Interesting and Humour - page 3488
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The Bolsheviks flagged good ideas and did exactly the opposite and drove the people into the kolkhoz-communal stall.
This looks especially cynical with the slogans: land to the peasants and factories to the workers - but in reality cynical exploitation for workdays
the dekulakization - a separate story of lawlessness under the state's umbrella
and life on ration cards - such are the achievements of communism.
Graduated from the university? - get an assignment and go to the Urals.
another cynical invention - voluntary and compulsory withholding of part of one's salary in exchange for bonds
the repayment in 20 years and the terms were shifted and the predatory conversion of the interest - isn't it genius?
And the 47 year monetary reform was an epic story in terms of fraud: money exchange at 10 to 1 and in the shortest possible time
now it is easy to be nostalgic about the ussR with tea and wi-fi, while the iRl it was all hardcore
no one is disputing that the ussR was a strong state, but it was certainly not socially responsible
Russia's previous history has also seen plenty of episodes of deceit and lawlessness on the part of the state.
The '90s logically fit into the historical picture.
USSR bonds???
As far as I remember, under Brezhnev they only refunded a PART of the money, but WITHOUT ANY CORRECT PERCENT.
In the village, I remember Stalin's bonds used to wallpaper the walls
I enjoyed it. Join in -
What year are we discussing?
The Bolsheviks flagged good ideas and did exactly the opposite and drove the people into the kolkhoz-communal stall.
They drove a few million people out and slaughtered all those who destroyed the great Russian empire. They toppled the Tsar and by September realized that they did not know what to do: the country went into total chaos and the subsequent bloodbath - all against all.
By 1928 the people were where they were and where they stayed: 80% of the population lived in the villages. Poverty, from dawn to dawn in the fields, illiterate, without medicine, with only manual labour everywhere. We lived together with the cattle. Once in 12 years there was a catastrophic famine, but only once in every 12 years.
Nepmen and emerging nomenklatura had a better life - not more than 2% of the population. A gloomy darkness.
This looks particularly cynical with the slogans: land to the peasants and factories to the workers - but in reality cynical exploitation for a day's labor
Who got the surplus value? Who exploited whom? There was no social stratification. In the Soviet Union we did not understand it, but now go outside and you will understand everything. Today there are over 20(!) million people below the poverty line.
The dekulakization is a separate story of lawlessness under the umbrella of the state
Let's get into the meanings of words. Before the revolution a kulak was a specific kind of rural moneylender.
The kulak never produced anything either before or after the revolution. After the revolution anyone could get land for free in perpetuity. And the land was given away. There were social restrictions: the law prohibited giving land to former landlords and kulaks. So by law they could not produce anything.
Nevertheless, it was the kulaks who controlled the main volume of agricultural production. A kulak is a moneylender and he lent inventory, seeds.... Before the revolution, the newspapers were outraged that the rent on benefits from the kulaks exceeded the future harvest by a multiple. In 1928 - it was the peak of the harvest between the famine, the kulaks were not interested in the growth of production, its mechanization... The wealth of the kulaks was kept on the informal enslavement of the peasants - this is why they were evicted, to break the circle.
and life on ration cards - such are the achievements of communism
What years was that? Maybe you are confused with the US - today up to 50 million receive ration cards. Personally, I didn't catch the cards.
Graduated? - Get an assignment and go to the Urals.
Finish university and get a guaranteed job, and always in your specialty. And now? Graduated from Moscow State University and joined the marching band
Another cynical invention - voluntary and compulsory withholding of part of your salary in exchange for bonds
because the repayment is in 20 years and the deadline has been moved and there's a predatory interest conversion - genius, isn't it?
It is too cynical to write about it like that. The country was being rebuilt.
The 47 monetary reform was an epic story on the scale of fraud: money exchange at 10 to 1 and in the shortest possible time.
I don't know. I really don't understand who was cheated. Who had the money? There was no one to cheat, although various warehouse superintendents and other scum
No one disputes that the USSR was a strong state, but it certainly wasn't socially-oriented.
You are talking nonsense about the lack of social orientation. Education, medicine, pensions, housing, the whole social infrastructure, housing and utilities - everything is free. Movies and theatres cost ridiculous amounts of money. Anybody could buy a ticket anywhere in the country, sick pay, child support. Stable prices. What are you talking about?
Well, Russia's previous history has also had plenty of episodes of fraud and lawlessness on the part of the state.
The state is a suppression machine, in Lenin's words "the worst of all evils". And the valuation of the state depends on whether it acts in the interests of the majority and whether the private interests of the individual coincide with the interests of the state. The Soviet state certainly acted in the interests of the vast majority of the population.
Dig into the meanings of the words. Before the revolution, a kulak was a specific kind of rural moneylender.
Before the revolution a "kulak" was a well-to-do peasant. Who had more land and more bread.
And who worked more than anyone else.
Even Lenin did not call a kulak a usurer.
"...The peasants are far from understanding that the free trade in bread is a state crime. "I produced the bread, it is my product, and I have the right to sell it," is how the peasant reasoned, out of habit, in the old days. And we say that this is a state crime. V.I. Lenin
Faa, you live in a world of your own in which if the facts of real life contradict your delusions, you make up your own "facts", "quotes", "interpretations" and so on.
When you slipped me a high quality fake on fertility in the US during the Great Depression. It took me a week to realise that you were feeding me a fake. I don't want to spend any more time refuting what you say. Not even on the fact that the Lenin quote you cited has nothing to do with fists.
Moreover, I am not interested in convincing anyone of anything either. Especially those who fit any facts to the truths they know in advance.
Underneath what I write is either my own experience or I can make references.
PS.
Back in the 1870sA.N. Engelhardt, who researched the Russian peasantry, wrote:
"<...> a real kulak loves neither land, nor farm, nor labour, he loves only money... Everything at a kulak is based not on the farm, not on labour, but on capital, which he trades with, which he lends out at interest. His idol is money, which he only thinks about increasing. The capital he inherited was obtained by some unknown but unclean means.
I enjoyed it. Join in -
I liked it too! Thank you!)
:)