StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stas Bush, you have provided some excellent info and links to reference material for a complex but fascinating time.

Many thanks, I've got some reading to do!

Coyote wrote:China was kind of a special case, I think, in that they knew that sooner or later they'd be getting Hong Kong back, and so they had to prepare for the sudden inclusion of about, what, a million people who were thoroughly used to free market systems and would react poorly to a reversal of fortunes. They had time to formulate a plan and think about how they were going to integrate this red-headed stepchild province back into the way of things.

7 million people at the time of the handover. But we've been very troublesome stepchildren so far, unlike the filial Macau. Elements in society complaining too much about universal suffrage and human right problems seems to be upsetting Grandpa ("Ah Yeh").

Surlethe wrote:Do any individual private firms in China now have any significant market power or economies of scale?

Yes, quite a few. GOME Electrical Appliances is has significant market share and is privately owned.

I hope this helps a bit, I cannot really participate in the conversation due to my law school finals but I can provide snippets of facts.

prestonwatson wrote:Hi Storm,

The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's was a great blow to the hopes of revolutionaries. The primary causes were political and economic and they were the result of the culture of war. The immediate cause of the Soviet collapse was economic. Economic factors were linked to political and psychological factors. Another factor was the lack of honest information.

Cheers.

How would lack of information lead to the downfall of the USSR?

Anyway, I have a question towards Stas Bush and Pezook. How did Poland manage to liberalise their political system and begin the process of market reform while coming out of it relatively intact?

ray245 wrote:How would lack of information lead to the downfall of the USSR?

Think about it. If central planners don't even have decent information, how could they have enacted good policies or reforms with any degree of certainty? Hell, there are even cities in Siberia of hundreds of thousands that still aren't even on maps. There's also the near-total ignorance on the part of many, many people as to just what the conversion to a capitalist society entailed; people just saw the relative prosperity of the West and concluded "capitalism = good."

Anyway, I have a question towards Stas Bush and Pezook. How did Poland manage to liberalise their political system and begin the process of market reform while coming out of it relatively intact?

My own cursory knowledge of it is that they took their time where Russia didn't.

Surlethe wrote:Do any individual private firms in China now have any significant market power or economies of scale?

Huawei is the 2nd largest network equipment company in the world, trailing Cisco.

Beowulf wrote:Huawei is the 2nd largest network equipment company in the world, trailing Cisco.

My 10 minutes of research only turns up that Huawei has a murky ownership structure. They haven't IPO-ed in Hong Kong or elsewhere, so their ownership structure isn't public... It claims to be private, but it is possible for the state to have influence. Or their financials could just be a mess, which is fairly typical amongst private Chinese companies...

Ypoknons wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Huawei is the 2nd largest network equipment company in the world, trailing Cisco.

My 10 minutes of research only turns up that Huawei has a murky ownership structure. They haven't IPO-ed in Hong Kong or elsewhere, so their ownership structure isn't public... It claims to be private, but it is possible for the state to have influence. Or their financials could just be a mess, which is fairly typical amongst private Chinese companies...

It is private, but it also serves as a military contractor much as American companies do, so it wouldn't be a surprise if certain things appeared cloaked.

montypython wrote:It is private, but it also serves as a military contractor much as American companies do, so it wouldn't be a surprise if certain things appeared cloaked.

This is different. Lockheed Martin, for example, is a public company. I can go and look up who the owners are, though I cannot see every project they're working on. Huawei on the other hand, you just don't know who the owners are and have no way of checking. This has nothing to do with military projects, this is about who owns the company. They claim to be private, but as an accountant, it is only fair for me to point out that these claims of private ownership are not easily verifiable...

But this argument is not relevant to the thread. GOME is already a good example of a private Chinese company with significant market share, and they are listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, which is transparent enough. My comments on Huawei are more a caution against taking statements of ownership at face value when it is difficult to verify these claims.

Did the soviet union fail though?? If that is any relevant to the topic, than here is what some one who I think is quite knowledgeable about the topic has to say.

"Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The massive votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts - with the Russian CP alone averaging with roughly a third of the vote. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.'

Yeah, a cross-national comparison would yield the well known result that the Second World lived better than the Third World. However, the thread asked about the collapse of the USSR.

While the USSR did not fail to industrialize, it collapsed geo-politically as a nation upon reaching it's highest life level figures.

That's Noam Chomsky, isn't it? It is fair I think that a discussion of the USSR's failure should be done carefully to launder the discussion of entrenched American exceptionalist and state capitalist dogmas and ideological axioms.

Not sure if this is worth it's own topic or not, but I was wondering if anyone here had some suggested reading concerning Post-Soviet conflicts: specifically Moldova and the PMR.

stormthebeaches wrote:I've been reading up on my cold war history and I was wondering, what was it that finally brought down the Soviet Union?

I think that the main reason was that there wasn't any point in it's existence: They were a superpower, but their population had bad living standards. And from 1975 onwards, there was no improvement in the living standards of the population. So the people decided it was time to change to another system.

1. How big a role did economics play? I would like some numbers.

A very big role. If the USSR was a developed country in 1990, it probably wouldn't collapse. Also, if they were poor but were in a process of development, they wouldn't collapse. Poor countries, with dictatorships and stagnated economies have the tendency to have political collapse. In Brazil in 1985 the dictatorship collapsed because of severe economic recession, while between 1964 to 1980, economic growth of 7-8% per year made the same regime popular.

medicineman wrote:Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

I am Brazilian and a economist, and I know that Brazil had a much more impressive process of economic growth and development than Russia. Between 1930 to 1980 the country with grew more rapidly was Brazil, growing from a estimated GDP of 40 billion US$ to 600 billion US$ in 1980. Population increased from 35 million in 1930 to 120 million in 1980. Considering that per capita income quadrupled, while population also nearly quadrupled, in 50 years that was a very impressive growth.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa.

Untrue. In Brazil life expectancy is 72 years, 6 years less than the US and around 20-25 years more than central Africa. If 80% of the population had life expectancy of 45 years, the top 20% would need to live 180 years to make the average life expectancy of 72 years.

For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels.

Wrong. The USSR grew between 1921 to 1940 and 1945 to 1975. Stagnation set in the 70-80's. However, in the long run the USSR's growth was quite common. Between 1930 and 1980 many countries grew more than the USSR, including Japan, Brazil, Mexico (pretty much all latin america). Western Europe also grew more than the USSR in the post war decades. While the US grew more than the USSR between 1913 to 1991.

And, my mother traveled to the USSR in 1984, she was impressed by the lack of access to consumer goods of the muscovites. The hotel workers tried to buy everything that the tourists had. My family came from a small town in the southernmost state of Brazil. The quality of life here is better than the Brazilian average (today life expectancy here is 74-75 years), and was certainly better than the Soviet average in the 80's.

In Brazil we have a great deal of regional inequalities. While inequality of income is large for the entire country, since the per capita income of the poorest states is 6-7 times smaller than the richest states, the degree of income inequality inside each state is much smaller.

In the southern part of Brazil (Minas Gerais downwards) the degree of social and economic development is not bad, I think that more than half of the families have cars in this region. What was the proportion of the soviet population that had cars in the 80's? 2%?

Latin America? False:

Iosef Cross wrote:And from 1975 onwards, there was no improvement in the living standards of the population. So the people decided it was time to change to another system.

Profoundly wrong - from 1975 to 1985, the living standards improved continously.

Iosef Cross wrote:They were a superpower, but their population had bad living standards.

Far better than most of the world, anyhow. We were in the high-HDI nations in 1990.

Iosef Cross wrote:If the USSR was a developed country in 1990, it probably wouldn't collapse. Also, if they were poor but were in a process of development, they wouldn't collapse.

That does not follow. Argentina was poor, was developing, and yet it collapsed. The USSR was an industrialized nation in 1990. I'm not sure what "developed" means. It was not First World, that is quite clear. But to say this is to say a tautology - First World nations are developed, and developed nations are First World nations. Far better than most of the world, anyhow. We were in the high-HDI nations in 1990.

Iosef Cross wrote:I know that Brazil had a much more impressive process of economic growth and development than Russia. Between 1930 to 1980 the country with grew more rapidly was Brazil, growing from a estimated GDP of 40 billion US$ to 600 billion US$ in 1980. Population increased from 35 million in 1930 to 120 million in 1980. Considering that per capita income quadrupled, while population also nearly quadrupled, in 50 years that was a very impressive growth.

Wrong. In 1930 Brazil's and USSR's GDP per capita were almost equal. However, in the following period (1930-1990) the USSR vastly outperformed Brazil, reaching a higher GDP per capita. In fact, during 1950s-1970s the USSR's GDP not only grew much faster than Brazil's, but the disparity in GDP per capita was 100% (USSR's GDP per capita was twice higher). On the average, USSR's GDP per capita growth was equal to Brazil's during 1930-1990 (GDP per capita of both nations quintupled), but the USSR at the same time achieved a higher HDI than Brazil.

I.e. USSR's GDP growth was better related to the living standards of the population than Brazil's despite having the same average result over 1930-1990.

USSR's population doubled during the same period, whilst the GDP per capita quintupled. USSR also employed contraception and legalized abortion, not to mention that nations of the North have lower birthrates on the average. Brazil has only itself to blame for the population explosion which hindered economic growth.

This is despite the fact that Brazil never experienced any sort of devastation similar to the World War II, where over 10% of the population of USSR died, and a lot of capital stock was destroyed.

In Brazil life expectancy is 72 years, 6 years less than the US and around 20-25 years more than central Africa. If 80% of the population had life expectancy of 45 years, the top 20% would need to live 180 years to make the average life expectancy of 72 years.

In 1990, Brazil's life expectancy was, however, behind the USSR (much more so during 1950-1980). It's a strawman that Brazil's conditions are equal to sub-Saharan Africa, but that aside, Brazil's welfare components such as life expectancy, infant mortality, education, etc. have been growing far slower than the USSR and still remain at a low level. The crime situation in Brazil is especially appaling, such a situation would not be possible in a Second World nation (pre-Soviet collapse).

However, in the long run the USSR's growth was quite common. Between 1930 and 1980 many countries grew more than the USSR, including Japan, Brazil, Mexico (pretty much all latin america). Western Europe also grew more than the USSR in the post war decades. While the US grew more than the USSR between 1913 to 1991.

I have already provided relevant data (and not once, at that), and while quite clearly the First World nations and Japan outperformed the USSR, the evidence is not such for all other nations. The USSR outperformed Latin America by both per capita GDP growth and HDI growth. Vastly.

My family came from a small town in the southernmost state of Brazil. The quality of life here is better than the Brazilian average (today life expectancy here is 74-75 years), and was certainly better than the Soviet average in the 80's.

Why don't you talk about the possibility of buying housing on the average Brazilian wage? Medical coverage?

In the southern part of Brazil (Minas Gerais downwards) the degree of social and economic development is not bad, I think that more than half of the families have cars in this region. What was the proportion of the soviet population that had cars in the 80's? 2%?

You think, or you have solid statistics? Do provide them. How many millions of cars did Brazil have per capita in 1970, 1980, 1989, and how many did the USSR have? I just want to see some hard data.

Besides, the lackluster development of personal car transport in the USSR is a well-known fact. Contrary to what people think, automobile culture was not as develoepd in the USSR, and considering the fact that railways remain primary arteries of communication, and public transport is much more developed, the car is NOT critical for life.

What I know, however, is that Brazil produced 782 000 passenger cars in 1989, whereas the USSR produced 1 275 000 passenger cars in 1990.

EDIT: Pff, I found the stats. Brazil had ~80 passenger cars per 1000 people in 1990, whereas the USSR had ~50. So Brazil had a bigger passenger car park (I'm not sure about the truck park) despite having smaller car production - quite probably, Brazil imported many cars from the USA.

Guardsman Bass wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:Could you start small, with relatively small scale private business?

Actually, yes. The USSR had some degree of private business allowed. Most notably in argiculture, and also cooperatives (cooperatives that were to be fully worker-owned). Those existed for a rather long time. However, allowing cooperatives to do things outside their legal scope (which at first included construction of garages, gardens, garden houses, and habitable buildings, small-scale production of hand-made items, usually, and/or car, machine etc. repairs), was only something tried in the latter days of the USSR.

That also sounds like a way to gradually introduce a more market-oriented private property system over time without leading to some of the rampant corruption and asset stripping that actually happened in 1990s Russia.

This right here is the main thing that screwed any attempt to privatize certain parts of the economy. The Mafiya, although nowhere near the monster it is today, had taken control of many prviate businessess. The problem Gorbachev had was that his predescessor wasn't exactly proactive in rooting out and destroying corruption. HE knew that there were already privately owned business operating even though it was illegal. He also knew why. Corruption in the party and the Mafiya. Hell, from what I've been able to piece together, the Mafiya gradually either recruited member of the gov't directly or got some of there bosses into the Politburo starting in the late 70's. Gorbachev knew this and tried to make the privately owned business legal so that the owners wouldn't have to succumb to the shakedowns from the Mafiya. Unfortunately, it was too late. He either wouldn't or couldn't destroy the MAfiya and thus most attempts at independently owning business was doomed to failure. Once the Collapse began to become obvious the shakedowns, assinations, bombings and worse that happened at night or in the shadows now happened in broad daylight. The police were either powerless or hopelessly corrupt. A lot of people like to claim that Putin cleaned up the streets but I personally suspect he merely took total power from other bosses. I don't think you can really say there is a strong distinction between the Mafiya and the gov't any more.

There goes the Soviet fan.

Stas Bush wrote:Latin America? False:

1- I don't know what's the source of these data, but it appears o be from Angus Maddison GDP estimates. His estimates show lower growth rates for Brazil than your national accounts provide.

Second to our national accounts, Brazil's per capita income increased from 1,930 reals (2008 prices) in 1930 to 13,350 reals in 1980 (source:http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/ipeaweb.dll/ ... 2%29&Mod=M), per capita income increased 7 fold. For the same period Soviet per capita income increased from ~1,300 dollars to 6,000 (second to your graph), a 4 fold increase.

And I think that these data overestimate the increase in Soviet income, since most Soviet growth was funneled into the military industrial complex, with no benefits for the population. For the USSR now you need to discount the money wasted in the military. Since they dont translate in better living standards. Actually, you should consider any regime that spends a large proportion of their national income into the military as a bad one.

2- Latin American population increased more than Soviet population, between 1940 and 1990 Soviet population increased from 196 million to 290 million. Brazil's population increased from 40 million to over 140 million in the same period.

A increasing population implies in more difficulty to increase per capita income, since you need to provide extra factors of production to the added population to just maintain per capita income.

Compare to total GDP then:

In 1913 the USSR (then the Russian empire, with covered roughly the same lands) had an estimated GDP of 232 billion dollars, source: Maddison. 60 years later, by 1973, the USSR had a total GDP of 1,513 billion dollars, a six fold increase.

In 1930, Brazil had a GDP of 68.5 billion reals (2009 reals), 50 years later, in 1980, GDP increased to 1,583.4 billion reals. A 23 fold increase, in a smaller timeframe!

Now, compare to the same time frames, from 1950 to 1973, USSR's GDP increased from 510 billions in 1950 to 1513 billion in 1973. Nearly tripled. Brazil's GDP increased from 186.56 billions in 1950 to 983.21 billion in 1973, a five fold increase.

Source for Brazil's GDP:
http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/ipeaweb.dll/ ... 2%29&Mod=M

Iosef Cross wrote:And from 1975 onwards, there was no improvement in the living standards of the population. So the people decided it was time to change to another system.

Profoundly wrong - from 1975 to 1985, the living standards improved continously.[/quote]

Yeah, if you think longer awaiting lines to buy bread are a sign of progress. By the late 80's the internal contradictions of the Soviet system were

Iosef Cross wrote:They were a superpower, but their population had bad living standards.

Far better than most of the world, anyhow. We were in the high-HDI nations in 1990.

Most of the world? You mean, Africa, India and China.

Far worse than any consolidated capitalistic nation.

Perhaps, comparable to Latin America. If you don't value political freedoms at all,

Iosef Cross wrote:If the USSR was a developed country in 1990, it probably wouldn't collapse. Also, if they were poor but were in a process of development, they wouldn't collapse.

That does not follow. Argentina was poor, was developing, and yet it collapsed. The USSR was an industrialized nation in 1990. I'm not sure what "developed" means. It was not First World, that is quite clear. But to say this is to say a tautology - First World nations are developed, and developed nations are First World nations. Far better than most of the world, anyhow. We were in the high-HDI nations in 1990.

Argentina was more developed than the USSR, or at least comparable. Today their life expectancy is 8 years longer than the Russia's. Also, you need to consider political liberties: the USSR had none.

Brazil was an industrialized country by 1980, in the sense that most of the population lived in cities and industry was several times larger than agriculture.

I.e. USSR's GDP growth was better related to the living standards of the population than Brazil's despite having the same average result over 1930-1990.

Completely untrue. The USSR's economy was only driven by the military industrial complex. Output served the needs of the military, not the population. In Brazil we had a interventionist state, with hindered progress, but at least production was adjusted to the needs of the consumers.

Compare a typical market in Brazil by 1980, with thousands of different products, with a market in the USSR, with bread and potatoes, and 3 kilometers of awaiting lines.

The problem in Brazil is the regional inequalities. By 1980 the richest states had decent living conditions (I mean decent, not soviet) while the poorest states had living conditions not much better than Africa.

In 1990, Brazil's life expectancy was, however, behind the USSR (much more so during 1950-1980). It's a strawman that Brazil's conditions are equal to sub-Saharan Africa, but that aside, Brazil's welfare components such as life expectancy, infant mortality, education, etc. have been growing far slower than the USSR and still remain at a low level. The crime situation in Brazil is especially appaling, such a situation would not be possible in a Second World nation (pre-Soviet collapse).

Brazil's life expectancy increased from 44 years in 1950 to 65 in 1990. That's progress.

Slower progress than the USSR? There life expectancy was high during the 60's, then stagnated and DECLINED.

If you want to compare the crime situation, well, true the USSR didn't have much "illegal" crime. But the entire State was essentially a criminal dictatorship.

However, in the long run the USSR's growth was quite common. Between 1930 and 1980 many countries grew more than the USSR, including Japan, Brazil, Mexico (pretty much all latin america). Western Europe also grew more than the USSR in the post war decades. While the US grew more than the USSR between 1913 to 1991.

I have already provided relevant data (and not once, at that), and while quite clearly the First World nations and Japan outperformed the USSR, the evidence is not such for all other nations. The USSR outperformed Latin America by both per capita GDP growth and HDI growth. Vastly.

My family came from a small town in the southernmost state of Brazil. The quality of life here is better than the Brazilian average (today life expectancy here is 74-75 years), and was certainly better than the Soviet average in the 80's.

Why don't you talk about the possibility of buying housing on the average Brazilian wage? Medical coverage?[/quote]

Why? Well, the average Brazilian wage is 15,000 reals per year, more or less. You can rent a small decent place for 2,500 reals per year, roughly equivalent to the concrete tenements of the USSR. Basic medical coverage is free. But if you want first world quality of medical coverage, you need to pay. Prices are lower than in US and Europe.

In the southern part of Brazil (Minas Gerais downwards) the degree of social and economic development is not bad, I think that more than half of the families have cars in this region. What was the proportion of the soviet population that had cars in the 80's? 2%?

You think, or you have solid statistics? Do provide them. How many millions of cars did Brazil have per capita in 1970, 1980, 1989, and how many did the USSR have? I just want to see some hard data.

Today in the Southern states we have 4 to 5 people per car. Production is 2.5 million.

In 1980 production was 1 million, for a population of 120 million. In 1989 production was small, because the country was passing through a hyperinflation and economic depression.

EDIT: Pff, I found the stats. Brazil had ~80 passenger cars per 1000 people in 1990, whereas the USSR had ~50. So Brazil had a bigger passenger car park (I'm not sure about the truck park) despite having smaller car production - quite probably, Brazil imported many cars from the USA.

Population was smaller.. Didn't take that into account? So even in the mid of a depression, Brazil had a better car park than the USSR at its peak.

Also, you should know that cars made in the USSR were pure shit. As all industrial equipment.

Also, there are the differences in the political field. In the USSR people didn't have the basics of political freedom, neither the freedom of trade information. In Brazil, after 1985, with the end of the dictatorship, we have a fully functioning democracy and full political freedoms. Things that the USSR never had, and Russia still doesn't have. And that is very important as well. Also, during the dictatorship, the constrains on information were mild compared to the USSR, where one couldn't access the global book market.

And some people made the claim that Brazil's economic growth didn't benefit the population while USSR's growth did. Well, in fact the Brazilian economy was driven to supply consumer needs, the increase in GDP was fully translated into an increase in output of consumer goods. The USSR's didn't have the same "consuming culture" (i.e.: they really didn't increase output to increase output of consumer goods) but a militaristic economic system, with focusing on competing with the US in military technology, while the population had the worst living standards of any major power in the world.

The USSR's economy sucked so much that they weren't even able to produce food for themselves, having the best agricultural land in the world. So they were forced to export oil in exchange for grain. And they couldn't export manufactured goods because they were shit, only commodities, like oil.

The prof that the USSR's economy didn't care about the population was the collapse in output with their fall: Production decreased as much as 50%, because there wasn't DEMAND for it. Why there wasn't demand? 2 reasons: because demand was previously provided by the military industrial complex, not the consuming population, and because their output was shit, so with access to the global market, demand for these "goods" became zero.

How well the Soviet citizen ate, second to United States-USSR: Individual Consumption (Some Comparisons) By A. S. Zaychenko From S.Sh.A. [U.S.A.], December 1988, the situation:

"INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION

As early as the end of the 1920s we knew our
position in the world in terms of living stan-
dards. It was quite decent. If we accept as a stan-
dard of the purchasing power of wages the
spring of 1928 as 100 in London, it was 71 in
Berlin, 56 in Paris, 52 in Moscow, 47 in Prague,
45 in Vienna, 43 in Rome, and 40 in Warsaw.1
Unfortunately, in the past few decades we have
lost many of our positions in that area. In 1985,
meat consumption by the urban population in
our country (taking into consideration the qual-
ity of the meat) was nearly 50 percent below the
1913 and 1927 standards. In order to purchase 1
kilogram of meat (at 3.7 rubles per kilogram)
today one must work 50 percent longer than one
had to in 1913 and 1927. In 1927, a worker fam-
ily spent 43.8 percent of its budget on food (ex-
cluding alcohol), compared to more than 60 per-
cent today. Furthermore, in the past there were
many more family dependents.

Fuking progress man! How to you reconciliate with your claim that Soviet per capita income increased 5 times in the period if Soviet citizens had to work 50% more to purchase the same amount of food?

Since so far our public press has not provided
data on the cash expenditures of Soviet families
for individual consumption, we took for pur-
poses of comparison a hypothetical urban fam-
ily consisting of two working spouses earning
the average national wage (190 rubles monthly
in 1985) with two underage children. American
statistics take as a basis the same type family
and income.2

Food

Per capita meat consumption, according to
1985 data, was as follows: 62 kilograms in the
USSR and 120 kilograms in the United States.
Furthermore, the quality of the meat sold to the
population is much worse in our country com-
pared to the United States. If we were to equal-
ize these differences, i.e., exclude suet, fat,
lard, and by-products, and take into considera-
tion the fact that in the United States poultry
consumption implies only dressed chickens and
turkeys, the correlation of meat consumption in
terms of weight would be 1:3. A substantial dis-
parity exists also in the consumption of other
food products.

Similar conclusions have been reached by
American researchers A. Schroeder and I. Ed-
wards. They estimate that the level of consump-
tion of food products (taking quality into con-
sideration) in the USSR at the start of the 1980s
was (taking the U.S. level as 100) the following:
meat, 34.2; fats and butter, 29. 8; fish, 67; sugar,
104; bread, 95.5; dairy products, 63; potatoes,
90; vegetables, 19.3; fruits, 19.7; nonalcoholic
beverages, 36.5; and alcohol, 119."

Also, there is one interesting theory about the USSR's colapse:

The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070419_Gaidar.pdf

Apparently, people here have the impression that Brazil's living conditions are terrible, even worse than the spartan conditions of the USSR. So, just to show how small southern Brazilian towns looks like:

A city of 60,000:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost. ... stcount=20

A typical town of 30,000:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1092515

Towns around 10,000:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1015403

I would say that the main difference between the living standards of the industrialized regions of Brazil (south and southeastern regions) and the US is that Brazilians have smaller homes, smaller cars and slower Internet connections. Not that the majority of the population is starving to death....

Actually, I talked to my father about his experience living in East Germany (he lived there for 6 months in 1982), and he said to me that Southern Brazil was better, but northern Brazil wasn't.

Iosef Cross wrote:There goes the Soviet fan.

Erm. He's Russian.

And I think that these data overestimate the increase in Soviet income, since most Soviet growth was funneled into the military industrial complex, with no benefits for the population. For the USSR now you need to discount the money wasted in the military. Since they dont translate in better living standards. Actually, you should consider any regime that spends a large proportion of their national income into the military as a bad one.

You will qualify that right? Like, justify what you said? I have a hard time believing that a military industrial complex doesn't benefit anyone, especially when the Soviet Union exported lots of goods to its allies.

And erm, side note. I recall vaguely there was a major famine due to some ecological problems in the USSR in the 70s. Which was why they started importing grain from the US.

And finally, whatever you said has been mentioned already by Stas ages ago long before you even joined forum. So can the bravado and stick to facts.

Iosef Cross wrote:1- I don't know what's the source of these data, but it appears o be from Angus Maddison GDP estimates. His estimates show lower growth rates for Brazil than your national accounts provide.
...
Second to our national accounts, Brazil's per capita income increased from 1,930 reals (2008 prices) in 1930 to 13,350 reals in 1980 (source: source), per capita income increased 7 fold.

You mean "your" national accounts. But if I were to take the national accounts for the USSR, they could probably also show a greater growth rate for the USSR than Angus Maddison's complete datasets. Why should your national accounts be taken over Maddison's calculations? Why shouldn't I then take the Soviet national accounts and estimate the growth in rubles? Either we use the same dataset, or we use national accounts for both the USSR and Brazil. Maddison's accounts are PPP-adjusted in international dollars. I have yet to see a reason why I should accept your claims at all.

For example, were I to look at it that way, in 1980s prices the USSR's GDP grew from 31 billion (1980 prices) roubles to 619 billion; a 20-fold increase.
The USSR's population was around 150 million in 1930, and ~270 million in 1980. Or from roughly 200 roubles per person to 2300 roubles per person; a 12-fold increase. Which is still larger than Brazil (and adeptly explains all the differences listed below). Like I said, if you're using national currency instead of international dollars to measure growth, be constistent.

Regardless of the point made above, the data in the graph has shown the Latin American average (not Brazil par se), which the USSR well surpassed. You claimed that "all of Latin America" was superior to the USSR. You consciously lied, and now you shift the debate to USSR vs. Brazil, ignoring and forgetting your own claim of "all of Latin America". And even a direct comparison with Brazil yields unfavourable results (see below).

Iosef Cross wrote:And I think that these data overestimate the increase in Soviet income, since most Soviet growth was funneled into the military industrial complex, with no benefits for the population.

How do you know the proportion of the military industrial spending in the overall Soviet spending? Care to share? Moreover, so did Brazil spend on the military. For a smaller economy like Brazil, the spending was correspondingly harder to bear. I asked for hard data. You provided no numbers, just vague claims. Prove them, with numbers, then. The numbers should reflect what percentage of GDP growth yearly fell to the military-industrial complex; per year. I could help you here, but I will not, because you should do your homework on your own. What is even more funny is that Brazil never faced the same level of threat like some powers who contribute a large fraction of GDP to military (US, USSR, Israel, China, etc.). And you have the gall to say military spending was not necessary? At the same time when the USA had nuclear weapons and nuclear primacy over it's chief rival, the USSR? Really?

Iosef Cross wrote:Latin American population increased more than Soviet population, between 1940 and 1990 Soviet population increased from 196 million to 290 million. Brazil's population increased from 40 million to over 140 million in the same period.
... Compare to total GDP then ...
Now, compare to the same time frames, from 1950 to 1973, USSR's GDP increased from 510 billions in 1950 to 1513 billion in 1973. Nearly tripled. Brazil's GDP increased from 186.56 billions in 1950 to 983.21 billion in 1973, a five fold increase.

I know that. I have already said - it's the problem of Latin America's unchecked population growth which hindered the otherwise possible higher economic growth. Why exactly should I compare the total GDP, when the comparison was centered around GDP per capita and it's growth rates? The USSR was more industrialized than Brazil by the year 1950, ergo started from a higher base and had a growth moderation. It's still considerable that it had a triple increase in that timeframe. You are making my point for me. Brazil still had a high illiteracy rate in the 1990s - which means Brazil's growth potential was not tapped out even in what concerned literacy!

To put it in a more stark comparison, Brazil's illiteracy rate as of 1990 equalled to that of the USSR in the year 1939. In 1959, the USSR's literacy rate was 98,5%, whereas Brazil's was only 60%. 40% of Brazil's population was illiterate - a vast potential for workforce improvement and skill raising.

It's surprising that the USSR still continued as fast as it did after 1960. Brazil's performance as an industrializing nation in the same period, compared to the USSR which was in the last phase of industrialization in the 1950-1990 period... is dissappointing. Whereas the USSR achieved total population literacy in 30 years, Brazil failed to achieve it in even in 70 years and then some (counting from the year 1930). Brazil's growth did not even translate into the literacy of it's people. How sad.

Iosef Cross wrote:Yeah, if you think longer awaiting lines to buy bread are a sign of progress.

Ques due to deficits were exceptionally widespread during the late 1980s, right. Hence why I put 1985 as the benchmark year. Gorbachov's currency reforms, especially in 1987, caused a disruptive shock and a rise in deficits over the nation. Prior to that, supply levels were quite good. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, the USSR entered a crisis by the mid-1980s. Yes, that crisis had the economy collapse. Anything new? I said - the living standards rose during 1970-1985. To deny it would be stupid - there were millions of square meters of housing build, millions of cars, millions of trucks and buses. All these products increased the life level of the population. Perhaps not as fast and not as swiftly as during 1950-1970, but like I said, the USSR entered a moderation when it industrialized; aside from the obvious crisis processes in the economy in the late 1980s.

Iosef Cross wrote:Most of the world? You mean, Africa, India and China. Far worse than any consolidated capitalistic nation. Perhaps, comparable to Latin America. If you don't value political freedoms at all

Political freedoms? You mean in Brazil, where GM, Ford and Volkswagen provided blacklists of workers for murder to the Brazilian dictatorship? Heh. I don't mean "Africa, India or China". I mean most of the world - HDR 1990. The USSR ranked 26th in the 1990s Human Development Report. All non-First World "consolidated capitalistic nations" ranked below it. Either deal with it, or suck it up. Brazil ranked 50th.

This here demonstrates who the losers were:

This is purely by GDP/capita though. By HDI, not only these nations fell behind, but also many other industrializing nations, since their literacy/education/healthcare sucked balls; and it is a major HDI component. The most remarkable fact is that some Latin American nations had a higher average GDP/capita but fell behind the USSR, and also that the "losers" in the first place were tighly packed in the 1930s.

In terms of HDI, the 1990 used the 1987 data. Some background on the transition and why modern Russian indicators, except literacy, do not reflect the Soviet life level:

Development and Transition: Understanding Russia’s demographic challenge (Twenty Years of Transition and Human Development, UNDP) wrote:Whereas the USSR in 1987 occupied 26th place (out of 130 countries) with an HDI of 0.920, by 1995 Russia had dropped to 72nd place among 174 countries, with an HDI of 0.769. Two of the HDI’s components were responsible for this decrease: life expectancy (which decreased from 70 to 65.5 years) and per-capita GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms (which dropped from US$ 6,000 to US$ 4,531). By contrast, the HDI’s education component (the adult literacy rate) remained largely unchanged. (Since the quality of the education system inherited from the Soviet period remains fairly high, the HDI’s education component is more difficult to influence than the other two HDI components.)

Iosef Cross wrote:Argentina was more developed than the USSR, or at least comparable. Today their life expectancy is 8 years longer than the Russia's.
... Brazil was an industrialized country by 1980, in the sense that most of the population lived in cities and industry was several times larger than agriculture.

Today the life expectancy of Russia has plunged far below the late-Soviet one, so I am not sure if we're on the same line here. I also thought that in the 1980s, Brazil was still industrializing, or "developing" as the UNDP puts it, but sure, why not.

Iosef Cross wrote:Completely untrue. The USSR's economy was only driven by the military industrial complex. Output served the needs of the military, not the population. In Brazil we had a interventionist state, with hindered progress, but at least production was adjusted to the needs of the consumers.

Compare a typical market in Brazil by 1980, with thousands of different products, with a market in the USSR, with bread and potatoes, and 3 kilometers of awaiting lines

Unlike you, I lived in the USSR and my relatives have seen - not first hand, but close enough! - the favellas of Brazil. So you can go fuck yourself with strawman comparisons. I ask you - how did the medical insurance system in Brazil work, what was the accesibility of medical coverage? Brazil had twice the Soviet infant mortality in the year 1990 - is that normal? And it still is, despite all the turmoil the Russian healthcare system had to go through. And how many square meters of housing did Brazil have in the 1980s? How many did it build? The "three kilometers" of lines is just a strawman - I used to stay in these lines as a kid. That was post-1987 reform, i.e. the lines were a novelty, especially such long ones. And yet, they weren't anywhere close three kilometers. Still, the deterioration of the supply situation post-1985, and especially post-1987 is a well-known fact; I'm not sure what you're aiming at. I said that the living standard grew. The USSR's construction industry, for example, dwarfed it's military industrial complex - the USSR had a massive construction of powerplants, housing, hospitals, etc. etc. So you can shove your strawman where it belongs.

Iosef Cross wrote:The problem in Brazil is the regional inequalities. By 1980 the richest states had decent living conditions (I mean decent, not soviet) while the poorest states had living conditions not much better than Africa. ... Brazil's life expectancy increased from 44 years in 1950 to 65 in 1990. That's progress

While in the USSR GINI was low and the disparity between life standards of the citizens were much less. Thanks, I'd choose average welfare for all than Africa-like conditions for the poor. You are making my point for me. Brazil GINI, 1990: 60.68; 1981: 57.57. USSR GINI, 1990: 0,28; 1980: 0,29. So Brazil not only had a lower absolute GDP per capita, worse healthcare and other indicators, which form the HDI, but it also had a very high inequality, unlike the USSR.

And yet, depspite all the growth, Brazil's life expectancy it was still lower than that of the USSR during the same year - despite the stagnation and decline of the Soviet life expectancy in the 1970s. Meanwhile, the USSR's life expectancy increased from about the same number (post-war life expectancy was horrid) to 70 years in a far smaller term. So you're making my point for me - the USSR progressed faster, achieved better results and still keeps them (Russia's healthcare indicators are superior to Brazil).

In fact, the USSR's average life expectancy in the 1930s was below 40 years, whereas in Brazil in the 1930s it was 42.7 years. So in the period 1930-1990, the USSR rapidly improved it's average life expectancy (it more than doubled), whereas Brazil struggled to improve it to the Soviet level despite stagnation. All this contributes to my initial point - the USSR's progress in per capita welfare indicators was far more rapid than Brazil's, which to a large degree struggled to turn itself from a Third World shithole which it was, into a industrialized welfare nation. In the USSR, life expectancy rose from ~35 years to ~70, a double increase. In Brazil, it rose from ~40 years to ~65 for the same period. The USSR had an average gain of 35 years; Brazil for the entire period, only 25 years, an increase of only 38%.

Iosef Cross wrote:If you want to compare the crime situation, well, true the USSR didn't have much "illegal" crime. But the entire State was essentially a criminal dictatorship.

So was Brazil, see above. I don't understand where you're coming from. The state was a dictatorship. So? So was Brazil, during quite a large share of the time of your progress. The USSR in the 1970s-1980s was far better-suited for the life of the common worker than modern Russia or Brazil, for that matter. "Illegal crime" is murder and robbery. The USSR had low levels of either. That means life was safe. Unlike you, I grew up in the late-1980s, and I still remember how fucking safe it was compared to now. If you have solid grounds why the safety of the common citizen should be discarded from comparison, I am all ears.

In fact, it's even worse - Brazil was BOTH a dictatorship until 1985, as you said, AND had a very high crime level. Ergo, no redeeming qualities at all.

Iosef Cross wrote:Why? Well, the average Brazilian wage is 15,000 reals per year, more or less. You can rent a small decent place for 2,500 reals per year, roughly equivalent to the concrete tenements of the USSR. Basic medical coverage is free. But if you want first world quality of medical coverage, you need to pay. Prices are lower than in US and Europe.

I did not ask for the rental prices. I asked - how many square meters did Brazil build, per citizen, in the period 1930-1990. How many square meters per citizen did Brazil have in the 1980s? Similar, when I asked about medicine, I asked about the healthcare indicators, like the percentage of population with access to medical services, and such.

Iosef Cross wrote:So even in the mid of a depression, Brazil had a better car park than the USSR at its peak. Also, you should know that cars made in the USSR were pure shit. As all industrial equipment.

I never said the USSR had a better car park than Brazil; I said the exact opposite in fact, that the USSR's passenger car park was a neglected part of the economy. Moreover, I already provided the per-capita car spread rate, not the bulk aggregate - so your comment that I should take into account the population size is just funny - I already did. As for "cars made in the USSR", they were your average 1960-1970s cars (in 1980s, progress stalled). Many of these models continue to serve until this day. That aside, it's strange to expect some grand successes in a neglected sector like personal car construction.

"All industrial equipment" - hope you didn't really mean it, because such a generalization is bullshit. Maybe Brazil had mastered such complex engineering as space travelling equipment, has lifted a number of space stations and spacefaring modules in space? Oh, sorry - I forgot, the BSA's first rocket rose in what, 2004?

In short, you're so far making all my points for me - parts of Brazil are as shitty as Africa, and while the USSR's average life standard was below the life standard of Brazil's capitalists, it was superior to the population which was confined to Africa-like conditions - superior standard for all is better than superior standard for some; Brazil has a big car park, but it failed to match the USSR in some aspects of very complex engineering (and it's automobile industry is basically a huge assembly plant for foreign companies); Brazil is far behind the USSR in HDI, and so are all Latin American and other states; only the First World, Japan and other European nations (some Second World ones) beat it.

Iosef Cross wrote:How well the Soviet citizen ate

FAO data: Meat annual consumption, 1990, FAO
USA 112.6
England 72.5
Swiss 59.0
Finland 62.3
Portugal 62.8
France 98.9
Germany 95.5
USSR 72.2

So your point was? If you were going to chastise the USSR for low consumption of meat, go chastise the First World nations of Finland, Portugal, Switzerland and Britain. They all had meat consumption on the same order as the USSR in the 1980s. I'm not sure how is the USA's horrible meat overeating and obesity a proof of anything. The British did not live a worse life than the citizens of the USA despite eating less meat. Moreover, the consumption dynamic shows continous improvement in the quality of rations, which directly contradicts your thesis that the life standard of teh USSR stood flat in 1970-1985.

Of course, the 1988 screed about the consumption in the 1920s being higher than in the 1980s is pure, purest bullshit.

The consumption level of 3000+ calories has been reached in by the 1970s; afterwards, the calorie consumption improved in the quality section of the consumption - more meats and milk and eggs, less vegetable calories.

So not only is your piece pure counterfactual bullshit, but you completely fail to analyze actual data, resorting to poorly framed propaganda screeds instead. Such behavior is not tolerated in History; shape up Next time, try at least a little formatting with your screeds.

To further prove my point, I can note that Finland's meat consumption for the 1961-1990 period almost exactly mirrors the Soviet one. The Finns consume more fish, on the average, and less meats, but all in all, the Soviet and Finnish meat diet was roughly equal during the period 1960-1990. Finland is a developed First World nation. I'm also sure that USSR's diet more or less corresponds with the British one. Some nations (e.g. Japan) achieved a higher life level whilst having a lower calorie diet, actually (2800+, instead of 3000+ like the USSR). Needless to say, Brazil's meat consumption has been worse than either First World or the USSR: FAOSTAT.

Iosef wrote:Also, there are the differences in the political field. In the USSR people didn't have the basics of political freedom, neither the freedom of trade information. In Brazil, after 1985, with the end of the dictatorship, we have a fully functioning democracy and full political freedoms. Things that the USSR never had, and Russia still doesn't have. And that is very important as well. Also, during the dictatorship, the constrains on information were mild compared to the USSR, where one couldn't access the global book market.

In Russia, after 1991, we also have "democracy" and "political freedom". However, we have a massively reduced life level and a collapsed economy as a bonus pack thanks to the botched transition. I'm not sure what your point was? I'm sorry, but how could a malnourished Brazilian peasant living in what you described as conditions equal to sub-Saharan Africa, buy books on the world market? There was no internet, and the guy was malnourished which means he didn't have enough to fucking eat - so he couldn't order books (not to mention that most languages other than his native one are automatically excluded, just like in Russia or any nation for that matter). I'm not sure if you fully realize the impact of economic and language constraints on people. Either that, or you're an idiot. A very small fraction of Brazil's population had access to information.

In fact, Brazil still has a below-90% literacy rate, last time I checked (maybe in the very recent years it changed). Brazil had a literacy rate of 81% in 1990. The USSR - over 99%. This meant that 20% of Brazil's population had no access to information AT ALL. They were illiterate.

Iosef wrote:And some people made the claim that Brazil's economic growth didn't benefit the population while USSR's growth did. Well, in fact the Brazilian economy was driven to supply consumer needs, the increase in GDP was fully translated into an increase in output of consumer goods. The USSR's didn't have the same "consuming culture" (i.e.: they really didn't increase output to increase output of consumer goods) but a militaristic economic system, with focusing on competing with the US in military technology, while the population had the worst living standards of any major power in the world.

Quite frankly, Brazil's GINI coefficient was worse than that of the USSR, IIRC (so the decile income disparity coefficient meant that a large swath of GDP growth benefited the wealthy, about whom I couldn't care less), and quite frankly as well, USSR's HDI in 1990 ranked 26th and was much higher than Brazil's. Ergo, both of your claims are false when confronted with the facts.

Iosef wrote:The USSR's economy sucked so much that they weren't even able to produce food for themselves, having the best agricultural land in the world. So they were forced to export oil in exchange for grain. And they couldn't export manufactured goods because they were shit, only commodities, like oil.

There's so many falsehoods in this sentence I can't even choose where to begin. One: the USSR produced enough food for itself. Before 1962, it was a net grain exporter. Two: USSR had quite arguably the worst agricultural conditions compared to other nations, and certainly not best. Three: the share of oil in the Soviet industry was less than that in the Russian industry. Four: grains that were bought abroad were imported as feed grains for cattle; this allowed the USSR to increase it's livestock and lift meat consumption levels, thus raising the quality of life of it's citizens. I'm not sure why is that a bad thing? Many nations are net food importers. Chinese economic growth resulted in net food imports, as did Japan's, IIRC, and Great Britains.

On the other hand, such stellar net food exporter as Bangladesh had a famine in 1974.

I adivse you to read here, Iosef, to get a grasp on how Russia had the absolute WORST lands in Europe (not to mention compared to the USA), with it's climate making almost the entirety of the USSR a zone of risky crops, automatically lowering yields and excluding a vast variety of cultures which can be grown in a better climate.

You failed econ geography 101 if you claim Russia has the best lands with a straight fucking face. Such claims are, once again, not showing your expertise, but on the other hand, show you claiming a falsehood.

Iosef wrote:The prof that the USSR's economy didn't care about the population was the collapse in output with their fall: production decreased as much as 50%, because there wasn't DEMAND for it. Why there wasn't demand? 2 reasons: because demand was previously provided by the military industrial complex, not the consuming population, and because their output was shit, so with access to the global market, demand for these "goods" became zero.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Demand is meaningless in a situation of non-equilibrium economics, which the USSR entered after the collapse. The currency experienced rampant hyperinflation, which often made enterprises bankrupt overnight. That is not relevant in any way to the military industrial complex, which remains until this day one of the most resilient parts of the Russian economy. In fact, non-military sectors (e.g. light industry) collapsed far more severely than the heavy industry, of which military industrial complex is a subset. Russian economy is today more skewed towards heavy industry than during Soviet days, which is itself remarkable. Ridiculously enough, the USSR had a more diverse economy than Russia. Russia has a greater share of oils in it's industry, and a greater share of oil and weapons as it's exports.

So you have proven my point for me again - the USSR had a more diverse economy; it cared about it's populace because it imported grains (as opposed to North Korea, Bangladesh and other nations where the population experienced either famine or severe malnutrition at the same time as it did not import foods, or when it exported foods), and it imported grains not for bread-making, but to increase the consumption of meats and other animal fats in the Soviet 3000+ calorie diet, which was already among the highest in the world.

Thanks Iosef

Iosef wrote:Not that the majority of the population is starving to death...

In 1990, USSR/Russia had a malnourishment rate of 0. In 1990, Brazil had a malnourishment rate of 10%. FAO. So no, certainly not the majority, certainly not "to the death". But the Brazilian consumption of foods has been likewise far more constrained that the Soviet one. Of course, neither nation in the 1950-1980 period experienced anything even close to a famine; but whereas the USSR vaniquished malnourishment, Brazil had a chronic malnourishment rate of 10% which persisted even in the 1990s. Brazil still had a chronic malnourishment rate during the 2000s, and still has one now. Russia did not, and does not have one now. So before you speak, Iosef, think carefully over your words.

To be short and give a comparison that touches on many welfare aspects:

Brazil worst housing, NOW:

USSR's worst housing c. late 1980s:


For the 1990 HDI report.

GDP pc:
Brazil 4,307, USSR 6,000
LE at birth:
Brazil 65, USSR 70
Literacy:
Brazil 78, USSR 99
Daily calorie supply as % of UNDP 1990 requirements:
Brazil 111, USSR 133
Population with access to safe (i.e. sterilized) water:
Brazil 78, USSR 100
Population with access to sanitation
Brazil 64, USSR 100
Malnourished children, millions
Brazil, 2.4, USSR 0
Illiterate adults, millions
Brazil 21, USSR 0
Out of school children, millions
Brazil 5, USSR 0
Females-to-males in labour force, %
Brazil 34% USSR 93%
Females in government, %
Brazil 5,3%, USSR 34,4%
Infant mortality, crude (per 1000)
Brazil 62, USSR 25 (the same proportion holds for under-5 mortality)
1 year olds immunized
Brazil 68%, USSR 83%
Maternal mortality per 1000 live births
Brazil 120, USSR 48 (that means the mother has a 2,5 greater chance to die in Brazil when giving birth - unsurprising, given their crap healthcare)

And now, the fun part. It would be fun if the Brazilian market and freedom of information actually provided people with means of communication, right? This might be a little refreshing and puts into perspective (especially after you consider the USSR didn't import TVs or radios; only built them domestically):
Televisions per 1000 people
Brazil 191, USSR 314 (every third Soviet citizen had a TV; but only 1 of 5 Brazilians)
Radios per 1000 people
Brazil 368, USSR 685 (i.e. almost all Soviet citizens had a radio)

And from myself, some factoids that did not make it into the HDR, for additional insight:
Book copies issued:
USSR 1988: 2,3 billion, Brazil 1998: 410 million, highest result in a decade
Cars per 1000 citizens
Brazil 80, USSR 50
Murders per 100 000
Brazil, 34,4, USSR 4,2. I.e. the chance to get murdered in Brazil is 8 times greater than that of the USSR. The highest Soviet figure was 6,5, in 1980 (crime was lower before and after that).
GINI, 1990
Brazil 60.68, USSR 28.0
GINI, 1980
Brazil 57.57, USSR 29.0
Extreme poverty (less than $1 day), WB MDG, 1990
Brazil, 15,5, USSR 0%. Russia 1993, 1%.
Chronically undernourished, percent (FAO)
Brazil 10, USSR 0.

Some other trivia:
Rail locomotives
USSR (1989) 33 000, Brazil (1996) 1 855 - Brazil cannot produce locomotives (1-4 per year)

Herein lies the answer as to why Brazil could have such regional disparities - mobility is severely limited. With only one locomotive per an almost whopping 100 000 people, Brazil can't even move it's population from one city to another. Meanwhile, the USSR had a locomotive per 9-10 thousand people - ten times the per capita park of Brazil. And at the same time, it's car per capita spread was only 40% lower than the Brazilian one. More importantly, Brazil had 20 cars per 1000 people in 1962 while the USSR had 4 cars per 1000 people in 1965. Soviet car per capita spread increased 12,5 times during 1965-1990, while the Brazilian one for 1962-1990 increased only 4 times.

I'm not sure how to measure which part of GNI growth the rich took in Brazil (although I'm sure there are studies to that effect), but it's pretty evident that Brazil's allegedly "more impressive" growth failed to provide it with the basics of human welfare - life expectancy, literacy and even such critical and simple things as sterilized water. To be fair, GINI is a fair approximation (the GINI value somewhat corresponds to how much of the national income goes to the top 10%), if slightly less at that. If the GINI is 60 in 1990, then it's fair to assume 50% of Brazil's GNI was received by the top decile. This means 90% of Brazil's population outside the top in 1990 actually had, among them, a GNI per capita of only half the Brazilian average. Such are the bad consequences of inequality. And a GNI per capita half that of Brazil is well within the realm of poorest states; including some in sub-Saharan Africa. Whoever made the "20-80%" comment was spot-on.

In 1927, which is arguably the year when the Soviet industrialization started picking up pace, Brazil's GDP per capita in international dollars relative to Soviet GDP /capita was 1158 to 1370, or 84,5%. In 1980-1989, the Brazilian GDP/capita related to the Soviet one as one as 80 (high point) to 67 (low point) percent. Brazil's life expectancy was greater than the Soviet one in the 1930s. So not only did Brazil fail to overtake the Soviet GDP per capita (or other indicators), contrary to what Iosef implied, in the mid-1980s it's GDP per capita was almost 30% smaller. [for all estimated used Madisson's datasets, because they are in international dollars as opposed to Brazilian or Russian domestic currency]

The very worst part, however, emerges when we find out that other Latin American nations had often higher GDP per capita than the USSR, but at the same time remained enormous shitholes with 50% poverty, poor access to sterilized water and medicine and vast illiteracy. A good example is Venezuela - in the 1980s it had a higher GDP per capita than the USSR, but a severely worse life level. So when I say the USSR greatly outperformed Latin America, I mean not only the average GDP per capita among ALL Latin American nations, but also the complex aspects of welfare. And so do other people on this board. People here can't be easily bluffed by crap comparisons, bullshit and strawmen.