What was life like under the soviet system?

Factual Questions
41

Also 70s and 80s (possibly 60s), also Hungary: there were specific “Diplomat Stores” (for higher ranking party members and even real diplomats), where you could buy some western goods. Of course, you couldn’t just enter if you were a nobody - you had to be a member of the higher class of the classless society!

Other interesting tidbits and trivia:
-you had to wait years for a car - four, even ten if you were unlucky or unwilling to bribe (my parent were cowards in this respect :slight_smile: ). The same with telephones, and it often took minutes to find an unoccupied line, anyway.
-you could (and, if you were an economist, often had to) read Marx’s refutation of Dühring, but you couldn’t read Dühring himself.
-you couldn’t just buy typewriters, as these could be used for spreading fascist propaganda. When you got one (hard), there was something to identify it (I think they kept a copy of sample typing so they could identify it later by faults the macine made).
-There were quite a lot of illegal and quasi-illegal copies of just about anything. 1984 was translated in the 50s and my grandfather still has a shoddy copy of Orwell’s essays.
-In the 60s, they were still hanging leftovers from the 56 revolution. You see, these were young kids, who were playing with leftover guns or ammunition or something (like Peter Mansfeld). So they were jailed. Of course, it was illegal to execute kids. So they waited until they turned 18 and executed them then. As you can see, socialism is a humanist ideology and does everything for the proletariat. Except that the majority of its victims vere workers.
-Russia: the extermination camps were mostly dismantled in the late 50s and 60s - dangerous intellectuals were simply locked up in mental institutions, or “committed suicide”, or emigrated.
-One thing the former socialist countries did right: books were cheap and plentiful. Of course, not everything was available, but this is the single facet of the whole thing that was exemplary and worthy of saving - education, culture and healthcare. Oh, and good TV.
-Hungarians could go to most western countries from the 60s. East Germans and Czechs could go to other socialist countries. Russians, I think, couldn’t even leave their area without a travel permit.

42

[sub]If I may add my particular opinion on that subject. Not really related to the OP, but this thread has turned into anything but a GQ anyway, so I bother you with my thoughts, even if the ultracapitalists will label me as a madman for this.[/sub]

Capitalism can criticize the Soviet system for many things, but certainly not this one. There are more than enough stores in the Western world you can’t shop at if you’re a nobody - they’ll kick you out pretty soon if you don’t have the money.
The USSR made the difference between shoppers and non-shoppers based on party rank; capitalism makes it based on bank account. Tell me the fundamental difference.

43

But anyone, Schnitte, regardless of ideology, has a chance to earn the money and buy the things they desire. Some, admittedly, may have a better chance than others, but why is that a bad thing? If I’m a hard worker and you aren’t, why should my pay raise be seen as unfair? You can work harder and earn as much money; you have a reward and a price for that reward.

And if you want a better job and more pay, you can go to any school you like and get more education in any field you desire.

People are always sperated into different classes. I do not know if this, fundamentally, is wrong. I cannot, however, see it as anything but inevitable. Sheer luck, if nothing else, favors some people at some times.

In any event, people in Communist countries are poorly paid for their work compared to here in the USA, or any of the first world.

44

Lots of differences: First, since the state doesn’t control access in Capitalist countries, that means that people can work harder, and raise the money to buy what they want. Or they can choose to do without other things and focus their resources on the one expensive thing they really value. 'Round these parts, there are a lot of young people and poorer families whos major expense is a lease on a brand-new car or truck. It may not be smart or affordable, but at least they are free to make the choice.

Second, even the stuff in Wal-Mart is much, much higher quality t han that most of what was available to Russian consumers. When MiG pilot and defector Viktor Belenko was first shown a western supermarket, he thought it was an elaborate set-up, because he flat-out refused to believe that there could be stores open to the public where rows and rows of extremely high quality goods could be just sitting on shelves for taking, freezers full of every possible cut of meat, you name it. It was something simply unheard of in the Soviet Union.

45

Let me explain my POV a little bit further.

In theory, capitalism is a good thing, too - it gives everybody equal opportunity, and if someone works hard, he earns more than others, which, believe me, I find fair.

In theory, communism is good, too - even capitalists agree with that. They, however, point out that the practice of communism differs a lot from the theory. I agree this is the case and the Soviet system wasn’t paradise on Earth as theory suggested it would be. So a capitalist’s argumentation basically is, the theory of communism is good, but the reality is not.

In defending capitalism, however, they only mention the theoretical aspect - hard work is rewarded, etc. They don’t (IMHO, that is) concede that the reality of capitalism differs from theory just as it does in communism.

I just don’t believe that everybody who is poor is so due to his own fault - some are, but many are just unlucky. They’re working hard, but they just don’t get the chance to get out of poverty - you’ll probably argue this point, but I am convinced that the worst-paid jobs are often the hardest ones.
You might come up with rags-to-riches-careers; I admit there are people who made it from poverty to millions by virtue of own work. But there are many, many more poor people who never made it, and I don’t believe it if you tell me it’s only and only because they didn’t work enough.

So in theory, both systems look fine. In reality, they’re both unsatisfying. But capitalists only look at capitalism’s fine theory and communism’s bad reality. That’s my point of view.

46

Yeah, but that’s ok…there’s nothing to buy. It reminds me of the Soviet joke:

An confused old man is standing on the street with an empty bag . “Hmm,” he says, “Have I gone to the grocery store yet?”

47

One argument made against the type of government practiced in the U.S.S.R. and other so-called “communist” countries is that regardless of the theory, the practice didn’t work very well.

But that is by no means the only argument against communism. Ultimately, the conflict between communism and capitalism is one between equality and freedom, and how much of one should be sacrificed to ensure the other. In theory, capitalism sacrifices economic equality to provide maximum economic freedom, while communism sacrifices economic freedom to provide maximum economic equality.

As others have pointed out, one important element of capitalism is the ability to choose how you want to spend whatever money you do have. This principle operates even at the low end of the economic ladder. One person may choose to use his minimum wage salary to have a really good meal once a week. Another may choose to save up for a car or a vacation. It is this freedom that capitalists value over a theoretical communism in which everyone would have equal meals, equal cars, equal vacations, etc.

In theory, capitalism emphasizes our individuality, while communism emphasizes our sameness. It is possible to find communism a flawed system on that basis alone.

48

Communism is not about uniform meals for everyone, SpoilerVirgin. It’s about giving everyone a fair share of the collective product; whether you want your share in form of steaks or potatoes is up to you. You can choose, as long as the value of the things you claim does not exceed your share. There’s nothing flawed in this IMHO.

49

A friend of the family visited the US during the height (depths?) of the Brehzhev era. We took her to the grocery store while we ran some errands.

She started hyperventilating in the produce department, and we had to take her out to the car to recover.

I also remember the story of the Soviet diplomats on a tour of the US, who visited the local drug store, and saw five different types of aspirin for sale. His question was, “What agency is in charge of making sure they have all those different kinds?”

When told there was none, he didn’t believe them.

Regards,
Shodan

50

Why did they have a hard time stocking the shelves? I mean it’s not hard (on a government scale) to provide for the people.

51

But how are things valued? In money? Who determines how many potatoes are equal to one steak? Under capitalism, value is determined by the law of supply and demand (in theory – of course there are many checks on supply and demand in the real world). Under perfect theoretical communism, what is fair value? If I consider steak to be the food of the gods, but you feel that way about ice cream, how do we decide how much steak is “my share of the collective product” and how much ice cream is your share? And what happens if there isn’t enough steak or ice cream to go around? Does the value change? What if there’s plenty of steak, but not enough ice cream? Do I get my “fair share” of the collective product, even if you don’t, because there just isn’t enough ice cream to give you your fair share? Or do I not get steak (even if the meat has to sit and rot), because it’s not “fair”?

And where does “to each according to his need” fit into all of this? What if what I really want is to drive around in a shiny new Ferrari? How high does the standard of living of the entire communist paradise have to be before my “fair share” will include that? Or is that a “luxury” that is unnecessary and therefore not available at all?

I realize that we are now far afield from the original OP about living conditions under the Soviet system, but I just wanted to make it clear that not all of the arguments against communism are about reality vs. theory. The theory itself has some deep and serious problems that must be addressed.

BTW, Komsomol, these are some of the reasons why it was so difficult for the Soviet government to keep the shelves stocked. Capitalism helps to ensure that supply meets demand. Manufacturing rises and falls based on need. Under a state-controlled economy, it’s very difficult to match supply to demand, which caused constant problems for the U.S.S.R.

O.K., I’m retiring from this thread. Any further discussion along these lines should probably be taken to Great Debates.

52

Why not have forms which asked what the people wanted and then produce that product until it was unpopular?

53

SpoilerVirgin said

I don’t quite see why you can’t have this in a state controlled economy. Komsomol has mentioned a possible form of feedback. But really, why can’t it be the same sort of feedback as free market? There is also supply and demand here. You see certain products flying off the shelves, you hear people asking for stuff, you can tell what is in demand.

I recall one anecdote about shoe manufacturing in the USSR. An order was placed for some number of shoes. The manufacturers, not bothering to check or ask any more details, made them all the exact same size because that was the easiest. What was really needed was a range of sizes, so the order was placed for more than one size of shoe. The result (okay this is the part I’m a little fuzzy on), was again all the same except for one pair, or they made just two different sizes. The manufacturers did the absolute minimum to satisfy the letter of the order.

To me that speaks volumes about supply problems. There is not enough accountability. In a free market if a shoe manufacturer had in the first place not bothered to check on required shoe sizes or only made two sizes when a more than one was requested, they would shortly be out of business. In a state-run system, who cares? Just look at government employees, granted there are very good ones, but as anyone who has worked for the goverment knows, it is way easier to be a slacker.

54

It is difficult enough in capitalism to stock shelves adequately, and that’s when everybody’s work (from product development through production and distribution, all the way along to the 17-year-old with a stepladder) is directly tied to that goal.

Several problems especially in the USSR:
[ul]
[li]Central Planning. The best example of a screw-up I know of is tractors. Soviet tractors were insanely heavy gas guzzlers and there were never enough of them. The planning department, you see, set production quotas by weight, not usefulness (as happens almost automatically under capitalism) and it’s easier to make one 5 ton tractor than 2x2.5 tons.[/li][li]Guaranteed Employment Very difficult to fire the incompetent. I talked to one man in the 90’s who was extremely frustrated in his assignment to produce manufactured goods in state-owned (or protected) factories for sale in Russia. He required, for instance, fairly accurate drilling through steel plate and the plants couldn’t meet the specs due to, e.g., employee alchoholism.[/li][li]Bureaucratic mind-set The chief aim of a bureaucrat is not to screw up, compared to an entrepreneur who wants to do well. Therefore, take no chances and don’t tinker with a system that you’re not getting yelled at about.[/li][li]Rewards If you build a better moustrap (and bring it to market successfully) under capitalism, you will get rich. Under communism, you will receive the thanks of the nation. Guess which is the most powerful incentive to use all your free time tinkering with springs and bits of cheese.[/li][li]Overhead In the USSR there was a huge bureacracy in place to ensure political purity. A secret policeman is not harmful just for the obvious reasons; he also represents one man who is not producing things that will improve the quality of life AND takes up the time of those who otherwise might be doing so.[/li][li]Creative Destruction Every now and then it becomes obvious to the pundits that there is one particular mode of capitalism that works best. In the 70’s it was the Swedish model. In the 80’s, the Japanese. However, the US model, as close to laissez faire as exists, is a perrennial contender and has again become the world’s model for the first time since the 60’s. The most responsive system is when everyone does what’s best for them and for them alone: the poorest of the poor participate in this when they buy no-name pasta instead of brand-name. Each commercial transaction goes into the pot and you get the most out of the pot by giving real people with real money what they want.[/li][/ul]

55

I agree with Balduran here. You can have some kind of market in a communist society as well.

A store in a communist society offers, as your example demands, ice cream and steaks. It fixes the price of each kind of food.
If people keep running into the store asking for ice cream while ignoring steaks, steak prices are decreased and ice cream prices increased. You do this until there’s a fair balance between demand for ice cream and demand for steaks.

Alternatively, the ice cream manufacturer could (this would be even better IME) calculate the price of one pack of ice cream by dividing the total operating costs in some period of time by the number of packs produced in that time - just make retail prices equal production costs. Where’s the problem?

(Of course this means we can’t entirely abolish money; but in this scenario, the role of money is different. It’s more or less just some sort of voucher issued to the citizens entitling them to get a certain amount of goods.)

56

Overhead. Also, what people put on forms usually reflects what they think they should want, which can be very different from what they really want. Look at television programming, for instance.

Additionally, there is not much room for visionary improvements in such a system. How many people wanted a computer in 1980? Bill Gates, among others, thought they would eventually change their minds, made a big bet that he was right and has been somewhat (ahem) rewarded for his vision.

57

I don’t see how this is different from money.

58

My wife is Russian, and grew up young during the communist era and was in her early 20’s about the time of peristroika. I asked this question of her, and she said the following:

Most people were happy, because the science of communism told them that they had a good future. In practice, this wasn’t strictly true, but the vast majority of people DID beleive that the communist system had something to offer.

Now to insert some things I’ve learned being married to a Russian woman.

First, the Soviet system was designed to show Soviets not only as good, but as better than the world. A few topics my wife and I have dicussed (and had an argument or two on) follow:

Did you know that the Russians were the sole victors in World War II? My wife grew up beleiving that the American forces were limited to dropping the occasional planeload of food. She heard what she termed “rumors” that we were more involved, but not until she was in her early teens, and even then there were no hard facts.

Did you know that a Russian invented the light bulb? Also the telephone, internal combustion engine, steam locomotive, and numerous other inventions? Again, a product of the Soviet system, my wife was told growing up that all of these things were invented by the prime example of the “Soviet citizen.”

Things weren’t all that bad during a great part of the communist government, but they weren’t all that good, either. There were food shortages, work shortages, and shortages of finished good. The same can be said about any country. I refer you to the Great Depression of the 1920’s, for a fine, recent example of this phenomenon.

There were, of course, people that would abuse thier power, use scare tactics and violence to acheive thier ends, and who belived that a select few should get a little more than thier share. Again, this is something that can be said about any country. If you beg to differ, read a history book about your very own country, whether it’s America or another.

The thing that many Russians did not have access to was an EXCESS of goods and services. When my mother in law came to visit from Russia we took her to a Super Wal Mart. We thought she was going to collapse from shock. So many types of so many things on the shelves was not something she had ever experienced. Many Americans tend to judge the “poor” standard of living in Soviet Russia (or Ukraine etc etc) with the jaundiced eye of someone USED to having so much tha any kind of shortage looks critical.

As for today, Russia is experiencing many of the problems faced by a newly formed democratic government. A large majority of these problems were experienced in early America. Of course, the organized crime in Russia is truly horrific, and makes the transition to a capitalistic economy more difficult than you can imagine.

Corruption, theft, and mafia have been a part of the Soviet economy for so long, many people have found it difficult to change. For example, in Russia, just before and during peristroika, the income tax for a small business, if calculated according to the standard set of rules, amounted to 110% of the income relaized by the business. As a result of poor governmental management, the average citizen cheats on taxes so flagrantly it would send a US IRS agent into fits of ecstasy.

Now imagine that someone who doesn’t like you, or who has a big mouth, let’s it slip to a Mafia member that you’re making money. You not only have to cheat on your taxes, but you’ve got to fix the books after you pay the mafia so you don’t get slammed by an auditor. Cheating becomes a necessity and a way of life.

The real question is, when will it ever get fixed? Ask a citizen of today’s Russia what concerns them most? The answer will not be jobs, homes, opportunities, or government. It will be crime.

Looking back, I see I was rambling. Oh well, even the best of us have to ramble now and again.