I wouldnm't say they got poorer and poorer, living got better as time progressed or maybe that was Cheburashka's fault,
HEY THAT IS THE BEST THING ABOUT COMMUNISM!
CHEBURASHKA IS AWESOME YO!
Was life really that bad in the Soviet Union?
- Thread starter CCA
- Start date
I wouldnm't say they got poorer and poorer, living got better as time progressed or maybe that was Cheburashka's fault,
HEY THAT IS THE BEST THING ABOUT COMMUNISM!
CHEBURASHKA IS AWESOME YO!
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
In fact, they are now changing their ideology. Now they again criticize the West, enrage over the actions of NATO, (and sometimes they do speak the true things, after all - the West sometimes DOES evil deeds!). And recently, they tried to make a new ideological concept of "Soveregin democracy", a special Russian democracy, different from the Western one. It didn't work, through...
And they certainly do want to have their rest in Bahamas etc., so I doubt they will put their words into actions, for if they will, there will be no Bahamas for them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And what do you think about the scandal in Estonia about the Momument of Russian Liberating Solider, which half the parlament wants to delete?
shake I can understand them...partially. But I still think they are horribly wrong, that despite what the USSR done to them, they would suffer from the German occupation much more. And I am really enraged that they create new momuments in honor of some facscist scum. 
At least, hate the USSR and the Nazi Germany equally, please!
aelf
Ashen One
Singapore is a sham. Beautiful on the outside, rotten inside. Nepotism is rampant and actually open, it's just that nobody is willing to see it. The government pays lip service to helping the poor. Low and middle-income earners face long working hours and relatively low wages. Yes, you get subsidized housing and maybe a few small freebies here and there, but that's only if you vote the ruling party. If the majority of a constituency does not vote the party, it is threatened with all kinds of disadvantages. Why? Because the ruling party controls all the government apparatus. The housing board, for one, is under the control of the party. And guess who's in charge of the election commitee? There's no such thing as neutrality here. Everything is partisan, and there's always only one party that matters.
An epitome of Asian nepotism and corruption with cosmetics, that's what Singapore is.
Actually WorldAudit ranked Singapore as 4 on corruption rank, that is one of the least corrupt countries, after Finland, New Zealand, Denmark. Now compare that to other Asian countries:
China 57, Thailand 53, Myanmar 143, Japan 14, South Korea 33, Malaysia 33, Philippines 105, Cambodia 134, Vietnam 96, Laos 105.
In other words, compare to other places Singapore is tolerable corruption-wise.
Source: http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm
China 57, Thailand 53, Myanmar 143, Japan 14, South Korea 33, Malaysia 33, Philippines 105, Cambodia 134, Vietnam 96, Laos 105.
In other words, compare to other places Singapore is tolerable corruption-wise.
Source: http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm
Now I'm no expert on all this, but I really don't think this is exactly true - all of Korea did not get destroyed in the Korean War. The South did not suffer nearly as much under the invasion by the North as the North did under the counter-invasion by the Americans. North Korea was absolutely devastated by the Americans and has never recovered.
It's not really relevant to this thread, but I think this is a very harsh judgement. Long working hours and relatively low wages for some people, true - but virtually nowhere in Singapore is there the grinding poverty that many people in practically every other country suffer from. Certainly there is unfair hegemony by the ruling party, and a rather alarming confusion between the party and the government, but most people in Singapore couldn't care less about that, because the ruling party happens to rule very wisely and beneficiently, on the whole. The only things Singaporeans seem to care about are food and shopping; they're not interested in politics. And really, why should they be? They're all doing fine. The Chinese are generally fairly pragmatic, and as long as everything is working well, they're not bothered about ideals.
I agree that the government does not do enough to help the poor; there is virtually no welfare state in Singapore. However, this is typical of Asia - there is no welfare state to speak of in Japan either, which is why there are so many people living on the streets or in temporary accommodation who lost their jobs after the bubble collapsed. They don't get unemployment benefits. In Singapore, the idea is that if you are poor or cannot work, your family must look after you. And if they don't you can actually go to court and force them to. Personally I find this utterly abhorrent and another example of the tyranny of the family in Chinese culture - but that's Chinese culture for you. It's their way of ensuring that the poor are looked after - it's just a very different system from what we're used to in Europe, where it's done more directly by the state.
I am not expert too, but in one book I read that Norh Korea was more industrialized than South.
I think that some comparisions should be misleading, because rich communist countries were exploited by USSR and poor capitalistic were supported by USA. But I think that its clear that in economy communism is much worse than capitalism. But idea of communism is supported not because more effective economy.
I think that some comparisions should be misleading, because rich communist countries were exploited by USSR and poor capitalistic were supported by USA. But I think that its clear that in economy communism is much worse than capitalism. But idea of communism is supported not because more effective economy.
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
There's a raise of Nationalist sentiment in Russia. Putin is an advocat of Nationalism, although he may speak of healthy patriotism or something of the sort.
Patriot aknowledges that his nation did have and still has faults, he may even point them out. There could have been atrocities and terrible things in a nation's history but patriot accepts this as he works for his country's future. He is ready sacrifice a part of his personal well-being for his country by paying taxes, by serving in military forces, by voting. Patriot in turn has demands. He isn't strictly tied to some ideology, but he expects certain everyman's rights and liberties in addition of fulfilment of basic needs. He isn't happy if he feels controlled by his nation's current govern. If his terms aren't met at all he may turn against his current governement, which is different than turning against his nation as often what is best in country is ruined by bad leaders. A patriot is a citizen.
Nationalism is another thing. Nationalism often advertises itself with patriotist principles to gain credibility for itself but it usually demands more than a patriot is really willing to give. This is why rights and liberties are less important, as nationalist system expects total commitment and obedience first, or even the basic requirements will not be met. Nationalism is all about might and power, but it's core is very vulnerable and doesn't like daylight. Nationalist nation has all glorious past with all glorious leaders, except the last ones the power was taken from. This all glorious history becomes a sort of replacement for rights and liberties, as the people are expected to strive as one for making the current govern glorious. In a nationalist system people are subjects.
In this spirit these kind of photos are to be seen more in the future. Putin's Mother Russia was great, is great and will be great.
Patriot aknowledges that his nation did have and still has faults, he may even point them out. There could have been atrocities and terrible things in a nation's history but patriot accepts this as he works for his country's future. He is ready sacrifice a part of his personal well-being for his country by paying taxes, by serving in military forces, by voting. Patriot in turn has demands. He isn't strictly tied to some ideology, but he expects certain everyman's rights and liberties in addition of fulfilment of basic needs. He isn't happy if he feels controlled by his nation's current govern. If his terms aren't met at all he may turn against his current governement, which is different than turning against his nation as often what is best in country is ruined by bad leaders. A patriot is a citizen.
Nationalism is another thing. Nationalism often advertises itself with patriotist principles to gain credibility for itself but it usually demands more than a patriot is really willing to give. This is why rights and liberties are less important, as nationalist system expects total commitment and obedience first, or even the basic requirements will not be met. Nationalism is all about might and power, but it's core is very vulnerable and doesn't like daylight. Nationalist nation has all glorious past with all glorious leaders, except the last ones the power was taken from. This all glorious history becomes a sort of replacement for rights and liberties, as the people are expected to strive as one for making the current govern glorious. In a nationalist system people are subjects.
In this spirit these kind of photos are to be seen more in the future. Putin's Mother Russia was great, is great and will be great.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Ukas what are you on about? This thread is about the quality of life in USSR. What does this have to do with rising Russian nationalism? I'm telling you the photos are not propaganda work and quite frankly I dont see anything "great" about them. Its just life, the way that it was.
aelf
Ashen One
The corruption does not happen in broad daylight, of course. No, they're too smart for that in Singapore. Some people here know it, but they either pretend that it's alright or simply choose to do and say nothing. On an interesting note, the corruption bureau answers directly to the Prime Minister, who is incidentally the leader of the ruling party.
Plotinus, you make some fair points. However, I disagree about not having to care about politics. Apathy is not a good thing at all. What if one day the Party decides to rule for the benefit of itself (not that it's not already doing so, just not so openly)? There would be no one with sufficient experience and knowledge to oppose them an establish a better alternative. Anyway, I don't know how much you know about how opposition and dissidence is handled here (which is part of what makes people here so apathetic), but I suspect most Westerners would not applaud and cheer at the methods.
Singapore is definitely not a democracy. The ideology is best described as national socialism. The Party has a hand in almost everything connected to daily life here. It has control over the media, telecommunications, education and etc. Any intelligent person knows that many of the big companies here have ties to the government. The media is censored and propaganda abound in schools. Elections are manipulated where and when it is necessary. And a lot of the things the government claims are simply not true. For example, AFAIK, the government promises to narrow the income gap and help low and middle-income workers this year, but it has actually cut the corporate tax while raising the regressive Goods and Services Tax. Some people actually see through such lies, but most of them either resort to doublethink or shrug sadly and do nothing except harbour dreams of leaving. In going so far as to openly criticise the system, I'm already making an extraordinary effort.
Well, maybe this isn't so much OT. After all, this is about life in the Soviet Union, and there are still some parallels to it today.
colontos
King
Actually, the North was much more industrial to begin with, and South Korea suffered as much or more during the war, especially demographically. The bottom line is that, in 1953, both Koreas were at the same place: rock bottom. In the next 40 years, South Korea transformed itself into an economic powerhouse. North Korea did okay for a while, when Soviet money was pouring in, but as soon as it lessened people began starving. Both Koreas had nothing in 1953, and both recieved huge amounts of foreign aid. Look at them now.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Was life good in the Soviet Union? I'll answer that question with a question of my own: why would they need to build walls to keep the people from fleeing the country?
Gelion
Retired Captain
Man, why is it that I am sure you think Berlin is located in Soviet Union 
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Because the influence of the Soviet Union stretched to the edges of the Iron Curtain.
Pokurcz
Emperor
Gelion
Considering your signature....Aren't the Czechs supposed to get the sensory part and the Poles the weapons systems? Meaning two parts of of one system, I think you missed that part.
Considering your signature....Aren't the Czechs supposed to get the sensory part and the Poles the weapons systems? Meaning two parts of of one system, I think you missed that part.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
I think his signature was the result of a debate with Winner, who is from the Czech Republic.
Pokurcz
Emperor
Ooooh! The man (Mr G) has "luggage"!
Damn, am I in a silly mood now!
Damn, am I in a silly mood now!
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
Well yes, my conx only downloaded few photos when I looked them for the first time, others were boxes with tiny red x in them. The pics I saw were about happy pioneers and such.
But, if you connect these photos with the title of the post, you'll get an answer like "no, it wasn't that bad". This doesn't include oppression the people faced. Dissidents closed in prisons and mental hospitals, terrible conditions and training in the Red Army, artists forced to praise the system in their creations etc.
Life wasn't that bad if you worked, kept your mouth shut and praised the system every now and then - even though you lived in a closet, didn't have much to eat, couldn't travel etc.
Gelion
Retired Captain
I think the OP was more focused on the economical and social aspect of that life. Don't think anyone here argues the political component.
brachy-pride
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 123
Because your neighbours are much wealthier?
But that doesnt mean you are poor, maybe because I come from the poorest country in south america I have a different concept of poverty.
My father used to say, the german reunification happened, not because east germans were poor, but because they saw west germans had much better cars.
Thats germany, not the soviet union, altough if I recall correctly you needed special permits to travel from one place to another inside the soviet union.
Similar threads
