Military Review

The shadow economy in the USSR: how it all began

While Stalin was in power, there was almost no shadow or underground economy, Professor Katasonov reminds

The question of the reasons for the collapse and destruction of the USSR is far from idle. It does not lose its relevance today, after 22, after the death of the Soviet Union occurred. Why? Because some based on this event conclude that, they say, the capitalist model of the economy is more competitive, more efficient and has no alternatives. American political scientist Francis Fukuyama after the collapse of the USSR even hurried to declare that the “End stories»: Humanity has reached the highest and last stage of its development in the form of universal, global capitalism.

The relevance of studying the shadow economy of the USSR

According to this kind of political scientists, sociologists and economists, the discussion of the socialist model of the economy does not deserve attention. It is better to concentrate all forces on improving the capitalist model of the economy, that is, a model that aims all members of society towards enrichment, and the means of enrichment (profit) is the exploitation of one person by another. True, this results in such “natural” attributes of the capitalist model as social and property inequality, competition, cyclical crises, bankruptcies, unemployment, and the like. All the proposed improvements are aimed only at mitigating the anti-human effects of capitalism, which is reminiscent of utopian attempts to limit the appetites of the wolf, devouring sheep.

We will proceed from the fact that the key socio-economic features of the socialist model are welfare for all members of society (goal), public ownership of the means of production (main means), earning income exclusively from work, the planned nature of the economy, centralization of economic management, command the position of the state in the economy, public consumption funds, the limited nature of commodity-money relations, and so on.

This refers to the welfare not only in the form of products and services that provide vital (biological) human needs. This should also include public safety and defense, education, culture, working and rest conditions. Of course, socialism is not only economy and social relations. It also implies a certain type of political power, ideology, a high level of spiritual and moral development of society, and more. High spiritual and moral needs should assume the presence of higher goals in relation to socio-economic goals. But we will focus now on the socio-economic aspect of the socialist model.

So, the erosion of the socialist model began long before the tragic events of December 1991, when the shameful agreement on the division of the USSR in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha was signed. This was already the final act of political order. This is not only the date of death of the USSR, but also the date of complete legalization of the new socio-economic model, which is called "capitalism". However, implicitly capitalism matured in the depths of Soviet society for about three decades. The de facto Soviet economy has long acquired the characteristics of a multi-structured one. It combined socialist and capitalist ways. However, some foreign researchers and politicians stated that de facto in the USSR there was a complete restoration of capitalism back in the 1960-1970-s. The restoration of capitalism was linked to the emergence and development in the depths of the USSR of the so-called shadow or “second” economy. In particular, as early as the beginning of 1960, a member of the German Communist Party, Willy Dikhut, began publishing his articles, in which he stated that, with the coming to power in our country, N.S. Khrushchev happened (not started, but it happened!) The restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

The shadow economy functioned on principles different from the socialist ones. One way or another, it was connected with corruption, embezzlement of state property, obtaining unearned income, violation of laws (or using “holes” in the legislation). At the same time, the shadow economy should not be confused with the “unofficial” economy, which did not contradict the laws and principles of the socialist system, but only supplemented the “official” economy. First of all, this is individual labor activity - for example, the work of a collective farmer in a personal plot or a citizen in his summer cottage. And in the best of times (under Stalin), the so-called industrial cooperation, which was engaged in the production of consumer goods and services, was widely developed.

In the USSR, state and party authorities preferred to ignore the phenomenon of the shadow economy. No, of course, law enforcement agencies opened and suppressed various operations in the shadow economy. But the leaders of the USSR, commenting on this kind of history, got off with phrases like “exceptions to the rule”, “isolated flaws”, “flaws”, “mistakes” and the like. For example, at the beginning of the 1960s, the then First Deputy Council of Ministers of the USSR, Anastas Mikoyan, defined the black market in the USSR as “a handful of some dirty foam that floated to the surface of our society”.

The shadow economy of the USSR: some estimates

No serious studies of the shadow (“second”) economy in the USSR have been conducted until the end of the 1980s. Abroad, such studies have appeared before. First of all, mention should be made of the work of the American sociologist Gregory Grossman (University of California), which was called “Destructive independence. The historical role of genuine trends in Soviet society. " It became widely known after it was published in 1988 in the collection “The Light at the End of the Tunnel” (University of Berkeley, edited by Stephen F. Cohen). However, Grossman's first article on this topic appeared in the year 1977 and was called “The Second Economy” of the USSR ”(Problems of Communism, September-October 1977).

You can also mention the book of Soviet lawyer Konstantin Simis, who emigrated to the US, “Corruption in the USSR - the secret world of underground Soviet capitalism”, published in 1982 year. The author in 1970-e years in close contact with some shadow businesses, a lawyer whom he spoke at the trials. However, K. Simis does not provide quantitative estimates of the shadow (“second”) economy.

Later the works of American sociologists and economists of Russian origin, Vladimir Treml and Mikhail Alekseev, appeared. Since 1985, Gregory Grossman and Vladimir Treml have been publishing periodicals on the “second” economy of the USSR. Issues continued until 1993, with a total of 51 research published with 26 authors. Many studies consisted of sociological surveys of families of immigrants from the USSR (total 1061 family). For research, surveys of emigrants from other socialist countries, official statistics of the USSR, publications in the media and scientific journals of the Soviet Union were also used. Despite the differences in the number of quantitative estimates of individual authors, these discrepancies were not fundamental. Differences arose from the fact that some authors considered the "informal economy", others - the shadow economy; however, their definitions of both economies could not be the same.

We present some results of these studies.

1. In 1979, the illegal production of wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages, as well as the speculative resale of alcoholic beverages produced in the “first economy”, provided revenues equal to 2,2% of GNP (gross national product).

2. In the late 1970s, the shadow gasoline market flourished in the USSR. From 33 to 65% of petrol purchases in urban areas of the country, individual car owners accounted for gasoline sold by drivers of state-owned enterprises and organizations (gasoline was sold at a price lower than the state).

3. In Soviet hairdressing, "left" income exceeded the amount that customers paid through cash. This is just one example of the fact that some state-owned enterprises belonged de facto to the “second” economy.

4. In 1974, the share of work on private and household plots accounted for almost a third of all working time in agriculture. And this was almost 10% of the total working time in the economy of the USSR.

5. In 1970-ies, about a quarter of agricultural production was produced in private plots, much of it went to collective farm markets.

6. At the end of the 1970s, about 30% of all incomes of the urban population were derived from various types of private activities, both legal and illegal.

7. By the end of the 1970s, the proportion of people employed in the “second economy” reached 10-12% of the total labor force in the USSR.

At the end of the 1980s, a number of works appeared on the shadow and “second” economies in the USSR. First of all, these are the publications of the Soviet economist Tatiana Koragina and the director of the Research Institute of Gosplan Valery Rutheiser. Here are the data from the work of T. Koryagina "The Shadow Economy of the USSR". The annual value of illegally produced goods and services at the beginning of 1960-s was approximately 5 billion rubles, and at the end of 1980-s reached 90 billion rubles. At current prices, the GNP of the USSR was (in billions of rubles): in the 1960 year - 195; in the 1990 year - 701. Thus, the USSR economy over the thirty years has grown 3,6 times, and the shadow economy - 14 times. If in 1960, the shadow economy in relation to the official GNP was 3,4%, then by 1988, this figure increased to 20%. True, in 1990, it was equal to 12,5%. Such a recession was caused by a change in Soviet legislation, which transferred a number of economic activities that were previously considered illegal to legal status.

According to T. Koryagina, the number of people employed in the shadow economy at the beginning of 1960 was 6 million people, and in 1974 the number increased to 17-20 million people (6-7% of the country's population). In the 1989 year of such shadow businesses, there were already 30 million people, or 12% of the population of the USSR.

Threats and consequences of the development of the shadow economy in the USSR

Both American and Soviet researchers pay attention to some features of the shadow economy and its influence on the general situation in the USSR.

1. The shadow economy as a noticeable phenomenon of Soviet life arose at the end of the 1950's - the beginning of the 1960's. All researchers unequivocally attribute this to the coming to power in the country of N.S. Khrushchev, who beside his ill-considered decisions released a genie from the shadow economy. It is noteworthy that even those authors who have a rather negative attitude towards Stalin are forced to admit that there was almost no shadow or underground economy during the period in which Stalin was in power. But it was legal small-scale production - for example, industrial artels in cities. Khrushchev destroyed such small-scale production, shadows came in his place.

2. The shadow economy was more developed not in the central regions of the USSR, but on the periphery of the country. So, G. Grossman estimated that at the end of 1970-s the share of income from the “second” economy was about 30% of all incomes of the urban population in the USSR. At the same time, in the RSFSR it was close to the national average, while in the region of Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, the average value was about 40%, in the South Caucasus and Central Asia - almost 50%. In Armenia, among ethnic Armenians, the indicator reached 65%. The hypertrophied development of the “second” economy in a number of union republics created the illusion that these regions are “self-sufficient”. They say that they have a higher standard of living than Russia, and they may well exist and develop outside the USSR. All this created fertile ground for separatist movements in the national republics.

3. The shadow economy existed at the expense of state resources, a significant part of it could function normally under the condition of the theft of material resources of state enterprises and organizations. Thus, the illusion was created that the shadow economy compensated for the shortcomings of the “white” economy. There was simply a “redistribution” of resources from the state (and collective farm) sector of the economy to the shadow sector.

4. The shadow economy spawned corruption. The owners of the shadow structures were engaged in bribing the leaders and functionaries of state enterprises and organizations. For what purpose? So that at least they do not interfere with the shadow business. And as a maximum - to become partners in such a business, assisting in the supply of raw materials, goods, vehicles, and the like. This is the first microeconomic level of corruption. This is followed by a second, regional level, which is associated with the bribery of law enforcement agencies and in general of local government bodies. A system of regional "protection" of the shadow business is being created. Finally, corruption is reaching a third, nationwide level. The shadow businesses start lobbying their economic interests in the ministries and departments. The economy only formally continues to develop as a “planned” one. Administrative economic decisions at the national level are beginning to be made under the influence of shadow businesses.

5. The owners of the shadow business accumulate such huge capital that allows them to engage in lobbying political power in the country. The shadow businesses are getting close within the framework of even the formal socialist mode of production. They begin to prepare a complete restoration of capitalism. It happened during the period in which M. Gorbachev was in power under the guise of the false slogans of perestroika. This restructuring was ultimately initiated not by M. Gorbachev or A. Yakovlev. It was organized by shadow capital, on orders of which the “reformers” from the CPSU acted.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Horst78
    Horst78 5 February 2014 07: 17
    Somehow I remembered the movie "Thieves in law" 1988.
  2. kaktus
    kaktus 5 February 2014 08: 21
    It's hard to argue. But, of course, this is not only about the "shadow business".
  3. user
    user 5 February 2014 08: 27
    Here is another nail in the coffin of the exposer of the personality cult, so many myths have been created about this figure, but the realities of recent times show that it was just the opposite. So it turns out that after JV Stalin, not "the best leader of Russia of the 20th century" came to power, this is an assessment given by Khrushchev's granddaughter in one of the documentaries, I can't even find words - all are obscene. The merits of this maize operator are probably equal to those of Kerensky of another "best leader of free Russia."
    1. Patriot of Ukraine
      Patriot of Ukraine 5 February 2014 10: 28
      Quote: user
      this assessment was given by Khrushchev’s granddaughter in one of the documentaries

      very impudent nonsense. For such pearls, you actually need to beat the face.
      1. user
        user 7 February 2014 11: 11
        Patriot of Ukraine UA February 5, 2014 10:28 ↑ New

        Quote: user
        this assessment was given by Khrushchev’s granddaughter in one of the documentaries

        very impudent nonsense. For such pearls, you actually need to beat the face.

        Why nonsense, this film was shown on TV a few days ago, she also said "there is only one person with whom one can compare him Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev." Well, as usual, he lives today in the freest country in the world, the USA.
  4. Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 5 February 2014 10: 18
    Thanks for the article, read with interest.
  5. SPLV
    SPLV 5 February 2014 10: 46
    By the end of the 1970-ies, the proportion of people employed in the "second economy" reached 10-12% of the total labor force in the USSR.

    the end of the 1970-ies the share of income from the "second" economy was about 30% of all incomes of the urban population throughout the USSR

    Very interesting information. Although you can adjust anything you want to the desired level of "digits". These data were obtained as: if we count everyone who at least once bought or sold from their hands, or only those who had no other income? I suspect that the "researchers" citing such data are more concerned about themselves and about implanting a certain opinion in their heads than about studying real information.
    How right was Mark Twain. There are three types of lies - lies, arrogant lies and statistics. Here I met all three. I do not consider it advisable to clarify. Thank.
    1. _Krechet_
      _Krechet_ 5 February 2014 14: 12
      So you say that there was no shadow economy, or it did not have any effect on the economy of the USSR?

      It’s hard for me to judge, young, it’s not with me that all this existed. But state gas and other inventories were stolen at the slightest opportunity (it seems to me).
      Remember the phrase from The Diamond Arm:
      "So that you live on one salary!"
      Comedies in the USSR ridiculed the social problems that took place and which it was not possible to voice in another way.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. dmb
      dmb 5 February 2014 14: 43
      Your suspicions are quite correct. The author set out to once again glorify the Stalinist period and humiliate the corn-grower. As part of this, he wrote. and therefore did not trouble myself with the analysis. Let's start with the simplest - polls by American expatriates. These polls are worthless, if only because the bulk of these emigrants were individuals (I am not an anti-Semite at all) of a very definite nationality and a definite social status. This is probably why hairdressing salons are singled out as the basis of the socialist economy. Further; in the history of the country there has already been such a period (NEP) when not only small private traders were allowed, but after all, the bulk of state administrators resisted and there was nothing like the corruption of the last, the Gorbachev period in the country. And the last thing that the professor does not actually paint, he tries to reduce everything to one person. If Stalin was alone, he would not have built anything, just as Lenin would not have founded the Soviet state, or Peter the Empire would not have been created. If Stalin had taken to build his model of socialism in spite of his closest circle, in a month he would have already confessed to spying for Japan or Iceland. But the fact that in the process of this construction a layer of leaders appeared who did not have their own opinion, who looked into the mouth of the authorities and perceived all his actions as a divine revelation, this is precisely the dubious merit of Joseph Vissarionovich, which later received "creative development", and now it is flourishing. So, briskly rushing to capitalism, we took the worst from socialism.
  6. Aeneas
    Aeneas 5 February 2014 10: 55
    "The fish rots from the head", and Khrushchev personally and his family did not have any special "nishtyaks" and any luxury. Nikita also harshly punished speculators, as in the case of the shooting of the millionaire money changers. Subjectively, he did, yes, he did: the "Thaw" led to contacts with the West, the development of a non-military economy (construction boom, investments in agriculture, the auto industry, etc.), people just became richer. But it can also be said about Stalin that he contributed to the shadow economy. At least on the massive import of trophies in the form of luxury goods. But Stalin is not guilty that the Germans were defeated! But Comrade Brezhnev loved comfort. And his relatives and associates collected gold and diamonds. Andropov still had a chance, but fate sent him to another world. then the inevitable kapets began to attack ... The Chinese are now afraid of this, and they are trying to fight the luxury and corruption of party bosses. Tough, they shoot, but hopes for success are illusory.
  7. Klim
    Klim 5 February 2014 11: 09
    Finally, they began to understand the negative role of Khrushchev in the development of our country, although ordinary people always understood this and before perestroika, the first negative memory of the authorities was not Stalin’s repressions but Khrushchev’s taxation, down to every apple and chicken rewritten and taxed, but how many private cattle were allowed under the knife because the tax was not lifting, but the goal of building communism in record time without scientific justification and without real calculations. Khrushchev was a narrow-minded person compared to Stalin m without strategic thinking and once again prove that all that we have now, his strategic mistakes are not corrected, and subsequently led to the collapse of the country
    1. dimarm74
      dimarm74 5 February 2014 17: 55
      I agree with Klim ... N.S. Khrushchev received from I.V. Stalin's powerful econo-miku, based on modern developed industrial production. After the war, the economy of the USSR, which is called “turned to face the people”, significantly increased the output of consumer goods and began to gain unprecedented rates of housing construction. Undoubtedly, the USSR economy had a number of shortcomings, which should be noted. Eco-nomic created by I.V. Stalin, could only act effectively in a tough command and administrative system. When the director of each industrial, commercial, agricultural and other enterprise literally "answered with his head" for the results of the activities of the plant, institution, store, warehouse, etc. entrusted to him. The disadvantages of the socialist economy can also be attributed to the relative underdevelopment of light industry, the sphere of public catering, and public services for the population. But in general, if you look objectively and not biased, the standard of living of the population has grown significantly, consumer goods in stores have become more and more, subsidiary farms have been developed among the peasants.
      In 1953 N.S. came to power Khrushchev. This indefatigable active participant in the repressions of the late 30s and the “fighter with the cult of personality” himself concentrated immense power in his hands. We will not dwell on the aspects of N.S. foreign policy Khrushchev, to understand its essence, it is enough to know that the USSR has lost friends (China), the authority of the USSR in the countries of “eastern democracy” has fallen sharply, which had to be suppressed by the force of the people’s speech, and thereby lose their authority. In 1961, the world was brought to the brink of a nuclear disaster as a result of the Caribbean Crisis. N.S. Khrushchev made the whole world laugh with his extravagant antics.
      In domestic politics and economics N.S. Khrushchev ruled no better. As a result of his “economic reforms”, the USSR economy came to the beginning of the 60s with deplorable results. The food problem has sharply escalated. In the spring and early summer of 1962, the lack of bread was so noticeable that N. S. Khrushchev first decided to buy grain abroad.
      At the end of May 1962, it was decided to increase retail prices for meat and meat products by an average of 30% and oil by 25%. In the newspapers, this event was presented as "the request of all workers." The food crisis provoked massive discontent among the population. In Novocherkassk (Rostov Region), this resulted in open speeches by workers. Since 1959, persecution of personal subsidiary plots was resumed. It was forbidden to have livestock for the townspeople, which helped to supply the residents of small towns. Then, households and rural residents were persecuted. For four years, the number of livestock in the personal compound has been halved. This was a real defeat of the peasantry, which had just begun to recover from the war. The development of virgin lands and the widespread introduction of corn from agriculture, even in those areas where it never grew, only aggravated the food situation. Well, at least this "reformer" did not manage to get into the industrial sectors of the economy. Although here, of course, it was not without glu-posts. Khrushchev sought to decentralize industrial management, as it became increasingly difficult to manage enterprises located on the periphery. It was decided that industrial enterprises should not be managed by ministries, but by local authorities - economic councils. N.S. Khrushchev hoped in this way to rationally use raw materials, eliminate isolation and departmental barriers. In reality, the economic councils simply became diversified ministries and failed to fulfill their tasks. The re-form came down to a bureaucratic reorganization.
  8. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 5 February 2014 11: 11
    An example of a man who has climbed into the power of a superpower with thinking at the level of a collective farmer from the Kolosok collective farm. Well, I think that the economic factor was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR.
  9. predator.3
    predator.3 5 February 2014 11: 26
    2. In the late 1970s, the shadow gasoline market flourished in the USSR. From 33 to 65% of petrol purchases in urban areas of the country, individual car owners accounted for gasoline sold by drivers of state-owned enterprises and organizations (gasoline was sold at a price lower than the state).

    Yes, things were like that with gasoline, enterprises issued coupons to drivers for refueling, but surplus of these coupons were collected by the end of a quarter, a year, and what to do not return to the accounting department, so they pushed private traders at half price (the 76th cost 30 kopecks. , and the 93rd 40 kopecks, and diesel fuel is generally free, it is now more expensive than all gasoline!). Dad always fueled his "six" with these coupons, but under the USSR there were no problems with fuel, it is now, during sowing and harvesting, they are almost hanged! Once my father sadly said:"There was communism (in the 80s), but we didn't notice it!"
    1. Sour
      Sour 5 February 2014 17: 10
      Quote: predator.3
      Yes, during the USSR there were no problems with fuel,

      Then there were five times less transport, and ten times in cities.
      Just do not try to prove to me that this was not so. In the days of the USSR, I worked as a driver, mechanic of a motorcade, served as a commander of an autorot, and I know the situation.
      In my hometown, a little over 80 cars were presented for inspection at the beginning of the 800s.
      Now there are registered almost 5 thousand cars.
      This is the countryside. In cities, growth is even greater, almost an order of magnitude.
      1. predator.3
        predator.3 5 February 2014 19: 49
        Quote: Sour
        Just do not try to prove to me that this was not so.

        Yes, I'm not trying to prove anything! in the 80s in our village there were probably 10-15 cars, and now in every yard, mostly domestic b / y.
  10. fktrcfylhn61
    fktrcfylhn61 5 February 2014 11: 27
    In general, the moral of this fable is as follows: we revive Stalin and be sure to mate with Beria! This is where it starts! And to be honest, it is necessary to create a desk to monitor and prosecute financial and economic crimes against citizens. And always with the maximum fullness of power, as in wartime! And accountable only to the civilian masses! That is, with reporting in the media in the form: VTB Bank owned by V.V. He gave his citizens loans at 15% and foreign loans at 4%, for which he was nationalized! As they say, not for conscience, so for fear! Otherwise, with any policies, it will not work!
    And why is it that all citizens should take their word for it even from high tribunes!
  11. DPN
    DPN 5 February 2014 11: 38
    Whatever they wrote about the USSR, this was the best system that mankind could create. Another thing is that a person is like a beast, such an instinct: to take, tear, drag everything for himself beloved, in extreme cases, this confirms the system in which we live at this stage .As this technique was said to be ahead of its time, for example, TU-144, socialism is not accessible to us in terms of the level of development of the Russian people, the population of our country is not ready to live well. Now even Zhirinovsky, who lives like a working man did not dream, regrets about grandfather backwater e, and if not for the Soviet authorities would have sat on his grandfather's mill, but not in the Kremlin. Therefore, it remains only to recall those times when schools did not shoot and did not blow up on the streets of the USSR.
    The article is nothing, compared with today's life, who knows how much and what is in the shadow economy now. For 23 years, every Russian could already live in his own apartment. But we managed to give everything to a handful of OLIGARCHES, that's the price for a Russian.
  12. buzer
    buzer 5 February 2014 11: 52
    It is strange that the author did not mention one more factor ??? I mean "DEFICIT" !!!
  13. Patriot23
    Patriot23 5 February 2014 12: 16
    Stalin was not on them and now he would be by the way!
  14. groin
    groin 5 February 2014 13: 33
    Look at the chronicle and photos of Stalin. Everywhere in the same tunic and overcoat, and the everyday environment around, cannot be called a luxury, by the way, he was buried in this tunic. If he awarded someone (prizes, dachas, apartments, cars), then for special services to the Motherland. After him, a revelry began: the history of being perverted (personality cult), in order to whitewash oneself, someone must be spoiled, merits should be attributed, problems created , then "heroically" to be solved, not real plans to be fulfilled-overfulfilled (five-year plan in three years), "heroes" to be rewarded, respectively enriched. A circle of envious people appeared who believed (and are we worse?). Khrushchev still held on to his economic leaven and resisted (albeit clumsy) this Sabbath, but he could not oppose anything to the uncles from across the ocean, our "elite" (flywheel And then we have the prosperity of corruption, as a result of the destruction of the country (USSR). No, I have not forgotten, about the good things that happened both under Khrushchev and under Brezhnev. I just want to be objective and painfully hurt for the collapse of the USSR.
  15. sol
    sol 5 February 2014 14: 14
    I remember when I got to military service in Azerbaijan in 1988, what caught my eye was the level of bribery, there literally everything was sold and bought for bribes. Any post had its price, and everyone was aware of this and it was in the order of things. In our military unit, the authorities leased land plots inside the HF for rent to local businessmen, where they cultivated several tomato crops per season. But soldiers were sometimes hired, naturally, they didn’t pay anything to the soldiers, again, to local entrepreneurs for various hard work, infrequently of course, but it happened.
    In short, even our southern corrupt Kazakhstan before them was like before the moon in this regard. In general, the shadow economy flourished in lush color in the Transcaucasian republics of the USSR, not without reason and the first mess went precisely from the southern regions.
  16. parus2nik
    parus2nik 5 February 2014 14: 21
    If anyone remembers the "dawn" and "sunset" of perestroika .. We are Sy Gorbachev, we urged ... to put cooperatives and state enterprises on equal terms .. and not to create cooperatives on the basis of state-owned enterprises .. they say, bring the shadow economy out of shadows .. They didn’t want to .. And what now .. "smart" heads say, they say FSUEs are unprofitable and not promising .. we will give it to a private trader .. we will share it .. But in fact .. the situation is the same as in the Golden Calf .. around the state enterprises Hercules, fed the mass of joint stock companies ...
  17. rate
    rate 5 February 2014 15: 51
    Quote: Aeneas
    people just got richer

    Under Stalin, people were even richer. Collective farmers are millionaires, Stakhanovites, cooperators. We remember military equipment (tanks, planes) in the war on contributions from USSR citizens (!) Being rich was not a crime. Khrushchev drove the legal rich underground and turned into enemies. It is amazing how the incompetent leadership from the point of view of wrecking very competently completed the task of degenerating the state system. Someone dropped that Khrushchev did what Hitler did.
    1. Sour
      Sour 5 February 2014 17: 19
      Quote: normal
      Under Stalin, people were even richer. Collective farmers are millionaires,

      I personally do not know a single Stalinist millionaire collective farmer.
      The collective farmers who at Stalin ate quinoa, bran and tree bark, knew and know in considerable quantity. What kind of millionaires are there in the Stalinist village? Are you okay with your head? Then there was a farm tax to pay, so that the last cow from the yard would not be taken away. Then the apple trees were cut down and uprooted, because Stalin taxed every apple tree, regardless of whether apples grew on it or not. Not a single tsar in Russia has thought of this.
      1. Fedya
        Fedya 6 February 2014 22: 26
        And it was ! BUT! There were artels (the same cooperatives), there were individual sewing of clothes, shoes, that is, small business, there were doctors receiving at home and reporting to the financial inspectors! And Khrushchev’s trishch safely closed all this, considering that everything and everything should be state! So from that time the shadow economy began as You cannot forbid beautiful life, and people after the war wanted to live well and beautifully!
  18. bublic82009
    bublic82009 5 February 2014 17: 54
    bullshit is written. there is a substitution of the concept of "shadow economy" took as a basis hairdressing salons, the sale of gasoline and so on. it's all stealing! The shadow economy was that. which evaded tax. and this was the so-called fartsovka and "tsehoviki". the production of samagon and home-made wine, I would not take so widely. Yes, they did, they drove moonshine more correctly. but neither was it delivered to the industrial stream. but the shopkeepers and farcers here they did not reveal well.
  19. d-shvets
    d-shvets 6 February 2014 13: 54
    The version is decent. But in general, there were much more reasons.
  20. ONlopas
    ONlopas 13 February 2014 21: 09
    Yes, the entire shadow economy was based on theft, not on enterprise. None of the then "shadow" did not later become a successful businessman.