"brings up unpleasant memories of Soviet times."

[Riesstiu IV]

I'll give Orlov props for a lot of his points but a lot of them are stupid and read like Soviet propaganda.

4) This is just false. The American manned space program is still launching shuttles and has footed the bill for most of that worthless ****-heap they call the international space station.

NASA has spent a lot of it's resources on unmanned probes and robots to outer planets. To me this is provides scientific data that is far more useful when compared to what the current manned missions achieve.

12) American families as atomized, cold, and the people as lonesome? What a strange point. Does he think that every American is some rich emotionless capitalist wearing a top hat and monocle hiding alone in their three story mansion?

I really don't buy that point. We place importance on family just like every other group in the world and I find that when times are tough, American families will help each other out.

15) Is another strange point. We produce far more food that we consume. I don't believe that there would be mass starvation that he seems to imply would emerge in the face of economic collapse. Americans may not be able to gorge themselves on as much food though which would be a good thing but mass starvation? Every first world nation is able to prevent famine except maybe in times of a war in domestic territories.

[snoopy369]

I want my top hat and monocle

[Patroklos]

I have extra!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
I'll give Orlov props for a lot of his points but a lot of them are stupid and read like Soviet propaganda.

4) This is just false. The American manned space program is still launching shuttles and has footed the bill for most of that worthless ****-heap they call the international space station.

NASA has spent a lot of it's resources on unmanned probes and robots to outer planets. To me this is provides scientific data that is far more useful when compared to what the current manned missions achieve.

12) American families as atomized, cold, and the people as lonesome? What a strange point. Does he think that every American is some rich emotionless capitalist wearing a top hat and monocle hiding alone in their three story mansion?

I really don't buy that point. We place importance on family just like every other group in the world and I find that when times are tough, American families will help each other out.

15) Is another strange point. We produce far more food that we consume. I don't believe that there would be mass starvation that he seems to imply would emerge in the face of economic collapse. Americans may not be able to gorge themselves on as much food though which would be a good thing but mass starvation? Every first world nation is able to prevent famine except maybe in times of a war in domestic territories.

4 is false and irrelevant but
12 is a cultural thing, you cannot even imagine what a collectivized society as USSR is like, so in that light American families are indeed broken up and lonesome in comparison... perhaps relevant to the potential collapse survival, but if anything it halps avoid the potential collapse for a longer time as everyone just works instead of hanging out and wasting time at home and at "work" with their mates...
and 15 - probably meant that food (even though produced in quantity) is distributed/received via monetary means/supermarket type distribution etc... so in a collapse that would become a liability as it would become inacessible by most (ie those without money)... despite of there being plenty...

in any case the comparison is interesting, and for the actual collapse USSR was a lot better prepared (as they never really entered a comfort-living zone in the first place) ... but as those things go, if this collapse really happens... ther eis only one question you need to ask yourself: Where is my private nuclear bunker with 30 years worth of supplies... and once you are out prepare for Fallout 4: Real World...

[Riesstiu IV]

Still though, even in the worst of times the US has never seen mass starvation. The average American would have to fall pretty hard in terms of standard of living in order not to afford food.

I imagine if it got to the point where too many Americans could not afford to eat, the government would simply create some entity to distribute and give away food in order to avoid riots and civil unrest.

I think you have to ask yourself, what kind of event would generate such an awful collapse that Orlov seems to imply with his comparison?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the one I hope never to see for myself

but unfortunately it is not "unimaginable"... basically that the financial structure behind the society collapses completely (a lot worse than right now... ie something like US taxpayer going bankrupt, so that dollar becomes worthless), combined with a poor government which would not act appropriately to take control (as in organizing aid + work when none available) when the normal system breaks down... far fetched for sure, but wouldn't be the first time in human history either... it takes a lot more mismanagement than this crisis though...

[Blaupanzer]

Mass starvation could get "displaced." For example, people who rely on our grains can't get it and slowly die while we horde it out of fear. Effect, while displaced, is the same.

None of this makes the SU a pleasant place in history. But many westerners fail to realize that the Soviet leaders conviced many of their people that they were trading a few extra goods at the margin for order in the middle. Now that order is gone for the great majority -- the millions that did not enter the State's prisons or institutions. Many of them miss it and would willingly trade access to the extra goods in return for full employment and social order. Can't say I agree with that premise or that viewpoint in posing the premise. But it is worth noting when someone remembers good old Joe (or good ol' Mao for that matter) that its the order that sits at the center of that warm and fuzzy.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Are you old enough to remember? You might not feel that way after two months of the stores being empty.

Are you Russian enough to know? Yes, there was a noticeable lack of consumer goods (buying a TV was an event, not a quick hop to the store), but I wouldn't call the memories unpleasant. Well, they are my childhood memories, so they might have a rose tint to them, but I don't remember empty food shelves. I quite clearly remember a solid wall of beef right behind the freezer door, though.

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Mass starvation could get "displaced." For example, people who rely on our grains can't get it and slowly die while we horde it out of fear. Effect, while displaced, is the same.

That would be my guess. In the face of major economic collapse in the US, the nations that import our grain surplus would be the ones hit with food shortages. I imagine Africa would be hardest hit since the Western nations provide their relief food.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by onodera

Are you Russian enough to know? Yes, there was a noticeable lack of consumer goods (buying a TV was an event, not a quick hop to the store), but I wouldn't call the memories unpleasant. Well, they are my childhood memories, so they might have a rose tint to them, but I don't remember empty food shelves. I quite clearly remember a solid wall of beef right behind the freezer door, though.

No, I am not Russian though I do remember lots of period news pieces, even ones from leftist sources which were sympathetic to the Soviet system, where people lined up all day just to get a single loaf of bread. That doesn't strike me as a productive or enjoyable system.

I mean by the 1970's the Soviets relayed on continious purchases of grain (or even out right gifts when they had no hard currency) just to feed their people. That made the Soviets really dependent on the west and it exposed just how crappy conditions were. I mean, come on, the USSR of the 1970's and 80's produced less grain then Tsarist Russia did in 1913. We're talking a country so close to collapse it couldn't even feed itself.

[Sir Og]

I have only good memories from "soviet times". I was a kid, life was good. Fun, games, school ....
I have no memories of being oppressed or struggling to get food or anything. Now that I think of it there was one year when we had electricity shortage. But even that was no big deal. It was probably far greater inconvenience for my parents than for me. We used to go to the neighbours and play board games or cards.

[Lancer]

Bulgaria was Russia's pet anyway. Of all the Warsaw Pact puppet gov controlled countries, Bulgaria was the most loyal to Moscow. Likely that helped when it came to getting stuff that you needed. Common slavic heritage etc...

[johncmcleod]

As usual, Soviet history is completely oversimplified and misunderstood here. It always has and always will be because everyone is so stuck in the cold war mentality and because everyone has to bring in their ideology to the discussion and turn it into a f##king crossfire debate. Can we just stop with the side-taking? Historians don't take sides. Let's just take it for what it is. For Christ's sake it's over 70 years of history, let's not turn this into a let's-prove-that-the-SU-was-good-or-bad thread.

First let's point out a few basic facts. The economy was in complete shambles by the 1980s, the populace had completely lost all faith in the government, alcoholism was out of control, productivity was at incredibly low levels, and the government and economy were beginning to cease functioning at all. However, that wasn't the story for the entire history of the SU. There were also many periods of amazing economic growth and prosperity. What's most important to note is that for many years the populace truly believed in the ideals behind the government, and it did have a great amount of legitimacy for many years. And this was after millions of people died under Stalinism. Many portray the SU as a totalitarian regime that was able to stay in power for 70 years due to the control it exerted over the population, who were simply prisoners until the 90s. There is definitely a great amount of truth to this, but it did have great popular support for many years, particularly from WWII until the 70s. Though your ideological blinders may not let you see it, any historian not incredibly biased will tell you that the people did actually believe in "building socialism."

The other thing is that it is completely ridiculous to try and compare the SU's history with what you may think would have happened had the revolution never happened and Russia became a liberal, capitalist state. No one has any idea what could have happened differently over a period of 70 years of history in the 20th century.

Another thing, the Russian economy has always been poor, far behind western Europe, and has always suffered from famine. Before, during, and after the SU. What is interesting, however, in Russia's history the best the economy ever was and the most powerful Russia and its neighbors were all would be located during the regime of the USSR. Probably the 50s or 60s. Of course that isn't to say this could not have happened any other way. I'm sure the same could have happened if Russia ended up a liberal, capitalist state. The other thing is that the famines under the Khrushchev era were due to some of his ridiculous economic ideas, which were utter failures and resulted in the SU having to import grain, a great embarassment. But for the most part, post WWII the SU did not have people starving and there was plenty of food to go around.

OK, in response to the thread's title, many elderly Russians look to the Breznev years with nostalgia, even with the corruption and the beginning of the economic decline characterizing that era. The fact of the matter is by the Kruschev era, other than some famines here and there, poverty was eliminated, and for the most part the basic needs of the population were taken care of. There were no homeless people, no one begged in the streets, crime was almost nonexistent. When these came in the 90s, it was a great shock to the people.

As for the argument about how much the SU would have been effected by this crisis, obviously the SU would be better prepared for a financial crisis. This doesn't have to do with being on the left or right, it has to do with the fact that the more closed an economy is, the less it will be affected by the world's economic booms and crashes. It's just simple common sense. If the SU were still around, its lack of participation in the global economy (at least compared to other countries) would mean it would be much less affected by this crash. Of course it would have been equally unaffected by the amazing amount of growth places all over the world saw in the 90s.

[johncmcleod]

Lastly, the collapse of the SU occured due to very a variety of very complex cultural, sociological, political, and economic factors. Don't try and explain it's collapse in two sentences, or simply throw it off as "the triumph of the free market economy." When I wrote my big paper on the topic, I remember there being about 5 or 6 very major factors that historians all pointed out, and they were all internal, by the way. Reagan didn't do it nor was it "bankrupted."

I'll give you a very short answer of how I answered the question. During the post world war II years, the SU witnessed and incredible amount of economic growth and turnover in the political system. The country was rebuilt after the war, industrializing happened at a dizzying pace, and the fortunes of many were greatly improved. Individual economic self-betterment was greatly possible, and many historians point out the similarities between the American and Soviet 'dreams' of the 1950s. In the SU during that time, it was very possible to rise from a peasant farmer to a high-ranker official (Khrushchev is an example, though from an earlier period). Another important factor was that the government was so convinced of the superiority of socialism that it believed it could beat the west in every way, military and economically. During the Kitchen Debate, Khrushchev famously promised to build better washing machines than the Americans. They believed that the USSR could have a better consumer economy than the United States. This was obviously a hopeless belief, as a centrally planned economy has no hope of being able to manage a huge and complex consumer economy.

The result was the generation of the 70s had great expectations for economic growth and individual self-betterment. They expected to enjoy a great deal of improvement like the generation before it. They also expected high quality consumer goods. But by the 60s and 70s, there was no where for the economy to go. The USSR was sufficiently industrialized and developed, and what else could they do if they already provided the basic needs for the people and already had the base for their agricultural and industrial economies. There was no economic growth, and there wasn't really anywhere to go in terms of individual self-betterment. You couldn't climb through the ranks of the economic and political ladder like you could in the past. And very importantly, consumer goods were awful. They were hard to get and poor in quality, to the great disappointment of the populace. The generation of the 30s certainly wouldn't have cared, they would have been very happy with the living the state provided. But the new generation expected better than simply the means to survival. Additionally, the bureaucracy became increasingly ineffective, bloated, and isolated from the people. The government, until its fall, was run by the WWII generation, a bunch of old completely ineffective old men who didn't allow anyone else to take part in the political process.

The result? The ideological supremacy the SU enjoyed in earlier years completely disappeared. Earlier generations believed in the ideals of the government and what the textbooks said, but it all was a complete joke to everyone by the end, and no one seriously believed in "building socialism" anymore. The government completely lost legitimacy and people became fed up with their lives and jobs. Productivity plummeted and alcoholism reached incredibly high levels. The people were entirely disenchanted with every aspect of their society. It was going to fall apart sooner or later, and after Chernobyl, Gorbachev began to open up the country. Then, the SU completely collapsed overnight. No one expected it to be that fast and historians still are at a lost to explain how quick it happened, but the lesson here is perhaps how important governmental legitimacy is and how quickly a government can fall if they people want it removed.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Lancer
Bulgaria was Russia's pet anyway. Of all the Warsaw Pact puppet gov controlled countries, Bulgaria was the most loyal to Moscow. Likely that helped when it came to getting stuff that you needed. Common slavic heritage etc...

What I said was that if you or your family were not actually persecuted for political reasons (the percentage of such people was very low), then you probably have no bad memories.
Life was not that bad really especially in the "puppet" countries. We had some shortages and coupons in the early 90's here. Which is after the beginning of the political changes. I know that the breakdown of the planned economy was responsible but I don't associate these "hard times" with "soviet times".
In the SU things became ugly economically much earlier.