet economic output was higher in 1985 than in any previous date, but the demands from that economy were even higher, so the ability of Soviet economy to provide the services was in fact lower in 1985 than even in 1945.


LOL! You are not just impostor, you are also idiot.


In 1945, half of population was living in trenches, since half of all housing was destroyed.

There was shortage of everything, even the most basic stuff.

By 1985, average Soviet citizen had flat in the bloc, car and dacha.

In 1945 people had very few needs. It was wartime and fighting has caused a lot of destruction, so nobody expected any luxuries. Only very basic needs were wanted then.

In 1985 they had all these blocs, cars, dachas, public transport etc. etc. Their needs had increased. They no longer were satisfied with those basic needs of 1945, but they wanted more, more, more... State tried to deliver them but the economy wasn't good enough to provide that all.
Quote:
Impostor Whiskey wrote:
I have never thought Soviet system so inherently instabile that one person could throw it to any direction he wishes. In western democracies there are limits and watchdogs for individual leaders so that no single person can upset the system. Were those methods absent in Soviet Union?


There were. But they didn't work when WEAPONS were used.

In case you don't know, fall of USSR was not "without a single shot", but was result of civil war, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dead.

Do you mean Janajev's (Sorry, Finnish translittering) action against Gorba or Parliaments against Jeltsin?

If Gorba was the man of the West, why was he able to start Perestroika? Why nobody acted then?
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 29 Dec 2004, 20:22
Impostor wrote:
That occurred at 70s.


That could not occur in 70ies.

Point One: before late perestroika, white shirts were in abundance, even in GUM.

Point Two: "black market" started after reform of "mnogoukladnost", and that happened during perestroika.

Point Three: how 12-year old kid can know about men's white shirts?



Impostor wrote:
If you consider 21 as majority age, that's correct.


Then your claims about "carpenter from your group" is lies.



Impostor wrote:
What can be said about economy, when new buildings start to fall apart only 2-3 years of use?


LOL! Who told you this nonsense?

Do you know, that buildings, built during Khrushev's era in 50ies, ARE STILL AROUND?

We call them "Khruschoby" or "Khrushevky". HALF A CENTURY PASSED, BUT THESE BUILDINGS ARE STILL HABITABLE!

Like I said: you are impostor.



Impostor wrote:
When repairs of old buildings are done with mismatching materials, low quality and only marginally better than unrepaired?


Any proof of that? Post the proof, and we will talk. If repairs are only "marginally better", why all these buildings still stand?

Don't forget, that perestroika started 20 years ago, that means these buildings are without repair for almost 20 years.



Impostor wrote:
What is the answer in Soviet world?


During capitalist perestroika - lack of money.

During pre-perestroika socialism such idiocy simply could not exist - some people would be easily kicked out from their post: 25 years, with confiscation (if you know what it means).



Impostor wrote:
Un fortunately you are wrong. I'm not American but Finn, so I know a little bit more about cold.


OK, then tell us what have CARPENTER to do with architecture of Leningrad?



Impostor wrote:
You have metal doors in your apartment?


Only at front door. The inner doors are not supposed to be strong, so they are wooden, and now in pretty bad condition, which doesn't bother me. I could perfectly live without them, they do not have locks and exist mostly as decoration.



Impostor wrote:
Even though building structure is made of concrete, it doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work to be done to carpenters. Doors, baseboards, painting, papering, cupboards, floorboards... Some are even qualified to do tiling etc.


You are trying to evade the question: WHAT HAS CARPENTER TO DO WITH RELIABILITY OF HOUSING?

I look around my room, and could not find anything that will require work of carpenter in next 20-30 years.

My wooden door got a hole in it many years ago, after I knocked it too hard. Somehow, I didn't even bother.



Impostor wrote:
In 1945 people had very few needs. It was wartime and fighting has caused a lot of destruction, so nobody expected any luxuries.


Lame excuse.

First, you mix up needs and wants.

Second, in 1940, people had much more needs than in 1945.

Yet, somehow, catastrophic decrease of consumption in 1941-1945 didn't forced USSR to run "bankrupt" as your propaganda say.

So, even if some catastrophe happens, USSR would still don't run "bankrupt", since it had huge reserves.

For example, I already posted somewhere, that if all bridges in USSR were destroyed, by the next morning, they will be reconstructed by Army reserves.

Conservated food reserves of army are enough to feed entire country for many, many months.

USSR was prepared to fight NUCLEAR WAR, remember?

If it was ready for nuclear war, than surely it wouldn't even notice slight changes in economy.

Entire idea that economy with such tremendous, unparalleled "factor of safety" (originately designed to survive post-apocalypse world) just goes "bankrupt" for no reason is not just against economics, but against any basic common sense.

If it was supposed to survive ARMAGEDDON, do you really think that deficit of white shirts will have ANY effect?

I am really amazed to believe that there are still some idiots in West who believe such nonsense.

However, the point is that USSR not just didn't get "bankrupt", but didn't suffered ANY economic downfall before perestroika AT ALL!

That is well-known fact: capitalist reforms in USSR were reason of economic downfall, and not vice versa.

Again, I recommend all misguided people to read classics:

http://www.patriotica.ru/actual/white_book.zip



Impostor wrote:
Do you mean Janajev's (Sorry, Finnish translittering) action against Gorba or Parliaments against Jeltsin? If Gorba was the man of the West, why was he able to start Perestroika? Why nobody acted then?


Fact one: many people acted. Like I say, GKChP didn't start from nowhere.

Fact two: Gorby was not the only people who was "man of the West", and Gorby himself admitted that.

By 1985, almost all top nomenklatura was on Gorby's side. Those who resisted were smashed.

You seem to think that Gorby is some sort of "anomaly".

But that is not correct - Gorby is just culmination of events, that started long before USSR was formed.

Real "change of course" started in 1953, when Stalin was assassinated (so-called "Doctor's Case").

From now on, Khurschev started slow reforms that will eventually lead to perestroika.

Ever heard of his reforms of 1955-1956? They actually STOPPED Stalin-era economic boom.

Or, probably, Kosygin's reforms of 1965? They actually returned monetary transactions to economical system - thus, giving soil for future reforms like perestroika.


The fact: there were people who profited from fall of USSR, and they PLANNED to profit from it.

Another fact: we failed to identify them before it was too late. Stalin managed to identify them ("Doctor's Case"), but was killed, and "Doctor's Case" was "closed".

From point of Gorbachev's actions in 1986, it was simple takeover, coup d'etat. No political system has safe-guard against conspiracies.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 29 Dec 2004, 21:56
Interrupt

You are just like stereotype of evil communist from 80s american action movies


That communist villain in those movies was all time shouting "lies, this all is just capitalist lies", insulted the hero, was besserwisser and behaved arrogantly and badly just like you.

You must be some kind of CIA agent whose mission is to make russian communists look like fools from 80s action movies.


There is only one thing missing: "Hahhahhah, I am invincible! What? NOOO THIS CANT BE HAPPENIN! I am undefetab...[boom]"

Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 29 Dec 2004, 22:17
Turhapuro wrote:
Interrupt

You are just like stereotype of evil communist from 80s american action movies


That communist villain in those movies was all time shouting "lies, this all is just capitalist lies", insulted the hero, was besserwisser and behaved arrogantly and badly just like you.

You must be some kind of CIA agent whose mission is to make russian communists look like fools from 80s action movies.


There is only one thing missing: "Hahhahhah, I am invincible! What? NOOO THIS CANT BE HAPPENIN! I am undefetab...[boom]"



And you, Turhapuro, look exactly like stereotype of evil capitalist from Soviet movies - constantly spreading your capitalist lies, misinformation are ridiculous, absurd propaganda.

If USSR is "Empire of Evil", then West is "Empire of Lies".
Soviet cogitations: 39
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Nov 2004, 15:18
Pioneer
Post 30 Dec 2004, 02:07
interrupt_00h wrote:
Impostor wrote:
That occurred at 70s.


That could not occur in 70ies.

Point One: before late perestroika, white shirts were in abundance, even in GUM.

Point Two: "black market" started after reform of "mnogoukladnost", and that happened during perestroika.

Point Three: how 12-year old kid can know about men's white shirts?

That did occur in 70s. At that time the road from Vyborg to Leningrad ran through the remains of Mannerheim Line close to couple of destroyed bunkers, and it was regular place for groups from Finland to stop and take a look of those remains. Well, one black market trader had noticed that also and as soon as we had stopped, he approached and started with broken Finnish to find a deal with somebody in our group.

Also in Leningrad, it was very common that when we left hotel to visit museums or only walk by Neva, we were approached one or two traders. Also western currency was highly appreciated and could be exchanged with three times better value than given in currency shops (berioskas).
Quote:
Impostor wrote:
If you consider 21 as majority age, that's correct.


Then your claims about "carpenter from your group" is lies.

How so? Do you think Inturist didn't arrange trips to groups containing minors and carpenters in 70s?
Quote:
Impostor wrote:
What can be said about economy, when new buildings start to fall apart only 2-3 years of use?


LOL! Who told you this nonsense?

Do you know, that buildings, built during Khrushev's era in 50ies, ARE STILL AROUND?

We call them "Khruschoby" or "Khrushevky". HALF A CENTURY PASSED, BUT THESE BUILDINGS ARE STILL HABITABLE!

At 50s they still had resources to do good work. We were talking about buildings of 70s. The definition of 'habitable' is very difficult. Some buildings in slums of Rio de Janeiro are habitable for their occupants, but neither you or I would consider them so.
Quote:
Impostor wrote:
When repairs of old buildings are done with mismatching materials, low quality and only marginally better than unrepaired?


Any proof of that? Post the proof, and we will talk. If repairs are only "marginally better", why all these buildings still stand?

Don't forget, that perestroika started 20 years ago, that means these buildings are without repair for almost 20 years.

Those repairs had to be done again much sooner than if the proper work with proper materials had been used. And don't underestimate your fellow countrymen: I have seen many ad hoc repairs and self developed craftmanship during my travels and meetings with local people. They do not lay on the ground hoping someone will help, they'll do it themselves. Not top quality, but very respectable for ones who have no formal training on issue.
Quote:
Impostor wrote:
Un fortunately you are wrong. I'm not American but Finn, so I know a little bit more about cold.


OK, then tell us what have CARPENTER to do with architecture of Leningrad?

Nothing I know. But that wasn't the question. I wasn't commenting about architecture but about how those buildings were built and maintained at 70s. Carpenters have a lot to do with that.
Quote:
Impostor wrote:
Even though building structure is made of concrete, it doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work to be done to carpenters. Doors, baseboards, painting, papering, cupboards, floorboards... Some are even qualified to do tiling etc.


You are trying to evade the question: WHAT HAS CARPENTER TO DO WITH RELIABILITY OF HOUSING?

He is one of the professionals who are needed to build and maintain houses. His work belongs to the most visible to outsiders. I have used carpenter here as an example, as I have personal experience with talking and seeing his reactions in Leningrad during our trip. (Well, we had repaired our own house in previous autumn, and it had needed a lot of work with wood, paint and wallpapers.
)

Now we have carpenter saying that quality of the visible work is not satisfactory. Could we then trust the quality of interior work or are carpenters the only group with failing quality?
Quote:
Impostor wrote:
In 1945 people had very few needs. It was wartime and fighting has caused a lot of destruction, so nobody expected any luxuries.


Lame excuse.

First, you mix up needs and wants.

Second, in 1940, people had much more needs than in 1945.

Did they? Are you mixing the needs and wants here? We are back to the question of basic needs. At 1945 the needs and want of people were much closer to basic needs than at 1940.
Quote:
Yet, somehow, catastrophic decrease of consumption in 1941-1945 didn't forced USSR to run "bankrupt" as your propaganda say.

Only well developed capitalist societies are driven by consumption. (Like USA) In the SU consumption was never so important factor, and radical decrease of consuption shouldn't affect SU as much as USA. Naturally war always helps to lessen that effect also as needs of the people become closer to basic needs and not those what are nice-to-have.
Quote:
Entire idea that economy with such tremendous, unparalleled "factor of safety" (originately designed to survive post-apocalypse world) just goes "bankrupt" for no reason is not just against economics, but against any basic common sense.

If it was supposed to survive ARMAGEDDON, do you really think that deficit of white shirts will have ANY effect?

Do not forget pantyhoses!


Do you think the Soviet economy was designed to survive Armageddon without any dents in living standard? I don't think so. Keeping that "factor of safety" become too heavy burden to Soviet economy to survive. Even if you design something, but you don't have resources to produce it, it doesn't help you at all. If you try to produce it anyway, it could be the hindrance instead.
Quote:
However, the point is that USSR not just didn't get "bankrupt", but didn't suffered ANY economic downfall before perestroika AT ALL!

Quote:
From now on, Khurschev started slow reforms that will eventually lead to perestroika.

Ever heard of his reforms of 1955-1956? They actually STOPPED Stalin-era economic boom.

Or, probably, Kosygin's reforms of 1965? They actually returned monetary transactions to economical system - thus, giving soil for future reforms like perestroika.

So the reforms of Khurschev and Kosygin improved the living standard in SU?
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 30 Dec 2004, 07:07
Impostor wrote:
Well, one black market trader had noticed that also and as soon as we had stopped, he approached and started with broken Finnish to find a deal with somebody in our group.


Black market trader? In 70ies? DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT WE WILL BELIEVE IT?

Again, what can I expect from impostor?

Seems that little impostor doesn't know that trading was illegal, and considered crime.

You had more chances of seeing maniac murderer on rampage, than seeing trader.

KGB is not sleeping. ESPECIALLY when it comes to foreign visitors.

They will arrest both you and this "trader".

Next time you invent some fake stories, try to read some books on era you are talking about, so it won't look so lame.



Impostor wrote:
Also in Leningrad, it was very common that when we left hotel to visit museums or only walk by Neva, we were approached one or two traders.


That is impossible - PHYSICALLY impossible.

All big cities are closely watched. ANY suspicious move would be noticed - when I was kid, I learned it in hard way.

If you was really approached by "one or two traders", you would be arrested on place where you stand.

Traders will be jailed, and you will be kicked out of country (if you are lucky enough), with no chances of returning.

Again, whom are you trying to persuade?



Impostor wrote:
Also western currency was highly appreciated and could be exchanged with three times better value than given in currency shops


If you did this, you won't be lucky to be kicked out of country, you will be arrested where you stand, just like "traders".

Monetary speculations with international currency is much more serious crime, than simple trading.

25 years, with confiscation.

If you really exchanged money there, you probably grown up in Soviet prison, and only recently returned from "places not so far away".



Impostor wrote:
How so? Do you think Inturist didn't arrange trips to groups containing minors and carpenters in 70s?


Of course it did! But what's your role in the group? And how you, while being only 12 years old, still remember words of carpenter 30 years later?



Impostor wrote:
At 50s they still had resources to do good work. We were talking about buildings of 70s.


Like I said before:

interrupt_00h wrote:
Since you are impostor, you do not know, that each new generation of civilian blocs were not worse, but better, than previous.

For example, by simply looking at bloc, you can say what generation it belongs to.

So, your ridiculous claim is nothing more than ridiculous claim.


Housing of 70ies were better than housing of 60ies, and housing of 60ies were better, than housing of 50ies.

They beong to different GENERATIONS of housing - that means they are different from each other like T-72 from T-55 and T-55 from T-34.

They are even called with different names: stalinka, khruschevka, brezhnevka. Compared to old khruschevka with its low ceilings, brezhnevka of 70ies is peak of comfort.



Impostor wrote:
The definition of 'habitable' is very difficult.


Like I said - you are impostor and I bet you never ever seen Soviet building of 70ies.

If they were "inhabitable" in 70ies, how they can become MORE habitable after 20 years without repairs? Are they "grow", like plants? Are you nuts or what?



Impostor wrote:
Some buildings in slums of Rio de Janeiro are habitable


Rio de Janeiro tolerates badly-built housing - it has friendly climate.

USSR (and especially Leningrad) does not tolerate badly-built housing.

Even if there was a single building that is as bad as you describe, its inhabitants won't survive winter.

Again, I don't know where do you get info about architecture, but I can bet that you never seen Soviet or Russian housing.



Impostor wrote:
Those repairs had to be done again much sooner than if the proper work with proper materials had been used.


Again, I demanded you to post proof - you posted nothing.

At least explain what SORT of repairs are you talking about. Otherwise, the discussion is pointless.



Impostor wrote:
I have seen many ad hoc repairs and self developed craftmanship during my travels and meetings with local people.


Ad hoc repairs of REINFORCED CONCRETE??? Do you think I will believe that crap?



Impostor wrote:
Nothing I know. But that wasn't the question. I wasn't commenting about architecture but about how those buildings were built and maintained at 70s. Carpenters have a lot to do with that.


Carpenters have not any more to do with that, than artists or writers.

You said SPECIFIC stuff:

Impostor wrote:
Even so that one professional carpenter in our group said that he would be kicked out from his job if he would produce such lousy job.


That is obviously lies, you made it up, since carpenter CANNOT produce such job - neither lousy, nor bad, he simply from different branch of work. Carpenter is working with materials like wood, and not with reinforced concrete.

Again, whom are you trying to persuade? I think it is obvious for everyone that you are impostor who is trying to save his reputation.



Impostor wrote:
He is one of the professionals who are needed to build and maintain houses.


Sure, for countryside dachas, devised for living there in summer. But not for city buildings, that were supposed to be habitable 365 days a year.



Impostor wrote:
I have used carpenter here as an example


In other words, YOU MADE IT UP, invented your "carpenter story" to back your ridiculous claim.

However, since you are impostor, you was foolish enough to choose "carpenter story", because you didn't know that there is simply no job for carpenter there.



Impostor wrote:
I have personal experience with talking and seeing his reactions in Leningrad during our trip.


Come on, you must be kidding! You was 12 years old, and it was 30 years ago!



Impostor wrote:
Well, we had repaired our own house in previous autumn, and it had needed a lot of work with wood, paint and wallpapers.


So what? I do not care what materials you use in Finland or USA.

Repairing my flat will not require any of these (aside, probably, the paint). However, it will require beton, cement and paste compounds to fix few cracks in walls.

As for USA, the temperature on its Northen Border is higher, than temperature on Russia's Southern Border. Russia simply do not have such warm territories like in USA, just like USA doesn't have cold territories like Russia.

Housing of USA could be made from plywood, with SINGLE window frame (in Russia, it will require at least twin frame).



Impostor wrote:
Now we have carpenter saying that quality of the visible work is not satisfactory. Could we then trust the quality of interior work or are carpenters the only group with failing quality?


First, I do not believe that this carpenter even existed. You made up this absurd story to back your absurd claim.

Second, what do you mean by "visible work"? Like I said, the only visible thing in which carpenter has a say is furniture.



Impostor wrote:
Did they? Are you mixing the needs and wants here? We are back to the question of basic needs. At 1945 the needs and want of people were much closer to basic needs than at 1940.


So? And what's the problem? Don't be idiot. If there was lack of certain resource, it was possible to return to consumption level of 1945, 1940, or even 1905. For example, modern consumption level in Russia is on level of XIX century. But nothing happens.




Impostor wrote:
In the SU consumption was never so important factor, and radical decrease of consuption shouldn't affect SU as much as USA.


That's exactly what I am talking about.



Impostor wrote:
Do you think the Soviet economy was designed to survive Armageddon without any dents in living standard?


Living standart will obviously decrease. But it will change nothing - it decreased so much times in Soviet and Russian history, that it will make no effect.

In case you don't know, USSR had conscription army, so all adult males were perfectly familiar with "trench lifestyle". If you think that lack of white shirts can bother person who was battering testground dirt with boots for three years, you are simply idiot.

And, above all else, I repeat: there was no deficit of white shirts in 70ies. They were available in all central stores. You made it up.



Impostor wrote:
I don't think so. Keeping that "factor of safety" become too heavy burden to Soviet economy to survive.


What you say is sophistics, contradiction of terms.

Factor of safety is EXACTLY what bring stability and survival to economy.

Soviet economy can exist even if all major industrial centers are nuked.



Impostor wrote:
Even if you design something, but you don't have resources to produce it, it doesn't help you at all.


The idiotic claim that country that holds 60% of planetary resources "don't have resources" is ridiculous.

Again, I repeat: whom are you trying to persuade?

For me, it is already clear that you are impostor who is trying to save his reputation. You simply do not have even basic knowledge about subject. Obviously, you never been to Leningrad - neither in 70ies, nor in modern times.



Impostor wrote:
So the reforms of Khurschev and Kosygin improved the living standard in SU?


No. Living standart was increasing in stable, predictable terms, without "cycles" or "jumps" that are typical for West.

Living standart was increasing until late 1985, when capitalism was installed. From late 1985-1986, living standart stopped increasing and started to decrease, and, what is more important CONTINUE TO DECREASE EVEN TODAY, TWENTY YEARS AFTER.

Only fool will blame "soviet economy gone bankrupt" for that, since Soviet planned economy ceased to exist 20 years ago.

Again, I repeat: THERE WAS NO ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN SOVIET UNION BEFORE PERESTROIKA. CAPITALIST REFORMS IS THE SOURCE OF ECONOMICAL DOWNFALL OF BOTH SOVIET UNION AND MODERN RUSSIA.

That is fact, well-recognized even by extreme right-wing pro-capitalist liberals in Russia.

If you fail to understand this well-known FACT, I can't take your claims seriously.

Did you read book I posted, by the way?

I repeat: Soviet Union was experiencing constant economical growth, which was faster, than in capitalist countries (and didn't have so much spending and consumption than in West), but it stopped after perestoika free market reforms were started in 1985-1986. Since then, economy is suffering not growth, but DOWNFALL. That means, each passing year, our economy is in worse shape, than before.

The only reason why we still have some heat, energy and food, is that because Soviet economy was so well-built that after 20 years without maintance, repair and investments, it is still online.

USSR didn't have any "debts", quite vice versa - it had huge "savings".

Modern Russia lives because of this savings - Soviet-era infrastructure, Soviet-era factories, Soviet-era roads, Soviet-era housing, etc.

So, what economy can survive for 20 years without investments? Only Soviet one.



Again, there are several obvious, universally-recognized facts:

1.First, economical situation is not directly connected to political situation. In 30ies, USA was in extremely bad shape ("Great Depression"), but it didn't change political system. Same with Russia and China during Civil Wars. The claim that Soviet economy can collapse for no reason is ridiculous, but claim that collapse of Soviet economy can lead to collapse of Soviet government is even more absurd. Stability of Soviet government didn't depend on economical conditions.

2.Second, economical situation before perestroika was very good. At least, better than in any Western countries. We didn't have such huge debt like USA or Europe, and our economy was growing faster. The fact is that 1985 year is THE PEAK of standart of living in Russia, compared to any times in history. Truly "golden age".

3.Third, economical situation started to deteriorate after abolishment of planned economy and installation of capitalism, and they are getting worse and worse each year, for almost 20 years so far. You can't blame Soviet economy for this, because Soviet planned system of economy ceased to exist 20 years ago.

4.Fourth, the only reason why Russian economy is still online, is "savings", created in Soviet era. Without these savings, we would live in caves now. The fact that Russian infrastructure is still online and somewhat functional (at least energy and resource sectors), is the best proof that USSR didn't have any "debts" to itself, it only had "savings".


These facts are no longer debated, since they are well-researched and obvious. Even most radical proponents and supporters of market reforms recognize them.

People who do not recognize these facts are simply not taken seriously in community of economists.

Since I am economist, and you try to "deny" these well-know facts, it is hard for me to take you seriously.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 30 Dec 2004, 11:01
Gorba launched perestroika because he wanted to give boost to stagnating soviet economy. He really did not wan't to crash empire, he just wanted to keep up with USA.
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 30 Dec 2004, 11:49
Turhapuro wrote:
Gorba launched perestroika because he wanted to give boost to stagnating soviet economy.


Fake Western agitprop, that could work in 80ies, but won't work today, since that after fall of USSR, on conference in Turkey, GORBACHEV HAS ALREADY ADMITTED, THAT THE GOAL OF HIS ENTIRE LIFE WAS DESTRUCTION OF COMMUNISM AND SOVIET UNION!


Turhapuro wrote:
He really did not wan't to crash empire, he just wanted to keep up with USA.


USSR was already ahead in USA. USSR was self-sufficient economy, USA was not, it depended on international trade. Simple naval blockade - and 80% of population of USA will simply die of hunger and diseases, suffering deficit of oil, food, clothing, ammunition, etc.

Even China and European Union were much superior in terms of real economy (read: industry), than USA, which was sort of big bank. The only competitable stuff USA produced in 70-80ies, was green paper.

Look around, what you see? Almost all goods in American shops come from Asia - China, Korea, Japan, etc. Even flags of USA are now produced in China.

USA economy is joke. In 50ies, it was probably relatively strong and had some self-sufficient industries, but by 80ies, American industry ceased to exist. They call it "post-industrial" economy, but in reality, it is just "good old" gesheft, practiced by Carthage and Khazar empires in "good old" times.


As for Gorby, with most powerful army on planet under his command, and the only self-sufficient industrial-grade economy on planet, Gorby had all chanced to become Master of World. If he just waited, he had all chances to celebrate victory over West long before 2000 year.

The problem, you see, is that it was not in list of his goals. He already openly admitted, that the goal of his life was DESTRUCTION OF SOVIET UNION.

So, argue with Gorby, not with me, I just repeat his words.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 30 Dec 2004, 18:22
Looks like you read only soviet propaganda and accept only pro-russian evidence. I accept both russian and western sources. For example I am sure that much of iraq news are propaganda but you believe only those news that say yanks lost 100 000 men and 10 000 tanks in four hours at Falluja.

>> Gorba launched perestroika because he wanted to give
>> boost to stagnating soviet economy.
> GORBACHEV HAS ALREADY ADMITTED, THAT THE
> GOAL OF HIS ENTIRE LIFE WAS DESTRUCTION OF
> COMMUNISM AND SOVIET UNION!

Ofcourse he says because he wants to be remembered as a great leader and friend of west. It would not sound good if he said "I just wanted to compete with west but I accidenty trashed whole empire"?

>> He really did not wan't to crash empire, he just wanted
>> to keep up with USA.

> USSR was already ahead in USA.

You must be kidding. Are you really suggesting that Gorba was so stupid that he destroyed suberb form government?

> USSR was self-sufficient economy

In your dreams. For example in 1979 crop was poor and USSR was forced to buy food from abroad.

> USA was not, it depended on international trade.

Advanced nations have much foreign trade.

> Simple naval blockade

Simple? With what forces? Do you think that USSR hadf even a chance to naval blockade against US?

> - and 80% of population of USA will simply die of hunger and
> diseases, suffering deficit of oil, food, clothing, ammunition, etc.

You obviously have no connection to real world.

> Even China and European Union were much superior in terms
> of real economy (read: industry)

USA has been world industrial powerhouse from first world war.

> The only competitable stuff USA produced in 70-80ies,
> was green paper.

Ever heard Microsoft, IBM, Xerox etc?

> Look around, what you see? Almost all goods in American shops
> come from Asia - China, Korea, Japan, etc. Even flags of USA
> are now produced in China.

I though you communists call it exploitation.

> The problem, you see, is that it was not in list of his goals.
> He already openly admitted, that the goal of his life
> was DESTRUCTION OF SOVIET UNION.

Ofcourse he says that now. If he had pulled it off and USSR was still here, he would say that "I made these reforms because I believe in communism".

And even if that is true, and communism is just suberb form of government, why it keeps choosing leaders that destroy it (every eastern block country, USSR, China, Vietnam)?
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 30 Dec 2004, 19:33
Turhapuro wrote:
Looks like you read only soviet propaganda and accept only pro-russian evidence.


I accept only real evidence, regardless of sides.

The problem is that since Medieval era, West has completely lost any sense of connection with reality, and most of its claims are extremely europecentrist.

That is nothing new. European works on non-Western history were always the same crap.

Communist traditionally call Robert Conquest to be shameless propagandist, but really, he is just kid who cheats his mother to get a cookie compared to guys like Sletser and other European historicans of feudal era.

Usually, I try to avoid discussion with Europeans on history, since their version of World History is very different from non-European history.

I'd faster believe historicans from Madagascar or Nicaragua, than historican from Europe.

Because of that, when I argue with Westerners, I argue only with MEASURABLE facts, the one that cannot include any political bias by very definition.

I already posted detailed economical research, here it is, again:

http://www.patriotica.ru/actual/white_book.zip

Again, it contains MEASURABLE data.

Yet, you, Westerners, live in some abstract world in which numbers can be ignored.



Turhapuro wrote:
I accept both russian and western sources.


I bet you never read ANY Russian sources.



Turhapuro wrote:
For example I am sure that much of iraq news are propaganda but you believe only those news that say yanks lost 100 000 men and 10 000 tanks in four hours at Falluja.


I never said such crap. Stop casting aspersions - it is typically Western style of discussion - perverting the words of opponent.

Total measurable tank casualities, in ENTIRE conflict, since 2003, are from 150 to 200, and nowhere even close to "10,000 tanks", for the simple reason that Americans do not have so much tanks.




Turhapuro wrote:
Ofcourse he says because he wants to be remembered as a great leader and friend of west. It would not sound good if he said "I just wanted to compete with west but I accidenty trashed whole empire"?


Your logic is flawed, and only backs my point.

If he says "I wanted to crash the empire", he would be loved in West, but hated in non-West.

If he says "I didn't want to crash the empire, but it crashed", he would be loved in non-West, but hated in West.

Your claim just proves that he was pro-Western politician, who accepted title of "arch-traitor" just to "look good".



Turhapuro wrote:
You must be kidding. Are you really suggesting that Gorba was so stupid that he destroyed suberb form government?


Yes, Gorby was exactly SO stupid.

However, his supporters were not that stupid.

The fact is that no matter how much powerful USSR is, they will still be equal to the rest of population.

They wanted to change their status: stop becoming mere employees of society and become masters. That's called "privatization".



Turhapuro wrote:
In your dreams. For example in 1979 crop was poor and USSR was forced to buy food from abroad.


Hello? Hello? Welcome to real world! USSR never imported food (aside, probably, from exotics like Indian tea), especially bread. It imported FORAGE CROPS. Do you know the difference between FOOD (used for eating) and FORAGE CROPS?

Your Western propaganda has completely twisted your perception of reality.

By the way, about crops.

The entire idea of agriculture is producing more food calories, than energy calories spent, with difference compensated by sunlight.

That is happening in all serious nations.

However, in America, agriculture is not just inefficient, but absurd. For single food calorie, they spend ten calories of fuel.

Instead of spending LESS, they spend TEN TIMES MORE.

The difference is compensated by printing money and buying oil.



Turhapuro wrote:
Advanced nations have much foreign trade.


Yes. They sell complex items and buy less complex ones.

However, the only stuff that USA exports in mass quantities is dollar.

Everything else is imported. Are you familiar with America's DEBT? It is huge, so huge that it makes debts of other nations combined look like dwarfs.

USA is sustaining its existance by printing more money.

When dollar will fall, USA will also fall, to the level of the most undeveloped countries.

Since America cannot produce anything.



Turhapuro wrote:
Simple? With what forces? Do you think that USSR hadf even a chance to naval blockade against US?


USSR had forces to eliminate all American naval fleet in two weeks. I posted detailed statistics already. And with American navy no more, naval blockade is easy.



Turhapuro wrote:
You obviously have no connection to real world.


In real world, USA does not produce anything from green paper.

Because of that, USA is in deep shit now, and European Union's currency is rising.

USA tries to bring down Euro by bombing various countries (check Yugoslavia) with European-made weaponry, but it still won't work in long term.



Turhapuro wrote:
USA has been world industrial powerhouse from first world war.


Exactly!

And by end of WW2, it was producing around half of what the rest of humankind produces.

In middle XX century, USA was doubtlessly industrial superpower.

However, there is such thing as GLOBALIZATION.

Today, USA doesn't produce even half of thing it produced in middle XX century.

Even USA weapons are European-made. Just check the "Abrams" tank that was debated. Does it have ANY American components? German gun, british armor, chineese electronics, etc.



Turhapuro wrote:
Ever heard Microsoft, IBM, Xerox etc?


LOL! All electronics are produced in Taiwan, Korea, China and countries like this.

Companies can have American names, but their factories are located in Asia, and use Asian manpower and personel.



Turhapuro wrote:
I though you communists call it exploitation.


China, South Korea and Japan are NOT communist countries.

They are capitalist ones, but a bit more hard-working, than yanks.



Turhapuro wrote:
Ofcourse he says that now. If he had pulled it off and USSR was still here, he would say that "I made these reforms because I believe in communism".


Turhapuro, are you stupid or what? I already explained, that HE COULD NOT PULL IT OFF! It was clear from the very beginning, that these reforms are suicide and betrayal.

Attempt to install market economy in Russia can lead only to a single outcome - total destruction of infrastructure.



Turhapuro wrote:
And even if that is true, and communism is just suberb form of government


I never claimed that. "Superb" is emotional term. Some people can consider cannibalism to be "superb" because human meat is "tasty".

I just claimed, that in this specific country, it was much more economically and militarily stronger, than all other systems that were tried in this specific country.

I also claimed that the reason of its downfall was not economy or military, but politico-dilpmatic failure.

I never claimed that it was "better" or something.

I am open-minded person. I want return of socialism not because I am some fundamentalist, but because this system actually WORKED in Russia, and is exactly what is needed for Russia today.



Turhapuro wrote:
why it keeps choosing leaders that destroy it (every eastern block country, USSR, China, Vietnam)?


It has nothing to do with "communism". Just check how many regimes are overthrown in that way - socialist ones are in minority.

Is modern republic of Ukraine a socialist regime? No. But there is currently CIA-funded neonazi coup in Yeltsin's style.

Being Westerner europo-centerist, you seem to focus only on USSR and USA, forgetting about remaining 200 countries of planet, most of which are capitalist.

From this point, capitalism has MUCH greater "failure rate". Just think about CAPITALIST countries like Madagaskar.

How many SUCCESSFUL capitalist nations on planet? Only seven - so-called "G7".

Want to know why? Because there cannot be more.

If there are exploiters, there should be exploited - that's law of preservation.

That's why we have so-called "Golden Billion".
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 30 Dec 2004, 21:47
> I accept only real evidence, regardless of sides.

I just don't believe you.

> I already posted detailed economical research, here it is, again:

> http://www.patriotica.ru/actual/white_book.zip

> Again, it contains MEASURABLE data.

I don't even want to read your bullshit. Every finnish who visited USSR at 70s or 80s saw what was happening there. Whiskey already told you that.

> Yet, you, Westerners, live in some abstract world in which
> numbers can be ignored.

Untrue. But when numbers are clearly in contradiction with real world, you should ignore numbers.

>> I accept both russian and western sources.

> I bet you never read ANY Russian sources.

I read them when they are referated in books I read.

>> Ofcourse he says because he wants to be remembered as
>> a great leader and friend of west. It would not sound
>> good if he said "I just wanted to compete with west but I
>> accidenty trashed whole empire"?

> If he says "I wanted to crash the empire", he would be loved
> in West, but hated in non-West.

He says that he wanted to chance USSR to democratic market economy. Ofcourse he says that.

> If he says "I didn't want to crash the empire, but it crashed",
> he would be loved in non-West, but hated in West.

I think he would be hated because he destroyed empire. Do you still love czar? He was bad leader too and crashed Russian empire.


> However, his supporters were not that stupid.

> The fact is that no matter how much powerful USSR is, they will
> still be equal to the rest of population.

Get real. In USSR party members were not equal, they had their own shops etc.

> > In your dreams. For example in 1979 crop was poor and USSR
> > was forced to buy food from abroad.
>Hello? Hello? Welcome to real world! USSR never imported food

Yes it imported. Your crop was only 179 million tons. At 1978 it was 235 million tons. -79 was bad year.

> The entire idea of agriculture is producing more food
> calories, than energy calories spent, with difference
> compensated by sunlight.

No it is not. Basically the idea is to produce food using less money than you get from selling food. It means that use spend resources than you get from it.

> However, in America, agriculture is not just inefficient,
> but absurd. For single food calorie, they spend ten calories of fuel.

> Instead of spending LESS, they spend TEN TIMES MORE.

I really don't know about energy levels of food production but your reasoning don't hold water.

> Everything else is imported. Are you familiar with America's DEBT?
> It is huge, so huge that it makes debts of other nations
> combined look like dwarfs.

USa has its problems as it has had many times before. USA trade balance has big deficid, it is not good for that country. But so have had many countries before. It just means that they will have some rough times ahead.

> When dollar will fall, USA will also fall, to the level of the
> most undeveloped countries.

Why? When dollar falls, their export will increase and import decrease. Their foreign debt do not increase as dollar decreases because their debt is in dollars.

>>Simple? With what forces? Do you think that USSR hadf
>> even a chance to naval blockade against US?

> USSR had forces to eliminate all American naval fleet in two weeks.

Nonsense.

> In real world, USA does not produce anything from green paper.

They have most high tech firms.

> USA tries to bring down Euro by bombing various countries
> (check Yugoslavia)

How bombing Yugoslavia will bring Euro down?

>>Ever heard Microsoft, IBM, Xerox etc?

> LOL! All electronics are produced in Taiwan, Korea, China and
>countries like this.

So? USA makes R&D, others manufacture.

>>I though you communists call it exploitation.

> China, South Korea and Japan are NOT communist countries.

I thought you think that USa exploits everyone else by buing stuff from them. At leas wheelchairman and etc thinks so.

>> Ofcourse he says that now. If he had pulled it off and
>> USSR was still here, he would say that "I made these
>> reforms because I believe in communism".

> Turhapuro, are you stupid or what? I already explained, that HE
> COULD NOT PULL IT OFF!

Easy to say now when we know what happened.


> I am open-minded person. I want return of socialism not because
> I am some fundamentalist, but because this system actually
> WORKED in Russia, and is exactly what is needed for Russia today.

You should just work harder with capitalism.

> How many SUCCESSFUL capitalist nations on planet?
> Only seven - so-called "G7".

You exaggerate capitalist countries. Many of African nations were at least semi-socialists. Marx was popular there.

And there is much more succesful capitalist nation than 7. There is much more succesful capitalist nations in Europe.

> Want to know why? Because there cannot be more.

> If there are exploiters, there should be exploited - that's
> law of preservation.

You logic fails.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

Can you tell me which nations in this list are losers?
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 31 Dec 2004, 09:20
Turhapuro wrote:
I don't even want to read your bullshit.


It is not "my bullshit".

It was written by S.Y.Glazyiev, S.G.Kara-Murza and S.A.Batchikov - well-known and respected specialists in Russia.

It surely has more weight that fake stories of some finnish neonazi.


Actually, I really don't understand your aggressiveness. I am defending scientific, measurable fact, and you try to involve politics here.



Turhapuro wrote:
Every finnish who visited USSR at 70s or 80s saw what was happening there. Whiskey already told you that.


I already proved that this impostor never been to Leningrad or other parts of continental Russia.



Turhapuro wrote:
Untrue. But when numbers are clearly in contradiction with real world, you should ignore numbers.


The problem is that by "real world" you Westerners, understand "Western perception of real world", and it really has nothing to do with REAL world.

I gave you well-respected scientific research on Russian economy that backs my claim.

Please, if you want intelligent discussion, provide me with scientific research on Russian economy that backs YOUR claim.

You didn't do it yet, and because of that I consider your rants as typical Westerner fanfaronade.



Turhapuro wrote:
I read them when they are referated in books I read.


I don't believe you. You lied too much. Provide proof: what are NAMES of these sources?

I gave you the most respected source on topic - and you didn't even bothered checking it. Because of that, I can clearly say that you do not bother checking non-Western sources.



Turhapuro wrote:
He says that he wanted to chance USSR to democratic market economy. Ofcourse he says that.


No. He says that he wanted to DESTROY Soviet Union.

As for "democratic market economy", this words quickly turned into swear-words.

All Parties who claimed that they wants to build "democratic market economy" failed to pass 5%-barrier on elections.



Turhapuro wrote:
I think he would be hated because he destroyed empire.


Lenin also destroyed Empire, but he is not hated, quite vice-versa. So?

By the way, if Lenin didn't started revolution, Finland would still be part of Russian Empire.




Turhapuro wrote:
Do you still love czar? He was bad leader too and crashed Russian empire.


What the point in empire when it has only place to rich fat-asses?



Turhapuro wrote:
Get real. In USSR party members were not equal, they had their own shops etc.


LOL! You are really idiot. This paltry little privileges they got after installation of Kosyginism (under Stalinism, they didn't got privileges, quite vice versa - they had handicaps) cannot even closely be compared to HUGE privileges of MODERN RUSSIAN BUREAUCRATS.

And they cannot even closely be compared to privileges of modern Russian CAPITALISTS.

It is like:

Late Brezhnevism:
ordinary worker - 5 roubles
CPSU party worker - 6 roubles

Modern Russian Capitalism:
ordinary worker - 5 roubles
EdRo party worker - 5,000 roubles
Oligarch - 5,000,000,000 roubles

That is really incomparable concepts.



Turhapuro wrote:
Yes it imported.


It imported FORAGE CROPS. It is not supposed for eating, in case you don't know.

Are you familiar with how agriculture works?

Part of crops is re-seeded, part of crops is used as forage, and the remaining crops are processed into food.



Turhapuro wrote:
Your crop was only 179 million tons. At 1978 it was 235 million tons. -79 was bad year.


Of course it was bad year (try to grow crops in country with 3/4 territory being permafrost!).

However, changes of forage crops purchases didn't changed. In 1977/78 USSR purchased 14.6 million tons of forage crops, in 1978/79 - 15.7 million tons of forage crops.

Now, let's try to compare Soviet agriculture with capitalist agriculture.

If in 1979, we got only 179 million tons, in 1990, after capitalist perestroika, we got only 113.5 million tons, and in 1999, we got only 47.8 tons.

So, your argument misses the point: Soviet agriculture is better (at least for Russia), than capitalist agriculture.

Stop comparing USA and USSR - they have completely different climate. Compare USSR and CIS.



Turhapuro wrote:
No it is not. Basically the idea is to produce food using less money than you get from selling food. It means that use spend resources than you get from it.


Money is not measurement of resources, money is measurement of price.

Price - result of agreement between seller and buyer.

It really have nothing to do with efficiency of agriculture or industry.



Turhapuro wrote:
I really don't know about energy levels of food production but your reasoning don't hold water.


Typical Western crap "I do not know anything about it, but I disagree with you". Cretin.



Turhapuro wrote:
USa has its problems as it has had many times before. USA trade balance has big deficid, it is not good for that country. But so have had many countries before. It just means that they will have some rough times ahead.


That's exactly what I am talking about. Modern USA is not good example of industrial power.



Turhapuro wrote:
Why? When dollar falls, their export will increase and import decrease. Their foreign debt do not increase as dollar decreases because their debt is in dollars.


The question, is that decrease of import means deficit of most basic goods.

America no longer produce even such simple things, like TVs.

And America is VERY reliant on oil, which USA won't be able to afford in such quantities.

There will be deficit of food, medicine, clothing, and everything else that you import.

Attempts to increase exports will be made, but USA no longer have anything that world can buy in sufficient quantities.

The place of world leader won't be vacant - be sure that European Union or China will try to fit it.

And after that, America just one of many developing nations of the world, like Argentine.



Turhapuro wrote:
Nonsense.


I already proved this "nonsense" with facts and numbers. American navy is not designed for naval combat, only for littoral warfare. It was designed as colonial fleet, and remains such today.

I am much more afraid of Indian navy, actually.




Turhapuro wrote:
They have most high tech firms.


These high-tech firms are using Japaneese, Russian, Chineese, Indian, Korean specialists, and its assembly shops are located abroad.

The problem of America is that it failed to create modern national scientific education, focusing mostly on "business education" and prefering to import specialists from foreign countries.

How many native-born Americans are working there? I doubt that percentage is more than one-digit number.

I really respect American engineers of XIX century, but these times have passed. Americans prefer to be lawyers and bankers, than engineers and scientists.

The level of mathematical education in USA is much lower, than in India or Russia. That is well-known fact.



Turhapuro wrote:
How bombing Yugoslavia will bring Euro down?


It ALREADY brought down. Did you read history?

Before bombings, Euro managed to get above dollar.

After bombings, dollar became popular on market, and its position rised, outperforming Euro.

No, Euro has again managed to get above dollar. Let's see what happens next.

If Euro became too popular, people begin to sell dollars and buy Euros. Expect fall of dollar, and fall of USA.



Turhapuro wrote:
So? USA makes R&D, others manufacture.


These times are in history now. Just check Silicon Valley. Chineese, Russians, Indians... No native-born Americans there any more, aside from laywers and financists.

America lost ability to produce national specialists. It prefers to import it - that is much more financially-effective.

However, that will work only when USA have money. If dollar falls, these non-native specialists will find better work in European Union or China.

Like I said: currently, America stands on dollar. If dollar is dominating - USA can buy anything. If dollar falls - USA is in ruins, even Mexico will beat them.



Turhapuro wrote:
I thought you think that USa exploits everyone else by buing stuff from them. At leas wheelchairman and etc thinks so.


I also think so. Or did you thought I claimed otherwise?

Like I said: modern-day America is dependant on dollar. It is USA tool to control the world.

That was bad choice, but America did it, effectively murdering national industry and science. It became "international bank", that sucks resources from other country, by "selling" them green paper than can be printed unlimitedly.



Turhapuro wrote:
Easy to say now when we know what happened.


Did you read my post?

Not just "it happened", it CONTINUES to happen.

Compared to modern capitalist downfall of Russian economy, perestroika is cake-walk.

There is NO way capitalist Russia can survive or even be prosperous.

You see, that is FACT. Whether good or bad, but socialism was the only system that WORKED in Russia.

Just compare modern Russia to USSR, and you will learn, that at least for Russia, socialism is much better, than capitalism.

Capitalism is not even an option for Russia, since it does not guarantee survival of nation.



Turhapuro wrote:
You should just work harder with capitalism.


We are working harder and harder, for around 20 years now. However, that is simply pointless.

Come on, don't you think that if we could do Stalin's industrialization (which was THE fastest economical leap in history of humankind), we couldn't succeed in capitalism if it was POSSIBLE to succeed?

Improvements in capitalism does not increase our wealth, but DECREASES it.

There are natural, climating reasons that prevent that.

Besides, even without these reasons, it won't work. There is no way we can join "Golden Billion" without previously exterminating one of nations that are included in it.

"To add one more drop to glass of water, you need to remove one drop first."



Turhapuro wrote:
You exaggerate capitalist countries. Many of African nations were at least semi-socialists. Marx was popular there.


Marx was popular, because capitalism didn't work there.

Most of them were claiming to be "socialist" to get support from USSR.



Turhapuro wrote:
And there is much more succesful capitalist nation than 7. There is much more succesful capitalist nations in Europe.


The problem is that they don't fit grade of self-dependant ones, and exist because of neighbourhood with more successful states. That means they do not have independant politics, and are just puppets of more successful ones.

Just check how quickly countries of Eastern Europe supported Iraq invasion.

Their loyalty is rewarded by wealth. If they are not loyal, they will be bombed and destroyed, like Yugoslavia.

I don't think it is correct to call life of satisfied slave to be "succesful".



Turhapuro wrote:
You logic fails.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

Can you tell me which nations in this list are losers?


From economical point - numbers 3, 4, 7, 15, 17, 18 (not a), 25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50... etc

Also, you can add in the list countries like South Korea - they have rich top class, but majority of population lives like shit. But then again, the same is in all capitalist countries, including USA.


By the way, "nationmaster" is not quite respected source. It claims that North Korea has single-party system (they fixed it recently), Russian state was formed in 1521 and Ukraine (which was formed as ethnicity in middle XIX century) was the center of the Kievan Rus, and the Alaska was not leased, but sold.


Like I said, West is very ignorant about non-West issues. All its claims about non-Western situation and history are biased, opiniated and have some political goal.

That's why it is so hard to discuss history issues with you guys - I am trying to defend scientific fact about USSR, and you try to involve politics here.

Western version of history is just collection of politically-correct myths and propaganda, that is made to make West look good, and everyone else look bad.

West don't even bother to provide any consistensy in your claims.

One day you claim that Stalin "killed" 6 million. The next day, when war in Korea starts, you double the number up to 12 million. Then, when there is peace treaty, you decrease number by 10 million. Then, when "eagles" got to office, you increase them by 10, claiming that it was 100 million. You do not have ANY history, you have only politically-biased myths that do not even based on some real reasearch. You can believe mutually contradictory stuff (like believing that Stalin was BOTH complete idiot AND evil genius).

That's because Western judeochristian philosophy cannot accept shades of grey, only black and white.

Your brain simply cannot fit anything that is beyond your primitive judeochristian dualism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 01 Jan 2005, 16:34
> It surely has more weight that fake stories of some
> finnish neonazi.


Do you mean Whiskey?

> Actually, I really don't understand your aggressiveness.

What is wrong with you? The one who is aggressive and insulting other people is you.

> I am defending scientific, measurable fact, and you try
> to involve politics here.

This must be joke...

>>Every finnish who visited USSR at 70s or 80s saw what
> >was happening there. Whiskey already told you that.
> I already proved that this impostor never been to
> Leningrad or other parts of continental Russia.

No, you just want to believe that he is impostor because it hits your view of USSR.

> Please, if you want intelligent discussion, provide me
> with scientific research on Russian economy that backs YOUR claim.

Why? You would not believe it and you would just say "it is neonazi propaganda". Am I right?

> By the way, if Lenin didn't started revolution, Finland would
> still be part of Russian Empire.


Probably true. Finland did not want to sedece before bolshevics took power. This same applies to many parts of Russian Empire, bats etc wanted to get out after Lenin took power. Everyone knew that bolshevic rule will be ruthless.

>> Yes it imported.

> It imported FORAGE CROPS.

Whatever. Obviously because this your claim of self-sufficient USSR holds no water.

>>No it is not. Basically the idea is to produce food using
>> less money than you get from selling food. It means
>> that use spend resources than you get from it.

> Money is not measurement of resources, money is
>measurement of price.

And price is measurement of scarcicity. If something is scarce, it is usually hard to produce and thus it costs much.

>>I really don't know about energy levels of food production but
>> your reasoning don't hold water.

> Typical Western crap "I do not know anything about it, but
> I disagree with you". Cretin.

You just don't know anything about economics. If you claim that you invented perpetual motion machine, I would not have to study it because I can say that it is impossible. I can say that the point of agriculture is not to calculate calories but to produce food cost efficiently.



>>Why? When dollar falls, their export will increase and
>>import decrease. Their foreign debt do not increase as
>> dollar decreases because their debt is in dollars.
> The question, is that decrease of import means deficit of
> most basic goods.

> America no longer produce even such simple things, like TVs.

> And America is VERY reliant on oil, which USA won't be able
> to afford in such quantities.

> There will be deficit of food, medicine, clothing, and everything
> else that you import.

You can't seriously think like that? You must be joking, this is the most idiotic thing I have heard from you. USA is food exported, they don't have to buy it. And clothes are dirt cheap, even if their price goes up three fold, it does not mean that they can't afford them any more. And oil. If americans chance their big cars to cheaper smaller ones (like in Europe), they won't need oil so much. And many of the biggest medical companies are american.

>>How bombing Yugoslavia will bring Euro down?

> It ALREADY brought down. Did you read history?

> Before bombings, Euro managed to get above dollar.

If things happen same time, it does not mean that they are related.

> No, Euro has again managed to get above dollar. Let's
> see what happens next.

By your logic, it must be the bombing of Iraq that has made euro stronger (real reason is USA trade deficit).



> Improvements in capitalism does not increase our wealth,
> but DECREASES it.

> There are natural, climating reasons that prevent that.

So basically russians just can't do it and are doomed to stay poor, just like in the old days of USSR?

>>And there is much more succesful capitalist nation than 7.
>>There is much more succesful capitalist nations in Europe.
> The problem is that they don't fit grade of self-dependant ones

So what? It is very hard to be self-dependant if you don't have oilfields.

> and exist because of neighbourhood with more successful
> states. That means they do not have independant politics, and
> are just puppets of more successful ones.

Just like USSR where Russia was pulling the strings...

> Also, you can add in the list countries like South Korea -
>they have rich top class, but majority of population lives
> like shit.

Have you been there? And how about its northern neighbour, North Korea. It is basically one big prison.

> I am trying to defend scientific fact about USSR

How you can say that? You can't even believe first hand accounts about USSR.
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Sep 2004, 01:53
Komsomol
Post 02 Jan 2005, 03:38
For god's sake, Turhapuro, why do you dodge every question? 70% of your retarded post was simply you saying that "I don't know anything, but because I don't your reasoning doesn't hold water."

I believe Interrupt, here, because I am Ukrainian! My father was citizen of USSR and he backs up all of Interrupt's facts.

I really have had enough of Americans and Finns rewriting history...
When we hang the Capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
-Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 02 Jan 2005, 09:21
Comrade Vlad wrote:
I believe Interrupt, here, because I am Ukrainian! My father was citizen of USSR and he backs up all of Interrupt's facts.

So you father knows energy balance of agriculture, is familiar with USA economy, knows specifications of US and USSR navy etc etc? I doubt that.

and byu the way, this is not the first time when interrupt "facts" are wrong. For example, he claimed that finnish submachine gun did not have drum clip and was 100% sure about it. Based on this he claimed everyone else impostors and liars.

Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.