Could the USSR win the war against alcohol?

[alexmilman]

Gorbachev was already winning it in 1989. The issue with his anti-alcohol campaign was that it coincided with a lot of other stuff happening in the Soviet Union and USSR collapse torpedoed it before permanent results could be achieved. Deregulation of the economy and relaxation of limits on private business of course sabotaged Gorbachev's effort in that direction quite seriously, but campaign was still giving out noticeable effect in a just few years.

Gorbachev was not “winning” at all. His campaign was quite absurd because it included cutting down production of the quality wines and as far as vodka was involved, it’s shortage was countered with the skyrocketing moon shining. Technical spirit also was all over the place and so were less healthy sources (extracting spirit out of glue required just a drill). Actually, the process started much earlier, during the last years of Breznev’s rule, when shortages of vodka started even in Moscow.

The same kind of campaign but performed in 70s would be successful especially with somewhat better planning and less sweeping symbolic gestures like outright destruction of wineries.

The same campaign would not be successful at any time. One that the Bolsheviks picked up from, out of all people, Nicholas II also was not working due to the moon shining. If anything, the Bolshevik leadership never applied it to themselves and it kept tricking down the social ladder.

 

[schai]

I suspect the drinking habit starting at top. If leadership had stopped using alcohol at state banquets, dinners and meetings. This would have some impacts on this social norm.

Soviet government had to set the record straight - nobody would get promoted if you drink or store alcohol at work regardless you are drunk or not. This would not prevent the consumption of alcohol privately, but it would discourage to a certain extend.

Without alcohol, you will have to give people something else to pass the time as substitute.

 

[Changundramon]

A method I could see the Soviet state trying: poison vodka with chemicals that have nasty effects. So that people learn to associate vodka with bad things.

 

[stevej713]

A method I could see the Soviet state trying: poison vodka with chemicals that have nasty effects. So that people learn to associate vodka with bad things.

Maybe infuse it with laxatives? 🤣

 

[gatordad699]

Just my opinion. Lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for several years. There are not just bars on each corner, there are ones in between each corner. In places with long, cold winters, there is not much else to do. This list is all cold weather cities.

Drunkest Cities in America 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Can’t believe that there is much to do in large parts of Russia during winter.

 

[Twin City Lines]

A method I could see the Soviet state trying: poison vodka with chemicals that have nasty effects. So that people learn to associate vodka with bad things.

A little extreme, but the idea of severe penalties for being drunk can change the culture.

The USSR had "sobering-up stations" where they would put people who were found drunk in public, but they would be let go as soon as they were sober again. These were apparently similar to "detox" facilities in several US states, except you're usually held longer in an American detox (in Minnesota, 72 hours, not counting weekends or holidays). This is a strong incentive to not do anything to get yourself put in detox! In other US states, being drunk in public is an actual criminal offense and you get put in jail for it, which is an even bigger incentive to behave. (Usually the cops won't bother with you in practice unless you're bothering people, passed out, or so drunk you're an obvious danger to yourself or others.)

Maybe if the USSR had more severe sanctions for public drunkenness this would cut down on irresponsible drinking. If they really want to go all draconian, perhaps 90 days in the gulag for the first offense, 1 year for the second, 5 years for the third, and nine grams* for the fourth....

*"Nine grams" was Soviet jargon for the death penalty, as it was the weight of the bullet used.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

1) Adopt a policy of replacing one addiction with another.

Use US lend lease as an opportunity to get the entire Soviet Union addicted to smoking by making it apart of military and civilian rations. By 1960, have 70+% of the adult population smoking.

2) Give Russian grain farmers a reason to not to turn their harvest into alcohol.

Have the Soviet Union create a reward system that gives additional compensation of some sort to farmers for every above quota extra ton of grain shipped to a bakery/bread factory.

 

[alexmilman]

A method I could see the Soviet state trying: poison vodka with chemicals that have nasty effects. So that people learn to associate vodka with bad things.

This is a good joke but can’t be taken seriously. First, this would be a lot of moon shining (as during Gorby’s idiocy). Second, who is going to do all that poisoning? The people working in liquor production would be making good money by stealing and selling the good stuff (which they were doing anyway). Third, information that the government is intentionally poisoning the people will most probably produce undesirable consequences across the board with army, KGB and militia being included in the list of those violently unhappy.
Anyway, nobody was going to propose anything of the kind because consequences would be obvious. BTW, even Gorby was not stupid enough to try introducing a Prohibition.

 

[alexmilman]

1) Adopt a policy of replacing one addiction with another.

Use US lend lease as an opportunity to get the entire Soviet Union addicted to smoking by making it apart of military and civilian rations. By 1960, have 70+% of the adult population smoking.

Smoking was very popular without any governmental programs but it did not interfere with drinking.

2) Give Russian grain farmers a reason to not to turn their harvest into alcohol.

If you are talking about the Soviet peasants, you are confused on at least two accounts:
1. Government was confiscating …oops.. “buying” all produced grain but the collective farms were not paid in cash.
2. Moon shining had been done based upon various products of which grain was not the most available or popular. The beets were at least in the same “weight” category.

As a side note, who told you that moon shining had been happening only in the rural areas (about which nobody really cared)? It was endemic in the cities and, understandably, not grain-based. Tomato paste was available with a very simple technology and there were numerous other sources.

Have the Soviet Union create a reward system that gives additional compensation of some sort to farmers for every above quota extra ton of grain shipped to a bakery/bread factory.

No offense but are you aware of how the Soviet agriculture worked? To start with, there were no “farmers” as the individual producers, the collective farms had been producing what they are being told by the government (and lucky to produce a required volume) and the grain was not going directly to the bakeries: it was shipped into the special warehouses.

 

[alexmilman]

A little extreme, but the idea of severe penalties for being drunk can change the culture.

The USSR had "sobering-up stations" where they would put people who were found drunk in public, but they would be let go as soon as they were sober again. These were apparently similar to "detox" facilities in several US states, except you're usually held longer in an American detox (in Minnesota, 72 hours, not counting weekends or holidays). This is a strong incentive to not do anything to get yourself put in detox!

In Minnesota, perhaps. But in the SU this was a popular subject for the jokes and, anyway, to end up in “вытрезвитель” you have to either lay unconscious on the street or to get very aggressive in a public space (in neither case the end result would be guaranteed with a probability above 50%). As an incentive this was of no value.

In other US states, being drunk in public is an actual criminal offense and you get put in jail for it, which is an even bigger incentive to behave. (Usually the cops won't bother with you in practice unless you're bothering people, passed out, or so drunk you're an obvious danger to yourself or others.)

We are not talking about the US and, AFAIK, even in the US Prohibition produced results opposite to the intended. Anyway, no jail time for being drunk in the SU. No even serious repercussions if you got drunk on your work place during Breznev’s time. Definitely not a reason for firing unless there are some aggravating circumstances.

And a moderate drinking at work time simply did not count.

Maybe if the USSR had more severe sanctions for public drunkenness this would cut down on irresponsible drinking. If they really want to go all draconian, perhaps 90 days in the gulag for the first offense, 1 year for the second, 5 years for the third, and nine grams* for the fourth....

How about getting familiar with the subject? GULAG ceased to exist in 1960 and it was not a place to which people had been sent for 90 days. The same goes for post-GULAG penal colonies.

Anyway, during the “draconian” times you could easily get few years in GULAG for stealing an apple from collective farm’s orchard but being drunk in public (at least outside the work p,ace) was not a crime. Definitely not in the army.

*"Nine grams" was Soviet jargon for the death penalty, as it was the weight of the bullet used.

And did the endemic drinking stop during Stalin’s era?

 

[Father Maryland]

Easiest way would be to make a stronger type of intoxicant thats more addictive much much cheaper then even moonshine and make it legal, very widely available ( as in you could stop by any corner shop or public vending machines) and limit any sort of punishments for usage related crimes/ failures ( showing up to work on it for example).

Make say Heroin cheaper then moonshine and available everywhere from vending machines to corner stores and booze consumption would go down.

 

[Twin City Lines]

<snip>



<snip>

And a moderate drinking at work time simply did not count.

Maybe that's one place where Soviet practices should be adopted elsewhere . Except for jobs where danger is involved, allowing moderate drinking at work would make work so much better.

How about getting familiar with the subject? GULAG ceased to exist in 1960 and it was not a place to which people had been sent for 90 days. The same goes for post-GULAG penal colonies.

I understand that the formal name GULAG wasn't used after 1960, but many Americans unofficially refer to all Soviet penal colonies up to the capitalist counter-revolution by that name. I've even heard some refer to modern Russian prisons that way.

The time period of 90 days was just an example anyway. The point was that severe penalties would put a curb on drunkenness, or at least on bad behavior while drunk.

Anyway, during the “draconian” times you could easily get few years in GULAG for stealing an apple from collective farm’s orchard but being drunk in public (at least outside the work p,ace) was not a crime. Definitely not in the army.


And did the endemic drinking stop during Stalin’s era?

Stalin seemed to like his booze too, and he probably thought letting people get drunk would keep them from organizing a counter-revolution or supporting fascism.

 

[Zek Sora]

This is a good joke but can’t be taken seriously.

Actually, the United States government did poison alcohol during Prohibition, so really not as far-out as you might think. If something's already illegal, then it's not a huge step from there logically to shift the chemicals commonly used in its production so they can't be used to produce the same thing.

Of course, it was arguably an incredibly stupid decision which dealt a painful death to thousands for committing what was essentially a misdemeanor, but it's absolutely plausible that it could be made again. In point of fact, something similar was proposed at least once during the War on Drugs.

 

[Changundramon]

Actually, the United States government did poison alcohol during Prohibition, so really not as far-out as you might think. If something's already illegal, then it's not a huge step from there logically to shift the chemicals commonly used in its production so they can't be used to produce the same thing.

Of course, it was arguably an incredibly stupid decision which dealt a painful death to thousands for committing what was essentially a misdemeanor, but it's absolutely plausible that it could be made again. In point of fact, something similar was proposed at least once during the War on Drugs.

Yeah, I had American attempts at spiking alcohol in mind. @stevej713 had a good idea. Laxatives. I could think of something causing erectile dysfunction being useful, too.

 

[alexmilman]

Actually, the United States government did poison alcohol during Prohibition, so really not as far-out as you might think. If something's already illegal, then it's not a huge step from there logically to shift the chemicals commonly used in its production so they can't be used to produce the same thing.

You are talking about industrial alcohol. Some of its types are poisonous by definition (like denatured spirit) and still there were numerous idiots who had been drinking them with the terrible consequences. The people had been even extracting spirit out of glue.

Poisoning all technical and medical spirit in the SU a would be pretty much impossible and the immediate result would going to be even lower productivity. Fundamental mistake in making parallels between the US and SU was that in the US $ was and is a valuable thing with which you can buy things you need while in the SU ruble became pretty much worthless because there was pretty much nothing to buy with it and spirit ended up as a “substitute currency” with which you could get things and obtain services. It also became pretty much the only semi-official stimulus for the workers which administration could use.

Then goes moonshine. While in the US during the Prohibition this tended to be done on industrial scale with the big volume transportation and distribution, aka, something that you can intercept along the road, equipment which you can destroy, etc. In the SU it was a huge net of the small scale producers making it either for their own (and close circle) consumption. And time of a complicated equipment was gone: you needed just usual household stuff and a refrigerator. 😜

Of course, it was arguably an incredibly stupid decision which dealt a painful death to thousands for committing what was essentially a misdemeanor, but it's absolutely plausible that it could be made again. In point of fact, something similar was proposed at least once during the War on Drugs.

See above regarding practicality in the SU and the point remains that Prohibition failed miserably in its intended goal and achieved opposite result, more drunkenness. War on Drugs seemingly going this way as well. Marijuana is already legalized in some states.

 

[alexmilman]

Maybe that's one place where Soviet practices should be adopted elsewhere . Except for jobs where danger is involved, allowing moderate drinking at work would make work so much better.


I understand that the formal name GULAG wasn't used after 1960, but many Americans unofficially refer to all Soviet penal colonies up to the capitalist counter-revolution by that name. I've even heard some refer to modern Russian prisons that way.

The time period of 90 days was just an example anyway. The point was that severe penalties would put a curb on drunkenness, or at least on bad behavior while drunk.


Stalin seemed to like his booze too, and he probably thought letting people get drunk would keep them from organizing a counter-revolution or supporting fascism.

Whatever were the official motivations (state income definitely was one of the arguments), the fact remains that the prohibition never worked in the Russian Empire or the Soviet Russia. People had been producing and buying alcohol and those who were supposed to enforce the law had been a part of the same culture as the rest of the population, aka drinkers.
Of course, nobody was telling people to “get drunk”: it was correctly assumed that most of the population is going to be drink in moderation.
Even in Breznev’s time most of the people were not laying on the streets unconscious and Gorby was, typically, barking on a wrong dog. Loss of a productivity was due to a deep disappointment in the system which failed to deliver the promises regarding a better life and massive drinking was a reaction to that disappointment.

 

[marathag]

No even serious repercussions if you got drunk on your work place during Breznev’s time

Come in drunk? Demerit.
Enough of those, and you get put down the waiting list for a better apartment, color TV or a car.
Get too many, you lose your job.
And somebody without a job in the USSR, that's almost like being a non-person.
Remember, there were no official jobless or homeless people in the USSR

 

[alexmilman]

Come in drunk? Demerit.

And so what? A worker is not going to get fired because there is a shortage of them.

Enough of those, and you get put down the waiting list for a better apartment, color TV or a car.

Do yourself a favor and learn about realities of life in the SU. 😂

Get too many, you lose your job.

Yeah, sure. You are not talking about the “rotten capitalist” society, baby. The industry and “services sphere” suffered from the shortage of workers and funding a new place would be no problem but finding a new worker definitely would.

And somebody without a job in the USSR, that's almost like being a non-person.

See above.

 

[marathag]

See above.

So you agree with the Party line that there were no jobless or homeless people in the USSR?

 

[alexmilman]

So you agree with the Party line that there were no jobless or homeless people in the USSR?

There also, officially, were no prostitutes (some of which had cars, apartments and color TVs), homosexuals and drug addicts which did not prevent them from existing. So what is your point?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with your ideas on fighting alcoholism because, as I explained, firing tens millions of people for drinking on working place was not practical. Period.

Edit. You are seemingly confusing the SU with North Korea: government was not in charge of the goods distribution to the individuals and place of work had (with some exceptions like the military or nomenclature) had little to do with people getting the cars or color TVs or some other “prestigious” items: they had been bought in the corresponding shops but, taking into an account routine shortages of the supplies, one would either have to list in a long line or to find a way to get them “through the back door” and this had nothing to do with person’s sobriety.
Apartments, except for the “cooperatives” which the people had been buying, had been distributed by the state either through the workplace (if this workplace was powerful enough) or through the special offices which were putting people on the line depending upon their situation (mostly based upon square footage per family member). Again, “back door” access was important. As for the workplace-related sector, taking into an account shortage of the blue color workers of all types, quite often a chance to get an apartment was a carrot to get people interested in getting hired. For example, it was a part of a ‘package’ for those coming to the big cities to become construction workers: an additional bonus was a right of ‘propiska’ (right to live) in a big city after predefined period of work.

Was a factory worker afraid of being fired? Not really, unless he was working in a place from which he/she could steal something valuable (liquor plant, for example). If fired, there were plenty “help wanted” and numerous places much more attractive, in the terms of access to the real goods, than industrial plant. For example, loader in a shop or warehouse, plumber or electrician in the district housing authority, etc. So your ideas regarding “non-existing people” are fantasy.