Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To answer your question, you need to re-read previous posts. It doesn't mean what Khrushchev hated or not, or how his visit was interpretated in the SU.Ilf and Petrov were Stalin's fosterlings. What does Khrushchev have to do with it? Khrushchev was in the United States and did not hide anything, his photographs were published in the Soviet press. Khrushchev was the leader of the right deviation, he hated Bolshevism.
As for the time of Khrushchev, you must take into account that at that time there was no light in the villages, they did not have passports, and the majority of the population lived in barracks. There were food problems. After the war, there was still famine, and many breadwinners did not return from the war. Then there was no time for luxury. But the citizens had already moved into separate apartments and ate enough.Yes, the Soviet Union was able to put a man on the orbit, but it failed to provide common things to the ordinary people.
..... to quote this, "Americans have a high standard of living" is proof enough that you know very little about the world.
Clear that you know very little about the world? Yes.This is clear even from American cars with five-liter engines.
You don't know anything. Even in Europe there are no such cars and never have been. The Americans did not stop producing such a cars even after the oil crisis, they only limited the power.Clear that you know very little about the world? Yes.
Yeah, slightly more than 20 years after that the SU collapsed under its weight. Quite efficient economic model, without a doubt.As for the time of Khrushchev, you must take into account that at that time there was no light in the villages, they did not have passports, and the majority of the population lived in barracks. There were food problems. After the war, there was still famine, and many breadwinners did not return from the war. Then there was no time for luxury. But the citizens had already moved into separate apartments and ate enough.
And by the end of the thaw era, the country already looked like a civilized one, with arts and entertainment, industry, recreation parks, high-rise buildings and well-established production. People dressing up in decent suits and so on.
Firstly, I did not say that this was an effective model, secondly, after Khrushchev, there was a deliberate destruction of the economy, in the third, the Khrushchev economic model was decentralized and more similar to "capitalism", and in general the economic model does not solve almost anything, everything depends on politics. These idiots talk about economic models, when a bunch of export appendages work for them, supplying them with free goods and raw materials.Yeah, slightly more than 20 years after that the SU collapsed under its weight. Quite efficient economic model, without a doubt.
There wasn't deliberate destruction of the economy. That is nonsense. Quite ineffective economic model couoled with mismanagement and corruption. All that led to a natural final.Firstly, I did not say that this was an effective model, secondly, after Khrushchev, there was a deliberate destruction of the economy, in the third, the Khrushchev economic model was decentralized and more similar to "capitalism", and in general the economic model does not solve almost anything, everything depends on politics. These idiots talk about economic models, when a bunch of export appendages work for them, supplying them with free goods and raw materials.
In America, too, there is no private ownership of the means of production, property is distributed in public ownership and controlled through controlling stakes, nominally it is public, and its monopolization would mean complete economic socialism. Private property belongs only to farmers and small business owners, it is 1% of the economy.
And in the US there is no free market either, everything is regulated by finance and trade policy.
I think that you do not understand economics at a sufficient level to understand basic concepts such as ownership of the means of production, and the structure of modern joint-stock companies, where there is no private property (with the exception of ownership of securities)There wasn't deliberate destruction of the economy. That is nonsense. Quite ineffective economic model couoled with mismanagement and corruption. All that led to a natural final.
In America there isn't private ownership of the means of production? What a nonsense.
Was there a separate Russia at that time?