why do people hate on the soviet union

Yes, they were doing fine under Lenin, but he died, and Stalin fucked up.

Because Bankers run the western world, and the Soviet Union used "State Credit" not "Bank Credit".

Private Bankers in the Soviet Union couldn't create money out of thin air, for their own private profits, only the State could, for the benefit of the people.

Shared Misery. I know girl whos folks came over and hate Russia. They vote republican(20yrs ago) because democrates where to close to being communists. Of you like waiting in line for bread then its was paradise. America is almost worse because only the poor get free stuff while the ppl that work are poor bearly can eat

was mickhaeil gorbechev a traitor or a spy he just ruined everything there

they say the reforms failed and it was bound to collapse but i don`t believe that for a second

they came back from the famine of 1930s caused by stalin , and WW2 which wrecked them for a good while

Banking in the Former

Soviet Union

Marc Lieberman

As this book goes to press, the former Soviet Republics are attempting to reform their banking systems along market-oriented principles. To understand why this is such a difficult and all-encompassing task, we must first understand what Soviet banking was. We begin with a general comparison of banking in market-type and centrally-planned economies, then outlines the structure and operating principles of Soviet banking in particular. The article concludes with a few thoughts on future reforms.

Market-Type Banking versus Soviet-Type Banking

Every nation has its own unique banking system, and any simple division into two categories "market-type" and "Soviet-type" of necessity blurs the differences within a category. But we lose very little and gain quite a bit by doing so. To compare, for example, the old Soviet and Polish banking systems is like comparing two different species of plants; to compare Soviet banking with, say, American or French banking is like comparing plants with animals.

The most striking differences between the two systems are as follows:

(1) Basic structure: In market-type economies (MTEs), the banking system is almost always "two-tiered". The top tier is a government-run central bank, while the bottom tier consists of numerous private banks and other lending institutions. The functions of the two tiers are usually non-overlapping: the central bank regulates private banking behavior and controls the national money supply, while private banks take deposits and make loans to the private sector.

In Soviet-type economies (STEs), all banking functions were performed by the State bank, which Western observers aptly called a "monobank." Private banks were not permitted to exist.

(2) Credit Allocation: In MTE's, the allocation of credit is decentralized, since it is performed by thousands of independent lending institutions, all attempting to maximize the profits of their owners. In addition, individuals and enterprises can extend credit to each other, bypassing the banking system entirely. For this reason, one expects credit allocation in a MTE to be efficient; credit flows to those firms that can pay the highest rates of return, i.e., to those that respond best to consumer desires.

In a STE, credit allocation was entirely centralized a by-product of the centralized production plan. The monobank played an essentially passive role, providing credit wherever the plan directed. If the plan called for capital expansion in a particular enterprise, the monobank would grant long-term credit to purchase the new equipment. When the plan required an enterprise to purchase inputs before it received revenue from outputs, the monobank granted short-term credit. Thus, the allocation of credit in a STE was no more efficient than the plan itself. There was no profit motive, no competition among lenders or borrowers, no threat of bankruptcy, nothing at all to force credit allocation to respond to consumer desires.(1)

(3) Monetary Policy: In MTEs, the central bank possesses a monopoly on the creation of currency reserves which it exploits to influence the money supply. In this way, it can affect key important macroeconomic variables interest rates, output, employment, and prices.

In STEs, this kind of monetary policy did not exist, for two reasons. First, as explained below, the monobank had no discretion over the quantity of money. Its money-creation activity like its credit activity was entirely passive, arising as a byproduct of the production plan. Second, changes in the quantity of money or credit would not have affected important macroeconomic variables anyway, because these were all fixed by the planners. An increase in money or credit might lead to additional household spending, but this, in turn, would only lengthen lines at state-controlled stores, or increase prices in the black market. It would have no effect on officially set prices and interest rates, or centrally planned output and employment levels.

[link to faculty.vassar.edu]

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

Communism is a failed ideal, look at China with it's State Capitalism.

The Soviet Union ran itself broke trying to keep up military spending with the US and NATO, but it has been said if they had Computers like we do today, it could have been saved.

But I don't think it could have been saved without embracing some Capitalist ideals, like China.

Nationalize money, not banks.

only thing I can think of that was bad is their laws against homosexuals lol but that was maybe going to loosen a little overtime .

they were not racist at all except against terrorists and muslims who caused trouble

even the war in afghanastan they were invited by the government and did not invade really at least i don`t think

I think if the soviet union made it to late 90`s they would have been back as powerful as ever and their population would be growing due to the benefits , free housing , paid vacations and good quality of life

Ukranians say the best living standards they had by far was back in the soviet union

fuck china , shit paranoid government that are strict as a mother fucker , soviet union was not like them at all

And the Soviet Union went broke, unwilling or unable to embrace the needed changes.

Just like the US is going to go broke holding on to our ideals of "pure capitalism", which has become nothing but Corporatism, leading to neo-feudalism.

Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands.

The Ukrainian independence movement actually predated the Stalin era. Ukraine, which measures about the size of France, had been under the domination of the Imperial Czars of Russia for 200 years. With the collapse of the Czarist rule in March 1917, it seemed the long-awaited opportunity for independence had finally arrived. Optimistic Ukrainians declared their country to be an independent People's Republic and re-established the ancient capital city of Kiev as the seat of government.

However, their new-found freedom was short-lived. By the end of 1917, Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union, sought to reclaim all of the areas formerly controlled by the Czars, especially the fertile Ukraine. As a result, four years of chaos and conflict followed in which Ukrainian national troops fought against Lenin's Red Army, and also against Russia's White Army (troops still loyal to the Czar) as well as other invading forces including the Germans and Poles.

By 1921, the battles ended with a Soviet victory while the western part of the Ukraine was divided-up among Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. The Soviets immediately began shipping out huge amounts of grain to feed the hungry people of Moscow and other big Russian cities. Coincidentally, a drought occurred in the Ukraine, resulting in widespread starvation and a surge of popular resentment against Lenin and the Soviets.

To lessen the deepening resentment, Lenin relaxed his grip on the country, stopped taking out so much grain, and even encouraged a free-market exchange of goods. This breath of fresh air renewed the people's interest in independence and resulted in a national revival movement celebrating their unique folk customs, language, poetry, music, arts, and Ukrainian orthodox religion.

But when Lenin died in 1924, he was succeeded by Joseph Stalin, one of the most ruthless humans ever to hold power. To Stalin, the burgeoning national revival movement and continuing loss of Soviet influence in the Ukraine was completely unacceptable. To crush the people's free spirit, he began to employ the same methods he had successfully used within the Soviet Union. Thus, beginning in 1929, over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were arrested after being falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia.

Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers. Among those farmers, were a class of people called Kulaks by the Communists. They were formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres, or had employed farm workers. Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at "liquidating the Kulaks as a class."

Declared "enemies of the people," the Kulaks were left homeless and without a single possession as everything was taken from them, even their pots and pans. It was also forbidden by law for anyone to aid dispossessed Kulak families. Some researchers estimate that ten million persons were thrown out of their homes, put on railroad box cars and deported to "special settlements" in the wilderness of Siberia during this era, with up to a third of them perishing amid the frigid living conditions. Men and older boys, along with childless women and unmarried girls, also became slave-workers in Soviet-run mines and big industrial projects.

Back in the Ukraine, once-proud village farmers were by now reduced to the level of rural factory workers on large collective farms. Anyone refusing to participate in the compulsory collectivization system was simply denounced as a Kulak and deported.

A propaganda campaign was started utilizing eager young Communist activists who spread out among the country folk attempting to shore up the people's support for the Soviet regime. However, their attempts failed. Despite the propaganda, ongoing coercion and threats, the people continued to resist through acts of rebellion and outright sabotage. They burned their own homes rather than surrender them. They took back their property, tools and farm animals from the collectives, harassed and even assassinated local Soviet authorities. This ultimately put them in direct conflict with the power and authority of Joseph Stalin.

Soviet troops and secret police were rushed in to put down the rebellion. They confronted rowdy farmers by firing warning shots above their heads. In some cases, however, they fired directly at the people. Stalin's secret police (GPU, predecessor of the KGB) also went to work waging a campaign of terror designed to break the people's will. GPU squads systematically attacked and killed uncooperative farmers.

Maps & Photo

Present day map of Russia showing the location of the Ukraine (highlighted in green).

Present day map of Ukraine.

A World War II era photo of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (on right) with top aide Viachislav Molotov who helped implement the 1932-33 famine policy in the Ukraine.
But the resistance continued. The people simply refused to become cogs in the Soviet farm machine and remained stubbornly determined to return to their pre-Soviet farming lifestyle. Some refused to work at all, leaving the wheat and oats to rot in unharvested fields. Once again, they were placing themselves in conflict with Stalin.

In Moscow, Stalin responded to their unyielding defiance by dictating a policy that would deliberately cause mass starvation and result in the deaths of millions.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

Much of the hugely abundant wheat crop harvested by the Ukrainians that year was dumped on the foreign market to generate cash to aid Stalin's Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union and also to help finance his massive military buildup. If the wheat had remained in the Ukraine, it was estimated to have been enough to feed all of the people there for up to two years.

Ukrainian Communists urgently appealed to Moscow for a reduction in the grain quotas and also asked for emergency food aid. Stalin responded by denouncing them and rushed in over 100,000 fiercely loyal Russian soldiers to purge the Ukrainian Communist Party. The Soviets then sealed off the borders of the Ukraine, preventing any food from entering, in effect turning the country into a gigantic concentration camp. Soviet police troops inside the Ukraine also went house to house seizing any stored up food, leaving farm families without a morsel. All food was considered to be the "sacred" property of the State. Anyone caught stealing State property, even an ear of corn or stubble of wheat, could be shot or imprisoned for not less than ten years.

Starvation quickly ensued throughout the Ukraine, with the most vulnerable, children and the elderly, first feeling the effects of malnutrition. The once-smiling young faces of children vanished forever amid the constant pain of hunger. It gnawed away at their bellies, which became grossly swollen, while their arms and legs became like sticks as they slowly starved to death.

[link to www.historyplace.com]

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sic nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.

Stalin did the "necessary evil" to purge the Soviet Union of all those who apposed the Soviet System. The prosperity that the Soviet Union enjoyed after that was a partial by-product of the Stalin purges.

The same thing happens in all Communist States.

You do know people where barbed wired in and where shot if trying to leave the USSR? What's fond about that?

it was after WW2 tensions were tense as soviet union suffered a lot it would have been much more relaxed over some time

During every show, parade, and carnival, a picture of the leader had to be present to show that the leader is present. Every person with an office had a picture of the leader on the wall to remind them that the most important person is the leader. In town squares, statues of the leader would be built.

During the Soviet times, there were a lot of newspapers. To name a few, Communist, the most widely known, Social Armenia, Avanguard, Armenia Nightly, then we had Call of Pioneers, added to that, each factory printed their own newsletters for their workers every month. Plus, we also received Russian newspapers that were available every week. All these newspapers went by the Soviet code. Whatever that was written in the newspaper had to be in favor of the Soviet Union or have nothing to do with the government at all. They could not write about anything bad that was going on at the times because the belief was that under Communist rule, nothing goes wrong because they are always right. Whenever a murder would take place, or a major robbery, the newspapers were not allowed to report on the story. It would just pass unnoticed. It’s not like here where when something happens, the media immediately reports on it and the people become aware of it. No, no such thing existed back then. I am 69 years old and I was not aware of trains derailing, or airplanes crashing before I came to the United States... (Laughs…).

The police back then was not that different from the police we have here, now. The only difference was that the police back then were stricter and physical punishment, beating up the suspect, was not a rare thing. The police would use the physical punishments a mean to get the person talking or tell the police about the details of the crime.

Bribes were taken. However, during Stalin’s times, people were afraid to have anything to do with bribes because the punishment for bribes was very cruel. When Stalin was in power, you could have applied for a job in a store and could have gotten it without a bribe, but after he passed away, the new leader did not concentrate on the bribe punishment as much. People sometimes had to bribe other to get something as simple as a job at a grocery store. But, while Stalin was in power, bribery was a very rare case. People were very scared of the police and that scare caused a lot of the crimes to stop. Even though the police had a lot of power, they did not arrest people for no reason. There were petty thieves, but the police never arrested an innocent person. The police were the same as the ones here, the only difference was when they caught a criminal, they could punish the criminal very harshly, and sometimes before the trial. It wasn’t like here when a police officer hits a person the whole story is shown on every new channel, newspaper, and radio. There was nothing like that back then. People knew that if they got caught, they were facing harsh punishment.

The elections were supposedly democratic, but there was already a person that was supposed to take the job after the elections. The people were told who to vote for. They did not even see who it was they were voting for. The person with the higher authority would say to elect this person, and the person would be elected, but they were called Democratic elections. There was no campaigning because the person was already elected.

The economy at the time was weak because of the reason that it was a new country and a new economy. However, everything was accounted for. The economists of the country were very good at the time. The country would set goals every five years. The factory directors needed to achieve those goals because after 5 years, new goals were set. In case the goals were not met, the directors would be released from their jobs. Every year economists would think of better ways to spend the government money and cheaper ways to produce some necessary things for the country.

Private businesses did not exist in the Soviet Union. Everything was either government owned or government taxed. Even a shoe repair person could not work for himself, he had to go and work at the factory. A tailor working from home paid taxes for the work. It was not like here, where you could open your private business and work. Nothing like that existed. Everything was government owned.

Everyday items were cheaper than the rest of the world. However, items that were not essential were very expensive. Bread, sugar, vegetables were sold for cents, whereas TV’s were sold for twice as much as it would have been sold here. Things that could be used for years were very expensive, because one was enough, but everyday items were very cheap. People, in order to buy cars signed up to get cars in two years or so. Furniture was also very expensive. If you wanted it to be delivered fast, you needed to bribe someone to move you on the list. This cost even more. There, an everyday essential was cheaper compared to here. The government understood that the people needed these things to live normal lives.

The fifty something years I lived in the Soviet Union, every year the government would decrease the price of goods and keep it low for a month. The reason for that would be because that month, the business would introduce more things and newer products and people would buy them for that year. It was not a big decrease, like in hundreds of dollars, but in regular, ten or twenty dollars. This helped the many people that could not afford a couple of things.

During its time, the Soviet Union would give aid, both financial and other, to near 43 countries around the world. It was in 1963 or so that a friend of mine said that Cuba opened a new university under Lenin’s name. Because of that, the Soviet Union would send millions every month to help the students with the studies. Near fifty million dollars in aid would go to African countries every month. They would make sure that the other countries thought good of them in case of anything. They would treat the people outside of the country better than the people inside. The bad side was that they did not let us have any connection with the west, America. If you had any affiliations with the country you could not get a job. We were curious about America though. We saw the movies and wanted to see what it was really about.

Interviewed by Nelli Ohanjanyan

[link to www.clarkhumanities.org]

Stalin said without him this country will fall to shits as he did not trust the people around him to have the same grip on power and was paranoid about traitors , jews and spies

Same thing with Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot?

Oh good grief (OP)
You're looking for an excuse to sit on your ass all day. You have 'no clue' what their living conditions were like......do you.

it was good enough where their birth rates was rising steadily in the 80`s till the soviet union collapsed .. u don`t pop out more kids if life is hard or sucks unless ur in Africa

he was going to purge some or most around him again very soon till beria poisoned him

They lived in extreme poverty, there was nothing else to do but fuck.

It wan't "extreme poverty".

Everyone had jobs and there were no homeless people.

[link to www.clarkhumanities.org]

if you didn't have a j you'd go to jail!

Work or die is the choice they give you.

If you didn't have a job, the State would issue you one.

No sitting on your ass collecting "Welfare".