How Does a Communist Economy Work?

[kyphysics]

I understand that in free-market economies that people have the right to private property and own the means of production, while in a communist economy everything is owned by the government.

What does the ladder mean, though? Clearly, even if a communist country, people have their own individual houses, belongings, jobs, and an income, right? What, then, does it mean to say the government owns the means of production? Are people unable to make a profit that they keep for themselves? Is it all collected by the government and redistributed? If so, is it evenly redistributed? Or, would the largest producer get more back?

Also, if you cannot own something in a communist country, what does that mean? Again, people clearly have their own homes, clothes, belongings, etc. Does money exist and matter the same as in a capitalist, free-market society?

 

[fresh_42]

It doesn't.

 

[Borek]

There is no single communist country in the world, and there never was. Some were named this way.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand that in free-market economies that people have the right to private property and own the means of production, while in a communist economy everything is owned by the government.

What does the ladder mean, though? Clearly, even if a communist country, people have their own individual houses, belongings, jobs, and an income, right? What, then, does it mean to say the government owns the means of production? Are people unable to make a profit that they keep for themselves? Is it all collected by the government and redistributed? If so, is it evenly redistributed? Or, would the largest producer get more back?

Also, if you cannot own something in a communist country, what does that mean? Again, people clearly have their own homes, clothes, belongings, etc. Does money exist and matter the same as in a capitalist, free-market society?

There are a number of interpretations of what communism would look like and given, as said above, that none has ever really been achieved, it is open to some interpretation/speculation. But for your specific question about what it means to own "the means of production", that's the companies people work for. There would be no private companies; the government would own all of them.

If one looks to abolish private property, that can include the houses people live in in particular.

 

[fresh_42]

This concept only works in strict theory with assumptions, which humans fail to satisfy - proven and tested.
All attempts cracked upon the fact, that in human societies (of a relevant size!) the $\forall \; \{ humans \;|\; \dots \;\}$ becomes a $\nexists \; \{ human \;|\; \dots \; \}$. Exceptions can only be found within some small tribes in the Amazon basin, if I remember correctly (and where all means of production except work are supplied for free by nature).

 

[S.G. Janssens]

It is perhaps of interest to the OP to read (in case he did not know it already) that L.V. Kantorovich (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Kantorovich.html, wiki) (Soviet mathematician and recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1975, jointly with the Dutch-American T.C. Koopmans) has contributed to the theory of a planned economy. In economic circles I think he is nowadays remembered most for linear programming.

Personally, I know him best as the co-author of a beautiful book on functional analysis, applications and methods. This is closer to my heart.

 

[Sophia]

I won't write about economic theories. Just couple of everyday socialist "wisdoms "
Children in my country used to be taught that in the future, people will walk into shop and only take what they need without paying. Most of them didn't believe it, but it was in the official curriculum since kindergarten to high school.
Then we had something called socialist miracle : everyone steals, yet no one misses anything. No one misses anything, yet no one has enough.
And the most famous saying : he who doesn't steal (from work /state owned property) steals from his own family

There used to be huge amount of barter trade and nepotism.

One of the most precious goods here were tangerines and bananas. Till this day, people remember waiting in long queues (many hours, family members switched taking turns in them because it was too long for one person to wait so long) on christmas.

However absurd and unsustainable it was, the were no homeless people, everyone had to have a job, no one sufered from malnutrition. We didn't have access to exotic fruits, but we were fully self sufficient in basic food and it was of high quality (meat, diary products, grains) There used to be very very cheap after school activities and sports for all children. And of course, free health care and free university for those that didn't cause ideological problems. Of course I don't want to defend this system, but things are not only black and white.

 

[kyphysics]

What about socialist countries then, if communist countries don't exist?

 

[kyphysics]

I won't write about economic theories. Just couple of everyday socialist "wisdoms "
Children in my country used to be taught that in the future, people will walk into shop and only take what they need without paying. Most of them didn't believe it, but it was in the official curriculum since kindergarten to high school.
Then we had something called socialist miracle : everyone steals, yet no one misses anything. No one misses anything, yet no one has enough.
And the most famous saying : he who doesn't steal (from work /state owned property) steals from his own family

There used to be huge amount of barter trade and nepotism.

One of the most precious goods here were tangerines and bananas. Till this day, people remember waiting in long queues (many hours, family members switched taking turns in them because it was too long for one person to wait so long) on christmas.

However absurd and unsustainable it was, the were no homeless people, everyone had to have a job, no one sufered from malnutrition. We didn't have access to exotic fruits, but we were fully self sufficient in basic food and it was of high quality (meat, diary products, grains) There used to be very very cheap after school activities and sports for all children. And of course, free health care and free university for those that didn't cause ideological problems. Of course I don't want to defend this system, but things are not only black and white.

What happened to the economic system of your country? Was it something that continued and prospered?

Also, in regards to "stealing," what was the law or rule on that? Could anyone just take someone else's property without asking and no one has any problems with it?

Thank you very much for sharing. This was very interesting!

 

[Sophia]

What happened to the economic system of your country? Was it something that continued and prospered?

Also, in regards to "stealing," what was the law or rule on that? Could anyone just take someone else's property without asking and no one has any problems with it?

Thank you very much for sharing. This was very interesting!

My country (Czechoslovakia) became socialist in 1948 and went through very rough era of stalinism in the 50's. This was very cruel time of tortures and executions for political offences. In the 60's there was something known as Prague Spring when people wanted "socialism with human face" and attempted to reform the system. However, on August 21st 1968 armies of 5 Soviet countries occupied our country and we were forced to again implement whole socialist philosophy in the process of normalisation. In 1989 there was velvet revolution when people spontaneously started protesting and the regime failed. The reasons why this went so peacefully is still a bit of a mystery. The Soviet soldiers definitely left in 1991.
Many companies bankrupted because they couldn't withstand new capitalism and people became unemployed, resulting in poverty and so called "Hunger walleys" in certain regions. Slowly, foreign companies came here and employed people. The result is that there are only a few national Slovak companies and people work mainly for international companies. This is not perceived positively. These companies have tax benefits and much capital leaves the country.

You asked about stealing. I probably translated it wrong. People didn't steal from other people, but stole material from work. For example, I already mentioned in the past that our garden and cottage was completely built from material stolen from the coal mine and construction of public pool. It was normal. You just gave a bottle of alcohol to the guard and could take anything you wanted. It was quite common and many people did that. The company just ordered the missing material and no one was punished unless they did it too often and too much. Of course, you had to at least try to hide what you did, doing it slowly and in small amounts.
The meaning of that saying was that if you don't steal public property, your family will be poor.

 

[Borek]

It was normal.

Everyone knew it wasn't OK and everyone knew it was stealing. Yes, many people did it, no, not everyone did it. Yes, it was customary and so common state was unable to do much about it, but you could still get jailed for stealing.

 

[DennisN]

Very interesting to hear your accounts, @Sophia!

 

[Sophia]

Everyone knew it wasn't OK and everyone knew it was stealing. Yes, many people did it, no, not everyone did it. Yes, it was customary and so common state was unable to do much about it, but you could still get jailed for stealing.

Yes, of course they knew that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Everyone knew it wasn't OK...

If I understood her story correctly, the memes people told each other (privately) were to communicate that it was socially acceptable, that you wouldn't be judged as corrupt by your peers. In other words, it was O.K. They had been taken over by force and were under the thumb of a Soviet puppet government.

 

[Salvador]

As was pointed out communism was never achieved , if you would like to know more about what it was in theory then you need to read Karl Marx's and Lenin's books of which there are plenty.
In short communism was the idea of a society which has given the full legal status of property to a legitimate government which then owns the means of production while people simply go to work , by working and building and using resources the government then fulfills it's budget and then from that money all the needs of every citizen are satisfied , so that in theory each one should and could take only as much as he needs for example food , a car , some materials etc.

Communism is actually a very advanced idea of a future society and could work but then again it can't and never will because human nature is selfish and everyone even those who are highly educated and advanced in their thinking and can be considered intellectuals are selfish and self driven "animals" so in a world were each child from the very early days of his life wants to play with all the cars alone communism is impossible and so the idea behind it proved to be a failed one.

If I should guess I would say the closest to communism at some points were the USSR , it surely was the most advanced hardcore socialist state to ever exist on this planet.It had everything from nuclear bombs to advanced science and technology and still it required a massive and sophisticated intelligence agency which controlled everything, to keep this giant structure together and keep it in check.
The KGB probably is the best example of the all seeing eye or the conspiracy Illuminati in terms of absolute limitless control.
But don't fool yourselves , apart from waiting in line for exotic fruits and other shortcomings life in the USSR wasn't exactly a nightmare , people still had sex enjoyed arts and music played sports and simply lived their lives.And yes, one of you mentioned it already, in terms of "green" food , food indeed was much healthier back then simply because the factories producing it gained no profit and were not interested in making it from cheaper ingredients and or toxic additives.

Bottom line , there is no perfect system in a world filled with imperfect humans , there simply are ones that work better and then there are those that perform worse.@zoobyshoe , Well I would say it bit differently , back in the USSR people stole from work because those materials and goods were hard to get anywhere else no matter how much money you had and as funny as it may sound money was not the problem , everyone was rather well off in terms of money but the lack of products was the problem because the government didn't produce them so much as in capitalist economies were there are many more small private factories producing tons of stuff that overflow the market.
See the parallels , now in capitalism people don't steal products because it's worthless and only lends you in jail , now people do various unethical stuff and at many times criminal activities to get money , you see now it's the other way around money is the thing everyone wants but only few have enough because the stores are full with merchandise so you only need cash and it's all yours.

again bottom line , there are always shortcomings and deficits of something back then it was products now it's money , capitalism only works better because it's much better adjusted to the human nature and since most humans are capable enough of figuring out a way to get money capitalism works because there's always someone who pays for a product and so keeps the manufacturing going and the budget filled with taxes. But if one looks deeper we are noway near a fair game in terms of equal rights or pay or the rich paying as Hillary says " their fair share" etc etc.

 

[Sophia]

If I understood her story correctly, the memes people told each other (privately) were to communicate that it was socially acceptable, that you wouldn't be judged as corrupt by your peers. In other words, it was O.K. They had been taken over by force and were under the thumb of a Soviet puppet government.

Exactly :-) these were memes, or some kind of ironic/black humour sayings spoken in private. They were not meant to describe the reality 100% accurately.
They rather described general mood in the society.

 

[Sophia]

As was pointed out communism was never achieved , if you would like to know more about what it was in theory then you need to read Karl Marx's and Lenin's books of which there are plenty.
In short communism was the idea of a society which has given the full legal status of property to a legitimate government which then owns the means of production while people simply go to work , by working and building and using resources the government then fulfills it's budget and then from that money all the needs of every citizen are satisfied , so that in theory each one should and could take only as much as he needs for example food , a car , some materials etc.

Communism is actually a very advanced idea of a future society and could work but then again it can't and never will because human nature is selfish and everyone even those who are highly educated and advanced in their thinking and can be considered intellectuals are selfish and self driven "animals" so in a world were each child from the very early days of his life wants to play with all the cars alone communism is impossible and so the idea behind it proved to be a failed one.

If I should guess I would say the closest to communism at some points were the USSR , it surely was the most advanced hardcore socialist state to ever exist on this planet.It had everything from nuclear bombs to advanced science and technology and still it required a massive and sophisticated intelligence agency which controlled everything, to keep this giant structure together and keep it in check.
The KGB probably is the best example of the all seeing eye or the conspiracy Illuminati in terms of absolute limitless control.
But don't fool yourselves , apart from waiting in line for exotic fruits and other shortcomings life in the USSR wasn't exactly a nightmare , people still had sex enjoyed arts and music played sports and simply lived their lives.And yes, one of you mentioned it already, in terms of "green" food , food indeed was much healthier back then simply because the factories producing it gained no profit and were not interested in making it from cheaper ingredients and or toxic additives.

Bottom line , there is no perfect system in a world filled with imperfect humans , there simply are ones that work better and then there are those that perform worse.@zoobyshoe , Well I would say it bit differently , back in the USSR people stole from work because those materials and goods were hard to get anywhere else no matter how much money you had and as funny as it may sound money was not the problem , everyone was rather well off in terms of money but the lack of products was the problem because the government didn't produce them so much as in capitalist economies were there are many more small private factories producing tons of stuff that overflow the market.
See the parallels , now in capitalism people don't steal products because it's worthless and only lends you in jail , now people do various unethical stuff and at many times criminal activities to get money , you see now it's the other way around money is the thing everyone wants but only few have enough because the stores are full with merchandise so you only need cash and it's all yours.

again bottom line , there are always shortcomings and deficits of something back then it was products now it's money , capitalism only works better because it's much better adjusted to the human nature and since most humans are capable enough of figuring out a way to get money capitalism works because there's always someone who pays for a product and so keeps the manufacturing going and the budget filled with taxes. But if one looks deeper we are noway near a fair game in terms of equal rights or pay or the rich paying as Hillary says " their fair share" etc etc.

Great post, Salvador!

 

[zoobyshoe]

As was pointed out communism was never achieved , if you would like to know more about what it was in theory then you need to read Karl Marx's and Lenin's books of which there are plenty.

The theory can really only be found in the works of Marx and Engels. From Lenin on, it was modified.

If I should guess I would say the closest to communism at some points were the USSR , it surely was the most advanced hardcore socialist state to ever exist on this planet.It had everything from nuclear bombs to advanced science and technology and still it required a massive and sophisticated intelligence agency which controlled everything, to keep this giant structure together and keep it in check.
The KGB probably is the best example of the all seeing eye or the conspiracy Illuminati in terms of absolute limitless control.
But don't fool yourselves , apart from waiting in line for exotic fruits and other shortcomings life in the USSR wasn't exactly a nightmare , people still had sex enjoyed arts and music played sports and simply lived their lives.And yes, one of you mentioned it already, in terms of "green" food , food indeed was much healthier back then simply because the factories producing it gained no profit and were not interested in making it from cheaper ingredients and or toxic additives.

Completely diagree. The Soviet Union was not a communist state. It was a Stalinist state. Stalin was an opportunistic sociopath who used communist/socialist rhetoric as part of his strategy for getting himself into power. He was completely disinterested in anyone's welfare except his own. Life under Stalin was an unmitigated nightmare, and his legacy lives on.

 

[zoobyshoe]

.@zoobyshoe , Well I would say it bit differently , back in the USSR people stole from work because those materials and goods were hard to get anywhere else no matter how much money you had and as funny as it may sound money was not the problem , everyone was rather well off in terms of money but the lack of products was the problem because the government didn't produce them so much as in capitalist economies were there are many more small private factories producing tons of stuff that overflow the market.

Why they stole is a separate issue from whether or not it was O.K. (socially acceptable). Borek seemed ( I thought) to be concerned that Sophia's post could somehow be taken out of context to be an endorsement for stealing. That's mostly what I was trying to address: that her post has to be understood in context.

 

[Salvador]

Well @zoobyshoe if you want to have a deeper understanding of these things you cannot simply go and say the whole USSR was nothing but Stalinist etc.History is not just black and white.That's like saying that China was 100% Maoist in the times of Mao Zedong and that everyone in the US was all for segregation up until 1960's , you see how these statements are ignorant?
Stalin was a brutal dictator and there were many like him only in lower ranks but he did made some very clever moves in WW2 and also pushed an aggressive industrialization across the USSR.
In general the Soviet Union had multiple time periods under different general secretaries of the state.

The question is not about whether Stalin was a sociopath or an opportunist , I think most politicians ever have been a bit delusional and with problems in their own family life after all it's not the hard working father of 4 and a loving wife who usually seeks world level fame and a job that deals with controlling the world wouldn't you agree? Many world leaders have been opportunistic crazies with often a failed marriage and a thirst for power , that's what gets them in those ranks in the first place , the question is could there have been another way to make an empire or a country great without killing millions of people and controlling millions more with a sophisticated and very hardcore state secret service.
Surely it could have been done otherwise but probably not in a country like Russia and with an idea like that of Communism and Marx's and later Lenin's tuned materialistic socialism.

Aldo remember than the actual count of people killed under the USSR is unknown and probably will forever be that way , also many western sources overestimate the numbers to serve their political agenda.
Also Stalin's rule went through WW2 and many casualties were that of war with Germany.The rest were those who either were considered the enemies of state or who refused to join collective farms and or possessed some larger capital and were labeled "kulaks" or bourgeoisie and so automatically became enemies of the state.Sure there were other reasons for getting shot in the back of your head , helping the enemy in war , being singled out by a neighbor or a "friend" to the NKVD as a traitor etc etc.
But contrary to public belief the brutal arrests and killings ended some years after WW2 , and basically everyone who wasn't a criminal or didn't plot something against the sate and knew how to keep shut about specific matters was fine.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, it's the other way around.

 

[mheslep]

Excerpt from Northwestern professor Gary Saul Morson in this month's New Criterion:
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-house-is-on-fire--8466

... Western public opinion has never come to terms with the crimes of Communism. Every school child knows about the Holocaust, Apartheid, and American slavery, as they should. But Pol Pot’s murder of a quarter of Cambodia’s population has not dimmed academic enthusiasm for the Marxism his henchmen studied in Paris. Neither the Chinese Cultural Revolution nor the Great Purges seem to have cast a shadow on the leftists who apologized for them. Quite the contrary, university classes typically blame the Cold War on American “paranoia” about communism and still picture Bolsheviks as idealists in too great a hurry. Being leftwing means never having to say you’re sorry...

Our knowledge of Bolshevik horrors expanded dramatically when, after the fall of the Soviet Union, its archives were opened. Jonathan Brent and Yale University Press brought out volume after volume of chilling documents, but public opinion did not noticeably change. How many readers of The New York Times know about its role in covering up the worst of Stalin’s crimes and earning a Pulitzer Prize (still unreturned) for doing so?

I understand being so carried away by Communist ideals that one denies or justifies millions of deaths. What amazes me is that people and publications who have done so still feel entitled to criticize others from a position of moral superiority. . . .

I first grasped what Stalinist life was like during a course I took withWolfgang Leonhard, the child of German communists who was brought up in the USSR, defected to Yugoslavia, and wound up teaching Russian history at Yale. His autobiography, Child of the Revolution, tells a story, set during the Great Purges, about some families in a communal apartment who are awakened at 4 a.m. (the usual time for arrests) by a peremptory banging at the door. Finally one old man, with less life left to lose, answers, disappears into the corridor, and at last returns. “Comrades, relax!” he explains. “The house is on fire!”

 

[Mark44]

but public opinion did not noticeably change. How many readers of The New York Times know about its role in covering up the worst of Stalin’s crimes and earning a Pulitzer Prize (still unreturned) for doing so?

Look up Walter Duranty, writer for the NYT, and apologist for Stalin's Soviet Union.

I agree with the tone of this quote from Gary Morson. Nazism is appropriately viewed as the evil it was, but for some reason, the horrors perpetrated under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others has never received the full opprobrium that they so richly deserve. These include the genocide by Stalin against the kulaks in Ukraine in the 1920s (~10,000,000 or more killed) and the deaths of perhaps 50 to 75 million people in the Cultural Revolution in the 60s and 70s in Mao's China.

 

[mheslep]

...has never received the full opprobrium that they so richly deserve.

Yes. Nobody starts a thread on "How does a fascist / Nazi economy work?" , with response posts asserting that there were never any true fascist economies because psychopaths took them over before they could reach their true potential. Not surprising I suppose given the media output. Hollywood has put out uncountable films demonizing the Nazis, and still has a taste for them. Hollywood also put out a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin propaganda film at the behest of the US government during WWII.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"According to one of the official slogans in Moscow in the 1960s and 1970s, Lenin, though dead for a long time, was more alive than any other contemporary. The same is true with regard to Stalin, for so deep was the impact of Stalinism that, it has remained the central issue in Soviet society. Real lasting change is possible only if Stalinism is eradicated-that is, the climate of fear and the lack of initiative in the economy and in social life-and this has proved to be much more difficult than many thought.
"Under Glasnost there have been promising new beginnings in various directions, startling in many ways in view of the lack of freedom, Stalin's main legacy, that prevailed for so long. Can it be said that the changes are irreversible, the break with the past final? I very much hope so, but only time will tell. The decline and fall of Stalinism seems to me certain, but I also believe it will be a long journey to the very end. Stalin's ghost has not yet been exorcised; it will haunt his native country for years to come."

Stalin, The Glasnost Revelations
1990
by Walter Laqueur p.5

26 years after the above writing, it is looking like Stalin's Ghost has still not been exorcised:

On Thursday, independent pollster the Levada Center released the results of its December poll about the public’s attitude toward Stalinism. According to the poll, 34 percent of respondents (up from 28 percent in 2007) say that leading the Soviet people to victory in the Second World War was such a great achievement that it outweighed the Soviet dictator’s vices and mistakes.

Twenty percent of respondents (compared to 14 percent in 2007) agreed with the statement that “Stalin was a wise leader who made the Soviet Union a powerful and prosperous nation.” The share of those who hold that only a harsh and cruel person could maintain order in the country in Stalin’s times remained unchanged since 2007 at 15 percent…

More: https://www.rt.com/politics/328908-public-opinion-on-stalin-improves/

At the same time, the majority of the Russian public acknowledges that Stalin’s radical policies had caused millions of casualties among innocent Soviet citizens and mass violations of human rights. Two thirds of respondents agreed that Stalin was a tyrant and about a half said that Stalinist purges were a crime. However, 26 percent of respondents said that the repressions were caused by political necessity and should be justified in historical perspective.

https://www.rt.com/politics/337183-sympathy-for-stalin-among-russians/

In the early 1970s the west got its first good look at life under Stalin from Solzhenitsyn's book, The Gulag Archipelago.

One of Solzhenitsyn's most chilling stories concerned a birthday party for Comrade Stalin, held in a small, out-of-the-way town. Stalin was, of course, no where in sight, but still there were speeches and applause. Without thinking, the mayor of the town rose and exhorted his fellows to one last cheer for the evening to the honor of Stalin.

The applause continued for minutes without stopping and everyone was growing weary, but who would dare to be the first to stop clapping? As the labored applause wore on an old man collapsed. Finally the mayor allowed his arms to drop and the noise died. The next evening the mayor was sentenced to the gulag, and no charges were ever spoken against him. As he stepped into the train, a party official whispered into his ear, "Never be the first one to stop clapping."

http://davidsisler.com/04-01-2000.htm

At the same time things have slowly eased up a fair amount there, there is a definite sense the whole former Soviet world is suffering from a long term case of post traumatic stress disorder brought on by Stalin's rule. Both the deeply ingrained fear and the brutality have been passed from one generation to the next: you can only teach your children what you know.

While civilian life is better today in Russia, the modern Russian military has degenerated into a kind of prison or Gulag society where the older 'prisoners' abuse and bully the newer ones:

Dedovshchina (Russian: дедовщи́на; IPA: [dʲɪdɐˈfɕːinə]; lit. reign of grandfathers) is the informal practice of initiation (see:hazing) of new junior conscripts, formerly to the Soviet Armed Forces and today to the Russian armed forces, Internal Troops, and (to a much lesser extent) FSB Border Guards, as well as the military forces of certain former Soviet Republics. It consists of brutalization by more senior conscripts serving their last year of compulsory military service as well as NCOs and officers.

Dedovshchina encompasses a variety of subordinating or humiliating activities undertaken by the junior ranks: from doing the chores of the senior ranks to violent and sometimes lethal physical and psychological abuse, not unlike an extremely vicious form of bullying or even torture. It is often cited as a major source of poor morale in the ranks.

Often with the justification of maintaining authority, physical violence or psychological abuse can be used to make the “youth” do certain fatiguing duties. In many situations, hazing is in fact not the goal. Conscripts with seniority exploit their juniors to provide themselves with a more comfortable existence, and the violent aspects arise when juniors refuse to "follow traditions".[citation needed] There have been occasions where soldiers have been seriously injured, or, in extraordinary situations, killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina

I think this is the most serious threat to Russian society, the one that will keep Stalin's Ghost intact indefinitely: those criminal/military indoctrinees will eventually get out of the military and take that whole ethos with them back into civilian society. It will affect how they raise their families and what politics they subscribe to.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes. Nobody starts a thread on "How does a fascist / Nazi economy work?" , with response posts asserting that there were never any true fascist economies because psychopaths took them over before they could reach their true potential.

Hope you're not taking anything I said as pro-communist. It's just fact that, as with so many things, the stated theory doesn't ever end up authentically getting put into practice. Pointing out that the USSR wasn't actually a communist government doesn't mean I endorse communism.

 

[Sophia]

I think this is the most serious threat to Russian society, the one that will keep Stalin's Ghost intact indefinitely: those criminal/military indoctrinees will eventually get out of the military and take that whole ethos with them back into civilian society. It will affect how they raise their families and what politics they subscribe to.

Yes, that is something that used to be here, too, until compulsory service was cancelled. Though I think in Russia it is worse than here. Still, it was something that boys dreaded and the vast majority didn't want to go to army.
However, I don't think it was something that traumatised them for the rest of the life in the sense you are talking about (sure, there may have been cases of extreme brutality that did). Majority of men in my country went through this and I seriously don't think they are somehow more brutal or dominant than men in the rest of the world.
What it may have caused is rather some kind of learned powerlessness and belief that our opinion doesn't matter and there's only little we can change about the system we live in. Times change, your behaviour should change accordingly so that you gain most for you and your family. There's not much else you can do, elections are mostly useless. At the same time, there's still a generation of elderly people who fanatically love powerful men in our politics such as Mečiar and now prime minister Fico who remind them of communist leaders. This might be a case of Putin 's popularity, too I suppose - people need strong hand to lead them.
But this is present in female population, too. I don't believe common people can change anything, either. I believe we are under control of THEM (EU and Slovak government in my case) and there's no hope any of them will do good for the people. If they do, it's just a byproduct of doing what's good for THEM. I don't know, maybe it is still an influence of socialist mentality. As I sell newspapers, I sometimes talk to men who went through military about these things and majority of them has this opinion.
Of course, there are people who like the EU. There's a whole spectrum of opinions. What I tried to present here is what I percieve as the general political atmosphere in one of the small towns in one of the Hunger walleys that I mentioned above (freedom to travel to Western countries for work is usually accepted as a solution to problem caused by Slovak government who can't create employment with decent salaries here so people are forced to leave their families. Especially in people with families, economical migration is something they are forced to do, not something they enjoy as a political freedom. I Mentioned problems with children being left with only one parent or even completely alone teenagers while the parents are abroad on the forum before. And grandparents can't be with their grandchildren in case that young people move abroad and have children there ). In larger towns, there might be more capitalistic opinions.

 

[Salvador]

I'm sorry folks but much of what you have written is biased BS.How many of you have actually been to Russia or even got an opinion from anything else than western sources and maybe Solzhenitsyn?
That being said I'm not going to say oh no Stalin was such a humble and cheerful fellow , sure he wasn't but that's not the point here.To understand the history of such complex matters one must look at all sides of it from different angles.
Just to clear up some misconceptions if I may , first of all the soviet army wasn't exactly a death camp for those who went there , some 80% of the people I know personally have been there , did their time and their fine , no one is a crazy sociopath or a killing monster , they are living just like anyone else.Yes Soviet army wasn't exactly honeymoon for the married , it was a tough place and for many it formed their backbone for the rest of their lives and I don't see anything bad about that , honestly today's youth would need to serve their time in the army , maybe then they wouldn't think their these unbeatable superheroes that can show their big egos and spit in the face of teachers , spoiled youth is a rather big problem these days but that's another topic let's leave it at that for now.
As for the Soviet red army as in all life , the ones who were at higher positions like in missile silo staff or munitions depots etc had a better stay those who were stupid and with no education ended up doing the dirtiest work in the army while serving their time.They also were the ones that frequently got into fights etc, but let's be honest people like them get into all kinds of trouble with or without army.

@Sophia , I'm from the Baltics , Czechoslovakia was way better off back then and the two separate countries are much better off now than we are of that I can assure you.You sort of got less of the taste of pure socialism.I have been to both Czech republic and Slovakia , very beautiful places , lovely cities I much enjoyed my stay there so for all who think twice the ex USSR is not exactly a giant nuclear rocket silo , it's quite nice here :)

@mheslep Well I think you understand well enough why the US made a propaganda film for Stalin in the midst of WW2, that's because the Soviets did most of the fighting with Nazi Germany , and quite frankly Europe needed the USSR to help defeat Germany otherwise the Brits and France was on the edge of being totally destroyed.Sure the US wasn't so concerned because they were much further away from the source.Only if maybe for the German nuclear bomb project.
Hitlers two biggest mistakes to my mind were as follows , firs of all you don't put more on your plate than you can eat , fighting both the USSR and Europe that's one hell of a task, second his anti Jewish ideology probably lost him the war , because if otherwise think about the consequences , Einstein mainly deserted to US fearing for his life as many other prominent scientists which all later developed the US nuclear bomb.

That being said , history is way more dirty than it seems because the USSR and Stalin was actually allies and friends with Hitler before war and in the first years of it.The much forgotten Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was actually a deal between the USSR and Nazi Germany and it included secret agreements of how exactly Europe would be divided between the USSR and Germany.Then later on when Hitler got enough steam he though he could take on Stalin's USSR but he failed that which many before him like Napoleon who too tried to conquer Russia.
Sp at some point WW2 seems not so much like a war but a staged two empire plan to take over the world which went sideways at some points mainly because the German fuhrer lost his ambition to his madness while Stalin pretty much maintained his cool and kept on slaughtering.
Also Nazism isn't that much different from Soviet socialism , it only has some differences economically but all else , well Hitler visited the USSR many times before WW2 to gain insight into concentration camps and the whole giant apparatus the USSR had made to control and execute millions if state enemies.@zoobyshoe , now just because some archives have been open doesn't mean there is much insight into the USSR policy, that is just the scratching of the surface , most of the important documents are either destroyed or still locked up in the FSB former KGB secret basements , they are being called the "KGB bags" those documents contain everything from every last name of every informant from every factory , news paper , local school etc to high ranking individuals and their covert operations to the mass executions and who ordered them to maybe even Stalin's own signed documents for many of the policies carried out.If one ever got to these files he would then better understand the hierarchy and workings of this giant and rather complex mechanism.

I just want to touch a little bit more on theory.You have to realize that the very idea of Marxism , later Communism as Lenin envisioned it isn't natural in terms of how the human mind and selfish desire works , Vanadium pointed that out here with a funny phrase.Now since this idea and ideology wasn't natural it requires some force some outside power to make it happen , about this Lenin wrote extensively , the need for a revolution and he managed to make one using the popular uprising against the old Czar and his monarchy.Much of the society was poor and enslaved so Lenin used that moment to ride his idea on top of it and win the October revolution.But after the revolution the force couldn't be taken away , the idea of the USSR only works if you have a hardcore government with an almost perfect and limitless secret service underlining and scanning every part of the society , this role was undertaken by the NKVD later the famous KGB.
A country like this needs a strong dictator or as he was called general secretary , it simply doesn't work otherwise.All the attempts later on to humanize the USSR and make it more like the western world only lead to it's collapse.Actually after Stalin in the 1960's the now famous stealing from work started slowly and became a norm , so much for Stalin's ghost...
If it weren't Stalin it would have been someone else , the very position in which he was in demanded executions of state enemies , I hope you see that.
Much like living in a tiger habitat means that either the tigers or humans will win but they won't live together.
So basically as always the most dangerous of them all is the idea behind an action not a single man or a personality , I'm not afraid from Stalin or his ghost , there is no Stalin's ghost that is all BS.But there is the idea of a Russian empire and Communism and world domination and that is the danger.
Much like with radical Islam , you can execute all terrorists currently living in the world , so what ? as long as the Quran will talk about killing unbelievers wherever they are there will be someone who will act upon that idea.

So the actual ghost of Stalin is not a fear from his personality it's the well engineered idea which was implemented for almost a century on global scale that still lingers in the minds of many.
The real physical fear doesn't last as long , In the 1980's we already had discos and people were feeling and living rather freely for a regime like that of the USSR.
In fact so freely that many from my country dared to put flowers on the monument for liberty which only 10 or more years earlier would have surely landed them in jail.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think it was something that traumatised them for the rest of the life in the sense you are talking about (sure, there may have been cases of extreme brutality that did). Majority of men in my country went through this and I seriously don't think they are somehow more brutal or dominant than men in the rest of the world.

The wiki article I linked to wasn't the most graphic. It's hard to believe anyone could have gone through the stuff in this following article without being seriously traumatized for life:
http://www.vice.com/read/full-v13n4

 

[Salvador]

Also If I may I want to touch on the matter that was put to light here about the stealing from workplace.
I think it has to do with psychology more than it has to do with the actual living conditions , as some already pointed out it wasn't like people were starving or anything , people were actually living ok , but because the economic model was as it was the production of goods was not fast enough to supply the whole demand , now this is one of the aspects , here's the second one , since all factories and shops were government owned nothing was private and as you may see in a private factory especially smaller ones the CEO and the owner usually looks after his workers and how well the money is spent vs the output , that's because he is personally interested in those matters , now in a Marxian economy since all is state owned it very often didn't have such a rigorous oversight as private firms , except for the military ones... so there was this sense of if it's state owned it means it's everybody's property and at the same time nobody's property so this combined with the lack of goods in the shops slowly created a popular environment for stealing.
Someone took better bricks than he could have otherwise for his summer dacha , others took car parts etc.
There is a phenomenon born out of this , if you open up an old man's garage in my country it's so full of stuff that as soon as you open the door things just start falling on your head.
People were so used to getting everything even the things they will never need that they simply took home everything that they could.Most of the stuff was as I said never necessary but the idea that one day it might be of some worth was behind and so it was there.Although that doesn't mean everyone was like that , my grandfather for example was a high ranking official in a Soviet port , he lived a modest life , he was given a apartment in the early 1960's for his good work at the port and he lived there until his retirement.He also had a summer house outside the city which he built from materials he bought and never stole anything.
He was given multiple strong offers to join the Communist party and believe it ir not he declined them all.Just so that you would understand being a high ranking official at some local factory or other enterprise in the USSR meant almost 100% you have to also be a member of the CP and as a bonus an informant or an agent for the KGB.He was neither as he didn't want to involve himself in dirty stuff so he declined and lived his life , sure there was some pressure but nothing terrible.

Hope this gives you a small glimpse of how things actually were instead of how they are portrayed.
Not trying to defend the system but it's also not fair to say that everything was black while there were many other colors of the rainbow present.

 

[Sophia]

The wiki article I linked to wasn't the most graphic. It's hard to believe anyone could have gone through the stuff in this following article without being seriously traumatized for life:
http://www.vice.com/read/full-v13n4

That's really bad! :-( yes, it's surely torture.

 

[Salvador]

Well ok s for the article on vice news , every army can be shown in bad light , take the US and their scandal of the treating of afghan prisoners or the constant flow of whining about Guantanamo etc I don't like when something is presented as a one way street or a thing that happens only in that part of the world.
Of all the news I watch I couldn't say Vice does the most authentic job although they have some good pieces from time to time.

That being said yes the Russian army is a tough place , but trust me it's not only because of the supervisors or policy it's because Russians are tough people , their mentality is such , if you can't understand this then there is nothing much one can say.
I hope liberals all around the world have long stopped dreaming about this global world which enjoys peace and democracy , it will never happen , it's not like I don't want it but It cannot happen much like Communism cannot happen , people are people they differ from country to country from nationality to nationality from family to family.The Russians like their "drinks strong" while Europeans might think otherwise and Americans might want no drinks at all so what ?

For those who think Russia would be better off with a liberal democracy driven government well think twice, Russia is sort of like the middle east , one territory many times even one country but so many different tribes and directions and they fight all the time and clash.

Let me give you an example, watch the Russian "Stop ham" videos were young folks go around the city and demand drivers to park their cars correctly , you know what they get mot of the time ? an aggressive response , an with the word aggressive I mean real physical force , threats and sometimes even physical injuries so they go atleast 4 people a group.
This is the Russian mentality - force.One wise man once said that Putin is the best you can wish because his tough and keeps things in check , if the Kremlin would soften up chaos would arise and then all I can say is God help us.
Look what chaos does in the middle east to the rest of the world (9/11 etc ) Think about what would chaos mean for the worlds second or third strongest military with sophisticated weapons systems and a huge nuclear arsenal.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now since this idea and ideology wasn't natural it requires some force some outside power to make it happen , about this Lenin wrote extensively , the need for a revolution and he managed to make one using the popular uprising against the old Czar and his monarchy.Much of the society was poor and enslaved so Lenin used that moment to ride his idea on top of it and win the October revolution.But after the revolution the force couldn't be taken away , the idea of the USSR only works if you have a hardcore government with an almost perfect and limitless secret service underlining and scanning every part of the society , this role was undertaken by the NKVD later the famous KGB.
A country like this needs a strong dictator or as he was called general secretary , it simply doesn't work otherwise.All the attempts later on to humanize the USSR and make it more like the western world only lead to it's collapse.

So, what you're saying is that communism is a system whereby, in order to make people's lives better, it is necessary to oppress them even more than they were under the old regime. I see.

 

[Salvador]

Hey Zooby , no hard feelings but don't blame me for any of what I said , I'm just trying to tell you the way it is, there's nothing personal about any of this , at least not for me.
A system which asks people to do the things they would rather not do must use force as that is the only means of keeping that system running.Take physics for example , a car only moves somewhere especially uphill if it has some force acting on it , naturally the car doesn't want to go anywhere.
The society is no different , there is no way on this Earth one can peacefully just ask the majority to "Hey, let's all now work for a better tomorrow in the name of a more advanced society"
All people want a higher paycheck for themselves and better stuff for themselves they don't care whether their neighbors have that or not.

take the US current administration as a good example , I'm personally again am not in favor of anyone I'm neutral but just as an example , when the administration tries some social reforms that would be considered tiny with respect to even socialistic countries like Sweden or Norway not to mention the USSR look at how much the backlash is , and that's just a tiny reform , now can you imagine why I said that social experiments on the size of USSR simply cannot be done without force? ...

 

[Sophia]

Thanks @Salvador, it's totally right, post USSR countries may not be so rich as Western, but at live just like anyone else. It's not all grey and serious in here. Yes, it's not customary to smile all the time and we may not be so open to strangers, but once you get to know people, they are nice and kind and helpful. There are some mean psychopaths like anywhere else. But in general, it's totally true as you said, people lived, loved and laughed during socialism, too.
Yes, if you got into trouble it was terrible and there was a high chance your career and career of your children were ruined. That is truth.
However, everyone knew he would have a job and a home to live in. No one had to be afraid he couldn't pay medical bills. Even if parents were poor, their children could attend university (true - if they were politically ok).
Everyone could afford quality food. There was no water and chemicals added to meat to make it heavier as they do today. The bread was made from real yeast, not from quick - yeast as now, which makes bread puffy and light. There's only one shop in my town where you can get a real bread. During socialism, it was everywhere and it was cheap.

Also the care for children was especially good. Free or very cheap from kindergarten to university. Lots of after school activities and summer camps available to everyone. Educational TV programmes for kids and youth that could include real content because the producers weren't pressed by need to sell adds. Of course, the programmes were censured by the Party, but they still had much higher value than the BS produced today.
You could buy cheap books, there used to be many cultural activities, theatre, opera etc. Everyone could afford them.

I'm not writing this to glorify socialism. It had many very serious flaws. And in the first place, the ideology is against human nature as Salvador said. I don't want socialism to return here.
But I feel it is important to stress that even in these countries, life wasn't only about continuous torture and inability to fulfil basic needs.

Edit: corrected several typoes. I wrote on mobile and the keyboard changed some words