Stagnation killed them. Those mad scientists, and Soviet society in general, never stopped being able to make those things. It's the fact they weren't able to be more efficient, to increase their output, to give better and more food to its population that was the poison pill.
The US took advantage by forcing them to increase military spending. Gorbachev tried to find a way out of stagnation and killed the whole thing instead.
soviet union was actually very good at providing basic needs (food, housing, education, medical care) to its population. in fact much better than even the US does right now. that is not the reason ussr collapsed
Source? As the person who spent good part of my life there, I would like to know more details. I do remember my parents waiting for an government provided apartment for 15 years though.
The cost part Quora gets really well, I have no problem with that. Since Soviet Roubles were worthless money anyway, it did not matter how much you paid for that.
What it does not say though, is that housing supply was extremely poor. There was extreme lack of decent housing, and people could be easily on a 10+ year wait list (as my parents were). There was practically only government provided houses (e.g. apartments), you could not buy land to build your house yourself (all land was nationalized and belonged to "people", i.e. government). So your option was to wait until you were given one. There was also virtually no secondary housing market, you could not buy an apartment since the supply was so low.
So while you waited for the gift from government, you either lived with your parents (if they had place), lived in "kommunalka" (shared apartment where each family got one room but shared kitchen, bathroom etc with other families), or rented a room from whomever you could find (which was not legal actually because it was deemed private entrepreneurship which was not allowed). Was not fun, believe me.
at no point did i say it was fun, or something to be emulated. my point was that post war ussr was good at providing bare basics. i still think my assessment is correct and i think population growth in eastern europe during those times vs now suggest im right. also the fact remains that the soviets built A LOT especially considering that imperial russia was very much an agrarian country. pretty much all the concrete jungles accross eastern europe is the work of socialist housing policies
High population growth is associated with poverty, not prosperity. Economic growth of Eastern Europe pre-1991 and post-1991 tells everything you need to know. Countries that stagnated for 50 years went through a 10x growth in 30 years after the Soviet grip disappeared.
> High population growth is associated with poverty, not prosperity
nope. the us for example had a much higher population growth than eastern europe. every western country continues to experience population growth. the population growth pre 1990 in eastern europe was at a healthy 1%. stagnation and negative rates started in the 90s, which was hardly a period of prosperity in eastern europe
> Countries that stagnated for 50 years went through a 10x growth in 30 years after the Soviet grip disappeared
tell that to everyone that dreams about leaving and working in western europe
> my point was that post war ussr was good at providing bare basics
My point is that USSR was providing bare basics for some and not for all. If you were member of CPSU or an informer, or of privileged nationality then your chances were much higher.
if by some you mean 90+% of population then yeah. otherwise you must have some statistics showing post-ww2 ussr as a leader in malnutrition, illiteracy, lack of medical care, and homelessness
in the mean time, here are some of my own
NUTRITION
Approved For Release 2007/05117: CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5 RFUTEPS 8 JANUARY 1983 5 PENGTH-DIET American and Soviet citizens eat about the same amount of food each day but the Soviet diet may be more nutritious. According to a CIA report released today both nationalities may be eating too much for good health.
The education system that emerged after the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922 became internationally renowned for its successes in eradicating illiteracy and cultivating a highly educated population.
Despite its drawbacks, the soviet healthcare system (Semashko model) is considered by the majority of Russian experts to have been one of the best in the world, because overall it met the requirements of quality, availability and provision of healthcare services, drugs and materials. After the collapse of the USSR, the health-care system was stagnant: funding was greatly limited, highly-skilled medical professionals emigrated, medical research came to a halt and manufacture of drugs and medical equipment declined dramatically.
At the time of Soviet Union's collapse, 70-80%+ of all housing stock belonged to the government. New independent countries privatized it all as fast as they could for peanuts (could get an apartment for the price of a Sony VCR), because their condition was horrible and there was no money for repairs in state budget.
> soviet union was actually very good at providing basic needs (food, housing, education, medical care) to its population. in fact much better than even the US does right now. that is not the reason ussr collapsed
You just have to look the refuges after the wall fell which were buying all the basic necessities in bulk, you know it's BS.
i probably should have made it clear that i was talking about post ww2 ussr. you know, the one that took away crimea from russia and gave it to ukraine. also the same ussr that gave national autonomy rights to almost every ethnic group within its borders (something unheard of in the west); actually this is the "atomic bomb" that putin said lenin placed under russia :)
Constitution of the USSR had freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and many other rights unknown to its population, and severely punished when attempted to exercise those rights. North Korea is a pretty chill place too if you judge it only by its constitution.
except that those autonomous regions and republics very much existed. in some cases they formed the legal basis for independent states existing today: lithuania, estonia, ukraine, belarus, moldova, kazakhstan, etc. moreover their existence was dictated by communist ideology
The socialist revolution may begin in the very near future. In that event the proletariat will be faced with the immediate task of capturing power, of expropriating the banks and of introducing other dictatorial measures. In such a situation, the bourgeoisie, and particularly intellectuals like the Fabians and the Kautskyists, will strive to disrupt and to hinder the revolution, to restrict it to limited democratic aims. While all purely democratic demands may—at a time when the proletarians have already begun to storm the bulwarks of bourgeois power—serve, in a certain sense, as a hindrance to the revolution, nevertheless, the necessity of proclaiming and granting freedom to all oppressed nations (i.e., their right to self-determination) will be as urgent in the socialist revolution as it was urgent for the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, for example, in Germany in 1848, or in Russia in 1905
Sick that you as a russian troll claims russia gave ukrainians indepence. They are fighting for their lives to be free of the evil russians raping and killing them. Do you deny that?
lol i actually have no connection to russia. but whatever helps you deal. i rather enjoy broadening peoples perspectives. dont worry though, if you were a putin fanboy i would have quite a bit to say too
and yes ... nato is bad. every imperialist organisation is bad. be it russian, american, chinese, or whatever
> sometimes you do wonder how USSR, with all these mad scientists and engineers, could ever go down
Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone docuseries by Adam Curtis gives a great answert to that.[1] While it may be factually inaccurate at times, it conveys the feeling those times better than anything else I've ever seen.
> sometimes you do wonder how USSR, with all these mad scientists and engineers, could ever go down
An oversimplification, as any explanation that’s not way too long for this forum would be, but: a decade long war in Afghanistan without an effective democratic outlet for frustration against the regime for the failure.
To be fair they were facing pretty much the entire rest of the worlds fight against "evil communism". It's more remarkable how far they got with essentially a new way of trying things.
It's not nonsense that during the cold war the US & allies put sanctions and trade embargos in place for the USSR & Warsaw pact countries, similar how we have with Russia today, meaning their goods had a limited export market, plus they had restrictions on high tech imports as well leading to the Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal. Also, with the USD being the global reserve currency, the USSR & Co. were dependent on the USD for trade.
It's nonsense because it wasn't 'the rest of the world' and it is nonsense because plenty of the fight came from within the USSR. Ignoring that makes it an utterly meaningless statement. And that's before we get into parties resisting the USSR because it started wars with them.
Hey I just want to let you know that in my original comment I never mentioned the USSR, nor any other state or empire. The promotion of widespread fear of a potential rise of communism did happen, hence the the "evil" in quotes. I never expressed my opinion about any political ideologies nor did I want to have a discussion about that.
No, it isn't because of privacy. It is because they get a cut of the total volume processed on the cards and, as a bonus, they get details about where you spend your money.
They aren't operating a charity. You also left our hotels, airlines, etc. United Airlines makes $$ by signing up members for the United Cards by Chase.
Starbucks has one of the most seamless payment and ordering systems I use on a day-to-day basis. I'm not sure why it's surprising they would have their own credit card to make that even easier. Heck, every big box store seems to have their own card too. They cut down on the transaction fees if it's their own card, plus extra data for them.
At one point Starbucks' digital payment system was ahead of Apple Pay in dollar volume and doing double the volume of all of google pay. I didn't know Starbucks had a credit card but it doesn't surprise me.
Interest income, plus a cut of every transaction (even if not at Starbucks). Plus added spend at Starbucks - having a Starbucks card may entice more spend at Starbucks.
This is very unrealistic. Real life is, I will be constantly disturbed by slack, email, meetings, people petting on my shoulder. Other than all these, I probably can have 1 or 2 hours a day to concentrate on the actual development
