Komsomolskaya Pravda who fed whom in the USSR. So who fed whom in the USSR? Where's the money, Zin

DECAY AS INEVITABILITY?

Every August after 1991, we remember the GKChP, the failed coup, Mikhail Gorbachev, the collapse of the Soviet Union that followed, and we ask ourselves: was there an alternative to the collapse of a great country?

Not so long ago I came across a Soviet book of fairy tales of the peoples of the USSR with a remarkable picture on the cover. A Russian boy plays the harmonica, and children of different nations started dancing. We can say that all nationalities dance to the Russian harmonica. And you can look differently, while everyone is having fun, the Russian is working.

"Lenin's national policy" built political, cultural and economic relations in the USSR in such a way that they most of all began to resemble the proverb "one with a bipod, and seven with a spoon." Moreover, it was not about an accidental mistake, not about a bias, but about the conscious policy of the Bolsheviks, who believed that it was necessary to humiliate the Russian people in order to elevate others due to their hated "great power". Even the head of the Soviet government, Rykov, was dismissed from his post after stating that he "considers it unacceptable that other peoples live at the expense of the Russian peasant."

THIRTEEN WITH SPOON

By 1990, a situation had developed in the USSR with the distribution of contributions to production among the republics and the distribution of income, which was reflected in the published table. Only two republics - the RSFSR and Belarus were "with a bipod" and produced more than they consumed. The remaining thirteen "sisters" went "with a spoon."

Someone had a small spoon - Ukraine, and we understand that the east of Ukraine produced, and even in excess, but the west consumed, and, at the same time, rushed to independence.

The Central Asian republics produced very little, but also consumed relatively little, although only in Kyrgyzstan the level of consumption was slightly lower than in the RSFSR.

The Baltic republics produced a lot, but consumed much more, in fact, the Soviet leaders tried to bribe them with a prohibitively high standard of living for the USSR.

But Transcaucasia turned out to be in the most striking position. With a relatively modest production - a huge amount of consumption, which was also visually striking to those who had to visit Georgia - personal houses, cars, carpets, feasts with barbecue and endless toasts ...

At the same time, in all these republics they liked to speculate that it was they who were feeding the “bottomless Russia” and the rest of the freeloaders of the large Soviet collective farm. And as soon as they separate, they will live even richer.

LAST IN THE LINE TO THE FEEDER

In fact, this whole magnificent banquet was paid for by a Russian peasant, worker and engineer. Each of the 147 million inhabitants of the RSFSR actually gave away 6 thousand dollars annually to cover the difference between the production and consumption of the inhabitants of other republics. Since there were many Russians, there was enough for everyone, although for a truly fun life the republic had to be small, proud and passionately hate “drunk and lazy Russian occupiers” so that the comrades from the Politburo had reason to put money on the fire.

There was another problem with the huge population of the republics of Central Asia. It was not especially luxurious, but it constantly increased. At the same time, labor productivity in these republics practically did not increase. Inside the USSR, its own Third World swelled.

Russians (and by “Russians”, of course, I mean all the peoples inhabiting Russia), who were the most numerous, most educated, and most professionally developed part of the population of the USSR, felt a dull discontent, although they did not fully understand its source. But constantly faced with the fact that places in restaurants, all the first places in the queue for the Volga, are occupied by representatives of other nations, and if you are Russian, then additional privileges from the party and government are required to access the coveted feeder, Russians felt from the Soviet system growing discomfort. There was a feeling that you plow and plow, but not for yourself. But on who? In theory - for the state, for the common good, for the coming socialism. In practice, it turned out that the cunning guild workers from Batumi and the arrogant descendants of the SS from Jurmala.

CRYING FOR PARMESAN AND THE SOVIET ERA

The Soviet system was arranged in such a way that it was impossible to make a national revolution within its framework, giving the Russian people more power, opportunities and material benefits. It was already unthinkable to abolish the republics in the 1970s and 1980s. And that means the USSR was doomed, because to shake without any gratitude and with pokes in the back (and whoever did not live in 1989-91, he cannot imagine what kind of hatred Russians often encountered in Georgia or Estonia, or in Western Ukraine) Russians were agree not indefinitely.

The collapse of the Union was arranged extremely meanly and not to our benefit. According to the mind, it was necessary to create a political and economic union of Russia, Belarus, Eastern Ukraine and Kazakhstan, sending the rest to seek happiness in free swimming. Instead, the country was split along the Soviet administrative borders, as a result of which the Russian people were cut into pieces. Crimea, the industrial centers of Donbass, the shipyards of Nikolaev, and much more were cut off from us ...

But let's look at the selfish consumer result that came out of this disaster. For the first time in their history in decades, maybe hundreds of years, the Russians began to work for themselves. And with the advent of the Putin era, a real consumer boom began. As a result, today we scold the government, sitting at brand new MacBooks, curse Moscow traffic jams ourselves by creating them with expensive foreign cars, and some bitterly cry over burned parmesan for a second without doubting their ability to buy it.

Yes, this consumerism was lopsided, because while some lived in luxurious mansions on Rublyovka, others barely scraped together for a mortgage, but everyone got it from the common table. Without feeding the “seven with a spoon”, the Russians were able to afford, if not a luxurious life, then certainly more prosperous than those of the fallen outskirts.

And those, for the most part, have fallen into economic, social and political hell. Even the Baltics, where a relatively decent life is now provided by EU subsidies and, most importantly, by a rapid decline in population, feels that it has seriously lost compared to the Soviet era. For the most part, the former republics are entirely dependent on handouts from Russia in the form of buying goods or money sent from our Muscovites by migrant workers.

THAT'S WHY CRIMEA IS BACK

Whether someone likes it or not, the collapse of the USSR eventually revealed the leadership of Russia and the Russian people. It turned out that without us - nowhere. It turned out that we can not only easily, but also much more pleasantly live without others, but try to live without us? If the peoples who once entered our country want to live well, then they must live together with the Russians. And, already, on our terms.

Today it is already obvious that more difficult times are coming for Russia. The fat years of general consumerism and bureaucratic theft seem to be ending. But the atmosphere in Russia has changed. We have understood a lot over the years, we have learned the real value of both our neighbors and more distant “respectable partners”, and most importantly, ourselves.

In many ways, this is why we were able to return the Crimea. If the standard of living in Russia had not been two or three times higher than in Ukraine, perhaps the Crimeans would not have voted so massively for their return to their historical homeland.

The former Soviet republics also clearly understood everything. But the leadership of some of them continues by inertia to behave in a Bolshevik way. Feeding on the bounties of Russia, while at the same time impressing their peoples that the Russians are the main enemies. And thereby leading their countries into ever greater devastation and an ever more explosive political impasse.

Maxim Mirovich again distinguished himself with a post about the Soviet Union, while in this he simply surpassed himself with the illiteracy of what he wrote.

He didn’t even notice that if we take his principle of reasoning and calculations, only using the right numbers (and I will give them below), then the blogger-zmagar will safely expose his own draft.

What did he write about?

Maksimka is still sausage from free apartments, social programs (schools, hospitals, sanatoriums, etc.) in the Soviet Union, subsidized prices for a number of goods and services, etc., so he tried to portray in his article that in fact, it’s just that in the Union they “did not give wages” - and due to “shortage”, hence all the benefits. And burst into post.

I will parse this enchantingly illiterate text of his for you.

So, Mirovich writes:

"I regularly come across articles on the Internet in which a rather paradoxical idea is voiced - supposedly in the USSR its main republic of the RSFSR" fed everyone ", but at the same time allegedly lost the most from the collapse of the USSR.

What is most interesting - both Russians, Belarusians, and Tajiks in the USSR were equally poor - because they did not see the real money that they earned from their work - the Soviet state simply "expropriated" a huge part of their income, while telling tales about some "freedom".

Scoop fans usually like to talk about some kind of "common cauldron" in which everyone is put, and then the mother magpie distributes equally to everyone from there. According to the UN report, the union republics in 1990 had the following GDP:

In the modern economic system, annual GDP per capita divided by 12 months shows the approximate average salary in the country (for the sake of interest, you can check this on Wikipedia, it works with all countries with an error of no more than 20%), and this is logical - how many people produced a product, and received so much in the form of income. But in the USSR, everything was completely different. Let's say, according to the table, the average Belarusian in 1990 should have had a salary of $1,300, which, according to the "official Soviet dollar rate", should have been 2,166 rubles a month, and even more according to the unofficial one.

However, the average salary in the USSR (including the BSSR) did not exceed 140-150 rubles. Where is the rest? In fact, all the rest of the money earned from a person was taken away by the state. This alone puts an end to the fantasies that in the USSR someone "fed" someone - it was ordinary workers and peasants who, for their hard-earned money, supported an exorbitant state apparatus, which littered right and left with this money.

I answer:
I won’t polymerize much, I’ll just give the numbers and indicate in which places Maksimka lies. Maybe he himself reads and understands where and how much he messed up? in order to be more prepared in his next sketches and not be dishonored.
I will immediately note a gross mathematical error of Maksimka - $ 1300 at the "official Soviet dollar rate" is 767, not 2166 rubles. ALREADY he lied 2.82 times.

1) I will start with his first assertion that "In the modern economic system, the annual GDP per capita divided by 12 months is the approximate average salary in the country."
It's actually not that far from the truth.

Let's check, as Maxim suggests, using the example of the United States.
As of 2017, the average salary in the US per month after all taxes is $3,120 (dirty $3,800). GDP per capita in the United States in 2017 - 58.952 dollars per person.

We count according to his scheme:
$58.952: 12 months = $4.913 per person

It turned out:
a) 3800: 4913 = in the USA they receive 77.3% of the average GDP per capita, if calculated by accrued earnings
b) 3120: 4913 = in the USA they receive 63.5% of the average GDP per capita, if calculated by net earnings

We did not hit the 20% fork indicated by Maksimka, but it was approximately close.

Maxim lied by 2.7-16.5%(100% - 20% (fork) - 77.3/63.5%)

2) His second statement that the salary in the Union in 1990 was 140-150 rubles is absolutely false.
Such an average salary existed only in the period in 1977-79, and not in the year 1990 he describes.

In 1984-87 in the country, the average village / city salary was already at the level of 170-185 rubles (a significant difference with the figures indicated by Mirovich), and in 1990 this figure was 248.4 rubles (the official dollar exchange rate was 59 kopecks, the commercial rate from November 1, 1990 - 1 ruble 80 kopecks)

Maksimka lied about the Soviet salary in 1990 by 71.3%(248,4: 145)

3) And now about the main thing, where the illiteracy of the author on GDP in the Soviet Union lurked. This is the table he provided. She comes from Wikipedia. The table came to Wikipedia from material in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

This table, if you read an article in the Komsomolskaya Pravda, does not reflect real GDP, albeit converted into dollars, but the GDP of the USSR that IMF analysts calculated according to purchasing power parity , and which, according to them, in 1990 was $ 2.7 trillion.

But you must agree that we need to compare the nominal figures (and not recalculated) with the nominal salary. Right?

In the world economy, it is customary to consider the true size of GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP). Adjusted for the fact that for 1 dollar somewhere in China you can buy 1.5 times more food than in the United States. And, for example, in Switzerland or Norway - 1.5 times less. So it is calculated in our version.

But the nominal GDP of the USSR was not 2,700 billion, 784 billion dollars.
And the average GDP per capita, nominally converted into US dollars, is $2,722, but not $10,000 on average, as one might imagine from Maksimkin's table, which is calculated using PPP.

Maxim lied 2700 billion: 784 billion = 3.44 times
Let's make a discount that Maxim is not an economist. But why does he go where he doesn't understand at all?

Now we count together based on the correct numbers

Again, the correct way is to use the same denominators..
That is, the most reliable way to calculate is to take the nominal GDP of the USSR in rubles in 1990 and the average nominal salary in 1990.
And you don’t have to invent anything, fence the garden, convert it into dollars (why?) And drive through various coefficients.

So what was the GDP of the Union in 1990?

Even at the end of its history, with all the internal problems, the Soviet Union was really powerful. The gross domestic product (GDP) of the Union in 1990 was 1 trillion Soviet rubles. Modern publications give figures of about 1,050 billion rubles

Now we count according to the Maxim method, according to his plan, but based on the correct numbers and in rubles:
1,050 billion rubles: 288.6 million people: 12 months = 303 rubles

It turned out:
a) 248.4 rubles: 303 rubles \u003d 81.98% of the average GDP per capita, if calculated according to accrued earnings (in the USA - 77.3%)
b) 220 rubles: 303 \u003d 72.6% of the average GDP per capita, if we count on net earnings (in the USA - 63.5%)

That is, in the United States, this figure is now noticeably more modest than in its time in the Union.

So where are the salaries not added and not paid extra? Looks like it's in the US!
And in the Union, you remember, in addition to wages - a strong social program and free housing (those who did not want to stand in line could easily build through a cooperative, but preferred to wait).

Maybe in other years the situation in the Union was different?
Let's count other years. It is also possible in dollars, since in the table above everything is reduced to one indicator - the country's nominal GDP is converted into dollars at the official rate and nominal wages are also translated at the official rate. That is, the ratio of numbers is NOT VIOLATED.

1977
GDP per capita $2,864: 12 = $238.67 per capita
$192.56 salary (this translates to 142.88 rubles at the official rate): 238.67 = 80.68%

1985
GDP per capita $3308: 12 = $275.67 per capita
$246.73 salary (this translates to 173.95 rubles at the official rate): 238.67 = 89.50%

Total: the indicators for each year in the USSR were noticeably better than now in the United States, no one squeezed anyone’s wages or underpaid. And Maksimka Mirovich exposed himself as a man incapable of thinking, and simply counting. But with pathos to carry nonsense - he knows how.

Further, in their reasoning, fans of the USSR, who are trying to prove that the RSFSR allegedly "fed everyone", point to the difference in the GDP of the RSFSR (17.5 thousand dollars per capita in 1990) and, for example, Tajikistan (5.5 thousand dollars per capita). Allegedly, if incomes were higher in the RSFSR, this means that this republic fed the rest.

I answer:
Reasoning is wrong. In Tajikistan, the average GDP was two times less than in the Union. And in the Union in 1990 it averaged (see above) 303 rubles per month. Accordingly, in Tajikistan, the "production" was about 150-160 rubles per month. With salaries in the country on average 250.

The GDP of the Tajik USSR per capita means that the average salary there in 1990 should have been about $458 per month - however, Tajiks received on average the same 140-150 Soviet rubles. In 1990, every average Tajik earned $ 5,500 a year for the USSR with his labor, and received some pennies in his hands.

I answer:
In addition to laughter, these arguments of Mirovich cause nothing. Let me remind you once again of the nominal figures - GDP per capita per month in the republic is about 150-160 rubles, and salaries, I am sure, may have differed somewhat downward across the country (250 rubles), but not much. The very fact that Tajikistan received more than it earned. A resident of Tajikistan, producing GDP three times less than a resident of the RSFSR, received not only about the same salary, but also the same social program, the maintenance of which is expensive.

Separately, I emphasize that I don’t want to touch on the topic here, who fed whom - we were one country and pulled up regions that were backward due to historical and geographical reasons (by the way, the RSFSR is also very heterogeneous). But I'm talking about the fact that Maxim's illiterate reasoning causes only laughter. Those who have mastered my calculations will fully agree with this.

I regularly come across articles on the Internet in which a rather paradoxical idea is voiced - allegedly in the USSR its main republic, the RSFSR, "feeded everyone", but at the same time allegedly lost the most from the collapse of the USSR. It would seem - well, the "freeloaders" have separated, so you just need to rejoice! But no - for some reason it is in modern Russia that one can notice the strongest longing for the USSR.

What is most interesting - both Russians, Belarusians, and Tajiks in the USSR were equally poor - because they did not see the real money that they earned from their work - the Soviet state simply “expropriated” a huge part of their income, while telling tales about some "freedom". Although in fact the exploitation of man by man in the USSR was much higher than in tsarist times.

In general, in today's post we will calculate who fed whom in the USSR.
How much did the Soviet people actually earn.

In order to understand the question of who kept whom in the USSR, first you need to look at how the common good, formed by all working residents, was distributed in the country. Scoop fans usually like to talk about some kind of “common cauldron” in which everyone is put, and then the mother magpie distributes equally to everyone from there.

Well, let's see what kind of "common cauldron" it was. According to the UN report, the union republics in 1990 had the following GDP:

In the modern economic system, the annual GDP per capita divided by 12 months shows the approximate average salary in the country (for the sake of interest, you can check this on Wikipedia, it works with all countries with an error of no more than 20%), and this is logical - how many people produced a product, and received so much in the form of income. But in the USSR, everything was completely different. Let's say, according to the table, the average Belarusian in 1990 should have had a salary of $1,300, which, according to the "official Soviet dollar rate", should have been 2,166 rubles a month, and even more according to the unofficial one.

However, the average salary in the USSR (including the BSSR) did not exceed 140-150 rubles. Where is the rest? In fact, all the rest of the money earned from a person was taken away by the state. This alone puts an end to the fantasies that in the USSR someone “fed” someone - it was ordinary workers and peasants who, for their hard-earned money, supported an exorbitant state apparatus, which littered right and left with this money.

The budgets of the Union republics.

Further, in their reasoning, fans of the USSR, who are trying to prove that the RSFSR allegedly “fed everyone”, point to the difference in the GDP of the RSFSR (17.5 thousand dollars per capita in 1990) and, for example, Tajikistan (5.5 thousand dollars per capita). Allegedly, if incomes were higher in the RSFSR, this means that this republic fed the rest.

However, this is also incorrect reasoning. The GDP of the Tajik USSR per capita means that the average salary there in 1990 should have been about $458 per month - but Tajiks received on average the same 140-150 Soviet rubles. In fact, this only means that the Soviet bureaucracy robbed Tajiks in the same way as it robbed Russians and Belarusians, they simply had a little less money from them. Once again, for the slow-witted - in 1990, every average Tajik earned $ 5,500 a year for the USSR with his labor, and received some pennies in his hands.

Where's the money, Zin?

You ask - where did the rest go? The money earned went to the maintenance of a huge number of parasites, who bred under Soviet rule in great numbers - next to the relatively successful factories in the country, hundreds and thousands of unprofitable, subsidized and simply unnecessary enterprises worked, the workers of which worked according to the principle described by Vencheka Erofeev in the immortal poem "Moscow-Petushki" - "We give them a social obligation twice a month - they give us a salary once a month." At the same time, the “work” of the brigade consisted in the fact that the workers either dug out or buried the same cable in the ground, receiving a salary for this and thumping hopelessly.

In addition, an incredible amount of money without the demand of the people was spent on all sorts of military adventures, such as war in Afghanistan, as well as to support all sorts of bandits in overseas Bruchtani - as soon as a large gang appeared in some eastern, Latin American or African country, which began to fight with the pro-Western government - as in the USSR this gang was immediately declared "freedom fighters", after which they began containers to send them weapons and material assistance.

How the "redistribution of funds" functioned in the USSR can be well represented by a household example. Imagine an entrance with 10 apartments. From the entire entrance, only you and your neighbor really work - earning $ 1,500 per month. At the entrance there is a house manager named Shvonder, who takes the money you earn, giving you only $100 a month. The remaining $1,400 is spent on supporting Vasya the alcoholic from the first apartment, the same alcoholic Petya from the third, part of the money is stolen, and $400 is spent monthly on supporting and buying intoxicating booze drunks from the next entrance, who are fighting for the right to pee at the elevator and steal light bulbs .

By the way, the walls in your entrance are always peeling, and when asked about repairs, the house manager pointedly raises his finger to the sky and begins to sing nasheed about the international situation.

Ham for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In general, as you can see, there was no “feeding” of some republics by others in the USSR - Soviet citizens throughout the USSR equally received less for their work - only the amount of funds that the Soviet bureaucracy took from them varied. But in the topic about who and whom was scammed in the USSR, there is another curious aspect - and who, in fact, produced food in the USSR and who fed them?

The lion's share of all meat / dairy products in the USSR was produced in the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine - in these countries even before 1917 (and in some parts of these countries - even before 1939) there were excellent private local industries that made excellent sausages, cheeses , cottage cheese and other products. After the 1917 coup, the Bolsheviks simply took these enterprises away from their rightful owners and began to do something there - this happened, for example, with many Belarusian breweries, meat processing plants and butter-cheese-factories.

And here's the most interesting thing - the local population of the republics in Soviet times practically did not see the products of local meat processing plants and other food factories. The fact that there is such a product as ham and salmon, I learned only in 1991-1992, although at the time the USSR local Belarusian enterprises produced all this - but they sent it to no one knows where. Literally 100 kilometers from Minsk, a meat processing plant could operate - and in the city there were empty shelves in the meat departments. I still don’t know where all these products went, because judging by the photo, there were exactly the same empty shelves in other parts of the USSR. Apparently, all the products went to "special rations" for the nomenclature ...

So it turns out that the whole country worked for the Soviet nomenklatura - feeding them, shoes and clothing, and even sponsoring their political adventures.

Illustrations: Angela Jerich.

So it goes.

Write in the comments what you think about this. Who fed whom the USSR?

I regularly come across articles on the Internet in which a rather paradoxical thought is voiced - supposedly in its main republic of the RSFSR "fed everyone", but at the same time allegedly lost the most from the collapse of the USSR. It would seem - well, the "freeloaders" separated, so you just need to rejoice But no, for some reason it is in modern Russia that one can notice the strongest longing for the USSR.

How much did the Soviet people actually earn.

In order to understand the question of who kept whom in the USSR, first you need to look at how the common good, formed by all working residents, was distributed in the country. Scoop fans usually like to talk about some kind of "common cauldron" in which everyone is put, and then the mother magpie distributes equally to everyone from there.

Well, let's see what kind of "common cauldron" it was. According to the UN report, the union republics in 1990 had the following GDP:

The budgets of the Union republics.

However, this is also incorrect reasoning. The GDP of the Tajik USSR per capita means that the average salary there in 1990 should have been about $458 per month - however, Tajiks received on average the same 140-150 Soviet rubles. In fact, this only means that the Soviet bureaucracy robbed Tajiks in the same way as it robbed Russians and Belarusians, they simply had a little less money from them. Once again, for the slow-witted - in 1990, every average Tajik earned $ 5,500 a year for the USSR with his labor, and received some pennies in his hands.

Where's the money, Zin?

You ask - where did the rest go? The money earned went to the maintenance of a huge number of parasites, who bred under the Soviet regime in great numbers - next to the relatively successful factories in the country, hundreds and thousands of unprofitable, subsidized and simply unnecessary enterprises worked, the workers of which worked according to the principle described by Vencheka Erofeev in the immortal poem "Moscow-Petushki" - "We give them a social obligation twice a month - they give us a salary once a month." The "work" of the brigade at the same time consisted in the fact that the workers either dug out or buried the same cable in the ground, receiving a salary for this and thumping hopelessly.

In addition, an incredible amount of money was spent without the demand of the people on all sorts of military adventures, like, as well as on supporting all sorts of bandits in overseas Bruchtanias - as soon as a large gang appeared in some eastern, Latin American or African country, which began to fight with the pro-Western government - how in the USSR, this gang was immediately declared "freedom fighters", after which they began to send them weapons and material assistance in containers.

How the "redistribution of funds" functioned in the USSR can be well illustrated by a household example. Imagine an entrance with 10 apartments. From the entire entrance, only you and your neighbor really work - earning $ 1,500 per month. At the entrance there is a house manager named Shvonder, who takes the money you earn, giving you only $100 a month. The remaining $1,400 is spent on supporting Vasya the alcoholic from the first apartment, the same alcoholic Petya from the third, part of the money is stolen, and $400 is spent monthly on supporting and buying intoxicating booze drunks from the next entrance, who are fighting for the right to pee at the elevator and steal light bulbs .

Ham for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In general, as you can see, there was no “feeding” of some republics by others in the USSR - Soviet citizens throughout the USSR were equally underpaid for their work - only the amount of funds that the Soviet bureaucracy took from them varied. But in the topic about who and whom was scammed in the USSR, there is another curious aspect - and who, in fact, in the USSR produced food and fed them to whom?

The lion's share of all meat / dairy products in the USSR was produced in the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine - in these countries, even before 1917 (and in some parts of these countries - even before 1939) there were excellent private local industries that made excellent sausages, cheeses , cottage cheese and other products. After the coup of 1917, the Bolsheviks simply took these enterprises away from their rightful owners and began to do something there - this happened, for example, with many Belarusian breweries, meat processing plants and butter-cheese factories.

And here's the most interesting thing - the local population of the republics in Soviet times practically did not see the products of local meat processing plants and other food factories. I found out that there is such a product as ham and salmon only in 1991-1992, although at times local Belarusian enterprises produced all this, but they sent it to no one knows where. Literally 100 kilometers from Minsk, a meat processing plant could operate - and in the city there were empty shelves in the meat departments. I still don’t know where all these products went, because judging by the photo, there were exactly the same empty shelves in other parts of the USSR. Apparently, all the products went to "special rations" for the nomenclature ...

So it turns out that the whole country worked for the Soviet nomenklatura - feeding them, shoes and clothing, and even sponsoring their political adventures.

Illustrations: Angela Jerich.

So it goes.

Write in the comments what you think about this. Who and whom fed in?

We decided to compare how the former Soviet republics lived before leaving the common Union and how they live now

A quarter of a century after the collapse of the USSR, we still cannot understand why this happened? Indeed, in the spring of 1991, 77.7% of its citizens voted for the preservation of a single country in a referendum. And by the end of the same year, taking advantage of the defeat of the GKChP, many union republics instantly concocted their small-town votes, at which people already demanded independence. For example, in Ukraine, 90% of those who wanted to live separately from the rest of the Union scored! And in Armenia - even 99%!

With what arguments could the local princelings inspire the peoples of their republics that they urgently need to get rid of the "oppression of Moscow"? Well, except for national pride, which you can’t spread on a bun?

Everyone had a simple argument: we feed the rest of the Soviet Union. We work the hardest. And other republics hang around our necks. And as soon as we get rid of these freeloaders, we will live no worse than in Europe or America.

25 years have passed. We can draw the first results. Have the former fraternal republics of the USSR begun to live better, having become proud independent states? Let's get a look.

GREAT AND MIGHTY

It must be admitted that even at the end of its history, with all its internal problems, the Soviet Union was indeed powerful. As stated in the reference book "The National Economy of the USSR", the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Union in 1990 was 1 trillion Soviet rubles. At the official exchange rate, 1 US dollar then cost 59 kopecks. This means that even nominally the GDP of the USSR was 1.7 trillion dollars.

However, the Soviet ruble was not freely convertible. And in the world economy, it is customary to consider the true size of GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP). Adjusted for the fact that for 1 dollar somewhere in China you can buy 1.5 times more food than in the United States. And, for example, in Switzerland or Norway - 1.5 times less.

Therefore, IMF analysts believe that the GDP of the USSR, in terms of purchasing power parity, in 1990 was $2.7 trillion. Or 12.1% of the world!

And UN experts believe that the economic power of the USSR reached 14.2% of world significance. And, therefore, it surpassed Japan by almost 1.5 times, Germany - twice, and China - three times!

And in the same Ukraine or the Baltic States, Georgia or Moldova, it was believed that if we single out our share from the enormous power of the Soviet Union, we would be very serious respected countries, comparable to some Sweden or Austria. And everyone will reckon with us.

In numbers, this is what it looked like. For example, the economy of only one Ukrainian SSR in terms of steel smelting, coal mining, wheat harvesting and other indicators per capita was comparable to Germany - the locomotive of the entire European Union!

Therefore, the Ukrainian elite decided that with such a rich Soviet legacy, it was necessary to collect things as soon as possible and leave the Soviet Union. To not share with anyone and live like dumplings in butter.

Where is that Ukraine now and where is Germany?

ECONOMY LIKE A KALASHNIKOV

Why did almost all the former Soviet republics quickly deflate, squander their wealth and fail to remain at least at the same level of economic power with which they left the USSR?

Yes, because the USSR itself was built as a single well-oiled mechanism. Clear and reliable, like a Kalashnikov assault rifle. And each screw in it performed its function.

For example, in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, great emphasis was placed on the cultivation of grain and cotton, since their climatic conditions were much better suited for this than the mountain slopes of Georgia and Armenia or the swamps of the Belarusian Polesie.

And Uzbek cotton already provided raw materials for the weaving factories of the "city of brides" Ivanovo.

And from Ivanovo, the fabric went to garment factories in Belarus and the Baltic states.

In Lithuania and Latvia, they staked on the development of electronics. There was a time when Latvian VEF radios, Lithuanian Snaige refrigerators and Šilelis TVs were considered the best in the country.

Any Soviet person could read "where it was made" on the packaging. Sugar was mostly Ukrainian, sprats - Riga, potatoes - Belarusian, wines - Caucasian or Moldovan.

And what about the RSFSR? Russians, in the view of a simple Georgian, Uzbek or Estonian of that time, were only tanks, guns, submarines and atomic bombs. Also, perhaps, Zhiguli cars (however, everyone knew that they were actually Italian, but badly damaged by "Russian hands").

But from the point of view of ideology, it was extremely important to equalize the standard of living of different republics of the great USSR. But initially it was very different, because it required large investments. Purely political moments were also superimposed on this. For example, from the Baltic republics, they sought to create a kind of "showcase of socialism."

WORKERS AND FREEDERS

Because of this desire to make life in Yerevan or Chisinau no worse than in Moscow or Leningrad, back in 1960-70, a clear imbalance began to arise between work and remuneration for it. And in the last years of the USSR, it became completely indecent. With formal equality, the Soviet periphery began to live much better than the central regions of the country.

When they talk about empty store shelves filled with just packs of biscuits and canned food, it's basically just Russia. While in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova and many other places, this was not the case. In my school years, back in the USSR, I lived in Vilnius and I remember yogurt. He certainly was little like what is meant by this today. In half liter bottles with tin caps. But he was! While my relatives in Volgograd have not even heard of anything like that.

However, in order to understand the depth of inequality between the republics of the USSR, it is worth looking at the table. These figures in the public domain appeared after the collapse of the Union. And it is a pity that they were hidden for ideological reasons. Perhaps, after looking at them, many in the Transcaucasus or the Baltic would change their minds about leaving the Soviet table, at which they had the “fattest” seats.

in Armenia they produced for each person 2 times less than the Russian one, and "ate" 2.5 times more;

in Estonia, consumption per capita was 3 times higher than in Russia;

and Georgia lived 3.5 times richer than the RSFSR and generally richer than anywhere else in the Union!

Should we be surprised at the mass conviction that developed in those years about the superiority of all other republics over the “lazy and always drunk” Russians? However, where could other ideas come from? After all, it was not the Balts who flew to Voronezh for meat, but Voronezh went to the Baltic states for smoked sausage.

And the local elites in the Union republics only fueled these sentiments.

And when the general standard of living in the USSR in the late 1980s began to decline, there was no longer enough food, clothing and household appliances, for many “national consciousness clicked”: stop feeding strangers! And since Russia is so poor, it means that they simply do not want to and do not know how to work well. Separate!

Ordinary people were not explained that Russia lived worse than other republics because out of every three rubles it earned, it kept only two for itself. And the third ruble - gave to the brothers in the Union.

All other republics (except Belarus, which, in fact, also put more into the common cauldron of the USSR than drew from it) lived largely due to this “third Russian ruble”.

So which of the former republics of the USSR began to live richer, and who is poorer? Let's summarize.

TODAY'S RUSSIA IS 1.5 TIMES RICHER THAN SOVIET

The collapse of the USSR hit the Russian economy very painfully. By 1997 - 1998, she lost more than a third of the "Soviet level". A number of industries, such as textiles and footwear, having lost domestic sources of raw materials, generally found themselves on the verge of survival. Problems arose in the rocket and aviation industries, as Ukrainian engines suddenly turned into imports. And the oil terminals of the Baltic states and gas pipelines of Ukraine, built with common (read - Russian) money, ended up abroad and had to be paid for using them.

Nevertheless, over a quarter of a century, Russia has managed to rebuild the economy, achieving greater independence. Production facilities that were previously located in the Union republics were created. And Russia today is the only part of the USSR that not only did not lose the Soviet industrial potential, but also increased it. In terms of purchasing power parity, Russia's GDP in 2015 amounted to $2.5 trillion, or 121.9% of the 1991 level.

And per capita (according to the World Bank) Russia's GDP for 2015 amounted to 25.4 thousand dollars, which is 1.45 times higher than before the collapse of the USSR.

Thus, it must be admitted that the Russians (with all the reservations about the increased stratification into rich and poor) still began to live better than in the Soviet Union. Almost one and a half times!

KAZAKHSTAN - BETWEEN "BEAR" AND "DRAGON"

In Soviet times, Kazakhstan was one of the three leaders of the USSR in terms of GDP. And formally, over the past 25 years, Kazakhstan has even managed to increase the size of its economy. Let not by much - from 11.3% to 11.5% of the Russian one. But this was achieved mainly due to a sharp increase in oil and gas production (especially gas - by 5 times). However, being sandwiched between Russia and China, Kazakhstan has almost no other development options.

However, in terms of GDP per capita, this former republic of the Soviet Union reached 24.2 thousand dollars. This is slightly lower than the Russian one, of course, but very close.

And, by the way, ironically, Kazakhstan did not really want to leave the Soviet Union. In fact, he was confronted with a fact - there is no longer a single country, live as you wish. And in general, Kazakhstan succeeded in this.

A SPECIAL BELARUSIAN WAY

The result of the "special path" of Belarus can be considered the second, after Kazakhstan. Belarus' GDP is now 4.5% of Russia's, but in terms of per capita it is 1.37 times less than Russia's. And yet, it is quite worthy in comparison, for example, with the neighboring Ukrainian one. It's a fact - Belarusians live 2.5 times richer than Ukrainians!

Minsk's problems are typical of all "industrialized Soviet republics." Once upon a time, looking at MAZ, at the Minsk refrigerator factory, at NPO Gorizont (TV sets) and many other pillars of the industry, a feeling of the vastness of this economy was created. Gathering for gatherings in Belovezhskaya Pushcha in the early 1990s, the leaders of the republic firmly believed in the self-sufficiency of the Belarusian economy. However, it turned out that its lion's share consists of the final assembly cycle. And the republic has almost no raw materials of its own. No oil and gas, not even ports - like in the Baltics.

So the Belarusians have to “turn around” - to compete with the monsters of the world industry with their tractors, trucks and refrigerators. And the Belarusians, unlike the same Balts, have not closed any of their large factories. Yes, and agriculture is kept in good shape.

UKRAINE - WITH A BROKEN TRUCK

Ukraine at the time of the divorce from the USSR was one of the most powerful powers in Europe. She owned a third (!) of the industrial power of the Soviet Union. And its then GDP was 29.6% of the level of Russia.

Ukraine had rocket science, aviation, automotive and machine tool industries, developed metallurgy, oil refining and petrochemistry. And the presence of the largest shipbuilding center in the USSR in Nikolaev made it possible to look at many from above.

And what is the result? In terms of 2015 GDP ($339 billion PPP), Ukraine today is one of the poorest countries in the world. Even Venezuela, which is on the verge of food riots, has a GDP 1.5 times greater than that of Ukraine!

But let's better compare with Russia. 25 years ago, Ukraine was no less than the RSFSR in terms of economic development - about a third of the Russian population and the same third in terms of GDP. Today, the Ukrainian economy is only 8.8% of the Russian one. In terms of the per capita of each individual Ukrainian, the figures are even more devastating - 7.5 thousand dollars a year compared to the Russian 24.5 thousand dollars. Although in the USSR the level of consumption in Ukraine was 12% higher than in Russia.

THE BALTIC "TIGERS" - POVERER BUT PROUD

The main message of the Baltics' desire for independence was the conviction that without the USSR they would be equal to Switzerland in two ways. But over the past 25 years, the main criterion for their “success” has been one thing: how much they have outstripped Russia's per capita GDP.

And after all formally really overtook. Over the past year, 2015, the standard of living in Lithuania exceeds the Russian one by 11.4%, in Estonia - 12.2%. And only Latvia was slightly below the "Russian bar" - only 2.8%. However, the devil, as you know, is in the details. When the future "Baltic tigers" proudly left the USSR, the level of consumption in Lithuania exceeded the Russian one by 1.97 times, in Latvia - by 2.27 times, in Estonia - by 3.03 times. So, in fact, the process of impoverishment is progressing there.

GEORGIANS AND MOLDOVANS - RECORD HOLDERS FOR FALLING DOWN

Hand on heart, one thing can be said about the rest of the republics - the times of their economic happiness ended exactly with the independence.

If the per capita GDP of Armenia in the USSR was 2.5 times higher than in Russia, today it is only 33% of it.

Azerbaijanis in the USSR lived 1.4 times richer than Russians. And now they barely reach 70% of the standard of living in the Russian Federation.

Georgia sank even deeper. In the USSR, in terms of consumption, it was the richest of the republics - 3.5 times higher than the Russian figure. Today, this figure is only 37.9% of it.

In Moldova, things are even sadder - it was 113.5% of the level of Russia. It became 19.6%.

Do the "former Soviet" republics understand what they have lost? Apparently - yes. That is why they are so desperate to manipulate the numbers. For example, nominal GDP figures are compared "then" and "now". Let's say Lithuania "had" 34.5 billion dollars a year under the USSR, and now it's 82.4 billion. Like growth. Almost 2.5 times. But if we take the ratio of the size of the Lithuanian economy to the Russian economy as a starting point, then the picture of the world appears in a completely different light. Lithuania is developing much more slowly than Russia. And if she had not left the USSR, her growth would certainly have been much higher.

THE POTS WERE NOT BEAT - ALREADY GOOD FELLOWS

In general, if you dance “from the stove with a common boiler”, then in our first question - who fed whom in the once unified country - the answer is obvious. Even if we count simply in terms of money, it still turns out that the high level of well-being of the republics "under the Soviets" was ensured primarily at Russian expense. As soon as this support was gone, all the economies of the republics began to actively deflate. Moreover, if some in general GDP figures can still boast of growth, then in terms of per capita, they all flew past the cash register. Even such "successful" ones as Latvia and Estonia.

This also gives a convincing answer to the second question: did the republics of the USSR benefit from the collapse of the country or not? Did they begin to live better, getting rid of the "leash" of Moscow? Judging by the numbers, only Russia won. Although the moral collapse of the USSR hit the Russians the hardest. But all the other republics are clearly the losers.

Moreover, those countries of the former "Soviet family" that did not break pots in relations with Russia, but tried to maintain common economic ties - this, of course, Kazakhstan and Belarus - lost less from the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the one who fled the USSR in the forefront, cursing Moscow and cutting off all ties with it, is now slurping "independence" to the fullest. From an empty cracked plate.