“This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here,” U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick says.
The USSR didn’t have any limits to choosing an employment
You were distributed to a place by the state after finishing your education. If you left that place too soon, you’d be frowned upon and that’d be mirrored in your labor book (USSR had such a document, basically a dossier documenting your whole history of employment with characteristics, you could get such a “flattering” characteristic by a superior not liking you that you’d never be accepted to a good place after, and you couldn’t refuse or lose a record in your labor book).
and people weren’t forced to work anywhere.
Being unemployed for too long was literally, seriously, illegal in the USSR. Google for “тунеядство”.
People with something really bad in their labor books (say, dissidents) or some other necessary documents (being German after the war, being Jewish in a wrong period of time) had problems finding a place that would accept them, and would sometimes be prosecuted for being unemployed (that was usually informal employment, because you still had to eat something).
But in general yes, some kind of employment was always possible. Dying from hunger or being homeless was almost ruled out. Most of the population lived in some sort of “acceptable poverty” - conditions very bad by US measure, but with the previous correction. That’s sort of one good thing that most people from ex-USSR agree on.
You were distributed to a place by the state after finishing your education
Only really true for higher education. It was seen as a sort of “social payment” in exchange for the free education. Better than tuition loans IMO.
labor book (USSR had such a document)
Uhhh… Do you think that doesn’t exist in the west right now? What do you think the SCHUFA does in Germany? Do you seriously think high tech companies don’t have a gray-legal-area history of your employment? At least back then it was a thing you could check…
you could get such a “flattering” characteristic by a superior not liking you
…as opposed to capitalism, where you’ll be left unemployed and without a wage if your boss doesn’t like you. What do you prefer?
Being unemployed for too long was literally, seriously, illegal in the USSR
Housewives existed, what are you talking about?
The only way to obtain an income in the Soviet Union was throughout work or throughout a pension (think widows, disabled, or retired people). This was by design, and it’s in my opinion a moral good. You don’t have any capitalist owner exploiting the profits generated by their workers. You have a system in which everyone contributes to the society. How is that not positive?
German after the war, being Jewish in a wrong period of time) had problems finding a place that would accept them
Colour me surprised: there were racist people in the mid-20th century?! I’m sure that’s exclusive to the Soviet Union!
conditions very bad by US measure
Tell that to the millions of unemployed and homeless in the USA.
The average material conditions in the Soviet Union, a country that begun to industrialize in 1929, were worse than in the USA, the literal core of world colonialism and imperialism which relies on exploited labour all over the global south, which industrialised in the 19th century. Hmmm, I wonder why that was…
Only really true for higher education. It was seen as a sort of “social payment” in exchange for the free education. Better than tuition loans IMO.
Ah, yes, USSR had plenty of “social payments”, it was considered that the reason wages are not so big is that you’ve been given the rest in the form of education, healthcare, everything else. People who were allowed to leave USSR in the 70s had to pay a sum approximating like a year of wages, to “compensate” the state for their education.
Uhhh… Do you think that doesn’t exist in the west right now? What do you think the SCHUFA does in Germany? Do you seriously think high tech companies don’t have a gray-legal-area history of your employment? At least back then it was a thing you could check…
It was worse, an employer could “lose” your labor book, then you were fucked a lot. These things are kinda the opposites of each other, in the USSR the power of that document was the problem I meant. It was like losing an ID. Modern problems where everyone has the information about you, augmented by interpretations and perspectives of various jerks, are different.
…as opposed to capitalism, where you’ll be left unemployed and without a wage if your boss doesn’t like you. What do you prefer?
Such a characteristic would possibly make it very hard to find a new job. In USSR, yes. And not having a job was illegal.
Housewives existed, what are you talking about?
If you mean staying at home all day and not having a job, no they didn’t. Anyway, most Soviet citizens didn’t make enough money for one of the two to not have a job.
If you mean that USSR had kinda backwards views of gender roles, so a woman would not just work all day, but also get back and then do laundry, cooking, cleaning and all that stuff, - then oh yes. That’s what you see in Soviet movies, not housewives in the western sense.
The only way to obtain an income in the Soviet Union was throughout work or throughout a pension (think widows, disabled, or retired people). This was by design, and it’s in my opinion a moral good.
Living off a farm where you alone work would be illegal, for example. Or selling things of some craft.
People on those pensions needed support from their friends and neighbors. They were bad even by Soviet measure.
Colour me surprised: there were racist people in the mid-20th century?! I’m sure that’s exclusive to the Soviet Union!
The particular economic system in which they couldn’t avoid being unemployed or barely employed due to that was.
Tell that to the millions of unemployed and homeless in the USA.
I agree that the lowest of the low was higher in the USSR than in the USA, maybe notably. But the average and the median were much lower.
We are also not talking modern USA, we are talking, suppose, 80s’ USA.
The average material conditions in the Soviet Union, a country that begun to industrialize in 1929, were worse than in the USA, the literal core of world colonialism and imperialism which relies on exploited labour all over the global south, which industrialised in the 19th century. Hmmm, I wonder why that was…
The signum is not surprising, I mean that the scalar is much bigger than you think.
A young family having their own place, even if that’s one room, was not a thing. They’d live with the husband’s parents. Sometimes with the wife’s parents. Maybe with some aunts and uncles. Crammed like sardines. In those modular Khruschev-era houses (and that’s almost the optimal kind, say, I live in a flat in a Stalin-era brick house with high ceilings, that wasn’t common in any way, my grand-grandpa was a civilian railways analog of a general ; some people still lived in communal flats even in the 90s, that’d be one room per family, with common kitchen and bathroom), hearing and smelling all of your neighbors talking, sleeping, fucking, cooking and so on, with leaking walls, cockroaches etc.
There are things you don’t even think about and take them for granted. In USSR you couldn’t buy anything. There were a few basic kinds of goods that could be bought anytime. The rest would happen to be in stores occasionally. On those occasions there’d be enormous queues, people would stand in queues more than half of their time not at work, excluding sleep. People would take days off to stand in queues. To get things you can just buy if you have money. Like - some fruits. Or - some t-shirts. Mundane things.
That free healthcare was also not what you think healthcare to be, being a westerner. Dentists would work without anesthesia, a lot of surgeries would be done without it too or with very basic anesthesia. Doctors would have all kinds of medieval bullshit ideas, so people would be afraid to go to a doctor the normal way, they’d use acquaintances and connections and favors and barters to find a good doctor. Getting various nasty infections in medical institutions was normal.
How do I explain it to you - for a person 60-70 years old now, grown in USSR in a “normal” situation, foreigners, and especially westerners, are some kind of magical creatures from heaven. What you call bad and horrible is, for such a person, much less hopeless than their life when they were 20.
90% of your comment boils down to “there were better material conditions in a 200-year-old industrial power that leveraged its political, economic and military power to exploit billions of people from the global south and extract their wealth, than in a 50-years-ago-industrialised self-sufficient country without exploitation of the global south”.
Yes, it is hard to buy certain things when your economy doesn’t rely on exploiting 5 south american / African / southeast Asian workers for every person in your country. What do you prefer for the world as a whole? Do you not understand, or do you not care about the billions exploited outside the US in this equation?
Why are you arguing about USSR not knowing anything of it?
90% of your comment boils down
No, it doesn’t, that’s what I’m trying to explain you, these things were not because of some economic power disadvantage or even connected to it. It’s not about economic power.
You really don’t understand that the same goods would be available aplenty where they were produced or imported. It was because of Soviet logistics and planning not being functional, do you understand that? What private businesses do in your country, only the state could legally do in USSR, a private citizen trying to do that would be put into fucking jail if caught. And the state couldn’t manage the complexity of planning. The state also didn’t have good feedback for planning due to corruption, gaming metrics, all the things that happen when people providing feedback are the same whose performance is being measured. You don’t have to trust me on that, there are lectures and interviews by people who worked in Gosplan, one can find them in the Internet.
An example - red caviar was rare luxury in most of USSR, but in the areas where it was produced nobody would be able to eat it anymore, so fucking full of it they were. Same with kinds of Soviet beer that nobody far from the brewery’s location remembers actually seeing sold. That example can be repeated for almost any kind of goods.
And about exploitation of global south - LOL, yeah, USSR exploited itself. The thin layer of party official families and foreign communists (Soviet elite had that inferiority complex, so any foreigner in USSR enjoyed special conditions) and komsomol leaders was similar to European settlers in some African country, the rest were like aboriginal population.
these things were not because of some economic power disadvantage or even connected to it
Ok, the conversation is over then, you’re just denying political and economical concepts such as colonialism or industrial development. Can’t have a serious conversation with someone who denies reality.
The Soviet Union lifted 300 million people from feudal poverty and a life expectancy of 30 years, to the second most powerful industrial power on earth, without exploiting the global south in the process. It had GDP growth rates of 10% for decades, and even when growth slowed down the material conditions of people kept improving at a faster pace than the material growth of the country.
Please try to educate yourself on imperialism and colonialism if you give the slightest shit about the billions of exploited of the world.
You were distributed to a place by the state after finishing your education. If you left that place too soon, you’d be frowned upon and that’d be mirrored in your labor book (USSR had such a document, basically a dossier documenting your whole history of employment with characteristics, you could get such a “flattering” characteristic by a superior not liking you that you’d never be accepted to a good place after, and you couldn’t refuse or lose a record in your labor book).
Being unemployed for too long was literally, seriously, illegal in the USSR. Google for “тунеядство”.
People with something really bad in their labor books (say, dissidents) or some other necessary documents (being German after the war, being Jewish in a wrong period of time) had problems finding a place that would accept them, and would sometimes be prosecuted for being unemployed (that was usually informal employment, because you still had to eat something).
But in general yes, some kind of employment was always possible. Dying from hunger or being homeless was almost ruled out. Most of the population lived in some sort of “acceptable poverty” - conditions very bad by US measure, but with the previous correction. That’s sort of one good thing that most people from ex-USSR agree on.
Sorry to reply late.
Only really true for higher education. It was seen as a sort of “social payment” in exchange for the free education. Better than tuition loans IMO.
Uhhh… Do you think that doesn’t exist in the west right now? What do you think the SCHUFA does in Germany? Do you seriously think high tech companies don’t have a gray-legal-area history of your employment? At least back then it was a thing you could check…
…as opposed to capitalism, where you’ll be left unemployed and without a wage if your boss doesn’t like you. What do you prefer?
Housewives existed, what are you talking about?
The only way to obtain an income in the Soviet Union was throughout work or throughout a pension (think widows, disabled, or retired people). This was by design, and it’s in my opinion a moral good. You don’t have any capitalist owner exploiting the profits generated by their workers. You have a system in which everyone contributes to the society. How is that not positive?
Colour me surprised: there were racist people in the mid-20th century?! I’m sure that’s exclusive to the Soviet Union!
Tell that to the millions of unemployed and homeless in the USA.
The average material conditions in the Soviet Union, a country that begun to industrialize in 1929, were worse than in the USA, the literal core of world colonialism and imperialism which relies on exploited labour all over the global south, which industrialised in the 19th century. Hmmm, I wonder why that was…
Ah, yes, USSR had plenty of “social payments”, it was considered that the reason wages are not so big is that you’ve been given the rest in the form of education, healthcare, everything else. People who were allowed to leave USSR in the 70s had to pay a sum approximating like a year of wages, to “compensate” the state for their education.
It was worse, an employer could “lose” your labor book, then you were fucked a lot. These things are kinda the opposites of each other, in the USSR the power of that document was the problem I meant. It was like losing an ID. Modern problems where everyone has the information about you, augmented by interpretations and perspectives of various jerks, are different.
Such a characteristic would possibly make it very hard to find a new job. In USSR, yes. And not having a job was illegal.
If you mean staying at home all day and not having a job, no they didn’t. Anyway, most Soviet citizens didn’t make enough money for one of the two to not have a job.
If you mean that USSR had kinda backwards views of gender roles, so a woman would not just work all day, but also get back and then do laundry, cooking, cleaning and all that stuff, - then oh yes. That’s what you see in Soviet movies, not housewives in the western sense.
Living off a farm where you alone work would be illegal, for example. Or selling things of some craft.
People on those pensions needed support from their friends and neighbors. They were bad even by Soviet measure.
The particular economic system in which they couldn’t avoid being unemployed or barely employed due to that was.
I agree that the lowest of the low was higher in the USSR than in the USA, maybe notably. But the average and the median were much lower.
We are also not talking modern USA, we are talking, suppose, 80s’ USA.
The signum is not surprising, I mean that the scalar is much bigger than you think.
A young family having their own place, even if that’s one room, was not a thing. They’d live with the husband’s parents. Sometimes with the wife’s parents. Maybe with some aunts and uncles. Crammed like sardines. In those modular Khruschev-era houses (and that’s almost the optimal kind, say, I live in a flat in a Stalin-era brick house with high ceilings, that wasn’t common in any way, my grand-grandpa was a civilian railways analog of a general ; some people still lived in communal flats even in the 90s, that’d be one room per family, with common kitchen and bathroom), hearing and smelling all of your neighbors talking, sleeping, fucking, cooking and so on, with leaking walls, cockroaches etc.
There are things you don’t even think about and take them for granted. In USSR you couldn’t buy anything. There were a few basic kinds of goods that could be bought anytime. The rest would happen to be in stores occasionally. On those occasions there’d be enormous queues, people would stand in queues more than half of their time not at work, excluding sleep. People would take days off to stand in queues. To get things you can just buy if you have money. Like - some fruits. Or - some t-shirts. Mundane things.
That free healthcare was also not what you think healthcare to be, being a westerner. Dentists would work without anesthesia, a lot of surgeries would be done without it too or with very basic anesthesia. Doctors would have all kinds of medieval bullshit ideas, so people would be afraid to go to a doctor the normal way, they’d use acquaintances and connections and favors and barters to find a good doctor. Getting various nasty infections in medical institutions was normal.
How do I explain it to you - for a person 60-70 years old now, grown in USSR in a “normal” situation, foreigners, and especially westerners, are some kind of magical creatures from heaven. What you call bad and horrible is, for such a person, much less hopeless than their life when they were 20.
90% of your comment boils down to “there were better material conditions in a 200-year-old industrial power that leveraged its political, economic and military power to exploit billions of people from the global south and extract their wealth, than in a 50-years-ago-industrialised self-sufficient country without exploitation of the global south”.
Yes, it is hard to buy certain things when your economy doesn’t rely on exploiting 5 south american / African / southeast Asian workers for every person in your country. What do you prefer for the world as a whole? Do you not understand, or do you not care about the billions exploited outside the US in this equation?
Why are you arguing about USSR not knowing anything of it?
No, it doesn’t, that’s what I’m trying to explain you, these things were not because of some economic power disadvantage or even connected to it. It’s not about economic power.
You really don’t understand that the same goods would be available aplenty where they were produced or imported. It was because of Soviet logistics and planning not being functional, do you understand that? What private businesses do in your country, only the state could legally do in USSR, a private citizen trying to do that would be put into fucking jail if caught. And the state couldn’t manage the complexity of planning. The state also didn’t have good feedback for planning due to corruption, gaming metrics, all the things that happen when people providing feedback are the same whose performance is being measured. You don’t have to trust me on that, there are lectures and interviews by people who worked in Gosplan, one can find them in the Internet.
An example - red caviar was rare luxury in most of USSR, but in the areas where it was produced nobody would be able to eat it anymore, so fucking full of it they were. Same with kinds of Soviet beer that nobody far from the brewery’s location remembers actually seeing sold. That example can be repeated for almost any kind of goods.
And about exploitation of global south - LOL, yeah, USSR exploited itself. The thin layer of party official families and foreign communists (Soviet elite had that inferiority complex, so any foreigner in USSR enjoyed special conditions) and komsomol leaders was similar to European settlers in some African country, the rest were like aboriginal population.
Ok, the conversation is over then, you’re just denying political and economical concepts such as colonialism or industrial development. Can’t have a serious conversation with someone who denies reality.
The Soviet Union lifted 300 million people from feudal poverty and a life expectancy of 30 years, to the second most powerful industrial power on earth, without exploiting the global south in the process. It had GDP growth rates of 10% for decades, and even when growth slowed down the material conditions of people kept improving at a faster pace than the material growth of the country.
Please try to educate yourself on imperialism and colonialism if you give the slightest shit about the billions of exploited of the world.
Your reading comprehension skill means you can’t have a serious conversation period.
I won’t try a third time.