3 ms·
people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west Less wealthy, yes, but not many times less wealthy, provided that all basic (and m
by ost 17y ago
people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west
Less wealthy, yes, but not many times less wealthy, provided that all basic (and many not so basic) living needs were covered virtually for free, including guaranteed employment, free medicine, free education and so on. Also, it's easy to be wealthy with a 14-digit national debt.
...were less free, couldn't even choose the gov
That's propaganda. Soviet Union was a pretty democratic state at all levels, and anyyone could choose to go with a party career if he liked to.
It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only later and probably more violent.
How do you know?
- ajuc 17y agoHm, in Poland before 1989 we had to vote "right", also we always had 98%-99% participation in elections. "Slightly" suspicious, isn't it? Now it's sth like 30-60%. About going with party career - yes, to have good job people even had to be in the party. What I mean by "less free" is - there was one real party, you had to accept party line to be politician, people couldn't choose other party. People couldn't go out of country without permission, and it was strictly controlled, who are allowed to travel where. Simply put it was totalitarian state. About the fall of the USSR: because in 1989 and later transferrable rubels were worth almost nothing, there were big inflation, satelitte countries were freeing themselves, and atomic war wasn't an option to anybody sane. It had to end that way.