How life really was in the CCCP

[Justit]

This information doesn’t come from books or newspapers. It’s my own summary based on years of conversations with people who lived in different parts of the former USSR — all of them now over 55 years old. Here my main conclusions are:

• Life was easier in many ways

People didn’t own anything, but they had everything they needed. Everyone had an apartment to live in and a job — unemployment simply didn’t exist. Utility bills were minimal, the equivalent of just a few dollars today, even with indoor heating reaching +30°C while temperatures outside dropped to –30°C.

• People were friendly and supportive

People helped each other without hesitation. National holidays were celebrated all together outdoors, birthdays and New Year’s Eve always meant big gatherings. If someone needed help on the street, passersby would stop and assist as much as they could.

• Goods were scarce

Shops existed, but their shelves were almost empty. Shop assistants were considered privileged because they had access to goods in the back rooms. To get something like shoes, wallpaper, or paint, money alone wasn’t enough — one also needed to offer a favor or connection. Choice didn’t exist; people took whatever was available, even if shoes were three sizes too small, people felt lucky to have taken anything at all.

• Oranges — a thing of great value

For many, oranges were a rare luxury. Each family was entitled to just one kilogram of oranges around New Year’s Eve. People would line up at grocery stores from 5 am, hoping the fruit hadn’t run out. If they were lucky, they could exchange their coupon for the precious kilogram. If not, they’d throw away the unused ticket and wait another year for another chance.

• The collapse of the USSR

When the Soviet Union fell, most people couldn’t believe it. The common belief was that it was merely a test to expose “enemies of the state.” They thought that anyone who openly expressed joy over the collapse risked severe punishment.

 

[Fiscal]

I lived in Moscow for a couple of years and my girlfriend's mother at the time constantly spoke nostalgically about the Soviet era. Despite being a staunch anti-Communist, I can understand it to some extent, because the 1990s were a terribly difficult time for many Russians. That naturally fosters feelings of nostalgia.

 

[Justit]

In the 1990s, the distribution of private property led to widespread conflict and violence. It was a time when people could literally walk into a factory or a house and claim: “This is mine””. However, this also created an urgent need to protect the newly claimed property from others attempting to do the same. As a result, a small number of individuals accumulated immense wealth, while the majority of the population faced harsh economic conditions.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Communism sounds nice when told through memory, especially by those who survived it rather than those crushed under it.

In the USSR, people “had everything they needed” because they were told what they needed. They didn’t own anything because ownership implies responsibility and freedom, two things the Party couldn’t tolerate. The state gave you an apartment, a job, and a thermostat set to +30°C, and in exchange, it owned your time, your thoughts, and your silence.

A system that promised equality succeeded only in equalizing misery.

Capitalism isn’t kind, but at least it’s honest about being cruel. It doesn’t claim moral superiority while forcing you to queue at dawn for a kilo of oranges once a year. It just says “if you want oranges, figure it out”. Rest assured that the free market will quickly take care of it.

In capitalism, it's your choice to be a slave: of someone else, of the state, of consumerism.
In communism, you are born a slave.

So when someone says “people were friendlier back then” they’re probably right. Hardship breeds solidarity. But let’s not confuse neighborly warmth with a functioning system. In capitalism, you can still choose to be generous; in communism, generosity was survival, which is not the same as freedom.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Then there's the abomination of the EU: what’s being sold as “progressive European socialism” is really a sanitized rerun of national socialism with rainbow flags instead of swastikas and electric cars instead of tanks.

The ideology’s core hasn’t changed: the state decides what’s moral, who deserves protection, and who needs to be “re-educated” for the common good. The only real difference is that now it hides behind bureaucracy instead of uniforms.

National socialism mixed socialism’s economic control with nationalism’s emotional glue. The modern EU swapped nationalism for moralism, but the machinery’s the same: central planning, censorship disguised as “safety”, persecution of dissent under “hate speech”, and the slow, steady destruction of private initiative.

Hitler wanted purity of blood; the Eurocrats want purity of thought. Both end with citizens terrified of saying the wrong thing. The tools changed: no camps (for now), just cancellation and judicial persecution, but the psychology is identical. When the collective becomes sacred, the individual becomes expendable.

The EU is working to make sure everyone fails together, politely, with subsidies.

 

[Marty McFly]

I refuse to support in any way, especially with taxes, the warmongering corrupt EU.
I left time ago and I urge everyone with some moral values left to do the same.

 

[Columbus]

There is a social movement in russia (created by putin's people) that brain washes people that the USSR never collapsed and people not recognizing the new russian federation by law.
Lots of videos on youtube where people driving a car are stopped by cops - show them a USSR Passport instead of the Russian one 🤣.
It's similar to the Sovereign Citizen movement in the west.

 

[GuaraniGhost]

Hockey was good.

A lot of envy. Neighbors were not visiting each other just so others wouldn't see what kind of furniture they got. If the one in short supply or expensive... means the owners had another source of income / gave bribes.

People willing to work and think got their ways back then as well... Cuban rum was amazingly cheap in Czechoslovakia. And nobody wanted to drink it. Everyone wanted Western stuff. Of course, besides Westerners. When a German basketball team learnt how cheap it is...
On the first day, they finished all the bottles in the hotel...
On the second day, the business was born...
On the third day, the StB (KGB) came sniffing around...
Fourth day... no, they did not shut the business... they took a cut and facilitated it.
Fifth day... a shitload of Cuban rum entered Western Germany.

I guess it is the same in any system. You find a loophole, an asymmetry you can exploit, an information advantage.

And, surprise, surprise... those guys from StB (KGB) got the best information... that's why they got so rich in the 1990s during privatization. The normal people knew nothing... like one unnamed hotel employee had no knowledge of how valuable Cuban rum is in Germany.

Incentives in capitalism are better set for this, and you don't risk jail bc you want to export rum to Germany. It is deteriorating tho. We are getting back. Small can no longer freely exploit the asymmetries they see. Regulations kill them. Corporations win. There are escapists - juggling between jurisdictions, taking advantage of what each jurisdiction can offer - but the overall picture is bleak.

 

[Justit]

There is a famous phrase “There is no sex in the USSR”.

The phrase became famous not because it was literally true, but because it perfectly captured the misunderstanding between East and West during the late Cold War. The West saw it as repression; the USSR saw it as a harmless joke and reflection of private morality.

The phrase comes from a 1986 U.S. - Soviet televised “space bridge”: a live discussion between women from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Boston. During the broadcast, an American woman remarked that U.S. television was full of sexual content, then asked:

“How is it with sex on your television?”
A Soviet participant, Lyudmila Ivanova, replied joking:
“We have no sex in the USSR!”
The audience laughed, and she quickly added:
“…we have love!”

However, the broadcast was cut off and/ or her second sentence wasn’t clearly heard in some versions. What remained was “There is no sex in the USSR”, and it spread widely, especially in the West, as a humorous symbol of Soviet repressions.

The phrase came to represent the idea that: Soviet society avoided open discussion of sexual topics in media, education, and public life; and that sex was seen as private, something associated with family and reproduction, not entertainment or advertising.

In the USSR, the most highly desired item was an 18+ magazine, often smuggled in by sailors. Such a magazine could be exchanged for almost any high-value good.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

There is a famous phrase “There is no sex in the USSR”.

The phrase became famous not because it was literally true, but because it perfectly captured the misunderstanding between East and West during the late Cold War. The West saw it as repression; the USSR saw it as a harmless joke and reflection of private morality.

Any effort to police minds or speech is a form of tyranny, designed to preserve power by forcing people to conform. It's usually justified as being "for your own good", but that's just a disguise. At its core, it's always about control.