> Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally.
Not really. Socialism (the project of the labor movement) is concerned with workers being in control of their own work, not vessels for capitalist exploitation. Syndicalism is a form of socialism that emphasizes decentralization and federation, as opposed to command control. How resources are allocated under conditions of such federated governance is up for debate.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Socialism is older than Marxism and shouldn't be conflated with it.
> Where are all the creative products the Soviets made?
The USSR was a state capitalist/authoritarian regime, nothing like socialism.
The Soviet Union was notoriously poor at prioritizing consumer goods, it’s probably one of the reasons for their downfall. One must admit though that both thym and the PRC have achieved something in uplifting backwards feudal empires towards something resembling modernity. I’m not sure that could’ve been achievable counterfactually, and as we saw with the sudden free market capture of post-Soviet Russia in the ‘90s, with a much smaller body count.
Anyway, you asked for Soviet creative products and I’ve named one. For what it’s worth, I’ve also heard good things about Soviet watches, I had a coworker who collected them and they’ve been discussed before on HN.
> Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally.
Not really. Socialism (the project of the labor movement) is concerned with workers being in control of their own work, not vessels for capitalist exploitation. Syndicalism is a form of socialism that emphasizes decentralization and federation, as opposed to command control. How resources are allocated under conditions of such federated governance is up for debate.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Socialism is older than Marxism and shouldn't be conflated with it.
> Where are all the creative products the Soviets made?
The USSR was a state capitalist/authoritarian regime, nothing like socialism.
> nothing like socialism
That happens every time. Socialism gets implemented with high hopes, falls flat on its face, and gets declared to be not really socialism at all.
How many times does it need to fail before one realizes it is never going to work?
If you read the literature around the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin's coup was highly criticized as un-socialist: Luxemburg, Goldman, etc.
Simple litmus test for socialism: do workers manage production completely, through direct democratic processes?
4 replies →
> Where are all the creative products the Soviets made?
Didn't they make Sputnik
Yes, they did. Anything else? Is your car a Soviet made car? How about your clothes? Computers? Furniture? Books? Anything in your dwelling?
Back in the heyday(!) of the USSR, tourists would routinely fill their luggage with blue jeans to sell on the black market there.
The Soviet Union was notoriously poor at prioritizing consumer goods, it’s probably one of the reasons for their downfall. One must admit though that both thym and the PRC have achieved something in uplifting backwards feudal empires towards something resembling modernity. I’m not sure that could’ve been achievable counterfactually, and as we saw with the sudden free market capture of post-Soviet Russia in the ‘90s, with a much smaller body count.
Anyway, you asked for Soviet creative products and I’ve named one. For what it’s worth, I’ve also heard good things about Soviet watches, I had a coworker who collected them and they’ve been discussed before on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27164417
2 replies →
> Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally.
This doesn't reflect the most well-known socialist axiom on the distribution of production...
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
...which you appear to be aware of. The entire point of idealizing "to each according to his need" is that different people have different needs.