Was life really that bad in the Soviet Union?

Lone Wolf · Mar 18, 2007

why would they need to build walls to keep the people from fleeing the country?

Are you refering to the Berlin Wall? Well, technically, East Germany was not a part of the USSR. It was its vassal, through.

EDIT: Oh, it was already meitoned.

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.

Maybe most of them are not. But I tend to think that something is wrong with photos with a great abundance of food in shops. You were never in the danger of starving, but sometimes you had to wait at quite long queques... but I don't see them on these photos. :scan:

warpus · Mar 19, 2007

brachy-pride said:
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.

Poverty is a relative thing.

If all your neighbours are much wealthier than you, then relatively speaking, you are poor.

Idlenessss · Mar 19, 2007

Well coincidentally, Ive met a lot of people from the soviet bloc. My first girlfriend in fact was born in Dresden Germany, around 1975. And a buddy I had thru high school was from Moscow, around the same age.
People I meet from that place all have the same, pained, traumatic, refuse to even discuss it cause its too much for me to handle right now attitude to that life. A lot of them maybe over-embrace capitalism and really go crazy with it, becoming to most people, too materialistic and greedy. But they seem to genuinely despise the life they had before, almost more haunted by it than people seem to be by more obvious traumas, such as being a foster child or whatever. So my guess, it wasnt fun at all.
However, my girlfriend did at one time mention, which was interesting, that at the TIME, she really had no idea how bad a situation she was in, and America was kinda like the bad guys, but it was also like the bad guys that everyone secretly admires, you follow? like gangsters or something in the modern world, because they were fed so much propoganda about how terrible they were, and you didnt have to be that clever, to eventually realize that this propoganda dont really add up....
edit: anyway, im reading the post history, and luceafarul seems rather intelligent and educated on the manner, (caucescou was an ardent anti-soviet, for example), but he gets a little overboard with his thinking, and it remains obvious, that when people are AS UPSET as many people are who genuinely feel they suffered oppresion under soviet rule, then they cant possibly be simply imagining everything...You even become maybe a little cruel in your backhand assesment of them. but this is probably typical overcompensation for an opposite overcomensation. Im sure it was bad to live in the soviet bloc. But ill take it over Auchwitz.
Its not a secret, you can put political ideaologies aside and be purely academic, as an economist, completely objectively considering the effects of communism versus free market on a macroscopic scale to the economy. And bascially communism is crap. Its jsut terrible. There is no way to avoid massive waste. To amke matters worse, in the specific instance of soviest russia, it was also a dictatorship, which was a cute fuzzy enough dictatorship under Lenin, but had of course plenty of potential to be,and in fact often was, autocratic and elitist. This is according to my understanding,, i suppsoe, but i didnt think taht this was open for debate. This is a closed case, is it not? And what a mixture...communism, and elitism....ugh....
psychologically speaking, the US isnt a bad place to live...maybe you arent born in one of the jet set priveleged ivory tower families, but its easy to keep your dignity, and its also easy to have hope for any situation to change...scoff all you want, a lot of peopel like to, but anybody in the US could find a way to break into the market, say by getting come neat idea and patenting it, and make a fortune off of it. There are barriers to social mobility, of course, and some people love to point them out with passion, but the fact remains, social mobility occurs a lot in the US, still occurs, is always feasible.

TheBladeRoden · Mar 19, 2007

Gelion · Mar 19, 2007

Methinks someone has a problem. Troll?

Idlenessss · Mar 19, 2007

U can tell that a lot of the girls in these photos are gonna grow up to be super hot. Man how come there arent so many hot women in the US? Almost worth the whole communism thing, imo.

Plotinus · Mar 19, 2007

aelf said:
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.

I agree that apathy isn't a good thing. My point was simply that most Singaporeans wouldn't see any need not to be apathetic. And while that is undesirable, it is an undesirable consequence of the fact that the country is, on the whole, very well governed. Certainly you're right that there is dissatisfaction in some quarters, especially in the younger generation, and perhaps there are many people who want to leave; but I'm afraid that to most outsiders, Singaporeans seem very lucky with their lot, even spoiled. Unless they're gay, of course...

However, it's important to bear in mind that, where you have a de facto one-party state, that doesn't mean there's no more politics; it just means it takes place within the party rather than between rival parties. You get the same thing in Japan, though certainly to a greater extent than Singapore (which is a pretty tiny place, after all). It's impossible that the entire PAP could suddenly go tyrannical and begin oppressing the people, because the PAP is (thanks to its complete political hegemony) a very large organisation, and all its members wouldn't go evil at once! That is, there would be internal dissent at such a thing.

aelf said:
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.

While at least some of the things you list are not desirable, I don't really see that they make the country not a democracy; if everyone can vote for who they want in power, it's a democracy. And that is still the case in Singapore. Government ownership of business, control of the media, etc may be good or bad but I don't see that it's got much to do with democracy. I would agree that "national socialism" - in the literal and not historical sense of the term, of course - would be quite a good way of describing it, apart from the lack of social welfare. Asian politics obviously doesn't divide along western "left-right" categories, so in some respects the PAP is very left-wing, and in others it's pretty right-wing, although I think on the whole it's better defined as left-wing. The real difference between Singapore and the Soviet Union, though, is that Singapore actually works.

I don't think it's fair to accuse the government of lying on the grounds that it says it wants to reduce the income gap while also raising GST. Obviously the government believes that this is the best option available to it. It may be wrong to think that, arguably, but that doesn't make it actually deceptive. And I might add that posters have actually gone up in HDB blocks explaining why the government has done this and what its reasoning is. You don't see that in many countries!

Lone Wolf · Mar 19, 2007

We started discussing USSR, now we are discusing Singapore... after a week we will be discussing strawberries, I think. :crazyeye:

Plotinus · Mar 19, 2007

Sorry: as we said, though, it is vaguely relevant, as a country that is in some respects similar to the USSR, but a highly successful one. Looking at cases like that helps to recognise what was, and what was not, wrong about the USSR and similar countries. Perhaps.

aelf · Mar 19, 2007

Plotinus said:
I'm afraid that to most outsiders, Singaporeans seem very lucky with their lot, even spoiled. Unless they're gay, of course...

Until they've lived here long enough and see not only the good things. In fact, I think I'll have a happier life in Britain (will be going there to study soon)

I'll feel more like a free man.

Plotinus said:
However, it's important to bear in mind that, where you have a de facto one-party state, that doesn't mean there's no more politics; it just means it takes place within the party rather than between rival parties.

I don't know if this is true to any significant extent. A party member goes through even more indoctrination than the average citizen. I was offered the prestigious civil service scholarship at one point. I know what's in store for them. It might actually be true in the Orwellian sense that the highest ranking members are the ones most convinced by their own lies. They believe they are helping the country, but they also think that they have the right to enrich and entrench themselves.

Plotinus said:
It's impossible that the entire PAP could suddenly go tyrannical and begin oppressing the people, because the PAP is (thanks to its complete political hegemony) a very large organisation, and all its members wouldn't go evil at once! That is, there would be internal dissent at such a thing.

Well, the dissenters will break off from the party and end up getting thrown in jails, just like the Barisan Sosialis in the old days

Plotinus said:
While at least some of the things you list are not desirable, I don't really see that they make the country not a democracy; if everyone can vote for who they want in power, it's a democracy. And that is still the case in Singapore. Government ownership of business, control of the media, etc may be good or bad but I don't see that it's got much to do with democracy.

You can't call a country where the elections are manipulated (what do you think the redrawing of the borders of constituencies before elections is for?) a true democracy. It's true that many people still support the ruling party, but the extent of disatisfaction with it is always under-represented. The party would have lost more seats if elections were conducted honestly.

Plotinus said:
I would agree that "national socialism" - in the literal and not historical sense of the term, of course - would be quite a good way of describing it, apart from the lack of social welfare. Asian politics obviously doesn't divide along western "left-right" categories, so in some respects the PAP is very left-wing, and in others it's pretty right-wing, although I think on the whole it's better defined as left-wing.

Actually, I meant national socialism in the historical sense (was there ever a real socialist country?). It's remarkable how similar the Singapore system is to the Nazi one (without the racial theories and expansionism, of course - though, interestingly enough, Lee Kuan Yew believes in eugenics): the militarism (though, I repeat, without expansionist ambitions), the national labour union, the policy of every Singaporean having a home (People's Car in Nazi Germany), the propaganda ads and posters, the systematic purging of political opposition (though not as brutally), etc. That's what national socialism is - a dictatorship of a party based on nationalism with martial overtones and 'the good of the people'.

Plotinus said:
The real difference between Singapore and the Soviet Union, though, is that Singapore actually works.

I think the Cold War is a major factor for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Anyway, having the USA seriously oppose you is bad thing (Singapore is a regional ally of the USA and, IIRC, has an FTA with it). Like it or not, the USA has commanded unparalleled political power and influence on the world stage since WW2. Besides, like you said, the Asian mentality helps to achieve some political stability. And I guess there's less bad blood in the history of Singapore than, say, the history of the Russian Revolution.

Plotinus said:
I don't think it's fair to accuse the government of lying on the grounds that it says it wants to reduce the income gap while also raising GST. Obviously the government believes that this is the best option available to it. It may be wrong to think that, arguably, but that doesn't make it actually deceptive. And I might add that posters have actually gone up in HDB blocks explaining why the government has done this and what its reasoning is. You don't see that in many countries!

Because it's just more propaganda?

But, really, I don't see the government doing anything to improve the lives of people like me. Instead, all I'm feeling is the pinch of the fare hikes, the GST increase and constant wages.

Well, things have improved in recent years. The younger generation is more vocal than ever and there seems to be a general loosening up in the country. I guess we'll have to see how things go in several years' time.

happy_Alex · Mar 19, 2007

"in Soviet Russia, pictures look at YOU"

Got to agree with Warpus, alot of the pics look like propaganda shots, Soviets were very good at pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

Illdisposed · Mar 19, 2007

I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. I am not going to indulge into profound debate over the multitude of issues raised in the confines of this thread, however I will try with some degree of certainity to assure you in the following.
USSR was not a police state, apart from the periods of War Communism(1918-21) and Stalin Era (1930-1953, please note that although he officially came into power in 1922, the actual terror began in the 30s).
The life of the Soviet citizen was generally characterized by economical,financial and socio-cultural stability, meaning that everyone was guaranteed good education, good standard of living and provided with average goods, such as an appartment, telephone, possibly a car and things of that nature. However, ideological and political flexibility were virtually non-existent. This could pose a problem for an intelectually aspiring part of society, but generally, stability in other spheres of existence was sufficent to supress such aspirations. Simply put, people want "bread and entertainment," and this was surely given.
Now, the issue of lines ,and food shortages, and other multifarious problems had appeared mostly during the latter part of Gorbachev Era, when things like Glasnost', financial crisis and economical malfunctions largely caused by the arms race with the US and eventual ineffectiveness of plan economy became apparent.
So, in short, the view of the USSR that is presented in Western political thought is to a large extent ideologically charged, or remains simply "half-baked" due to the "us and them" thinking during the most of XXth century.

Gelion · Mar 19, 2007

Mirc · Mar 19, 2007

Illdisposed said:
I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. I am not going to indulge into profound debate over the multitude of issues raised in the confines of this thread, however I will try with some degree of certainity to assure you in the following.
USSR was not a police state, apart from the periods of War Communism(1918-21) and Stalin Era (1930-1953, please note that although he officially came into power in 1922, the actual terror began in the 30s).
The life of the Soviet citizen was generally characterized by economical,financial and socio-cultural stability, meaning that everyone was guaranteed good education, good standard of living and provided with average goods, such as an appartment, telephone, possibly a car and things of that nature. However, ideological and political flexibility were virtually non-existent. This could pose a problem for an intelectually aspiring part of society, but generally, stability in other spheres of existence was sufficent to supress such aspirations. Simply put, people want "bread and entertainment," and this was surely given.
Now, the issue of lines ,and food shortages, and other multifarious problems had appeared mostly during the latter part of Gorbachev Era, when things like Glasnost', financial crisis and economical malfunctions largely caused by the arms race with the US and eventual ineffectiveness of plan economy became apparent.
So, in short, the view of the USSR that is presented in Western political thought is to a large extent ideologically charged, or remains simply "half-baked" due to the "us and them" thinking during the most of XXth century.

USSR was not a police state, you say. Got anything to back that up?

And do you mean that an average USSR citizen had a "possible" car? Maybe the situation is totally different, but in 1980 there were 300 cars in Bucharest, which had 1.600.000 people at the time. That's not exactly "a car for the average person"...

Thorgalaeg · Mar 19, 2007

in 1980 there were 300 cars in Bucharest

I find that hard to believe.

REDY · Mar 19, 2007

happy_Alex said:
"in Soviet Russia, pictures look at YOU"

Got to agree with Warpus, alot of the pics look like propaganda shots, Soviets were very good at pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

I am interested what you find great in these pictures to call it propaganda :crazyeye:

It shows some pioneers and poor life.

warpus · Mar 19, 2007

I have a bit of an anecdote to contribute to the conversation.

Before I could even speak, my parents taught me to spit on pictures of Lenin & Stalin whenever I encountered them. They would give me a book, I would go through it, and whenever I ran into Stalin or Lenin they would get spat on.

Tells you a bit of how much we appreciated life under Russian occupation

Gelion · Mar 19, 2007

Warpus are you serious? If not what is so funny about it?
Seriously, I dont get the joke and I want to know.

Gelion · Mar 19, 2007

Mirc said:
USSR was not a police state, you say. Got anything to back that up?

Lol, no more proofs than what you can come up with to back up the claim that Bucharest had 300 cars in 1980.

And do you mean that an average USSR citizen had a "possible" car? Maybe the situation is totally different, but in 1980 there were 300 cars in Bucharest, which had 1.600.000 people at the time. That's not exactly "a car for the average person"...

There were few cars, but having a car in USSR was like having 2-3 cars in the West (per family) nowadays. Also since when do we compare USSR to Romania? Despite both countries being communist there were significant differences between them.

On a side note I'd like to say tha USSRs of:
1921-1933
1933-1953
1953-1970
1970-1986
and 1986-1991
were very different from each other. I believe we are discussing 1960's - 1970's period.

BEHIND_THE_MASK · Mar 19, 2007

warpus said:
I have a bit of an anecdote to contribute to the conversation.

Before I could even speak, my parents taught me to spit on pictures of Lenin & Stalin whenever I encountered them. They would give me a book, I would go through it, and whenever I ran into Stalin or Lenin they would get spat on.

Tells you a bit of how much we appreciated life under Russian occupation

Im fine with spitting on pictures of Stalin...

But you try pulling a country from the first World War, rebuilding it and doing what was needed to stabalize it. Lenin, in my opinion did what was needed due to the situation.

Stalin was a monster before WWII even began...

Was life really that bad in the Soviet Union?

Deity

Sommerswerd asked me to change this

Warlord

Deity

Retired Captain

Warlord

Philosopher

Deity

Philosopher

Ashen One

Happiness set to 11

Chieftain

Retired Captain

Not mIRC!!!

Deity

Duty Caller

Sommerswerd asked me to change this

Retired Captain

Retired Captain

A Liar... A Cheat...

Similar threads