Although, Yeltsin was already a liberalizing reformer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was playing it up a bit.
I don't think so. People don't realize how bad it was in the Soviet Union.
There's a story of two hockey players that came to the NHL. One went to the grocery store, he was completely taken back by how much was there, especially meat. He thought it was a mistake and didn't want to miss the opportunity so he bought it all up. He called his friend who also recently defected to the NLH, and his friend said "Same thing happened here!"
Finland had close enough relationship with the USSR that for the duration of the cold war, there were constantly some Soviet students and research scientists doing exchange programs in Finnish universities. When they first arrived in Finland, they were assigned a translator/guide whose job was, among other things, taking them grocery shopping. Because if they did that alone, a lot of them would end up buying their fridge full of meat. Because "meat days", meaning the day the local store happens to have meat, just were a normal thing that everyone adjusted to in the USSR.
It was also not uncommon for Soviet residents to queue up for whatever anyone was selling when it became available — Size 14 galoshes that will not even close to fit you? Get in line, buy as many as they'll sell you. You can sell/trade them later for something else.
I've also been in situations with live hyperinflation, like 10% per week. The strategies people came up with to deal with that were also amazing.
In the modern western societies, most people have literally zero idea of how far (or fast) things can go off the rails, or what that looks like.
It is a great privilege to live in such profound blissful ignorance, and it is not appreciated.
I don't know if it's because I have experienced it, but 10%/week inflation doesn't sound anything near as bleak as "basic necessities are only available every other month".
Edit: Six months of 10%/wk hyperinflation, I meant, not that some crazy hyperinflation is going to hit you personally within six months.
if the necessities just aren't there because, oh I don't know, you took the farms from the farmers because they owned land and owning property was deemed evil, and then the crops failed[1], then they just aren't available and it doesn't matter how much money or gold or any other commodity you might have to exchange for them
you can probably objectively calculate the relative importance of pre-capitalism serfs and post-capitalism serfs by volume of political discourse and online discussion and citations - the peasants are precious right up until we get them to adopt capitalism, and then they can starve to death after getting their hand ripped off in a mill while we ship all their potatoes off to india.
it's sort of like the abortion thing, where fetuses are the most precious thing in the universe until they're yeeted through a cervix and then they can starve to death on the street corner.
Anyway, it's just a weird argument in general. Authoritarian systems are bad, of course, but authoritarianism cuts across planned-vs-market economies, and the hallowed corporate boardroom is the epitome of central planning. What matters is not markets vs state charter, but being allowed to fail, and without it (say) Boeing is no different than the stuffiest soviet OKB, despite the fact boeing is a "free market" company. And when these arguments eventually devolve into people citing the dead nazis who died attempting to annex other countries as "victims of socialism", well...
and again, you can say "tu quoque" all you want, but if a practice is so widely accepted as to be unremarkable then it's unremarkable. And the victims of capitalism are never brought up quite as readily - there's no PR machine spinning for the dead irish peasants, or someone who dies of a treatable chronic illness, or who spends their life in an american gulag for a trivial offense, etc. We got plenty of authoritarianism here too, and it sucks here too, but that's not the angle people bring it up in... literally ever. It's just our elites winding us up against whatever elites our elites are opposed to this week.
The fact of the matter is that as automation displaces not just physical but also intellectual labor to greater and greater degrees, we are going to have to move away from the idea that people's intrinsic value is only what they contribute to the economy (market or state). Non-authoritarian socialism is pretty great and yes, I'll happily take the ticket to Norway and leave you alone.
WRT authoritarianism, govt have a monopoly on violence that individual companies will never have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
The British East India company’s operations are another example.
I'd only change 'never have' to 'almost never have' and most probably won't again.
The expansion of government sponsored enterprises with organic police forces is concerning however. Examples in my mind are school districts, transit and other agencies without law enforcement as a core component or competency. To the extent that those forces are bound to the proprietary interests of the enterprise, the bounds of the monopoly are blurred.
In both famines, there was a refusal to intervene to alleviate the famine once it had begun, and in both cases that was unequivocally a deliberate choice of the British/Soviet leadership.
Further - there are many cases through history of companies steering the state violence, from Colonial India to Blair Mountain to Aaron Swartz.
The broad point here is that the Soviet Union is constantly used in our Western discourse for our own brand of whataboutism.
Our systems fail people constantly and brutally. Our supermarket shelves are stocked, but most of the Anglosphere is in the grips of an unprecedented housing crisis.
There’s absolutely lessons we can learn from the Soviets in housing policy, but we won’t if any mention of them ends up reduced back to their worst failures. They didn’t get their shelves stocked by talking about MKUltra or smallpox blankets all day.
You can argue that the grass is greener overall, but there’s still dead patches all over our lawn. That’s the broader point.
Either you're being deliberately dishonest or haven't read enough of the details. Yes, there is debate on what percentage of that gargantuan human tragedy was started by tyrannical incompetence and how much of it was done through deliberate vengefulness by the Stalin government, further moved forward by local initiative, but virtually all experts agree that at least deliberate indifference allowed things to grow monstrously and prolonged them too.
The leaders in Moscow (especially Stalin) and local commissars could soon clearly see that the collectivization policy was practically extinguishing all human life in the Ukrainian countryside, yet they continued to pursue it and even block all avenues of escape, while at the same time exporting grain they'd confiscated from people who were by then dying in their millions.
The monoculture of potato was solely due to the tenant system imposed on Irish subsistence farmers by the British ruling classes. Ireland remained a net exporter of food during the famine. The supposed 'charity' mainly took the form of workhouses - which were effectively Hospices
https://irishworkhousecentre.ie/
One incredible exception was the Choctaw Nation who, fresh off the trail of tears, were so moved by the plight of the Irish peasant that on March 23, 1847, they donated $170 for Irish Famine relief. This was at the height of “Black 47,” when close to a million Irish were starving to death.
To put it simply, Malthus' theory states that famine is caused by overpopulation. Thus the British, by their own basis of justification, deliberately reduced the Irish population. The people targeted were deprived of culture, security, health, and life. They were targeted for reasons of ethnic and cultural intolerance. Ergo constituting Genocide.
The alternative? The aforementioned Workhouses or the aptly named 'Coffin Ships'
> The oldest – and in pre-modern societies, by far the most common – form of rent/tax extraction is extraction in kind, where the farmer pays their rents and taxes with agricultural products directly. Since grain (threshed and winnowed) is a compact, relatively transportable commodity (that is, one sack of grain is as good as the next, in theory), it is ideal for these sorts of transactions, although perusing medieval manorial contacts shows a bewildering array of payments in all sorts of agricultural goods. In some cases, payment in kind might also come in the form of labor, typically called corvée labor, either on public works or even just farming on lands owned by the state.
...
> if you want to collect taxes in money, you need the small farmers to have money. Which means you need markets for them to sell their grain for money and then those merchants need to be able to sell that grain themselves for money, which means you need urban bread-eaters who are buying bread with money, which means those urban workers need to be paid in money. And you can only get any of these people to use money if they can exchange that money for things they want, which creates a nasty first-mover problem.
> We refer to that entire process as monetization – when I talk about economies being ‘monetized’ or ‘incompletely monetized’ that’s what I mean: how completely has the use of money penetrated through this society. It isn’t a one-way street, either. Early and High Imperial Rome seem to have been more completely monetized than the Late Roman Western Empire or the early Middle Ages (though monetization increases rapidly in the later Middle Ages).
...
> The irony of all of this extraction is that while it is often nasty and predatory, it can have some positive long-term effects, because the extra food that the farmers are being effectively forced to produce moves through either state-redistribution or market mechanisms to an increasing population of specialist non-farmers who in turn provide benefits for the broader society, sometimes including the farmers.
> Metal tools, improved plows, large mills and bakeries would all be impossible without specialist smiths, wood-workers, architects, millers and bakers, for instance. And those merchants, moving food around from where it is common to where it is scarce can – if there are enough of them and trade is sufficiently unrestricted by things like wars – serve a valuable stabilizing role on the otherwise wildly destructive volatility of prices for things like food and other essentials. Moreover, specialization and trade encouraged distance travel, which might bring foreign disease, but might also bring new agricultural technologies.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2020/08/21/collections-bread-how-did-they...
[0] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-st...
Actual Russian reactions: 1. even the poor own trucks?! 2. they have special food for .. cats?!
Being a teacher here is definitely a mission, not a career. You just have to have a "sponsor" to participate (often this means husband), you can't just live on your salary.
In many ways American markets have fallen behind relatively poorer countries in variety. Most of what is sold are monocultures and packaged foods. The selection of fresh produce (or any produce) is often disappointing.
But I live in Texas now, home of all the cattle, if you believe the marketing. And I can't find 7-steaks unless I go to a Mexican meat market, because the DFW area is so bourgeois nowadays that the steaks simply don't pass muster for the local market. Hell, I'm more likely than not to end up in a Mexican market simply because the produce is better and cheaper.
Same with beef shank. Osso bucco is traditionally made with veal shank, and oxtails are all the rage, but I can't find beef shank unless I go to an HEB. Most places don't carry the cut. And if I couldn't find beef shank, I could always go with beef neckbones, but uh... HEB is the only place around me that sells that either.
I guess I’ll know now what it means to miss New Orleans when I leave. And here I was worrying about not being able to find collards and turkey necks.
You can go to a butcher but they're less common than a regular grocery store. Also, butchers usually have less selection since they're a smaller operation.
EDIT: i live in Dallas, Texas and "HEB" is just another brand of grocery store so "having to go to HEB" just means having to go to the grocery store.
Different stores, different clientele.
That’s curious; I’d have thought you’d have more selection since the butcher is, y’know, doing the butchering, so any cut is possible. In the past if I’ve needed an “exotic” cut, the butcher would be where I’d go.
also, complaining that you can't find Thing unless you go to a Mexican meat market is a weird way to boast that your area has specialty grocery stores.
But unlike a supermarket, you can just ask a local butcher to save you some of whatever off-cut the next time they're trimming it. Normally they'd just throw it away.
That might be possible in some supermarkets.
Yeah, I was going to say, it's worth asking.
I avoid fresh produce at Walmart as well, mostly in that the selection usually kind of sucks. There are more and better options around. As to Butchers, there isn't really a dedicated one near me, have to drive halfway across town. But a local grocery chain does have Butchers, but special cuts usually take a few days to get in.
Independent butchers aren't all that uncommon. Though, for example, my town has 3-4 grocers that sell meat without having a counter (but I expect you could talk to the butcher at a couple of them), a grocer that does have a counter, and then a couple of independent butchers.
In that not-overly-large shopping complex, there are two supermarkets (one of which has loads of European smallgoods, like 40+ types of cheese) and also: independent greengrocer, butcher, fishmonger, bulk grains store, bakery chain, etc. Used to be a poultry-specialist butcher too. Most shopping centres I can think of here will have an independent butcher, plus more separately outside those. There'd be dozens of butchers in a city of about 1 million.
I've never heard that term; does it refer to mirepoix?
It gets even worse if you look at packaged stuff. “Look, twelve brands of coffee!” but actually it’s three because some of them are owned by the others, or by the same parent company.
That's not my experience of American supermarkets in North Carolina when visiting on business ten years ago. Even in supposedly upmarket supermarkets like Harris Teeter the fruit and veg was really not very good and the selection of cheeses (and other dairy products) was downright poor.
Going from this to a country where any random supermarket would have chicken, several cuts of beef, several cuts of pork, tomatoes, cucumbers, potatoes, onions, several sorts of cheese and was not at risk of running out of any position would have been a shock.