How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals...

From what I've picked from my Russian girlfriends parents (grew up primarily in 70-80's Russia) life was not all that different.
Remember that western GDP and development did not overtake Soviet Union until the end of 70's arguably, during 50's and 60's living conditions in Russia were on par with most of Europe, not comparable with Land of the Plenty (America in 50's and 60's) but still very good living.

Main issue what I hear from them is that there was nothing to do in Soviet Union as young person. There was no real youth culture, you didn't have really any luxuries to spend your money for. Yes you would get a salary, have nice healthcare and social services, but you would not be able to travel freely, go to concerts or throw hippy artistic parties like you could in the west. Besides the average working life, you had very little to work towards, the system did not reward people for working hard or trying their best so most people adapted to work as little as they could. No one learned to care for public property as it used to be that some state mandated worker used to take care of those lawns and maintenance of buildings or gather the rubbish from streets. Its very visible now if you visit Russia or most post Soviet countries, you will very quickly notice that no one gives shit about "public" property. There will be trash almost everywhere, buildings running down without repairs even with people living there, because no one wants to take care of the "public" property that was once handled by the state.

> The difference was that you couldn't get fired from the job because having a job was mandatory
No.

> enforced by law.
> Unemployed people were harrassed by the police.
No.

If you spent too much time unemployed (half a year, at least, IIRC) you might get assigned a mandatory job somewhere. You did not get "harrassed".

Also
> Soviet Poland
> police.
Google before shitposting.

> notorious shortages.
> longass lines
And I'm out.

Communism sounds pretty comfy desu.

>Soviet Poland

Poland was never at any point of time a part of the Soviet Union

the rest of your points can be safely disregarded if you didn't even know that

I'm not going to lie, it was very comfy for people with zero aspirations and dreams, at the very least in USSR. You could enroll into university then get assigned to one of numerous research institutes to a junior position and basically be set for life. The nanny state would take care of everything else, you didn't even need to work at your job most of the time.

/r9k/ would love USSR probably.

> Main issue what I hear from them is that there was nothing to do in Soviet Union as young person.
No.

> There was no real youth culture, you didn't have really any luxuries to spend your money for.
Not really. Though, if youth culture is limited to getting shitfaced, then I might agree that it was less developed in USSR.

> would not be able to travel freely
To the capitalist states, you mean? Well, it was not impossible.

As for the inner USSR itself, that would be very explicitly - No.

> go to concerts or throw hippy artistic parties like you could in the west.
This is just dumb. No, seriously. What does this even mean? No concerts or parties in USSR?

> system did not reward people for working hard or trying their best
No.

> No one learned to care for public property as it used to be that some state mandated worker used to take care of those lawns and maintenance of buildings or gather the rubbish from streets
No.

> Its very visible now
25 years after USSR fell and 30 years after Gorbachev's market reforms?

>if youth culture is limited to getting shitfaced, then I might agree that it was less developed in USSR

>Main issue what I hear from them is that there was nothing to do in Soviet Union as young person. There was no real youth culture, you didn't have really any luxuries to spend your money for. Yes you would get a salary, have nice healthcare and social services, but you would not be able to travel freely, go to concerts or throw hippy artistic parties like you could in the west.

This is true, I've actually asked people about this since I work in events.

They did have huge parties though, you would get a big sound system, pay off the local party member/cop by hooking him up with some young sluts, and you would throw a big party in the woods or whatever.

Apparently this was very common in Poland at least.

I'm a communist, but living in the USSR/Eastern Bloc sounds like fucking hell to me.

I already living in a overbearing Nanny-State (Australia) where we have fucking curfews, cops are raiding all the clubs, coming down on all the raves and shit, places aren't allowed to sell alcohol after 10pm etc.

I legit don't understand why anybody would want to live in such a controlling state, where your entire life is dictated by a bunch of old conservative geriatrics who are circlejerking over their past and don't let culture progress at all.

Stalin culturally killed the USSR.

Would you mind explaining how USSR was controlling things?

>claims to be communist
> clubs, raves, and alcohol regulated
> muh entire life is controlled

Everything that went to print, on air etc had to be approved by the state censors. The USSR was very strict on culture and everything had to conform to a "Socialist" (read: Classical, Russiocentric) ideal.

This meant for example, entire genres of music were banned, like Jazz and if you were caught playing Jazz or Punk or whatever, you could be thrown in prison for years. Many musicians, artists etc were thrown into prison for "bourgeois music".

The ironic thing is, the USSR and eastern bloc circlejerked to old high-culture, like classical, opera, ballet etc, while throwing away actual working class movements like Jazz, Rock, Electronica.

How in fuck was Jazz, a music created by subjugated black workers "bourgeois"? Because "bourgeois" really meant, it wasn't Russiocentric..

Socialism is supposed to result in thriving social activities/life and artistic freedom as people have more time to engage in such pursuits thanks to the automation and elimination of labour.

Socialism is not supposed to be a tightly controlled Stalinist circlejerk where music gets banned for being "wrong".

God imagine being forced to listen only to US pop music and anything else was illegal.

>Communist
>Doesn't like an overbearing state

I don't know why you care about nightlife user, your not old enough to go.

> This meant for example, entire genres of music were banned, like Jazz and if you were caught playing Jazz or Punk or whatever, you could be thrown in prison for years. Many musicians, artists etc were thrown into prison for "bourgeois music".

>live poor as shit
>earn almost nothing with horrible working conditions
>milk and bread is considered a luxury
>if you happen to be caught doing something the elite didnt like you'd be sent off to a gulag

Communism is horrible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People's_Republic

Soviet means "Council" or is indicative of being apart of the Eastern Bloc, you fucking retard.

Everyone was able to study, no matter where they came from , and it was for free (you had to be at least average to stay in uni) , every child could learned reading and writing.
Also you had the right to have a job and a home. So neither homelessness nor jobless people.
In the constitution was reasoned, how the laws work, not like in western countries (e.g. "free speech", nice, but how to make sure everyone can say his opinion?)

Your greentext sounds exactly like an uneducated guy, living in a western country without a job or a better chance to live.
Remember: the paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor.

But no you see in a capitalist society he has the FREEDOM to start his own business, and be his own boss!

> entire genres of music were banned, like Jazz and if you were caught playing Jazz or Punk or whatever, you could be thrown in prison for years

Eddie Rosner (aka Soviet Louis Armstrong) was caught illegally crossing the border, not playing Jazz. He even spent next 7 years of "incarceration" (he had the right to go to the city) organizing and playing in jazz-bands (4 years in Khabarovsk and 3 years in Komsomolsk).

In 1940-1946 and 1954-1971 he was quite officially playing Jazz throughout the Soviet Union and on the central television.

So - no. Jazz was clearly not banned.

As for Punk - there might've been some truth. I can only remember some lunatics claiming that KGB was fininacing Sex Pistols to overthrow British government, but I can't name any punk band making it big in USSR itself.

Well, that would true for USSR as well (before 1960). He'd also have a right to get a loan from Central Bank.

He wouldn't get a right to hire workers, though. Any workers would have to be contracted as shareholders.

Don't know if you're ironic , but let's assume you're serious:
No money no business, maybe he could receive a credit from a bank, but only if he says "you can get my house when I fail", and then you have the risk, especially when you can't hold up with the market

The system works!

>If you spent too much time unemployed (half a year, at least, IIRC) you might get assigned a mandatory job somewhere. You did not get "harrassed".

In my country, if you didn't report to your workplace for three days, the police would go looking for you.

>Everyone was able to study, no matter where they came from

Unless they had the "wrong" parents (business owners, opponents of the regime etc.)

>> If you spent too much time unemployed
> In my country, if you didn't report to your workplace
Do you even English?

> Unless they had the "wrong" parents (business owners, opponents of the regime etc.)
Bullshit. They would've had problems getting into some prestige universities (MGIMO, for example), but that's it.

>How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals?
Typical Soviet day:
- wake up
- go to work
- work
- go home
- cook some shit
- eat it
- time to sleep
Is it different from capitalistic society?

>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?
Yes. Workers spent their wage to buy food, clothes and other stuff.

>Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?
There were no such thing as business. The only free trade was in food markets, there people from villages were selling their goods.

>If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?
There were state organised centers with household goods and services.

> The only free trade was in food markets
No.

Yes. All other shit was black market. Like ethanol exchange.

>Do you even English?

Do you have a point?

>Bullshit.

Who are you trying to fool here? The government kept files on citizens to asses their political attitudes (kádrový posudek). Different academic fields had different requirements of ideological purity. Some people were simply not allowed to study at all.

> Do you have a point?
You mean, besides pointing out the fact that you don't understand the words you quote?

> Some people were simply not allowed to study at all.
Go kill yourself, kid.

Is this the best you can do? I mean, you sound like a fanatic.

> Yes. All other shit was black market. Like ethanol exchange.
Stop lying, please.

I remember a Serb coworker saying they'd all cover for each other when one felt like ditching work

see

...

> There were no such thing as business. The only free trade was in food markets, there people from villages were selling their goods.
This is not true.

Even during the worst crackdown against private enterprises it was perfectly Okay to sell things you've made yourself, as well as your own things (i.e. old TV set or whatever you didn't need).

During this crackdown (Zastoi) it was Not Okay to participate in "trade" - i.e. selling multiple items of the same type you did not make yourself (or your co-workers) and bought explicitly with the intention of selling.

not even a commie, sound based desu

how accurate is this? were conditions better in larger cities?

youtube.com/watch?v=oOBFMMbUFI8

Accurate for the end, the oil crisis and Perestroika had completely obliterated production in the Soviet economy largely caused by liberalization. Since the Soviet economy was based on productive units all over the place, say a gear was made in Estonia, a wheel was made in Kazakhstan, when Perestroika happened and all that central planning stopped, say a tractor broke down, well you're fucked.

Conditions were far better a decade before.

> how accurate is this?
It's not.

Something was needed something to justify Yeltsin's coup and his subsequent dictatorship. "It's for your own good" is the oldest trick in the book.

Problems begun in 1988, when Gorbachev granted to his supporters (corrupt Soviet bureaucracy) too much power (via free market reforms) and they abused it immensely. But it wasn't as bad, as what followed. When Gorbachev's attempt at introducing dictatorship to USSR failed, Yeltsin took over and then the real shortages begun.

Something like 95% of the "empty shelves" pictures were actually made not during USSR (practically all of those 5% were made during last years of USSR), but later - when Yeltsin was in charge.

I've even seen pictures from late 90s-early 00s presented as "authentic pictures from USSR".

Do you have any proof of this

Yes. Give me $5k and I'll write you a whole fucking book with sources and photos.

And - no. I'm not going to spend several months arguing with user who's only response to everything is "do you have proof?"

in Czechoslovakia, one of the most well off countries of the eastern bloc, goods shortages were not uncommon - not talking about luxury goods (which, in socialist times, would encompass such "luxuries" as basic electronics, not just cars and the like)
basic everyday goods like menstrual pads or toilet paper would sometimes be scarce, as would fruit like tangerines or bananas or fresh meat, or even underpants (yes, underpants) - the scope of goods that were lacking is incredibly broad, depending on what part of the bureaucratic planning behemoth failed
these were not some pseudo-bullshit-mystical hearsay occurences of toilet paper not being available "somewhere", because "my brothers friends aunt told me", but genuine shortages that were so noticeable and bad they made it to state controlled media - youtube.com/watch?v=O6qUqFy2FEU (in Czech, a report on the lack of TP - includes such gems as "When was the last time you had toilet paper in stock?" "Thursday last week")

> 1988

yes, in response to a poster asking about a video from the 80s Soviet Union

This is the worst attempt to describe socialist realism I've ever seen.

Just use google, what he's saying is true. I was watching this great period tv documentary about post-ussr russia the other day, kids selling candy bars on the streets for $800, people using wheelbarrows of cash to buy cars for $1mil. It was a mad house, and is absolutely where they got all the pictures from.

Fun fact: In Estonia people could see western television broadcasts from Finland.

So you were on the wrong side of the Iron curtain, but you could see glimpses of mcGyuver

He was just saying that all the shortages were after they introduced market reforms in the late 80s right before the fall. So your point is meaningless to the discussion.

In the heyday there were definitely people starving in the furthest reaches of fucking Uzbek and shit like that, but it wasn't widespread in the civilized areas by any means. (also they are still starving in Uzbek now)

that's why the collapse was so catastrophic

imagine millions (literally) of mindless neet-drones (so called "engineers") who had all their basic needs taken care by the STATE unplugged out of the dead system

it's a monumental shift in psychology, for many it was too much to adapt

in modern russian phrase "former member of intelligentsia" means "homeless" for a reason

>in modern russian phrase "former member of intelligentsia" means "homeless" for a reason
that is just excellent

>Jazz, Rock, Electronica
> banned

i must have imagined listening to shitloads of jazz and rock on central fucking radio and TV and buying LPs in "Melodiya" shops:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodiya

Rock'n'roll was frowned upon as devil in the west too, and it was a generational thing not something to do with current regime.

>lose ww2
>rebel against dumbfuck stalinist regime
>get rewarded with liveable life
>only requirement is that you dont openly go against the system

i dont get the memes about ebin foot shortages and terrible suffering
all of my grandparents were none party members and had ok jobs like teachers or accountants

they built their own houses and traveled the eastern block, while today i cant even get my own place

I guess if you can't relate to it, it must have never happened. That's the only possible explanation.

So is capitalism basically a pyramid scheme?
Those who are "first" profit the most, and they also have the most information that helps them either secure their position or bail out before the scheme starts faltering.
They also tell you that capitalism is the best shit ever and when it fails it's actually something else that is the problem and endless rationalizations. Meanwhile those on the lower levels of the pyramid aren't any better off than they would be under other systems, except with they are told "one day this could be you!" while pointing at the top portions of the pyramid.
[spoiler]I say this while acknowledging that as a first worlder with a computer and internet access I'm somewhat "in" on the so called scam[/spoiler]

capitalism is any economic system with the free exchange of goods for capital

anything beyond that is a mess of economic theory and politics, all heavily confused by vested interests

Depends.
Do you like centralization (of power), do you like descentralization or are you in between?

If you like centralization you're probably a communist, monarchist or fascist.
If you like descentralization you are a democrat.
If you like the in between choice you are a keynesian capitalist or a corporate capitalist.

:^)

Eh. Housing is more of a global problem these days.

A few decades ago, practically everyone in the West could also easily afford a decent home. The idea that 20-somethings struggle with housing is a very recent invention anywhere.

My mother got into medical studies, even though her father owned a bakery and had dosh. In Poland you only had affirmative action for workers and peasants.

free exchange of goods and trade has existed ever since 3000 bc.

It has nothing to do with capitalism, which is who owns the means of production, which in the case of capitalism is the capitalist, not the state, king, or the nobleman.

everything is always the fault of the poor ppl, remember that, its never the greedy shitstains gubbling up every penny they can steal

>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?

Sure, in state shops or on the 'second economy'. Under Stalinism at least there were pretty substantial wage differentials.

>Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?

Sort of. Most of the actual in-depth planning of production was done by industrial ministries that owned hundreds of firms. 'Centrally coordinated' would probably be a better term for their organization as Gosplan only played a mostly advisory role. Directors of enterprises couldn't do much but they were obliged to realize profits and seemed to have found ways to make the fixed prices more flexible for their own benefit.

> i dont get the memes about ebin foot shortages and terrible suffering
The idea is that you shouldn't even consider changing status quo.

Even if you are homeless and can't afford healthcare, it is much better than TOTALITARIAN SOVIET UNION. So shut up and work, like an obedient consumer.

Germans want communism back, Germans miss the DDR.

The Wall:
Sure, it was hard to get out but even harder to get in. No Muslims, no rapefugees.

Economy:
Sure, there weren't 60 different kinds of dragon dildos and anal creams available but there was also no unemployment and people helped each other out instead of trying to bring each other down.

Patriotism:
Sure, we had sex with the Russians in a way, but patriotism was still encouraged and no one promoted racial and cultural suicide.

Culture:
Poisonous Burger culture was mostly kept out of the country. No McDonalds, no Hollywood, no SJW degeneracy. The DDR was undeniably GERMAN.

Religion:
being a Jesus in the DDR was easier than being a Jesus today in a SJW shit hole that is increasingly becoming Americanized.

Downside:
The sexualized surveillance was shit, of course. Secret police and everything. But we have the same today.

Also:
The part of Germany that was communist is the part now, were 30.000 people march through the streets to rally against Merkel, mass-immigration, against the Islamization adn the Americanization of Germany. It's the part of PEGIDA, LEGIDA, Björn Höcke, people in Heidenau literally attacking the refugee-protecting police at night and then hiding in their neighbor's houses. West Germany is the "Refugees Welcome" SJW part.

50 years of Soviet occupation has obviously done less damage than 50 years (and counting) of American occupation.

Capitalism = free flow of capital.
No wall can keep money in or out.
Therefore, people from outside your country can get their hands on you through their 'investing' in your national industries.

its because in 80s USSR start convert into capitalism. Lines and shortage of food its a sign of late 80 and early 90 when soviet economy collapsed

thanks, will watch.

I thought organized crime became a big problem in the later years of the Soviet Union? (although it got even worse after its end)

The soviet union was part miracle part hell.
Lets not forget that it was devastated by a huge civil war, WW1 and WW2. Not to mention it was still a monarchy at the start of the 20th century with a mostly uneducated populace.
The soviet union gave full rights to all people, no segregation, women rights good education for everyone. Free classes, take up any sport, any interest and anyone could afford it.
It was amazing and yet also horrible because it was build on the back of slave labor and yet was there any other way? Hard to say.

There were advantages and disadvantages.
Fucktards who think going to concerts and reading E magazines is what makes life grand would like it less but you had all the good stuff any intelligent person wanted.
Hiking, skying, any kinds of sports and clubs you wanted.

At some point they could have gone on to a much better route but there were a few mistakes made in the 60's 70's that fucked the soviet union bad.

>This is what school students are being taught in the US.

Yugoslavia was GOAT desu

Why is the American education system so wrong?

There were three surges of organized crime in USSR:
1) 20s/early 30s - those ended with kulak purges
2) late 40s/early 50s - postwar clusterfuck
3) late 80s/early 90s - Perestroika reforms

The key difference between economics and Marxism is that economics (at least tries) to base itself off of empirical observations, whereas Marxism just flat out says anything that disagrees with theory is a misobservation at best, an outright lie at worst.

That might just be the stupidest thing I've seen on this board

you belong on /int/ or /pol/

This is beyond silly.

Even if we take Soviets - they were very keen on practice and pragmatism. Are capitalist methods effective? Implement them!

For example, Taylor's management ideas (for capitalist factory!) were effectively made mandatory read for Party members.

Only during Khruschev reign were some retarded ideology-based (revisionist ideology) decisions.

> there were some

...

Is Jugoslavija the only real example of a functioning Socialist state?

>Free healthcare
>Very good healthcare to the extent that people from France, Germany and UK were flying over for operations and procedures.
>Free education
>Brilliant "arts thinkers" and science programmes so advance, they sold rocket technology to both the Russians and Americans
>Free housing
>Comfy and roomy homes easily capable of withstanding the schizophrenic weather that the Balkans endures (freezing winters, boiling summers)
>Comprehensive transport links
>You want to go to the coast? Jump on a train. Need to see your girlfriend's parents in another state? Smooth roads linking city to city.
>Full employment
>Work weighing you down? Enjoy more mandated leave than most countries in Western Europe
>Worried about overbearing external influences?
>Don't worry. Tito is playing both the Yanks and the Ruskies.
>SUCCESSFULLY

Maybe if you were a Serb you'd live this good live you're describing.

>How did day to day life in communist countries like Russia under the Soviet Union differ from their capitalist rivals?

Same shit mostly.

You go to work or school and then you go home.

>Did workers earn wages that they were free to spend?

Most of the enterprises were state owned, although there was a considerable shadow economy.

>Did businesses operate similarly but just run by the state?

No hell no. State businesses had quotas to meet: 5 tons of bread in a month, and you would receive a fixed wage as a manager or a worker for example. Now, if that bread was of good quality that's another story. I do distinctly remember rocks in my bread, so that tells you the standards of the food.

Most goods and services were of passable quality though.

>If you needed your shoe repaired where would you go?

The dude in the corner. Or the state shop and wait days for it to be done.

>I do distinctly remember rocks in my bread, so that tells you the standards of the food.
That's what you need free market competence.
In every free market society anything like that would mean bankruptcy.

Oh yeah no doubt. I'm hesitant to make generalizations, but for almost all products I think that's true. I think for food especially given how influential yelp is over a restaurant's fate.

>Not to mention it was still a monarchy at the start of the 20th century
Oh my, Britain, Japan and Norway are monarchies still. Somehow they are more or less OK, no need for 10 years of starving and forced labour to get the job done.
>with a mostly uneducated populace.
Pic related. Hereditary dumbs will remain dumb even if they can write twits and read McDonalds signs.
Only Estonia and Latvia dumbed down after expelling all the literate and cultured Germans and Swedes.

unironically albanian

Born in cuba, visited back like 5 times. It's really not bad, it's not as great as living in democracy imo but it's ok. Definitely no wear near Africa level and things get way better with each return

In the DDR:
>There were no homeless
>Everyone could get a cozy job where you only worked 1-2 hours per day and sat around the rest of the day
>Even with such a job you could still afford a car
>Food was cheap
>The radio still played Volksmusik instead of american nigger music
>You could leave your home unlocked and nobody would rob you

Cuba:

>Ahead of the US in life expectancy
>99.8% literacy
>94% high school graduation rate
>Education and healthcare for all citizens
>Hunger completely eradicated
>Poverty completely eradicated
>One of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world

>B-but socialism can never work! E-every socialist state has failed! It only works in racially homogeneous countries!

You should be careful about generalizing Cuba because the people there are mostly supported by the money sent back by people from the US.

Mississippi reporting. People have it better in Cuba than most of the South, that I can guarantee.

Again, supported by the backs of Cubans in the US. And Cuba has a lower price level than Mississippi so the money sent back buys more.