Honestly looking at this old video and comparing with modern life USA, unless you are rich, the average worker then at Soviet Union had more basic needs covered such as heath, education, culture and housing! Sad but true !
Enjoy your depressing gray concrete block apartment with no insulation for the winter and a disgusting communal kitchen you have to share with 20 other people.
насчет отпуска. большинство людей в то время так или иначе жили с помощью огорода. поэтому, например, моей бабушке когда дали путевку на море. это было тогда же где-то в 1960-х годах, то для нее поехать было большой проблемой т.к. она имела большое хозяйства свиньи, утки, куры и пр. плюс картофельное поле, плюс теплица с овощами, и ягоды нужно было собрать для варенья. т.е. всё это просто так не оставишь и не уедешь. это животные. их нужно постоянно кормить, за ними нужно постоянно убирать. надо просить людей чтобы присмотрели. а бесплатно никто работать не будет. так что бесплатная путевка все равно стоила денег :-)
My uncle told me before he died that their road in Mississippi didn't get electricity and running water until the 1950s. They used wood for heat and cooking.
Still is like that in places. We moved to Western MA 7 years ago and our town didn't have Internet access. No WiFi, no cable, no fiber optics. Just land lines and a few areas with cell tower signal. 3 years ago we got hi speed internet by pooling money with 3 other towns. A few houses are off grid completely though. Not because they're preppers or anything. It's just too expensive to run electric to a few houses a mile off the main road.
I saw a video of Soviet life in 1984, the quality of life seems to have improved considerably from 1958. The 80s film was far less biased than this one.
It really has. There were problems in some cities and towns, but in general hunger wasn't a threat. Basic food, clothes, good education, decent medicine (but the huge role was played by prevention and healthy lifestyle propaganda) and arts.
@@alexanderkuptsov6117 yeah, at least no one starved to death/were homeless in soviet times it seems, i saw another guy comment that in soviet times, children had a nice childhood and adults were treated like slaves/robots, which i can kinda see it, and its a trade off, im in chicago, where 50% of the school children are food insecure and 10% housing insecure, thats 500,000 children thats gonna hate the society they grew up in because they are not sure when is the next meal is coming
@@johnadams5245 >>adults were treated like slaves/robots Ridiculous. People who write that don't realise what goes on at Amazon warehouses or chain restaurants. And as far as the 80s are concerned, it's nonsense. The ideology was fading out, some people were sliding to poverty, some people were on their way from rags to riches. You just had to comply with a bunch of old Soviet rituals. I'm sorry to hear that about kids in Chicago, it's nonsense that in the richest country in the world there are food-insecure kids and the count is hundred thousands. You see, we tried to build a society with no food / housing insecurity, but we had to fight the liberal world as well, and, as O. Henry wrote, Bolivar cannot carry double.
Similar 1976 movie made by URSS about life in New York available in RU-vid: Америка 70-х. Два Нью-Йорка (1976) - (America 70s. Two New Yorks (1976) Show the rich and the poor (slums, homeless, criminals...) side of the "big Apple" - Russian narration only, no subtitles.
Just some info on religion: The Soviet State didn't teach religion, it taught the state doctrine of atheism. It also spent a considerable amount of funds on atheistic propaganda. However, the state always allowed for a degree of religious activity. The severity of religious repression expanded and contracted depending on the time period. Throughout the lifespan of the Soviet Union, the fact that religion was frowned upon by the state apparatus made attending church undesirable if you wanted to get ahead in Soviet society. For example, if you went to church regularly, you would have trouble getting into the Communist Party. This is one reason that those who attended church were often elderly. Not only were they more connected to the pre-revolutionary days, but they also had far less to lose by going to church. Of course, there were also devout communists who were ideologically atheistic. Some might be surprised to know that religious persecution was greater under Khrushev than under Stalin.
Also adding, that many Russian people, who lived through revolution, viewed religion as part of monarchy and condemned Orthodox church. Church was part of state and Nicholas II was saint, that is one reason why church had low reputation in Soviet Russia.
When my uncle from Lithuania visited us in 1980, he told my father that the only time he could go to church was when he visited my aunt's homestead. He lived in Vilnius, the capital, and said that if anyone saw him going to church, he'd lose his job.
A lot of Communists today find this a little bizarre because many of the fundamental teachings of Christianity align well with Communist ideals. However, I do understand the connection between the Tsarist regime and the Orthodox Church, and that's probably why it was so repressed.
Да. Примерно так и было. В школе нам рассказывали, что религия это обман. А придя из школы я радовался пасхальным куличам которые пекла моя мама на Святую Пасху. А ведь я был комсомолец. То есть получалась некая смесь из политики партии и церковных праздников.
Life in USSR was in many ways much simpler than it is now. It was simple to get a job and make enough money for a pretty comfortable life. The wages might seem low in comparison to US, but the goods were much cheaper, so the average wage was actually better than in US if you compare them by purchase power. The biggest challenge was getting your own appartment, because hundreds of thousands became homeless due to the devastation caused by the second world war, however this problem was partially solved in the sixties, when the country started building a lot of cheap five-storey appartment buildings. Getting a new flat was still hard (it demanded a lot of time), but definitely not impossible. Cars were also somewhat hard to buy, because you had to wait in a queue for several years to get one, however there were ways to buy them quickly but at a much higher price (we’re talking 5 times more expensive). Everyone had a stable job (incredibly stable by today’s standards), a good salary, cheap housing and complete social security. No matter what happens, a soviet citizen was always sure he won’t starve, because they could always get a job, some food and a roof over their head. Some people didn’t even bother with getting any material posessions, they would get a job at some factory, eat at the factory’s cantine (for free), live in the factory’s common housing (once again for free) and use all of the money from their salary to go to theaters or cinemas, buy presents for their fiance or just store the money to use it in retirement. The life of a soviet citizen was simple but stress-free, because whatever happens, you’ll be fine. Personally, I prefer the modern life, because of the greater opportunities, but it is very clear to me why so many people have so much nostalgia and love towards the Soviet Union.
Just out of curiosity from someone in Chicago who has been around alot of gunshot trauma and is curious how other nations/economic systems handle such issues, how common was violent crime and gun crime in the Soviet Union? I've heard it was safer than today's western cities.
@@erictylki5315 crime in general wasn’t common in the Soviet Union. Crime rates were considerably lower, so much so that in smaller towns people left their doors or cars unlocked at all times, so that their friends, relatives or neighbours could use them any time. Violent crime was rare and crimes involving guns weren’t common, because most people didn’t own firearms. However, burglaries happened quite often (it wasn’t critical, just something to watch out for) because soviet locks were very simple. In general, life in the Soviet Union was very safe. Crimes still happened but they weren’t common, so many people never faced crime and lived with a sense of complete safety.
@@vladimiradoshev5310 dear Vladimir, if you don’t agree with something you can write about it and we’ll discuss it. No point in accusing me of lying and not elaborating any further.
It's weird how this Australian documentary: The Human Face of Russia (1984) - everyday life in 1980s USSR demonstrates that the "red-scare" has truly morphed the perception of the USSR in the average Americans mind. In contrast to this documentary it shows the life of an actual citizen of the USSR rather than just being told what goes on.
Про пионерские лагеря. Они ребенку и не должны были нравится. это было место куда родители могли отдать детей и отдохнуть от них хотя бы на время. Это был отдых не только и не столько для детей, сколько для родителей. :-)
но большинству детей всё-таки лагеря нравились. Это было хорошо как для родителей так и для детей. Я лично не знакома ни с одним человеком кому бы не нравились эти летние лагеря. Ездили мои друзья от разных предприятий в разные лагеря и только хорошие воспоминания.
@@allaseremetova4257 в этом видео говорят, что детям они не нравились. но это же пропаганда. я в шутку тут говорю, что оно и не должно было нравится. т.к. когда ты молодой родитель и имеешь возможно дома отдохнуть от детей с этим то ты ни как спорить не будешь :-)
Был в пионерлагере всего один раз, лет в 11 (1977 г. ). Там было идеально чисто, прекрасное питание, кружки и линейки. Но! Оказалось, что там ещё двухметровый сплошной забор с проходной! :) Мне, привыкшему к абсолютной свободе на даче и серьёзным турпоходам, лагерь показался немножко местом лишения свободы. Больше не ездил. :) Но кому-то очень нравилось.
Indeed, even at the beginning where said they were instructed only to film in the more affluent areas... This is America trying to make Russia look bad, when it doesn't want to look at itself
Of course Russia is has its own orthodox Christian religion, it does have separation of church and state, and you can choose whether you want to follow it.. again something America can't do. then tried to insinuate food shortages when they showed the mall, but didn't dare show inside the stores to prove
The narrator and production team were American and its painfully obvious they knew very little to nothing on Marxism/Socialism. You can tell how they keep saying "communist government". That one always cracks me up lol
i like the neutrality of the presenter. he doesnt impose his view but just stated cold hard fact. like how he say that 1/3 of citizen lived under condition american considered as slum but then without skipping a beat he say the people enjoy free healhcare. this nuance and neutral view is sadly in short supply right now
Yeah. Despite USA and the USSR preparing to glass each other with nuclear warheads, this presenter is still mostly giving you the hard facts, the positive and the negative ones.
How is it neutral? Did you not hear how he said “control by the state”? Look at vacation for instance how many Americans could even afford a vacation, and how many would jump at the chance of a free state sponsored vacation?
@@zhenghao123 cause it is true? I mean you can independently check and see if what he say is factually is right or wrong and all he say is factually right. At least right in the sense of the information they can gather at that time. So what info he missrepresent?
@@elgenerico6263 All theaters, including ballet theaters and ballet school were state-budgeted, with affordable tickets and free training. Can you imagine how much it costs to study ballet in the USA?
Love how they try to assert 100 rubles a month is bad while having already layed out how they get free vactations, free healthcare and food/transportation for pocket change
@@helmortkuper2626, i think you should chat with your compatriot here in the comments. He lived in the USA for more than 10 years, and now he has returned to Lithuania. It is clear that he is not a communist, not a scoop, but his comparisons of the USSR and the USA are not in favor of the USA. Find him, his nickname is Ivan Drag. Maybe you will convince him, prove to him that there was nothing good in the USSR. Or he will convince you that everything was not so bad in the USSR! ☝😉 Я думаю вам стоит пообщаться с вашим соотечественником здесь в комментариях. Он более 10 лет прожил в США, а сейчас вернулся в Литву. Явно, что он не коммунист, не совок, но его сравнения СССР и США не в пользу США. Найдите его, его ник Ivan Drag. Может быть вы его переубедите, докажете ему, что в СССР не было ничего хорошего. Или он вас переубедит, что в СССР было всё не так уж плохо! ☝😉
Those kids are about my age. I am certain we saw the best of what the USSR had to show in this documentary. I feel sorry for the kids and adults we didn't see enjoying the good life in Russia. Good video!
It was actually all around good life since there was barely any wealth inequality and employers exploiting the labor of workers. It only began to crack and become unequal when Gorbachev and other liberal minded politicians in the party passed reforms to further privatize the economy which soon began shortages and led to its collapse
@@christopherbolshevik6395 it was good because nobody knew what they were missing... nothing to compare it to. Shortages only came AFTER the reforms?? LOL:) Soviet Union was short on everything from day 1, except weapons anyway. LOL:) OL J R:)
@@petebondurant58 Yes we have many oil spills, chemical plant disasters, lead in water, acid rain, forests burning down etc…that we are soooo proud of.
A glorious, revolutionary statement for The Party, comrade, but The Party has not given God permission to exist. You need to be re educated for Party approved humanist socialist people's correct thinking and speech.
Все верно, потому как действия со стороны правительства и партии могут быть разными, и отличатся от других политических режимов, принятых в других странах
Except the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in the gulags just a few years earlier. Or anyone who was devoutly religious. Or anyone who wanted to run their own business for profit. Or anyone who held a contrary political opinion.
I can say that the film is true to 100%, the only thing is about the borscht... Well, an egg adding to it afterwards is really not obligatory, this depends on the local and family traditions. And the terms of cooking also depend on the meat and vegetables, but for six hours is exotic. But, if you have a country house with a stone or brick wood stove this will make the marvel of the borscht! Also a spoonful of sour cream and pepper add greatly to the taste. There's one more trick left: leave the cooked borscht till tomorrow morning and this will be absolutely the best! Don't forget to leave vodka in the fridge too.
Serious question: what is the role of the raw egg in the borscht? Is there a difference in taste or texture in comparison without the egg? I'm Serbian and we also have such stews as borscht, mainly with cabbage being the main ingredient or with beans (without the beetroot only), but we never put an egg inside at the end. Bust just as you said, it becomes tastier the next day. We have a saying in my family that a three day old stew is the best
@@dusankrmar3304 well, with all my responsibility for the taste of borscht the egg adding does not change the taste in general at all, but slightly adds to its outlook. In my family branch neither my mother nor my father relations are used to egg adding, but my my mother's siblings families are absolutely fond of that! Imagine how curious I was when I saw that first at some age of 7 or 8... And notable is that all the branches of the ancestors of mine originate from the Ukraine, quite possibly that sort of borscht comes from there! By any chance you can read in Russian, there's a splendid cuisine book by Вильям Похлёбкин, that man is supposed to be the most profound specialist in the USSR and the Russian cuisine.
I think "the government" should be defined as the people who have control, whether that's through private corporations or public civil governance. The amount of government doesn't really change.
How does, say, a successful restaurant owner have control? The overwhelming majority of private corporations and the biggest employer are small businesses.
@@markplain2555 they don't have much of any control. The real control is in the big monopolies, especially those big international conglomerates and big finance/oil. The difference between capitalism and socialism is whether those big monopolies are run by private interests or the public. American socialism will have plenty small businesses backed up by public monopolies, so our entrepreneurial spirit can be fully realized.
What is revealed in this film is not that the statist system of the USSR is "good" or "bad," but that the ambiguities in it are so similar to the ambiguities in ours that our maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at the USSR could not be justified on the "good vs. evil" grounds of the cold war indoctrination we had in the U.S.
6:00 If only there was a word in English to describe "people who are adults who closely guide children in schools who are also employees of some of the many departments of the government". Oh, if only there was a word for that!
Интересный взгляд на мою Родину со стороны "вероятного противника")) , спасибо. На 02:35 - или намеренное искажение фактов, или элементарное незнание (непрофессиональность авторов фильма) - в СССР не было государственной собственности "на всю собственность". Была *общественная собственность на средства производства* (это важно!). Частная собственность в СССР вполне себе имелась.
Of course, only it was not Finland itself, but Karelia - a region of the Russian SFSR, inhabited mainly by Finns and cockatiels to this day. Especially from 1940 to 1956. in the USSR there were 16 republics - the Karelo-Finnish SSR (after 1956 - demoted to the status of an Autonomous Republic called the "Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the Russian SFSR". Karelia still has a similar status, being one of many autonomous republics within the Russian Federation.)
Over 75% of the citizens of the USSR didn't want to see it break up. A high percentage of Russians still feel that life was much better in the Soviet Union than since its dissolution. Makes you wonder just how much and exactly what got left out of this apparently objective look at life in the Soviet Union.
How about the propaganda drilled into the minds of Russians ? While the US population was watching Looney Toons .. Russians were watching Anti-US cartoons... Sad how Russians don't see how they are repeating the mistakes of their ancestors.. How many men died for the Red army in ww2 only to watch their government fall??.... lol!
That the breakup was a complete screw up. Today's Russia isn't some thing that appeared out of nowhere, it's a legacy of the USSR. There was no clean break. There's no magic that ensures Capitalism will always work. It's simply something that countries have implemented successfully, which is more than you can say about Socialism.
... okay? Most people, deep down, are indeed either Socialist or Communist. The problem comes in the *_other_* deep down things that people are. Namely greedy and vain. Currency is a score system to most of humanity - not just a system to ensure the ease of the exchange of goods. Even staunch "Communist" activists of today cannot imagine their lives without the ability to use currency to obtain little odds and ends that they use to identify themselves. Namely because humans are, also, extremely materialistic. Even if we lived in a post scarcity society people would seek to amass more than they truly need. This is why most people love the social structure of Star Trek. However, a great number of those same people understand a simple truth - Communism, and true Socialism, can only work if you remove choice. In... anything. Their role in society, what they own... Everything. In effect, you must enslave the populace. This is where the common phrase comes from - "Socialism/Communism is slavery." It is true... today. In order to not need to do this, you would need to have happen what happened in the universe of Star Trek. Humanity evolved beyond those traits I listed above. Sure - they're still human, and as such not everyone is in society for altruism. However, the vast majority are.
At 0:20 we can see such vehicles as ZiU-5 trolley bus (production started in 1959), ZiL-158 bus (1957) and several GAZ-21 Volga cars (also 1957) You seem tho be right.
It's funny to hear the same exact talking points that get used against North Korea here. Like the plastic food, at least the narrator had the honesty to explain that it wasn't just a fake store to trick tourists like they say about North Korea. Besides I think fake food displays are better than real food displays, wasting food is always bad.
@@MtiuliBichi yeah in the 90s after the their biggest trade partner collapsed. Every socialist country had it bad in the 90s after the USSR disappeared.
Let's hope! If Socialism can take a backwards, mostly illiterate society with zero infrastructure and hundreds of years behind in the industrial revolution and transform it under adverse circumstances into a major power with the most highly educated people in the world in only a few decades, imagine what we could do in the USA in just one decade! Of course, our Socialism would have a uniquely American character. It wouldn't be as centralized and there would be a market sector for the service industry and the production of consumer goods.
And why do you need to explain something, if your approving question has free medicine already bad. Ask the question correctly if you want to know, not assert.
@@iolloi123 Sarcasm never works on the internet. The question was directed at those who automatically dismiss free medical care as "socialism" and, therefore, a sinister, left-wing plot against all we Americans hold dear.
Depends on the medical care... I read an article years ago just after the fall of the Soviet Union, they were showing the "typical" Soviet hospital-- tiles peeling off the floor, ramshackle buildings that would have been condemned in the US, and NO HOT WATER. IN a friggin's hospital-- NO HOT WATER. Their most famous rocket chief designer, Sergei Korolev, died of a botched hemorrhoid surgery in 1966. Speaks to the level of medicine available even to their "best and brightest" citizens. Universal healthcare today barely works... got diagnosed with cancer?? Well, they'll schedule you to see a specialist-- in SIX MONTHS. Maybe he or she can schedule you for surgery or treatments six months after that. By that time you're dead or might as well be. Oh well... just how it is. Course, this "half mandated gubmint "universal" health care" where your "free" to choose from which predatory crooked insurance company that doesn't want to pay for anything anyway you get to choose to get your MANDATORY insurance coverage from, while going to get health care the insurance companies don't want to pay for (but try being late on a payment you owe them LOL:) and everything is "out of network" or "doesn't meet the deductible" or "isn't an approved procedure" so the doctors, hospitals, etc. all send you bills for more than you could make in seven lifetimes, isn't exactly working worth a d@mn either... Not sure what the answer is, but it definitely ain't either "universal healthcare" nor "gubmint mandated insurance". Later! OL J R :)
Christmas in the USSR was different from Christmas in the U.S. in that Soviet citizens did not see the holiday as being about a new car in the driveway with a ribbon on top. By not allowing religions to have a role in popular media or economic planning, the Communists were actually preserving a certain purity of religion that capitalism in the U.S. defiled.
If you ask just about any person that lived in the Communist USSR you will hear that yes all of the media was censored and controlled by the state, life wasn’t always easy and there were periods of various types food shortage but no one went hungry, not everyone was able to afford more then 3 pairs of shoes at a time but the 3 pairs they had they loved and took good care of all the time, and yet having to live with all these set of circumstances people were genuinely a lot happier, safer, kinder, honest, trustworthy, reliable and responsible, hardworking, adaptable, adventurous and outdoorsy, and just overall satisfied with their accomplishments and the lives they were living. There were no homeless people in USSR, because everyone could get a job, the government found everyone a job, if needed they built a factory, or moved them to a nearby town/city, no one had medical debt or struggled paying their credit card debt or had their bank foreclose on their mortgage and kick them out to the street. Such things were unheard of and unknown to them! Crime was at its lowest levels compared to anywhere else in the world, and people felt safe, their kids played in the nearby park with other area kids without need for adult safety supervisors. Every person stopped and helped anyone that was in need without any fees or anything expected in return. My parents are from USSR and they tell me all the time how they miss the environment and the different atmosphere between friends, neighbors, family and people in general. There is soo much that they miss and wish could continue in today’s society, but people are greedy, deceiving, cruel, arrogant and jealous.. sad!!
@@Bob31415 That is absurd. There were massive famines in the USSR in the 1920s, 1930s, and into the mid 1950s. There was still cholera in the USSR in the 1980s.
Хахахахаха это очень редкий рецепт борща. я так не готовлю. ну и действительно его трудно приготовить мало. если начать готовить то действительно придется звать родственников чтобы его съесть :-)
I grew up in 80s USSR. While footage is old, the fact that state owned everything continued to shape lives all the way to the end. State had more property and production in 80s but also more ppl.
What? The USSR in the 20th Century had the largest prison population, invaded other nations, spied on its people, and had endless supply chain problems. The USA, by contrast, does that in the 21st Century. Totally different!
Разумеется, жизнь советских граждан в конце 1950-х годов была гораздо интереснее и многограннее, чем показано в фильме. Объективности помешали: 1. Идеологическая зашоренность американских авторов; 2. Жёсткий контроль съёмочного процесса со стороны КГБ. Тем не менее, американцам разрешили снимать (да ещё и не один раз), а подобных фильмов про США, снятых советскими кинематографистами, я что-то не припомню...
ну как бы советскому союзу было не с руки снимать подобные фильмы, особенно в то время когда штаты находились на пике экономического могущества, сравнение было совсем не в пользу советских граждан. первые такие фильмы появились во времена перестройки и вскоре страна рухнула
@@retrocomputing Just one video and it's immediately clear where is better and where is worse ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gPPF9sRW2hE.html&ab_channel=MackenzieRough
@@ВарттижиидидЛсзалзмэб anyway the soviet union is gone now, I don't know whether the Russia of today ruled by oligarchs and Putin's mafia are any better than the dictators of the past, which do you think was better?
@@tatotaytoman5934 I would not call them dictators, but even with some deficits in the system, back then it was better than it was at any time in the history of all post-soviet countries and the Soviet Union is unfairly demonized by the west to justify anti-socialist policies.
@@АЛЬТ-о9з hm, interesting response. There are certainly pros but also cons to that. Anyway, has Russia ever had a government that was moderate in any way ever?
Forget the egg, forget! 😄 I ate Borstch one thousand times made by my Ukrainian Wife and she never used any egg. Nor anyone she knows. The main difference when making Borstch lies in using meat or not. It will last longer with vegetables only. You always include beet, and you do normally add a spoon of cream for every plate, just before serving.
@@levteplitsky1385 1) Give an example of someone who wanted to leave and who did not succeed? 2) What does it mean to leave? As a tourist or to move to live? If you move to live, what country? 3) My grandmother regularly traveled to Almaty in Kazakhstan. My dad visited the Czech Republic. My teacher went to Germany. So far I have only managed to visit Kazakhstan once.
@@ВиталийСавченко-е1и It looks like you are very young person, but it is OK. I have meant, that immigration from USSR was strictly forbidden, even open expression desire to immigrate was state crime. Yes, some category of citizen could go abroad for tourist purpose, but they were strictly selected. Very seldom, like exception, some persons could get permission to leave USSR. Only in 60s, under international pressure, government started allow to leave some category of people --Jews and Germans, but in 70s it was stopped, specially for Jews--anti-Semitism was state policy. And only in 1987, again under international pressure, borders were open practically for everybody. As for me, I did not even try to get tourist visa because of my "wrong" nationality.
@@levteplitsky1385 1) If 40 years old is young, then yes, I am young) 2) The number of emigrants from 1965 to 1988 is estimated at 500 thousand people. Those. approximately 20-25 thousand per year. Now it’s about 2 times more (if we take countries outside the USSR). But now social conditions are completely different. 3) Is it now easy to emigrate from capitalist countries if you have a mortgage and loans? Will the banks be released? 4) In any case, emigrants are a fraction of a percent of the population. 5) We had neither anti-Semitism nor Nazis. There was friendship of peoples. But with the advent of capitalism all this appeared. My university teacher is Jewish. We still communicate with him.
@@matheusvillela9150 Hogh standing people ruined the country, there were corruption, their uninitiativity. Also Kosigin's market reforms, that destabilised work of the economy.
Had the communists in the USSR, after Stalins death, slowly allowed personal choices to expand, small businesses to be created & expand, allowed for farmers to sell crops which exceeded quotas on the world market, exported goods and imported goods, and placed a high priority on keeping stores stocked, we might see a USSR rival any successful Western European nation today. Socialism without Capitalism is what caused their Union to collapse. Much the same way Capitalism without socialism led to the financial disaster in the USA called the Great Depression. One can not support itself without the other. It took socialism for the USA to dig itself out of the Great Depression & keeping those social reforms in place to prevent another. But without a free market economy you simply don’t have the capital required to fund such. The old Soviet system was one where only those who broke their backs overproducing were rewarded & not rewarded with much, which hardly made the effort worth while. While the party elite were rewarded simply by managing the people. The Soviets in the 50s had every opportunity to excell at microchip & computer technology which was crucial for the USA in their race to the Moon & has proved to be the backbone of their & all their allies economies to this day.
they did that, and capitalism was restored. You are not pro socialism and the model that allowed the Soviet union to reach second largest economy, you want a liberal capitalist SU. Neutralized
A professor of mine in the U.S., who had extensively traveled on two long trips through the USSR and spoke Russian fluently, told me corruption was the hallmark of Russian systems going back 900 years, and that corruption therefore would inevitably bring down the Soviet system whether or not it had been reformed and loosened up. Not saying I agree with that (I argued often with him), but his view was authoritative.
That was a very fair and accurate portrayal of life in the USSR. People sure didn't have to think much about anything except doing their government approved (dictated?) duties. That definitely didn't make for a society of big thinkers and thriving intellectual debate.
In some ways yes and no. For example the government did give high class academic education for everyone, something which lacked in the West. Professor Vladimir Demikhov wasn’t supported by the government when he pioneered on the first transplantations. But the government did give him the education and mind to start pioneering in medical practice. Many people were able to become Great thinkers, inventors and workers thanks to Soviet education. If you look to the statistics of research and development and registration of patents, the USSR was on top of the list.
So you think that you are more intelligent and creative than Soviet citizens? 😂 Reality confirms your opinion? То есть вы считаете, что вы более интеллектуальны и креативны, чем советские граждане? 😂 Действительность подтверждает ваше мнение?
*I remember watching something similar to this educational film. But it was made by the Canadian Government. And before we started to watch it our teacher clearly reminded us how ruthless the Communists were and this is our next enemy. Well time to go back and hide underneath my desk and wait for the big one to be dropped.* 😎🎆
You have two worlds to live in: 1. Everything is provided, but you have no freedom. You have education, free healthcare, and plenty of work, but you get no right to talk about your government. A lot of life is good and little makes no sense because the state owns everything. 2. Everything is provided, but you have freedom. You have education, no free healthcare, and plenty of work, but you get to talk about your government. A lot of life is good and a lot of things make no sense because the state has little control in anything.
I was lucky, I was born in New York City in 1958 to working parents, never hungry or sick, well fed and educated , a boy scout and a Patriot, served in the US Navy, now a content American with a stable job and home and a happy healthy family, what more can I want, I'm proof of the American dream, still I worry about our future, will my children have the same opportunities?
Not unless they adapt to the realization that we face climate and pollution crises, and need to make fundamental changes in they way we view the use of energy and materials.
Yeah... The US has a massive problem with Drinking and T.B rates. also the US has had a problem with its population since the Germans almost took over the US... lolol
Удивительно, как после этого кина американцы не ломанулись к нам в СССР. Я тоже хочу туда!!! Где даже американцы признавали, что наши стандарты школьного образования охуительно высоки. И культурные мы и образованные за счет государства и спортивные, и рекламы на улицах нет, церковь свободно функционирует, хлеб стоит копейки. В остальном в фильме всё удивительно точно подмечено. 16:48 EVERY PIECE WAS MADE IN THE SOVIET UNION. Блядь, ну как же мы это проебали-то...
Государство контролирует каждый шаг экономической и политической жизни=> партийная номенклатура становится отдельным закрытым привилегированным классом=> деградация верхушки при полном недоверии народа к власти Да не, не может быть
@@greykotey Коллегия выборщиков => властная номенклатура становится отдельным закрытым привилегированным классом=> деградация верхушки при полном недоверии народа к власти=>штурм Капитолия, BLM Да не, не может быть )))
12:25. The average price of a loaf of bread is 37 cents. In the United States in 1958, it was 19 cents. The Soviet price is about 94.7 percent higher than the American. Of course, it would help to know the size and quality of a loaf, and the range of prices. And, of course, the American government didn't limit where bread could be sold and didn't forbid making a profit on it. Almost all bread sold in the United States was sold at a profit, meaning the production cost was less than 19 cents a loaf-but the Soviet price, 37 cents, is supposed to be what it cost to make the bread. And there were Soviet shortages of this staple.
@@Cerg1998, a standard loaf of black bread in the USSR in the 70-80s weighed not a kilogram, but 600-650 grams, just like now in the Russian Federation. And such a loaf cost 16-18 kopecks. The same loaf of white bread cost 24 kopecks. A white loaf weighing 350 grams cost 18 kopecks. I still remember the bun "Freckle". It's with raisins, weighed 300 grams and looked like a flower: 6 small buns - one bun in the center, and 5 buns around it, like flower petals. It cost 18 kopecks.. Стандартная буханка чёрного хлеба в СССР в 70-80-е годы весила не килограмм, а 600-650 граммов, так же как и сейчас в РФ. А стоила такая буханка 16-18 копеек. Такая же буханка белого хлеба стоила 24 копейки. Белый батон весом 350 граммов стоил 18 копеек. Ещё помню булочку "Веснушку". Она была с изюмом, весила 300 граммов и была похожа на цветок: 6 маленьких булочек - одна булочка в центре, а 5 булочек вокруг неё, как лепестки цветка. Стоила она 18 копеек.
Where does 37 cents come from? At what rate? And where does the information come from that there was not enough bread in the USSR? From anti-Soviet propaganda? When and who did not have enough bread in the USSR? Specifically, in what years was there not enough bread? Откуда 37 центов? По какому курсу? И откуда сведения, что хлеба в СССР не хватало? Из антисоветской пропаганды? Когда и кому не хватало хлеба в СССР? Конкретно в какие годы не хватало хлеба?
I do miss the tasty huge grained red caviar you could buy in metal cans back in the 80s.... i think they were green and orange cans... Nowdays caviar tastes like pure garbage, ive tried some in russia and boy oh boy i wont ever again...
@@ГайМонтэг-н3к The perspective is really weird, it's like it's been rotated or something. But yeah I can confirm it's the official map. Just at a weird angle.
The US founding fathers were alive during the great new idea, Capitalism synthesized by Adam Smith, it wouldn't be until a century later than Marxism would come around and then even later for Leninism to come around, then not too much later Fascism synthesized by Giovanni Gentile. So I wonder, if they were alive during or after the following 2 ideas were founded, would there philosophy of individualism, minimal government, and absolute free markets be different? I think so. They were smart, but only dealt the cards that were given.
Considering Adam Smith subscribed to David Ricardo's labour theory of value, I wouldn't put it past him to have leaned more towards Marx if he had been around to become familiar with his arguments. Surely, he wouldn't have been silly enough to believe the nonsense professed by later STV theorists.
The US was more founded on capitalism than Christianity, and I say this as someone who believes, as I think you do, that the two were merely systems around at the time that painted the American culture from the bottom-up rather than top-down, or "the hands they were dealt". The Founders merely dealt with these aspects but would have appreciated capitalism more, it was not 'new' but the ways it was to be practiced were newer. It didn't' have a bad track record, like organized religion, to them. The Founders weren't' all on the same page though, you had the more 'agrarian utopia' ones like Washington and Jefferson who would have thought of capitalism as 'fair enough' but were themselves more economically connected to the agrarianism of the South, which itself was born from medieval times. They were also more religious, in the sense of entertaining religion themselves, than the others who were far more creatures of the Enlightenment. The point is, claiming the US is exclusively a 'capitalist Christian nation' is pretty narrow-minded and not really an educated view of the reality. The US explored some forms of socialism in the 1930s-1960s, it just sucked. Our government does socialism badly. This is why so many Americans are so against it.
@@Awakeningspirit20 the most intelligent comment I have read on this thread. America is the product of the enlightenment. Which inherits millennia of the best thinking on liberalism (meaning maximizing individual rights in society). The USSR was based upon the economic and political theories of a crank (Karl Marx) which cannot work in practice. The dictatorship of the proletariat! Rubbish! It devolved into absolute power in the hands of the most brutal. With no check on their authority the only end result could be what actually happened to them: collapse. They should try to build a society based upon maximizing individuals freedom of choice. Where everyone’s selfish choices lead to the greatest common good. Like Adam Smith’s “blind hand” maximizing economic output.
Thinking that the second world war finished 1945 ,Is not so bad the Life for the ex soviet citicens. Otherthing Is that the Ruzzian lived without democracy !
The film said that the father was a captain of a ship, of course his family could afford caviar for the holiday. Again, on Sakhalin, from where caviar was brought to all the republics, there was so much caviar that any worker could affort it.
well, it's 1955 and Mioscow/ quite usual. I ate black caviar even in 1979, although it was pretty expensive 1 roubles per caviar sandwich. But it was quite possible
Vastly expanding jobs because the state could just create an industry, but not enough workers. I've seen photos from the 1980s of managers of enterprises walking the streets wearing sandwich signs, like those unemployed people in the U.S. wore during the depression. But instead of "I need a job," those signs said, "I need workers."
"Rural peasants who amounted to about 40% of the country's population were only allowed to have passports after 1974. Until then for more than 50 years starting with the establishment of the USSR they were practically enslaved by the state collective farms. They were automatically enrolled at 16 years of age and could not leave anywhere without the permit issued by the farm's management. Those who broke this law had to pay fine or be imprisoned" Крестьянам, которые составляли почти 40 процентов населения страны, впервые разрешили выдавать паспорта только 28 августа 1974 года. До этого они более 50 лет, с момента образования СССР, были фактически крепостными при колхозах. Туда их автоматически записывали в 16 лет, они не могли никуда уехать без справки от колхозного начальства. Нарушителей наказывали штрафом или тюремным сроком.
Precisely, my friend. But naturally, you a fascist agitator for DARING to suggest that peasants (who according to Marx, are called "little bourgeois") were put back into the 18th century and under the indentured rule of krepostnoe pravo. Вы просто контра, сударь, агитатор и антисоветчик, ишь чего говорит, крестьян крепостными сделали, каков наглец:)
Peasants in the USSR until the age of 74 were serfs of collective farms and could not go anywhere, in your opinion? And at the same time, the USSR throughout the 20th century was not inferior to Western capitalist countries in terms of the scale and pace of urbanization, and even overtook it in terms of industrialization! How did it work out? Indeed, in the 19th century, European countries and the United States were industrial-agrarian powers, and the USSR was still an agrarian-industrial, semi-feudal country even in the 30s of the 20th century. How was the USSR able to become an industrial country in the shortest possible time with a ban on leaving the countryside? How do you explain such rates and scales of urbanization and industrialization in the USSR, which are comparable with the rates and scales of these processes in Western capitalist countries? Крестьяне в СССР до 74 года были крепостными колхозов и не могли никуда выезжать, по вашему мнению? И при этом СССР в течение всего 20 века не уступал западным капиталистическим странам по масштабам и темпам урбанизации, а по темпам индустриализации даже обгонял! Как же это получалось? Ведь в уже 19 веке европейские страны и США были индустриально-аграрными державами, а СССР и в 30-е годы 20 века всё ещё был аграрной-промышленной, полуфеодальной страной. Как СССР смог в кратчайшие сроки стать индустриальной страной при запрете на выезд из деревни? Как вы объясните такие темпы и масштабы урбанизации и индустриализацив СССР, которые сравнимы с темпами и масштабами этих процессов в западных капиталистических странах?
@@nobbynobnob4637 Very mush so. Passport was the only available form of ID in the USSR for the civilians. Without it you could not get a job, rent a room, get a plain ticket, drive, transfer money, receive a package. Not sure how the train rides worked- you could probably navigate by train or a bus. The place were you were registered and allowed to live was also stated in the passport.
@@petrmaly9087 "Well over twice the size of the United States" They are using it to demonstrate scale. Alaska is the same size of half of the continental US. Hawaii is 1/2 the size of West Virginia. What do you mean? Am I being trolled?
@@futsuu It is probably taken from a base picture for a mat that would include settlements. For that you would need a big Hawaii and you don't need a big Alaska.
@@petrmaly9087 Gotcha, sorry. There are all kinds of people in the world with different levels of education, and the internet is very accessible. Have a nice life.
@@peppermint210 Вы о чем? Планомерно разваливали Советский Союз именно США сотоварищи. Вы нашли дурака-Горбачева и промывали ему мозги. Затем был алкоголик Ельцин, который звонил с отчетами в Белый дом. А теперь появился Путин и у вас сразу поплохело. США вместе с Евросоюзом не представляют из себя серьезной угрозы. И вы скоро получите плоды своей толерантности и трансгуманизма.
@@peppermint210Замечательно. Вы поэтому двигаете границы Нато к России, чтобы у нас были телевизоры? Мне не нужны ваша дешевая пропаганда и ваши телевизоры, честно. А границы вы двигаете чтобы развалить наше государство и пользоваться бесконтрольно ресурсами. Путина вы не любите потому что он говорит правду в глаза вашим политикам и не боится этого. Вы, судя по фамилии женщина из Исландии и я не хочу просто так ругаться с вами, честно. Но я могу сказать вам одно. Вы никогда не получите Россию, плохие мы или хорошие, это наше личное. Вы никогда не получите Путина, вы еще не доросли до этого. Вы можете сколько угодно промывать мозг украинцам, грузинам, казахам или белорусам, но вы никогда не будете контролировать весь Мир. И простые люди с оружием в руках вам это докажут. P.S И еще кое-что. Не забывайте о возможности применения ядерного оружия в случае потенциальной угрозе целостности или физическому существованию РФ. 😉
@@peppermint210 Зигмунд, мы модем с тобой дискутировать сколько угодно. Для чего Америка влезала в такие государства как Сирия, Ливия, Ирак или Афганистан? Чтобы привезти телевизоры? Вы в своем уме? Вы считаете всех русских дураками, я не пойму?! Оставьте свое мнение при себе и почитайте о доктрине Бжезинске по поводу Украины и России. И насчет Верхней Вольты без ракет, это было его мнение о России. Поэтому вы сейчас рушите памятники Советским воинам по всей Восточной Европе? Поэтому США финансирует ультранаци батальоны и поставляет оружие? Все, оказывается, во благо России!? Тебе не смешно самому, Сигмундур Петерсдоттир. Кстати, это ведь женская фамилия исландская, я прав? Не могу понять почему у мужчины женская фамилия. Ты чего-то не договариваешь явно👀
Lol the USSR was obsessed with the Beatles just as the West was. There were even official releases, and thousands of illegal records going between people. You could listen to pretty much any British/American rock band if you knew the right people to get the records from
