Fundamental difference between the USSR and Russia

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Now the time has come when completely different people (regardless of age and place in society) - begin to tell, remember, or even speculate (if not personally caught) - different, of course, positive things that existed under the USSR. But their sketches turn out to be too one-sided and chaotic. Unwittingly, they all describe the Soviet Union - as the reign of global "freebies".

Free housing and education, free medicine and vouchers to the sea, penny prices for housing and communal services, transport and food … and so on and so forth. Some go so far as to try to count it all in modern money, and they get huge numbers.

Is all of the above true, or is it fiction? Truth. But this is not the whole truth. Moreover, it is generally tinsel, against the background of that part of the "iceberg" that is hidden under all of the above. And what is fundamentally silent about those who are "in the subject", and the rest persist in their unwillingness to get to the bottom of the matter. So I will take on this work myself.

The difference between socialism in the USSR and capitalism in Russia is about the same as between a Closed Joint Stock Company and a Limited Liability Company. Where LLC Russia has several key owners (who receive dividends from the profits of the "company", depending on the number of their "shares"), and CJSC USSR - each citizen was a shareholder (with an equal block of shares "(and equal rights to dividends - which directly depended on the growth of the "capitalization" of the general public corporation of the USSR)).

The basic equality of the Soviet people was that you (a plant director or a simple driver), a collective farmer, a general secretary, a teacher, and a geologist are equal in their right to "dividends" that are formed thanks to the refined work of the entire state.

And this was a fundamental, inalienable right of every citizen of the Soviet Union. The right is received by him at birth.

All modern memories and experiences, about how well life was then and what the "social packages" were - these are just consequences, and not the other way around. First, you get the right, according to which you become a "shareholder" - and only then - "preferences" from your position.

And if similar "bonuses", already in our days, are suddenly paid just like that, they say "the state helps residents" - then this is a handout, and not at all the exercise of your right. You have no rights.

The form in which the "dividend payments" were carried out was chosen the one that is being remembered now (all kinds of "freebies and social package"). The reason that the “payments” were made indirectly, and not in cash to a personal account, is that indirect payments stimulate reinvestment in their own country.

If you are going to build kindergartens, you first need to have factories that will produce materials (and this, in turn, will create new jobs and opportunities). If you invest in medicine and sports, then it gives, as a result, healthier and stronger people; if you invest in science, then the productive forces of the whole society grow, and so on.

And at the same time, it is important to understand that if yesterday people needed one thing - then tomorrow, the form of dividend payments could have become a different, more appropriate moment. Because what is important is not the specific form of "payments" at a particular moment, but the very basic right - according to which citizens have the opportunity to receive these same "dividends" in the form that most closely meets current needs.

Okay, I'll continue. The Soviet party nomenklatura and the then "elite" had only one opportunity to break the fetters of democracy and the absence of social barriers (when I, all so handsome and in white, get "only" as many benefits and opportunities as a "rotten locksmith" from ZhEKa).

A way out was found: - it was necessary to quickly "monetize" the benefits and "bonuses" received from their places in the social pyramid, and to be able to transfer their acquired property (power, position in society, state property, etc.) by inheritance.

The mechanism of the "transformation of the country" was chosen as follows: - it was necessary to turn the ZAO USSR into OOO Russia. That is, to purposefully deprive the majority of citizens of their basic right to "dividends" (from the work of the state as a single complex). And redistribute these rights to your advantage.

And it was brilliantly done with ZAO USSR in the 90s.

While talking about two hundred varieties of sausage; under the stories that they say, "there" (that is, in the West), such as we, "hoo" how much they pay; to the thoughtless howls and rotten slogans that the whole world is just waiting for us to free ourselves from the "power of the commissars", and will immediately whirl us in a round dance of "fraternal capitalist peoples" …

Beneath all this filthy veil of manipulation, illusion and hysteria, a radical, fundamental change has taken place. A change that the vast majority of people feel every day - but cannot express in their own words. Namely:

There was a change in the form of ownership of CJSC Soviet Union. From now on, ordinary citizens have ceased to be shareholders, and now no one owes them anything. And the elite have securely fixed their position.

Modern Russia is a gigantic LLC, where there are several clans of "shareholders" (sitting on "pipes" of various kinds; "pipes" that originally belonged to all citizens - and allowed to pull subsidized areas (schools, kindergartens, sports clubs, etc.) and invest in the comprehensive development of their fellow citizens).

These “mega-shareholders” profit from everything that was built by our ancestors, everything that they defended in the Great Patriotic War, and everything that was originally created specifically for the citizens of the USSR corporation.

For citizens who had every right to sing: - “My native country is wide …” - because de jure and de facto they were the owners (ie, “shareholders”) of their homeland.

Since 1991, all these "shareholders" have sharply turned into a bunch of "employees". And such workers are interchangeable and have little value. “Broke down”, can't work for two, do you feel sick often, or have you grown old? Well then - get out! We will find others.

People have become things like machine tools in a factory or printers in an office.

Separately, I would like to emphasize that the lower the salaries of employees (for which they are willing to work), the higher the profit for the new owners. And from this follows another fundamental difference between the systems.

If local workers are “unprofitable,” then labor migrants who are here in the position of half-slaves should be brought in. And you can safely not give a damn about investing, retraining or subsidizing your own citizens; let them sit on benefits or drink vodka out of hopelessness.

If the indigenous people turn up their noses at salaries of 5-7 thousand rubles (deep down, intuitively “feeling” that somewhere here they are abused), then instead of them they will hire even more impoverished Uzbeks and Tajiks. Understanding perfectly well that when their own citizens "want to eat", then they will have no choice but to go hunchback for a pittance. This is called labor dumping.

But let's go back a little. Let me remind you that, unlike today's Russia, in the former USSR, every citizen was a shareholder. From this, a logical conclusion follows: It becomes profitable for every citizen that other residents also have a worthy place in life, the highest quality education and the most suitable place for him. work - simply because the connection between "me" and "him" is an iron one.

The better everyone works -> the more the total income of the Corporation of the USSR -> and the greater the dividends for everyone.the conditional "capitalization" of the entire ZAO USSR grows thanks to the contribution of each citizen -> and the dividends of each citizen -> grow due to the effective work of the entire Company as a whole. This means that everyone is becoming necessary to each other, instead of today's confrontation: - "I" vs "they".

These major differences between the USSR and the Russian Federation, no one and nowhere tries to explain, or bring up for general discussion - but the situation is exactly that. If we declare in plain text that not only the “elites” benefited from the collapse of the USSR (this is clear to everyone, and have long been accustomed to it), but also explain what exactly 99% of the population lost, then this will cause extreme anger at those who who started the scam and is still reaping the benefits of it.

But people still do not have an understanding of what exactly was taken away from them. What I see is some kind of vague, rudimentary-fragmentary, superficial-nostalgic experience that once everything was “fair” in the country, and for the thousandth time I hear about: - “cheap housing and communal services, free housing, medicine, education and everything else."

Confused contemporaries do not understand the main thing, of which all of the above was composed.

It consisted of the legally fixed right that the country belongs to all citizens in equal measure.

And they themselves are not just an abstract “population” who accidentally ran into this territory, ex-shareholders and former owners of a package of equal rights, to profit from the activities of a mega-corporation called the Soviet Union.

The owners - who were "thrown" so cleverly, so loudly, so competently - that even having filled a bunch of bumps, they still think that they themselves accidentally stumbled.

I understand that sometimes, I write quite complex things. But if you do not delve into what the “underwater part of the iceberg” is, what was the root cause and source of well-being, then for those nostalgic for the USSR everything will once again come down to “free housing” and other “bonuses”. And for those who curse the "scoop", the opposite will be reduced to camps and repression.

But it is much more important that both sides understand that they have "thrown" both those and others. And the reason is not at all in the "goodness" or "badness" of the USSR as a state, but in the fact that everyone without exception was deprived of a fundamental basic right.

Rights - to income, from work in their own country. Even if these incomes are small, even if they are the same as those of everyone else, even if they are not expressed in numbers on a personal account, but in this very sore “free housing” and the best education in the world - but all this is no longer there; and not all at once.

And it doesn't matter at all whether we are building capitalism or socialism at the same time. The standard of living of citizens with “basic rights” will be significantly higher, regardless of the political and economic model in the country.

And any slogans, of any parties, they say: - "If we win, then tomorrow we will all raise salaries!" - there are handouts, demagoguery and diversion of attention from the main thing.

All of us, as before, will be deprived of the basic right to own a piece of the wealth of our entire immense Motherland. Not a specific birch tree or a specific mine - but a small share of the country's total GDP.

Without this right, you are an eternal mercenary, shaking with fear of being left without a job, without a mortgage apartment and, in general, without a livelihood.

An employee can be paid a large salary, but for a piece of profit in a private company - he does not dare to open his mouth. This is taboo.

What I wrote in this post is a terrible thing. If every resident understands how things really are and what specifically, people were massively deprived of in 1991, then this completely knocks out the legitimacy of any political movements, except for those that call for the return of this “basic right” to citizens. And in order to return it and fix it, it will be necessary to re-nationalize the notorious "pipes" and the financial system.

And, by the way, this is where the answer to such a popular (in the post-Soviet space) question lies: - "If you are so smart, why are you so poor?"

Because citizens have lost the right to be involved in the wealth of their country. That it is flourishing, that it is bent, is now indifferent (the maximum that you can do is to indulge your vanity, associating yourself and Russia during TV news or sports competitions).

A giant country that possesses all kinds of resources cannot ensure the banal survival of its own citizens. It's a shame. But the shame lies not on the conscience of the townsfolk spinning like squirrels in a wheel, but on those who drove them into these wheels 20 years ago …

Yes, and I haven't forgotten yet. The phrase, which “elites” of all stripes like to repeat, remembering President Boris Yeltsin, they say: “He gave us freedom,” in reality means something completely different: “He gave us freedom."

I hope that now you understand both the cynicism and the funny frankness of this phrase. After all, if "us", he gave something, then from someone - he took it away.

Well, in conclusion, I want to quote what the citizens' right to dividends was based on.

Constitution of the USSR, "Stalinist" version of 1936:

“Article 6. Land, its bowels, waters, forests, factories, factories, mines, mines, railway, water and air transport, banks, communications, large agricultural enterprises organized by the state (state farms, machine-tractor stations, etc.)), as well as public utilities and the main housing stock in cities and industrial centers are state property, that is, the national property."

"Article 11. The economic life of the USSR is determined and directed by the state national economic plan in the interests of increasing social wealth, steadily raising the material and cultural level of the working people, strengthening the independence of the USSR and strengthening its defense capability."

"Article 12. Labor in the USSR is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen according to the principle:" He who does not work, he does not eat."