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

What do people miss most from the old days?

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 Mar 2010, 14:27
He's missing almost-certain workplace(it was hard to get fired),enormous privileges(13th wage,buying in "syndicate shops" at low prices,getting numerous bonuses,rewards,etc...for example,i have a family member who used to work in the chocolate factory,and she would always take much chocolate from there and bring me and my sister every time.It was true even in the 90's.") free summer vacation on the seaside,etc.
This "buying of social peace",combined with poor efficiency destroyed Yugoslavia in the end.
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Mar 2010, 23:25
Pioneer
Post 02 Apr 2010, 12:34
Could you say that the safe conditions communism created after all destroyed the system, because the people didn't knew that in the capitalist state safety that was taken for granted did not existed?
Learn, Learn, Learn - Vladimir Lenin
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2010, 13:40
What "communism"? Yugoslavia was a socialist country.
And sry,i don't understand your question:
Quote:
Could you say that the safe conditions communism created after all destroyed the system, because the people didn't knew that in the capitalist state safety that was taken for granted did not existed?


Can you please explain?
Soviet cogitations: 182
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 May 2009, 20:58
Pioneer
Post 19 Apr 2010, 08:21
Quote:
people didn't knew that in the capitalist state safety that was taken for granted did not existed?


yes, people took the free healthcare, housing, education for granted and ssumed they would simply enjoy the consumerism of the west on top of it, ignoring the end of full employment, privatisation etc. IN 1989 people didn't bring down the system because they hated socialism, but rather they wanted an improved version of it.
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Mar 2010, 23:25
Pioneer
Post 03 May 2010, 23:57
Quote:
yes, people took the free healthcare, housing, education for granted and ssumed they would simply enjoy the consumerism of the west on top of it, ignoring the end of full employment, privatisation etc. IN 1989 people didn't bring down the system because they hated socialism, but rather they wanted an improved version of it.

What are the proves of this statement. I don't say I don't believe you. But I want an objective vision about the facts.
Learn, Learn, Learn - Vladimir Lenin
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 04 May 2010, 12:21
Quote:
What are the proves of this statement. I don't say I don't believe you. But I want an objective vision about the facts.


Read books about Yugoslavia.
Talk with people.
Research Yugoslav laws and budget allocations.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 04 May 2010, 13:01
Quote:
yes, people took the free healthcare, housing, education for granted and ssumed they would simply enjoy the consumerism of the west on top of it, ignoring the end of full employment, privatisation etc. IN 1989 people didn't bring down the system because they hated socialism, but rather they wanted an improved version of it.


That applies to like every other Eastern Bloc state as well, except maybe Poland and Romania.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jan 2010, 18:17
Komsomol
Post 07 Jul 2010, 19:01
Quote:
Talk with people.

I went to Slovakia but I haven't dare to speak about USSR with people.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 16 Jul 2010, 10:10
Talking to ex-Soviet citizens isn't going to be as "rewarding" as talking to say, ex-East Germans because what they'll probably remember best is Gorbachev's Soviet Union that was falling apart. The parents of a friend of mine told me lots of stuff about shortages and power failures and stuff like that, although it really only got that bad under Gorbachev. You'd need to find somebody who remembers life under Khrushchev, because that was like the only time when life in the USSR was really awesome, as far as I know.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4431
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 16 Jul 2010, 21:20
Quote:
Talking to ex-Soviet citizens isn't going to be as "rewarding" as talking to say, ex-East Germans because what they'll probably remember best is Gorbachev's Soviet Union that was falling apart. The parents of a friend of mine told me lots of stuff about shortages and power failures and stuff like that, although it really only got that bad under Gorbachev. You'd need to find somebody who remembers life under Khrushchev, because that was like the only time when life in the USSR was really awesome, as far as I know.


That's not the case at all. Sure if you talk to someone who was a child or a teenager during the collapse they might only remember bad things, but otherwise most people (even the anti-Soviet ones) note how things really got worse after 1985. The distinction between pro-Soviet/neutral observers and anti-Soviet ones is that the former blame Gorbachev, whereas the latter talk about the downward spiral as an inevitibility of socialism.

Also, the 1970s, called by many the "golden 70s" was to most Soviet people the time to be most nostalgic about, not the 1960s. Thinking about it, the 1970s was the only time in the 20th century for Russia where peace, growing prosperity, and social stability reigned.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 16 Jul 2010, 22:09
That's very interesting that you and others point to the 70's as the high tide of the USSR. In the West, Brezhnev's era is seen as a period of mounting bureaucracy, corruption, and economic stagnation. The only good mention Brezhnev ever gets is for signing the SALT treaty. Why do you think this huge discrepancy exists between what Soviet citizens remember, and what historians label the "beginning of the end period"?
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 17 Jul 2010, 00:40
Quote:
That's not the case at all. Sure if you talk to someone who was a child or a teenager during the collapse they might only remember bad things, but otherwise most people (even the anti-Soviet ones) note how things really got worse after 1985. The distinction between pro-Soviet/neutral observers and anti-Soviet ones is that the former blame Gorbachev, whereas the latter talk about the downward spiral as an inevitibility of socialism.


The parents of a Russian friend of mine tend to be like "Socialism = no hot water and queues". I've never heard them say that it was different before Gorbachev.

Quote:
Also, the 1970s, called by many the "golden 70s" was to most Soviet people the time to be most nostalgic about, not the 1960s. Thinking about it, the 1970s was the only time in the 20th century for Russia where peace, growing prosperity, and social stability reigned.


Why? I don't mean to deny that you're right, you obviously know much more about this than me, but I've always had the impression that under Khrushchev, people had much more personal freedom to enjoy than under Brezhnev. Khrushchev allowed previously unheard-of amounts of criticism, he reduced much of the political repression of the Stalin era, etc. He even allowed Beatlemania to reach the USSR, while Brezhnev reverted most of these liberalizations. Didn't people react negatively to that? Isn't it true that telling political jokes, or publishing criticism, would have gotten you into more trouble under Brezhnev than under Khrushchev?

Is it only because there were probably more consumer goods during the 70s?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
bie
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 18
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Jul 2010, 00:07
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 31 Jul 2010, 01:16
It is all true that was written above. Many people in former socialist states in Eastern Europe now realize what socialism gave to them. You may find an interest at having a look at the below link - there are ordinary people discussing socialism on one of the popular Polish websites:

http://forum.interia.pl/watek-chronolog ... c,1,94,0,0 (original - Polish)
http://translate.google.ie/translate?hl ... 94%2C0%2C0 (English - google translate).

It is amazing and surprising that most of the opinions were very positive and rational, despite more than 20 years of vulgar, constant, institutional anticommunist propaganda. It is another evidence that anticommunism is the ideology of a very small privileged minority.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 33
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Aug 2010, 16:57
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2010, 17:27
Wow, some nice forum you guys have here... Just found it.

As someone who was born and grew up in Belarus (the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic back in the times of the USSR) and lives in NYC today it is somewhat funny for me to see how America only comes to certain things only today that were long part of the Soviet society (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the USSR was a dream country).

One of the striking ones - equality for women, and women rights. When I moved to America I was shocked to see that women are becoming an active working part of the society only today. However, it might be just cultural legacy to blame, not ideological.

Soviet equality implied gender equality as well. I couldn't remember a single case, when having a female boss was an issue for anyone in the USSR even 50 years ago. Two-year universal compulsory military service for men was partly explained by the fact that women on average loose 2 years of their working life to pregnancy/post-pregnancy. Thus, chanses for professional growth between men and women were somehow equalized.

The other ones are universal medical service and universal quality education. But that's a long story.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 10 Aug 2010, 06:43
Welcome to SE Bulbash. It's great to see a Belarussian comrade here.

A lot of people from the former USSR who moved to the US have recognised the things you pointed out here. People have said a lot of the Soviet propaganda about it was right, if only exaggerated.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 33
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Aug 2010, 16:57
Pioneer
Post 10 Aug 2010, 20:54
Fellow Comrade wrote:
Welcome to SE Bulbash. It's great to see a Belarussian comrade here.

A lot of people from the former USSR who moved to the US have recognised the things you pointed out here. People have said a lot of the Soviet propaganda about it was right, if only exaggerated.

Good to see you too, Comrade! I think you are exactly right. The Soviets were mistaken on many things, but perhaps some of them were not completely wrong. After all, you can accuse the Soviets of many things, but not of being stupid. If they tried to resolve a particular problem there was most likely a reason for that.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 11 Aug 2010, 00:07
I think it's interesting that free medical care and education are applauded as features of socialism. Of course they are; but capitalism has proven to be able to emulate them, as it does in the Scandinavian countries, and as it was forced to do in pre-annexation Western Germany, due to competition from its socialist neighbor. Of course, since the GDR is annexed now, most German states have introduced tuition fees for universities and the federal government forces us to pay for medicine and doctor visits now, but again, capitalism is perfectly able to emulate the social security that socialism provides. The only exception is probably the right to work, although even that is conceivable under capitalism - the state could pay certain bougeois to hire people, for instance.

The same applies to gender or race equality. Of course, socialism thoroughly smashes sexism and racism as remnants of feudalism, and that is a very good thing. But the bourgeoisie does that as well (even though it took longer to get done with emancipation than the socialist states did, and still hasn't finished the process by far). I disagree with the widespread notion that the bourgeoisie "uses" sexism and racism to divide the working class. Women are becoming more and more successful in capitalist societies as well, and the US is, after all, ruled by a black man. Of course racism and sexism still exist in capitalist states, but this is actually against the bourgeoisie's interests, and the bourgeoisie is really trying to overcome this. The widespread racism in the US, for instance, seems to be merely a remnant of feudalism - didn't Marx say that the civil war was actually a fight between the liberal-capitalist north and the feudal south? The bourgeoisie has no problem employing black people or women, because all that matters to it is labor power. One of the first successes of bourgeois society was universal suffrage.

I think the real difference lies in the fact that socialist politics is generally human friendly, whereas capitalist politics is capital friendly. I think that, in all socialist states, unless you want to count Kampuchea as socialist, the obvious difference to capitalist states is that the government and Party administrate the state with the goal of improving the living standards of the people, whereas the goal of capitalist politics is to guarantee the smooth functioning of the process of capital accumulation, which is of course an impossible task due to the inherent contradictions of accumulation. For instance, SED congresses tended to discuss stuff like a shortage of apartments, thereupon deciding to build new apartment blocks. This is a direct improvement of people's lives. Capitalist parliaments talk about taxes, budget deficits, stock market legislation and bullshit like that which only really concerns the bourgeoisie - and usually results in a deterioration of people's lives.


Also, this might seem pushy, but soviet78 (Or Bulbash, our new Resident Soviet!), if you read this, it would be answer if you could answer my last post about Brezhnev in this thread.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 11 Aug 2010, 00:34
Quote:
I think it's interesting that free medical care and education are applauded as features of socialism. Of course they are; but capitalism has proven to be able to emulate them, as it does in the Scandinavian countries, and as it was forced to do in pre-annexation Western Germany, due to competition from its socialist neighbor. Of course, since the GDR is annexed now, most German states have introduced tuition fees for universities and the federal government forces us to pay for medicine and doctor visits now, but again, capitalism is perfectly able to emulate the social security that socialism provides. The only exception is probably the right to work, although even that is conceivable under capitalism - the state could pay certain bougeois to hire people, for instance.


What you say here is true, I think, but for the fact that while capitalism can emulate socialist policies, they're not sustainable like they are in socialism. Past Labour governments in Britain for example provided many of the things you've listed, including the right to work, through nationalised industry and healthcare through the creation of the NHS, however as the saying in Britain goes, "A Labour government ends when it runs out of money," which is another way of saying capitalism literally can't afford to pretend to be socialist all the time.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 11 Aug 2010, 00:46
To play devil's advocate: Neither could the socialist countries, because they either went bankrupt (Warsaw Pact) or abolished social security (China). Of course that's bullshit.

More seriously, I'm not sure whether you're right about this. Germany is definitely going bankrupt atm, and to prevent this, social security gets seriously assraped/practically abolished (they have an awesome master plan for this which will probably introduce starvation to German society when it's completed in three years
) but I don't know if it's inherent to capitalism that it can't afford emulating socialism. Scandinavia seems to do it without much of an effort. It's been this way for decades and I'm pretty sure they can keep it going for a few more decades at least. Maybe it just failed in the UK/Germany because our governments were too stupid to do it right? Or too lenient, when confronted with the bourgeoisie's incessant begging for tax cuts.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 11 Aug 2010, 00:49
Quote:
To play devil's advocate: Neither could the socialist countries, because they either went bankrupt (Warsaw Pact) or abolished social security (China). Of course that's bullshit.

You sure?
Do you have info and sources on that?
It's true that Poland went bankrupt(it was a semi-functional state anyway),but what about DDR or Bulgaria? Did these got "bankrupt" too?
How can a stable planned economy go bankrupt anyway?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.