So what form does the resistance take?

[dann]

And this is why the one thing that didn't ever lack in shops aisles even at the darkest times or the Soviet Union was vodka …

Interesting lie! I've heard it before, but I didn't look it up until now:

Prohibition in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union: Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union (Wikipedia)
Lenin retained the prohibition, which remained in place through the Russian Civil War and into the period of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union. However, following Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin repealed the prohibition in 1925 and brought back the state vodka monopoly system to increase government revenue.
In the 1950s, there was a significant consumption of alcohol, particularly vodka, in the Soviet Union. Later, the government took various measures to shift the population's drinking habits toward wine and beer. Men typically drank dry or semi-dry wine, while women preferred sweet or semi-sweet varieties. The alcohol consumption in the Soviet Union never exceeded the normal levels seen in European countries, and at that time, alcohol consumption in Europe was even higher.
Following Stalin's death, the Soviet Union held three major anti-alcohol campaigns. The first was held during Nikita Khrushchev's rule in 1958, the second during Leonid Brezhnev's tenure in 1972, and the third (and biggest) was held during Mikhail Gorbachev's years from 1985 to 1988.

Why do you think the lie is so popular? What made you post it without bothering to fact-checking it?

A general appeal to skeptics:
Nowadays, the internet has made fact-checking (as well as the spreading of 'alternative facts') very easy. Why not make use of this easily available opportunity?
Lies like the one about vodka in the USSR existed before the internet, but they were usually spread the MSM or by word of mouth, which didn't make them less prolific. In the (very) late 1980s, I was at a lecture given by Per Øhrgaard, head of the Institute of German and Dutch at the University of Copenhagen. He referred to a news segment on Danish TV the previous night, which I happened to have seen - and believed: The reporter and his camera team visited a supermarket in the GDR and showed footage of the empty supermarket freezers as proof of the alleged food shortage.

Per Øhrgaard, who was fairly apolitical but had travelled extensively in both the GDR and the FRG, said that it was proof of nothing whatsoever.
The footage did indeed show empty freezers, but what it didn't show was the food being transferred to the big freezer in the back, which was common practice in the GDR - for the purpose of saving electricity. A reporter would have known about this if only he had bothered to ask, but he probably didn't want his propaganda lie to be ruined by fact-checking. I believed it until I heard Per Øhrgaard talk about it, which only a handful og people did.

And to Safe-Keeper specifically: I referred to the thread Protests Erupt in Cuba if you are seriously interested in debating the Cuban version of democracy. You know, the one without oligarchs paying representatives to do their bidding. But, for whatever reason, nobody seems to be interested in that. Instead, they enjoy spreading lies about Cuba based on nothing whatsoever beyond what they think they know and never fact-check because they like the narrative - much like Fio in the case of vodka in the USSR.

Some stories are just too good for skeptics to do a bit of fact-checking - fact-checking being the most basic and most important element of any kind of resistance!


ETA: I know that this story will appeal to the Schadenfreude of many alleged skeptics:

Over a barrel: lack of sugar throws Cuba’s rum industry into crisis (TheGuardian, May 30, 2025)
This year’s tiny harvest casts doubt on the spirit’s recent resurgence, once a bright spot in the island’s economy
(...)
“I think the fourth quarter will be particularly tough,” said the executive. “There won’t be any alcohol.”

And they will retell it with glee as proof positive of the shortcomings of socialism because they are just as invested in this narrative as Marco Rubio and Donald Trump.

 

[dann]

Because the poor may have to decide between a vaccine and food. Because if someone who is poor get shingles, they may end up going to the ER to get treatment, which would be much more expensive than the vaccine.

Yes, but that doesn't outweigh the importance of preventing the working poor from getting anything for free!!!
That would be political correctness gone .

 

[AmyStrange]

Interesting lie! I've heard it before, but I didn't look it up until now:

Why do you think the lie is so popular? What made you post it without bothering to fact-checking it?

I wonder if even though there was prohibition, that there weren't "speakeasies" everywhere in Russia like there was in the US.

Do you really think Russians just stopped drinking?

Anyway, I'd describe them as "shops" too.

 

[Flo]

Interesting lie! I've heard it before, but I didn't look it up until now:

Why do you think the lie is so popular? What made you post it without bothering to fact-checking it?

You may have noticed the smiley … meaning I am taking it with a grain of salt.

However, I heard it first in the 60s from USSR consulate employees and diplomats in Switzerland, then by visitors to the USSR, and it was confirmed to me more recently by Russian visitors (physicians complaining of the serious problem or alcoholism in Russia), as well as Swiss cooperators in the oil industry, people I have no reason to doubt …

And as Amystrange says, there is no guarantee the official anti alcohol campaigns reached their objectives.

Even countries where possession, sale and use of alcohol is passible of a death sentence (Iran or Saudi Arabia for example) do have alcoholism problems, so …

 

[dann]

I wonder if even though there was prohibition, that there weren't "speakeasies" everywhere in Russia like there was in the US.
Do you really think Russians just stopped drinking?
Anyway, I'd describe them as "shops" too.

I never wrote or implied that Russians in the USSR stopped drinking, and I link to a Wikipedia article saying this:

Ironically, the primary challenges in obtaining alcohol were not faced by alcoholics but by ordinary citizens.
The results of the anti-alcohol campaign were similar to those seen in all societies where prohibition laws were enforced: the emergence of an illegal market, organized crime, counterfeit products, and the proliferation of dangerous substitutes. Some individuals even turned to narcotics. Moreover, the alcohol consumption model that had previously centered around wine and beer was disrupted.
The consequences of these changes were visible in economic and social data. Between 1985 and 1987, sugar sales rose by 18%, or 1.4 million tons, due to the increased demand for homemade alcohol. Additionally, there was an influx of ersatz goods, including windshield cleaner and laboratory-grade alcohol used for cleaning instruments, leading to cases of alcohol poisoning and even deaths.
In rural areas, home-distilled spirits (samogon) became widespread, with about 23% of the population engaging in its production.

 

[dann]

You may have noticed the smiley … meaning I am taking it with a grain of salt.
However, I heard it first in the 60s from USSR consulate employees and diplomats in Switzerland, then by visitors to the USSR, and it was confirmed to me more recently by Russian visitors (physicians complaining of the serious problem or alcoholism in Russia), as well as Swiss cooperators in the oil industry, people I have no reason to doubt …
And as Amystrange says, there is no guarantee the official anti alcohol campaigns reached their objectives.
Even countries where possession, sale and use of alcohol is passible of a death sentence (Iran or Saudi Arabia for example) do have alcoholism problems, so …

I linked to an article saying explicitly that the official anti-alcohol campaigns didn't reach their objectives.
Did I ever say or imply that they did? What is your point?

Your original point was this:

And this is why the one thing that didn't ever lack in shops aisles even at the darkest times or the Soviet Union was vodka …

My reference to the Wikipedia article showed that it wasn't true that shop aisles in the Soviet Union never lacked vodka. Now, you refer to stuff that you allegedly heard in the 1960s: that alcoholism was a problem! I never said that it wasn't. Why do you think that they had a prohibition, i.e. removed alcohol from shops, if not because alcoholism was a problem?
This discussion is absurd!

 

[Flo]

I linked to an article saying explicitly that the official anti-alcohol campaigns didn't reach their objectives.
Did I ever say or imply that they did? What is your point?

Your original point was this:

My reference to the Wikipedia article showed that it wasn't true that shop aisles in the Soviet Union never lacked vodka. Now, you refer to stuff that you allegedly heard in the 1960s: that alcoholism was a problem! I never said that it wasn't. Why do you think that they had a prohibition, i.e. removed alcohol from shops, if not because alcoholism was a problem?
This discussion is absurd!

No, I refer to people telling us that vodka was always available even when the rest wasn't, and of course that it lead to a problem with alcoholism.

(English is not my first language, I suppose I'm not very clear at times)

 

[AmyStrange]

My reference to the Wikipedia article showed that it wasn't true that shop aisles in the Soviet Union never lacked vodka. Now, you refer to stuff that you allegedly heard in the 1960s: that alcoholism was a problem! I never said that it wasn't. Why do you think that they had a prohibition, i.e. removed alcohol from shops, if not because alcoholism was a problem?
This discussion is absurd!

Ummm... maybe you should read that again. Your use of the double negative makes your statement the same as Flo's.

 

[Tero]

 

[TragicMonkey]

ILies like the one about vodka in the USSR existed before the internet, but they were usually spread the MSM or by word of mouth, which didn't make them less prolific.

My favorite of the Cold War era urban legends about the USSR's alcohol was that they couldn't afford to manufacture the more expensive screw-tops for vodka bottles, just beer bottle style caps, so every time a Russian opened a bottle they felt they had to finish the whole thing. I'm pretty sure nobody actually believed that, but it was funny so it spread.

 

[dann]

No, I refer to people telling us that vodka was always available even when the rest wasn't, and of course that it lead to a problem with alcoholism.

(English is not my first language, I suppose I'm not very clear at times)

English isn't my first language, but I don't think language is your problem.
Your claim that vodka "didn't ever lack in shops aisles" was wrong, plain and simple, and it was never your point, apparently.
Your point, as you state it now, is "that vodka was always available even when the rest wasn't." It doesn't make it any more true than the first time:
1) Vodka wasn't always available.
2) The second half of it is your actual point: that "the rest wasn't," i.e. that the USSR made sure that people could get drunk in order to forget the troubles caused by the regime (that's the word that one is always supposed to use, right?!). As it turns out, the USSR actually tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent alcoholism - with both prohibitions and anti-alcohol campaigns. You overlook this because it ruins your narrative, the one about a regime intent on getting people drunk.

In other words, it's the good old anti-Socialist propaganda disguised as irony because you think that my objection to lies about the USSR (or the GDR) implies that I must have been a fan. I never was. To counter what you imagine is my point of view, you come up with another lie.

Ummm... maybe you should read that again. Your use of the double negative makes your statement the same as Flo's.

No, my statement is not the same as Fio's. Maybe you should read it again!
The article shows that shop aisles in the USSR did indeed lack alcohol - prohibitions require the lack of alcohol in shops - which means that "it wasn't true that shop aisles in the Soviet Union never lacked vodka."Fio claimed that vodka "didn't ever lack in shops aisles," i.e. that it was always there, but It wasn't.

You should both begin to respond to stuff that people actually write instead of to the stuff you imagine they write.
It seems to be incomprehensible to you that some people object to lies even when those lies are meant to criticize things that they aren't personally invested in or even things that they object to.

By the way, for what it's worth, I have watched anti-alcohol (as well as anti-tobacco) campaigns on Cuban TV. Nevertheless, I have heard the same criticism directed at Cuba: that rum is always available even when 'the rest' isn't. It's the kind of stuff I usually hear from the people who also claim that the U.S. blockade has nothing whatsoever to do with Cuba's problems.

 

[dann]

My favorite of the Cold War era urban legends about the USSR's alcohol was that they couldn't afford to manufacture the more expensive screw-tops for vodka bottles, just beer bottle style caps, so every time a Russian opened a bottle they felt they had to finish the whole thing. I'm pretty sure nobody actually believed that, but it was funny so it spread.

Well, you wouldn't want the vodka to go bad, would you?!

 

[AmyStrange]

No, my statement is not the same as Fio's. Maybe you should read it again!
The article shows that shop aisles in the USSR did indeed lack alcohol - prohibitions require the lack of alcohol in shops - which means that "it wasn't true that shop aisles in the Soviet Union never lacked vodka."Fio claimed that vodka "didn't ever lack in shops aisles," i.e. that it was always there, but It wasn't.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "shop" is. Mine is anywhere where you can buy alcohol, illegal or not.

Where we disagree is that you think NOBODY sold alcohol during any prohibition anywhere, because I'll NEVER believe that. If your intent was different than I apologize.

BTW, do you even know what a double negative is?

Anyway, I hate arguing semantics, so I'm done here.

 

[Flo]

In other words, it's the good old anti-Socialist propaganda disguised as irony because you think that my objection to lies about the USSR (or the GDR) implies that I must have been a fan. I never was. To counter what you imagine is my point of view, you come up with another lie.

………

You should both begin to respond to stuff that people actually write instead of to the stuff you imagine they write.

I'm returning the compliment. Whatever I (feebly) joked about based on what I heard from Russians that I met during my life has absolutely nothing whatever to do with your opinion about the USSR, of which I had no idea at all and couldn't care less about …

 

[dann]

It seems to be incomprehensible to you that some people object to lies even when those lies are meant to criticize things that they aren't personally invested in or even things that they object to.

It reminds me of that time when Robert Bartholomew was criticized because he had written about the Iranian schoolgirls who thought they were the victims of an attack with poison gas. I seriously doubt that Bartholomew is an Islamist extremist, but he was nevertheless accused of siding with the enemy because he dared to say that the girls probably hadn't been poisoned by the Iranian government - or by anybody else.
After all, that particular government is our enemy, isn't it, so people shouldn't go around claiming that there are atrocities that it didn't commit, should they?

 

[dann]

I guess that depends on what your definition of "shop" is. Mine is anywhere where you can buy alcohol, illegal or not.
Where we disagree is that you think NOBODY sold alcohol during any prohibition anywhere, because I'll NEVER believe that. If your intent was different than I apologize.
BTW, do you even know what a double negative is?
Anyway, I hate arguing semantics, so I'm done here.

That wasn't the point of Fio's claim. And since you allegedly hate arguing semantics, I don't really see the point of making a big song and dance about the definition of a what a "shop" is.
I never claimed that "NOBODY sold alcohol during any prohibition anywhere," but feel free to pretend that I did.
And feel free to pretend that I used a double negative incorrectly.
I've explained what it meant and how my statement was not the same as Fio's. Maybe you should read it again.

 

[AmyStrange]

That wasn't the point of Fio's claim. And since you allegedly hate arguing semantics, I don't really see the point of making a big song and dance about the definition of a what a "shop" is.
I never claimed that "NOBODY sold alcohol during any prohibition anywhere," but feel free to pretend that I did.
And feel free to pretend that I used a double negative incorrectly.
I've explained what it meant and how my statement was not the same as Fio's. Maybe you should read it again.

Fine, I'll be the bigger person and apologize for what you think is my misinterpretation.

I was just agreeing with Flo that there were "shops" selling alcohol during the Russian prohibition.

If you want to continue arguing, go for it. I'm done.

 

[dudalb]

The problem is there are really only 3 alternatives to the present system of private ownership.

1) No one owns land. I go home tonight and find someone starting construction on a gas station in my front yard.
2) Might is right. I go home tonight and someone murders me for my house.
3) Marxism. The government owns all property and decides who lives where and what can be done with the property.

THIS.
This is the problem I have with a lot of "Anti Capitalists" you ask them what they would replace a market based econcomy with and you don't get a good answer; usually a lot of glittering generalites.
Also there are vareity of capitialism; too often the Anti Capitialist seem to think that only Lasseiz Faire caitalism exists.

 

[dudalb]

Man. has this thread suffered a major derailment from what it is supposded to be about.

 

[AmyStrange]

THIS.
This is the problem I have with a lot of "Anti Capitalists" you ask them what they would replace a market based econcomy with and you don't get a good answer; usually a lot of glittering generalites.
Also there are vareity of capitialism; too often the Anti Capitialist seem to think that only Lasseiz Faire caitalism exists.

I agree, but I don't think corporations should be considered people or be allowed to donate to political candidates, but as always, that's just my damn opinion.

Your damn mileage me vary of course.