Where lies the truth?

Gary Childress

Student for and of life
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
4,480
Location
United Nations
Along with the juxtaposition "lies" and "truth" in my title, I found this interesting juxtaposition of views on the Soviet Union this evening:

THE SOVIET UNION’S ACHIEVEMENTS (Keeran & Kenny, PP.4-5).

In fifty years, the country went from an industrial production that was only 12% of that in the United States to industrial production that was 80% and an agricultural output 85% of the US> Though Soviet per capita consumption remained lower than in the US, no society had ever increased living standards and consumption so rapidly in such a short period of time for all its people. Employment was guaranteed. Free education was available for all, from kindergarten through secondary schools (general, technical and vocational), universities, and after-work schools. Besides free tuition, post-secondary students received living stipends. free health care existed for all, with about twice as many doctors per person as in the United States Workers who were injured or ill had job guarantees and sick pay. In the mid-1970s, workers averaged 21.2 working days of vacation (a month’s vacation), and sanatoriums, resorts, and children’s camps were either free or subsidised....The state regulated all prices and subsidised the cost of basic food and housing. Rents constituted only 2-3% of the family budget; water and utilities only 4-5%. No segregated housing by income existed. Though some neighbourhoods were reserved for high officials, elsewhere plant mangers, nurses, professors and janitors lived side by side.

The government included cultural and intellectual growth as part of the effort to enhance living standards. State subsidies kept the price of books, periodicals and cultural events at a minimum. As a result, workers often owned their own libraries, and the average family subscribed to four periodicals. UNESCO reported that Soviet citizens read more books and saw more films than any other people in the world. Every year the number of people visiting museums equalled nearly half the entire population, and attendance at theatres, concerts, and other performances surpassed the total population. The government made a concerted effort to raise the literacy and living standards of the most backward areas and to encourage the cultural expression of the more than a hundred nationality groups that constituted the Soviet Union. In Kirghizia, for example, only one out of every five hundred people could read and write in 1917, but fifty years later nearly everyone could.

In 1983, American sociologist Albert Szymanski reviewed a variety of western studies of Soviet income distribution and living standards. He found that the highest paid people in the Soviet Union were prominent artists, writers, professors, administrators, and scientists, who earned as high as 1,200 to 1,500 roubles a month. Leading government officials earned about 600 roubles a month; enterprise directors from 190 to 400 roubles a month; and workers about 150 roubles a month. Consequently, the highest incomes amounted to only ten times the average worker’s wages, while in the United States the highest paid corporate heads made 115 times the wages of workers. Privileges that came with high office, such as special stores and official automobiles, remained small and limited and did not offset a continuous, forty year trend toward greater egalitarianism. (The opposite trend occurred in the United States, where, by the late 1990s, corporate heads were making 480 times the wages of the average worker.) The overall equalisation of living conditions in the Soviet Union represented an unprecedented feat in human history. The equalisation was furthered by a pricing policy that fixed the cost of luxuries above their value and of necessities below their value. It was also furthered by a steadily increasing ‘social wage’, that is, the provision of an increasing number of free or subsidised social benefits. Beside those already mentioned, the benefits included paid maternity leave, inexpensive child care and generous pensions. Szymanski concluded: ‘While the Soviet structure may not match the communist or socialist ideal, it is both qualitatively different from, and more equalitarian than that of western capitalist countries. Socialism has made a radical difference in favour of the working class.’

In the world context, the demise of the Soviet Union also meant an incalculable loss. It meant the disappearance of a counterweight to colonialism and imperialism. It meant the eclipse of a model of how newly freed nations could harmonise different ethnic constituents and develop themselves without mortgaging their futures to the United States or western Europe. By 1991, the leading non-capitalist country in the world, the main support of national liberation movements and socialist governments like Cuba, had fallen apart. No amount of rationalisation could escape this fact and the setback it represented for socialist and people’s struggles.

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/Reviews/ReviewTheStalinMythsAfterTheSovietUnion.html

Now have a look at this:

Under the reign of Joseph Stalin, forced labour in the Soviet Union was used in order to achieve the economic goals of the Five-Year Plan.[1] Forced labour was a vital part of the rapid industrialization and economic growth of the Soviet Union. Between 1932-1946 the Soviet secret police detained approximately 18,207,150 prisoners. The Gulag prison system had put into practice the use of forced labour by imprisoning not only dangerous criminals but also people convicted of political crimes against the communistic government.[2]

Labourers had to work in freezing climates, unhygienic conditions, dangerous circumstances and worked for extensive time periods without rest. Many prisoners were able to perform the forced labour necessary but a large number of prisoners were too hungry, sick, or injured from the intense working conditions to complete the labour. Often prisoners were punished for not reaching targets by getting fewer rations of food than those who did reach production targets; thereby it was not unlikely for prisoners to die of starvation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union

So what are we to make of this? I've seen attempts to de-monsterize Stalin here and various other places in the Internet. With the opening of some of the secret archives of the former Soviet Union I've heard it said that the gulag system was not as bad as it is often made out to be, that it was over-stated by Western countries hostile to communism.

In this seemingly impossible menagerie of propaganda and counter propaganda, revisionism and counter revisionism, criticism and apologism, where can the average citizen go to find the Truth? Is communism truly the evil that it is often portrayed as? Is capitalism so much better? It seems that one can make almost any case one wants to depending upon what sources are cited. The proverbial "64 million dollar question" seems to be, then, what is the Truth? Who was/is better, the communists or the capitalists? Some say that history is ultimately the judge, but if we can't even agree on history, then what?
 
Communism is not inherently an evil concept nor is capitalism. However, their implementations can be dreadfully damaging to the population due to the selfishness, ruthlessness, and/or incompetence of those in charge.

The question of what's the truth may not be answered. We live in a world of perceptions and not facts. The best that we can do is to question what we see, read up on the context, and try to formulate a decision on whether or not the information can be trusted.
 
I don't really see that much contradiction between your two quotes, to be honest.
 
I don't really see that much contradiction between your two quotes, to be honest.

I guess it's not so much contradiction between the two as much as different sides of the debate seem to emphasize either one or the other, but not both aspects of what happened in the Soviet Union. I suppose there are also objective accounts of world history out there but sometimes it seems almost impossible to hold a clear-cut position on anything in politics.
 
I don't really see that much contradiction between your two quotes, to be honest.

Indeed.

The Soviet Union achieved a hell of a lot with the cards it was dealt, and probably succeeded in building a more equal society than the US did. It was also a place where top leadership used extremely brutal methods to achieve it's aims.

It's no different from it's arch-rival in this either; the US has been a bastion of freedom for the last bunch of decades, and has created a very high standard of living for it's people. It also has had serious issues with discrimination against minorities, and topples the occasional foreign regime if they don't care for them.

I guess it's not so much contradiction between the two as much as different sides of the debate seem to emphasize either one or the other, but not both aspects of what happened in the Soviet Union. I suppose there are also objective accounts of world history out there but sometimes it seems almost impossible to hold a clear-cut position on anything in politics.

Politics has never been a field that appreciates a nuanced and well thought out position.
 
There is a study about Soviet penal system in 1934-1953, based on declassified archival evidences. The article might be interesting for you, it contains various information about demography, victims, etc.
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf

The population of GULAG and prison colonies:
image3ox1.gif
 
I don't really see that much contradiction between your two quotes, to be honest.

Exactly.

Soviet Union gave the Western elites reason to offer concessions to the masses. Now they have no reason. Don't forget that in the course of its history most western countries did take on much of communism. Soviet Communism was however grafted on to an empire built around the authoritarian rule of the Tsar, and divided violently between 'modern industrial' cities and 'semi-medieval rural' peasantries. It kept the authoritarianism, and unleashed the violence of the cities against the rural peasantries.

No contradiction.

'Evil', 'monster', 'good guy', etc, depends on your view. US capitalism / privatized imperialism and post-Tsarist Russian socialism inflicted different things on the world that many would regard as 'evil', some things as 'good'. Truman as well as Stalin (and Churchill) were 'monsters' if by that you mean a leader that deviates from common modern attitudes to mass killings and that sort of thing, but others will say they just did what you had to in the times. And so on. But if, for instance, it's ok for British nationalists to worship Churchill as a national hero, then no-one should really whine if Russian nationalists hail Stalin.
 
Is this a joke?
 
I don't why you'd think so.
 
Is this a joke?

Is what a joke?

Pangur Bán;13077413 said:
Exactly.

Soviet Union gave the Western elites reason to offer concessions to the masses.

Very true I think. I saw an article recently that the gap in income, wealth or whatever in the US is the largest it's been since the 1920s.

The very wealthiest Americans earned more than 20 percent of the country’s household income last year — their biggest share since 1928, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service figures dating to 1913 by economists.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021795994_incomegapxml.html
 
The people have voted with their feet. Immigration from USSR/Russia to U.S. > immigration from US to USSR. In fact I think the only Am immigrant to USSR was Lee Harvey Oswald, who then came back to murder Kennedy.
History Buff
The Soviet Union achieved a hell of a lot with the cards it was dealt, and probably succeeded in building a more equal society than the US did. It was also a place where top leadership used extremely brutal methods to achieve it's aims.
Yes, most everyone was poor. Income gap in this context is meaningless. I do not care if Bill Gates makes a trillion dollars a year, that mostly means he is successful in selling his various products. There is a middle class in large part because the fabulously wealthy can afford to part many people like me a decent amount to provide goods and services to them. America has always had a rising tide because of the free market ,enabling even the poorest to acquire goods and services not readily available throughout the rest of the world provided they offered services someone desired and would pay for. The biggest problems with poverty in the U.S. are found in the inner cities wherever the culture of dependency on govt. programs has become generational, which is why people like me(conservative) are so against big government programs, which then people that are left of me say I just hate government and teachers and the police and the poor and want people of other races to die and am interfering in a woman's right to choose and a gay person's right to get married instead of addressing the central issue, which is: govt involvement in the free market usually results in a net loss in wealth, and hurts more than helps. Any reasonable analysis of the USSR and the US over the same time period shows this unequivacally. People who dispute this need to talk to the survivors of the wreckage that was the USSR. Ask why people fled from there, don't come up with stats that can be manipulated a simply fabrications.
 
Back
Top Bottom