It brings to mind the story of how when Boris Yeltsin was visiting the US, he took an impromptu detour to a random American supermarket to try to catch them off guard, only to be blown away that Americans really did have supermarkets everywhere practically overflowing with food. The story goes that the experience played a big role in shaping his vision for Russia when he went on to become its first freely elected leader a few years later.
Edit - Plus, this quote: “What amazed him most of all,” Peskov recorded, “was a transparent cellophane package. ‘Lord, what have they thought up—it is glass, but it crumples!’”
If you think those stories charaterize USSR production/planning system, they do not. Specially the historical period when Yeltsin took power, at that time, they already had market like elements of production. If interested, there is a few books on planning, f.e. Cockshott. I think it is important since we as humans capable of conscious transformation of production relations. In some parts of production may be it is ok if it is done by independent agents, in some parts it could be better if agents could communicate not just by market, but directly, as with free softwere/GPL where you can directly work on it, not though market.
What is good about USSR, is that you could likely get any schematic of any device. I do not like proprietay things so this huge market of phones and etc, is not really for me. Some ICs used do not have datasheets. The many supermarkets, it is 10 or so in radius of 1-2 km here. I'm ok if it is 7 and one lab equiped with electronics, etc equipment. There is a clear by now bound of what individual agents communicating only over market, can do.
> 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.
There is a story about a man who goes to a shop in the Soviet Union, and finds the shelves empty. "Don't you have any meat?" he asks the clerk. The clerk responds, "No, here we don't have any fish. The store that doesn't have any meat is across the street."
Yes, can confirm. I personally know multiple people who have had that exact experience; one just mentioned it last weekend. If they knew in advance they traveled with an extra suitcase full of jeans to sell, not so much for the money, but to make/help friends.
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've also been in situations with live hyperinflation, like 10% per week.
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".
maybe it's because cash is just one asset.. at least if goods exist, you can barter for them, if the cash isn't any good
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
it's always odd when people latch onto that as an example, because the west has definitely had politically-induced holodomors caused by over-export of staple crops as well. classically, the irish potato famine comes to mind.
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.
Such a patina of reasonableness to your comment but your comparison of the Irish famine to the Holomodor is way overwrought. Holomodor was deliberate and largely not caused by bad harvests. Irish had the potato blight; and in the beginning they were given a large amount of charity.
WRT authoritarianism, govt have a monopoly on violence that individual companies will never have.
Not to pat ourselves on the back to hard, but the reasonable state of today comes in part as a reaction to previous tragedy.
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 defence of the comparison - it is not at all a consensus that the Holodomor was deliberate from the beginning, that’s an active debate with prominent experts on both sides.
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.
>it is not at all a consensus that the Holodomor was deliberate from the beginning, that’s an active debate with prominent experts on both sides.
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 British viewed the Irish through Malthusian theory, whose moral and cultural failings they attributed to the cause of the famine. They effectively blamed the Irish peasantry for having too many children while living in a state of poverty, which they viewed as irresponsible. Despite this being as a direct result of their occupation and sectarianism.
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
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'
Regarding the history, here's a good post [1] on getting small farmers to pay rent and/or taxes. This goes back to ancient times and money wasn't required, though it made it more efficient:
> 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.
Yes, while I did not go to the USSR, the accounts I've heard from friends definitely sounded worse than hyperinflation. While hyperinflaion did rapidly make necessities rather difficult and required daily juggling, I didn't see the kinds of deprivation I repeatedly heard reported from USSR. Heck, even today, 20% of Russians have no indoor plumbing, as in they have to use outhouses [0]
Two stories I heard recently; the Soviet Union tried some propaganda by showing people the movie 'Grapes of Wrath' and also saying people had to eat cat food to live.
Actual Russian reactions: 1. even the poor own trucks?! 2. they have special food for .. cats?!
Reminds me of a friend who taught 6th grade at a low-income school in LA-County. Before, she was rationed two (2) reams of paper a month. Upon transferring to a much more well-funded school, the other teachers had to talk her down from hoarding the unlimited reams in the break room.
My wife is a teacher and gets one ream per semester. In total, for all classes she teaches. It's geography for 10-14 year olds, so a lot of practice and tests of map usage and so on.
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.
There's still a difference between the stores having meat on their shelves and the stores having every kind of meat on their shelves. And every kind of vegetable, every kind of drink, every kind of cheese as well.
If you think the average American supermarket has every kind of meat, cheese, drink, and vegetable, you are in for a big surprise traveling the world.
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.
Yep. For example, one staple dish of Cajuns is called "rice and gravy." Essentially, you sear thinly cut 7-steaks, remove them, cook down some trinity, then add the steaks back with some water or broth and seasonings. That's it. The steaks simmer in the broth for hours and create their own gravy. We serve it over rice, usually accompanied by some roux peas (tres petit pois cooked in a roux with onions and bacon) and cornbread. Simple, easy, flavorful.
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.
Yeah, that's a 7 steak. I guess most people sorta see it as a trash cut, but it's got enough fat in the spaces between muscles that it ends up being a nice gravy. Collards and turkey necks are not hard to find out here. Just don't ever expect to find any good hoghead cheese. I tried some Boar's Head recently and that reminded me of the 1970s era images of stuff suspended in aspic.
from a google search: "A 7 bone steak is a cut of beef from the chuck section of a cow's front shoulder, which is considered a tough area of the animal.". You're not going to find that in a regular grocery store because not many people will buy it. You will find every other cut of beef, pork, and poultry considered edible though.
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.
In most places I've lived, including Seattle, butchers typically buy the whole animal. They move smaller quantities but every possible cut of meat is available, you just have to ask. They may run out of a cut, since availability scales with the number animals they butcher and demand is uneven over the entire animal, or you might want something unusual outside the scope of their default breakdown of the animal, but you can always ask them to reserve that part from the next animal and they've always been happy to oblige in my experience.
> Also, butchers usually have less selection since they're a smaller operation.
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.
lol Dallas is the only major city in Texas where "going to the store" doesn't almost always means HEB, too
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.
Yes, exactly. Because when I want to talk about food issues, I "boast" by talking about the scarcity of what is perceived to be a lower quality cut of meat near my location, and how I'm driving to find a shop in a poorer neighborhood to meet my food demands. You nailed it, champ.
HEB "just another grocery store". Hoo Lordy, better not say that in the South! HEB is ultimately a corporation, but as far as corporate ethics exist, they're a good place and the stores are great.
The selection they have pre-cut and on display is a subset.
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.
I won't buy meat at Walmart. The couple times I have, it looks great in the package, but when you open it, half the weight is a big fat cap on the bottom. I've seen it happen several times. It's often cuts that should go to a grinder or other use, but not fit for use as a steak.
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.
I have looked a few times in Walmarts and not found duck breast, which is something I eat in Australia once every 2-4 weeks. And also noticed particular cuts of beef that I'd expect are missing. I have been to the US 10+ times, usually 1-9 week roadtrips, and can't remember ever noticing an independent butcher (though sometimes there is an equivalent within a non-Walmart grocery store).
Duck just isn't commonly eaten in the US. You probably won't find it at butchers either.
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.
Duck probably isn't eaten here all that much, but at my local supermarket there'd be breasts, Peking Duck flavoured breasts, confit legs, and another Peking Duck kit.
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.
Your best bet for duck related products in the US is probably either an upscale grocery store or an Asian grocer like HMart. They tend to carry a lot of meat and offal products that most groceries in the US don't normally carry.
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.
Even though the choice is impressive in any supermarket you go, unfortunately, it's very far from having every kind of drink/cheese or almost anything else you mention. Perhaps that's being pedantic, but I believe a lot of people seem to actually believe that what's in their supermarket is all there is (not talking about you specifically)... all you need to do is travel around Europe for a little while to quickly realize how much the supermarkets do not have.
That's probably because supermarkets tend to stock those things that sell in reasonable volume. So if you're in an area where sheep's brains (to pick a contrived example) would sit on the shelf for months, they're unlikely to stock it.
I had a classmate whose father was posted to Yakutsk with Strategic Rocket Forces, and he encountered a warehouse full of cow lips (presumably shipped in from all over the Soviet Union)
It's not only that. Some products are expensive and just unknown to the locals, so it wouldn't sell... others are just a nightmare to store or transport long distances. So you're very unlikely to find them in the supermarket in the USA, though it may be extremely common in Italy, or China etc. You can still probably find those rare items if you go to specialty shops... for example, I was able to find "Stracciatella di bufala" cheese in an Italian shop in Stockholm (even in Itally, I think it's hard to get that outside its native region of Puglia). Maybe I'm wrong, but I could swear you won't find that in your local grocer?
> every kind of vegetable, .., every kind of cheese as well.
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.
I was exaggerating a bit, but by the late 80's the food situation in the USSR had deteriorated to the stage where you would have a meat (if you were lucky), a cheese or a vegetable available at any given store. We would go to the kolkhoz market for vegetables and my parents had a literal backroom deal with a grocery store manager to get beef, but the shelves were conspicuously barren.
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.
Yeah, I do take it with a grain of salt since it's a very convenient propaganda story, and it'd be a stretch to say that he formed his political platform just 2 years before actually being elected.
For a wonderful scene that mirrors exactly something like Yeltsin's real trip to the supermarket, i strongly recommend the (generally wonderful) movie "Moscow on the Hudson" with Robin Williams.
Yeltsin visit is to put in contrast with Tucker Carlson visit in Russia.. where he somehow tried to do the same in reverse (without knowing he was actually visiting a french retail chain brand but anyway). Very odd.
Yeah that was very weird, but was also probably more convincing to his target audience of people who've never lived in even another town let alone another country.
Unless they've been to an Aldi, which is massively exploding in popularity everywhere in the US right now since they're a perfect fit for the current economic environment.
Aldi has carts you put quarters in, and Mr Carlson tried to play up seeing the same thing in Russia like it was some kind of brilliant Russian innovation.
It was truly bizarre. So weird how far that guy has fallen, much like the also once-respectable Giuliani. Back in the 2000s or 90s, he used to just be the dorky bowtie guy on an old CNN show about a rightist and a leftist having a civil and friendly debate, if I recall. Now he's... trying to hang on making a living by... shilling for Russian despots and for Snu brand sniffable tobacco (really). It's pathetic.
And since he grew up with great wealth, and is on record about understanding that the role of these figures on Fox is propaganda, there's really no excuse:
Many in Yeltsin's circle believed it had been set up, and was not actually used by everyday Americans, similar to how many Soviet PR setups had been undertaken
“Pokazukha” is more of a modern term (modern as in, i dont think it even hit the 80 year old mark) and is a bit more generic (refers to “showing off” or “for show” in general).
“Potemkin supermarket” is a reference to “potemkin village”[0], which has been around as a term since late 18th century, and it is a bit more specific (refers to a construction that provides a false facade to a situation, with the origin of it being an actual fake village constructed to impress the empress).
Also in English, "Potemkin X" is the standard phrase, even when referring to post-Tsarist times (and sometimes even to refer to non-Russian cases like Potemkin villages in North Korea to fool visiting Japanese of Korean descent as to quality of life in NK). I have never seen "Pokazukha" used in English at all.
Both are valid terms in russian language. But “potemkin x” is in the same league as “schadenfreude” in terms of usage in foreign languages, while “pokazukha” doesn’t really have any spread or presence in languages outside of russian language at all.
Only ever saw it in english in this thread and, a couple of times, in r/NCD threads (because they just love using random foreign words of the day there, like “pokazukha” or “smekalka”; to their defense, they are almost always used correctly lol).
I work with a lot of Russian speakers, my point is I would probably get my point across on average to them better with that word than Potemkin X. Your point about schadenfreude is good though.
> I would probably get my point across to a native russian speaker better if I use pokazukha rather than Potemkin Village
Agreed, you would. Potemkin X is not a russian language word or saying, it is more like a “obscure historical event idiom” that has no attachment to a particular language at this point. And that changes how often you would hear it used every day. I would guess absolutely any native russian speaker would know what “pokazukha” is. But with Potemkin X? Yeah, less likely.
I think I got a perfect analogy with another idiom to describe what’s going on here using an example - Sisyphean task (and its modern english equivalent “beating a dead horse”). If you try to get your point across to a native english speaker, I bet you would also have a much higher success rate using “beating a dead horse”. Try doing it to a native russian or italian speaker, and they would be confused. But if you try “Sisyphean task”, I bet you would have a much higher rate of succes in that specific case.
Not sure about other languages, but “beating a dead horse” idiom doesn’t exist in russian at all, despite it being used way more often than “sisyphean task” in english. While “sisyphean task” actually exists in russian.
Same with Potemkin X and pokazukha, but flip the language to russian. Both are used in russian language, but the native slang word for it (pokazukha) is way more frequently used in daily life. However, Potemkin X is an idiom that, while transcening the languages and international borders, isn’t used as frequently in real life as the original language analogues. But outside of those origin languages, no one would really use or know of those analogues.
Which is why it is kinda funny to see people trying to make “pokazukha” (aka flexing) or “smekalka” (quick-wittiness) into a “real” english word, given none of those are unique words describing something that isn’t already described well in most languages. As opposed to “schadenfreude”, which doesn’t have a perfect analogue in other languages, so it makes sense that it would widely spread and get adopted beyond the origin language.
TLDR: chart with two axi, one is popularity outside of the origin language and the other is usage in everyday life in the origin language. Potemkin X and Sisyphean task max out the first axis and are below average on the second axis. Pokazukha and “beating a dead horse” are very low on the “outside of the origin language” axis, but are high on the “everyday usage in the origin language”.
P.S. I am aware that “beating a dead horse” exists pretty much unchanged in German too, but that’s an edge case that doesn’t really change the overall idea.
There is a guy from Cuba in Youtube. They record his experience in the US and he was very emotional when he visited Costco.. so much medicine, so much meat..
https://www.cato.org/blog/happy-yeltsin-supermarket-day
Or similarly there's the story of the Lykov family, who lived life cut off from humanity for 40 years but still somewhat understood what the new, moving "stars" in the night sky must be: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-rus...
Edit - Plus, this quote: “What amazed him most of all,” Peskov recorded, “was a transparent cellophane package. ‘Lord, what have they thought up—it is glass, but it crumples!’”