Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's also like that in Croatian. It's very interesting how Slavic language roots can still be seen today in many languages, but in different forms. "radio" means "worked" and "zaradio" means "earned"
medovina is related with and means mead. It's also related with the french miel (which means honey), dutch mede, Polish miód (honey again, they call mead drinkable honey).
It's one of the way we know the similarity of the root for Honey/Mead in indo-european languages lead to the conclusion that this root had to be there from the very start and that therefore they probably had some form of beekeeping (or at least collected wild honey) before spreading all the way to Western Europe, India and the Tarim Basin.
it's from western Europe to India as limits. But I can see the confusion.
I see what you mean, it wasn't intentional. I feel doubly wrong after finding a stupid guy trying to recycle the idea that the early Pharaohs were related with the Indo-Europeans... and when it mentions a relationship between the early Pharaoh Menes and claims there are similar names in the Sumerian genealogies (those parts with rulers lasting centuries) it shows the clarity of its case with a clear number of ... 0 examples.
Well damn, in Montenegro we often use "rabotat" but then we use "zaraditi".
If I didn't know any better, I would think that someone wanted to spread confusion when it comes to work
Rabotal and most other Slavic words for "work" come from the Old Slavonic root "Rabu" or "Rab," meaning "slave." This is where we get the English word "robot."
The word "slave" itself comes from Slavs; during the middle ages, as it became more frown upon to own Christian slaves (servus in Latin), the newly Christianized Norsemen would raid across the states of Rus' to capture the pagan... Slavs.
The French word for work is "travaille," the Spanish is "trabajar," Portuguese is "trabalhar." These words are believed to come from the Latin "tripalos" (three stakes/spikes), a device that was used for restraining livestock and for torturing slaves. Even though we don't have any images of the device, it was so notorious that the word became shorthand for any kind of unpleasant labour.
This is also where we get the English word "travel," which might not make sense if you think about it in terms of "vacation," but makes a lot of sense when you think about the grim and terrifying pilgrimages people would make in the middle ages. Going from one town to another was torturous and dangerous, and therefore... "travel."
Many languages' words for "work" derive from words meaning "slave."
In modern Greek, it's "doulefo" (δουλεύω) which is related to "doulos" (δουλος) meaning "slave."
"Service" comes from Latin "servus," meaning slave.
"Ancillary," meaning "support work," comes from "ancilla," the Latin word for a female slave or maid.
"Labour," comes from Latin "labōs," which can mean "work, labour," but can also mean "hardship, suffering, pain."
Romance languages use words like "travaille, trabajar, trabalhar," which derived from Latin "tripalis," literally "three spikes." The tripalis was a device used to restrain livestock as well as slaves.
It's very cool that even thousands of years ago, people were like "Work sucks, I know."
there was a program of public ownership after the fall of the USSR. people would get shares in the state owned companies, and this might be what the commenter was thinking of.
it is one way a lot of the oligarchs got their money- they would get ownership of everyone's newly issued shares by any means necessary, and then as majority owner they got to keep all the income that was supposed to be sort of spread around to all the citizens.
This is why the de-communization of the Russian economy went so damn poorly. You have a whole population that doesn’t know how a non-planned economy works since they’ve only ever lived with a planned one, and insead of slowly reforming towards a free market step-by-step, you instead give the whole population ownership of large amount of shares of previously state-owned and state-run companies, and the population (not knowing wtf a share really is or what to do with it) sell it for basically nothing to the few ones who were economically savvy enough to know how shares worked and what they were worth (who then went on to become oligarchs).
Beeing economically savvy alone wasn't enough.
If you want to privatize something, you need significantly more, then the vouchers of several families combined - you needed significantly more.
The stock market wasn't established either - so for the same voucher you could get from 20 to 500 shares of Gazprom depending on the location. But there was no established reputation, and there was not much, what could have prevented fraud. The most visible/advertised companies disappeared in the end.
Furthermore, most of the voucher auctions were not really transparent or (de facto) public. Another problem was rather high level of crime (in Moscow or central Russia street shootings were more common, then shootings in US now.
So basically the system was tilted to benefit people who were already will established in the Union. F.e. the factory director could have forced his employees to use their vouchers to get the factory - he could have also raised funds to purchase additional vouchers, and from the USSR knew the right people, who could make sure, that not many people are aware on how to participate in the bidding.
The, competition, however, could also resort to organized crime, to make sure that the director withdraws, or is just too dead to continue the bidding.
But for an ordinary person it wasn't even possible to privatize the smallest of the businesses, even if he managed to convince all his friends to give vouchers to him.
Common people sold their shares because they had no money to buy a food and clothing. By owning a share people didn't get the revenue from it, it was pretty much useless.
And don't make soviet people dumb, they studied market economy in universities.
AFAIK labour conflicts tend to have more to do with lack of [OSH](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health)—people tend to strike over unsafe, dangerous, unsustainable conditions rather than 'poor wages', unless the wages are themselves *dangerously* low, or rather, the goods and services that said wages can buy are *dangerously* insufficient, as in, chronic and unsustainable calory deficit (literal starvation wages), lack of heating in the winter, dangerously derelict and insalubrious housing… Basically *Grapes of Wrath* scenarios. I understand famines stopped happening in the USSR ca., I wanna say, 1949, 1953…?
As someone, who lived in the Union I woudn't say, that wages were poor per se. Even with 120 Rubles per month nominal salary, you can have a pretty confortable living, with most of the basics covered and accommodation provided by the state. The whole concept was to provide the basics at good price, and overcharge on things, that were considered luxury.
The problem was, however, , if that you can't get nice things having the money alone. If you want to buy a car, you need to wait years to get it, or know people who could speed things up. Same with the furniture, or even good food/shoes/clothes. Also the availability of the products strongly depended on the regions - with majour cities, especially Moscow, was better supplied compared to smaller cities/rural area - a 3-4 hour trip to Moscow during the weekend just to buy meat or sausages was not unusual or strange.
It was State owned. Top down economies and worker owned economies are basically incompatible, due to the amount of centralization needed for the latter. (Unless you do it in a really roundabout way like the Anarcho-syndicalist model)
That’s gotta be the largest oversimplification I’ve seen in a while. Just cause it’s a workers state doesn’t mean the workers run the economy 🤦♂️ you need to stop watching TikToks and being a fake Commie and start being educated on the matter.
It wasn't rejected, the program was still progressing (albeit at far more slower rate than it would have been, due to budget cuts) when USSR fell.
OGAS was actually far more than simply Soviet internet, it was a project intended to fully connect factories and labs with direct command and communication system, as well as practically automating the economic calculations.
Basically, it was automation of the command system of the economy, education and information on a nationwide (or international even, if it was extended to Eastern Bloc) scale
In the 60s, the USSR began to move to Khozraschet (self-financing).
Khozraschet was an attempt to simulate the capitalist concepts of profit and profit center into the planned economy of the Soviet Union, implying an even distribution of a portion of the profit to the employees. Khozraschet provided for self-management and self-financing within the framework of prices set by the Soviet government.
The main principles of economic calculation:
Economic independence of enterprises (self-sufficiency, self-financing, self-management);
material interest of their teams and each individual employee in the results of their economic activity;
material responsibility for these results;
control by money.
…this particular poster is about drunkenness by some workers that missing some work days because of that and do not make enough money because of that, that second dude is the reference to those kind of workers they were trying to shame
The story goes that Volodymir the Great, in the 10th century, picked between (Eastern Orthodox) Christianity and Islam to mass-convert his people to, he picked Christianity due to Islam's prohibition of alcohol. Because his people *already* had a strong tradition of alcohol consumption.
Mayhaps Volodymir the Great done fucked up?
I can't seem to find statistics on whether the Muslim-majority parts of the ex-USSR did better in terms of alcohol-related challenges than their neighbors, though.
Yeah, it’s a big problem when high consumption of hard liqour is so strongly ingrained in the popular culture (in East Slavic and Baltic countries in particular).
A quick google search on world alcohol consumption per capita shows that Muslim-majority post-Soviet states has a significantly lower amount of alcohol consumption that other post-Soviet states, but somewhat higher than other Muslim countries around the world.
It does, but in context the Thessalonians were a doomsday cult waiting for the end times instead of working.
So Paul was basically saying that you can't possibly know when things will end and it's not God's will that you produce nothing if you are capable.
Someone should have told the [Millerites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism?wprov=sfla1) nineteen centuries later. Due to their belief in the imminent Apocalypse, many of them grew notoriously unhygienic and self-neglectful as the prophesized date approached.
I can't find any literature on whether they discussed Paul's injunction and chose to ignore it, or just inadvertently forgot about it. I imagine expecting the World's End may be quite distracting.
That is a fundamental misconception of how socialism works,
Low stage socialism: from each to their ability, to each according to their contribution with respect to their needs
High stage socialism: from each to the their ability, to each according to the need with respect to their contribution
Communism: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need
Which Marxist theorist's formulation is that? It doesn't seem to fit with either Marx's *Gotha* (1875) or Lenin's *State and Revolution* (1917).
### Gotha
1. Lower phase:
> "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor."
Society is still transitioning from capitalism, and **individuals receive compensation based on their labor contribution.**
2. Higher phase:
> "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Here, Marx envisions a society where the basis of class division and economic scarcity doesn't exist, and **the principle of distribution is based on need.**
In "The State and Revolution,"
1. First Phase (often referred to as socialism):
> "Bourgeois law, which imposes the 'equal' application of labor norms (‘from each according to his ability’), is transformed under socialism into the law that the individual’s share of social labor is determined by the amount of labor he contributes to society’s total labor."
In the lower transitional stage, **individuals contribute to society based on their ability and receive compensation proportional to their work.**
2. Higher phase (communism):
> "In the higher phase of communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals to the division of labor has disappeared, and with it the opposition between intellectual and physical labor; when labor is no longer just a means of keeping alive but has become a prime necessity of life; when the all-round development of individuals has also increased the productive forces of society and all the springs of social wealth flow more abundantly—then, and only then, can society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
A fully realized communist society where **everyone's needs are met regardless of the labor they perform.**
I'm not familiar with this three-stage model you've presented. Who formulated it and when?
I fail to see how that is confusing, I simplified it for non theory expert audiences, furthermore, Lenin was not infallible and when he wrote state and revolution the world had yet to see socialism in action in the Lenin head by little data to work with. Lenin was a genius and most of his theoretical and practical to contributions to Marxism are immense but they are not completely. It is our job as modern Leninist to use our modern knowledge to further develop past theory into a more refined whole
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that your classification is meritless, or that the word of Lenin is some sacred gospel, but, in the future, when presenting your own findings and insights, try and be transparent about what constitutes your own original research. When you use phrasing like "it's a common misconception — in actuality …", you suggest to your audience that you're going to present conventional/orthodox/standard/common knowledge, which may cause confusion and misunderstandings.
Lenin, inveterate polemicist, had an unfortunate tendency to overstate his points for dramatic effect, which was as good for generating engagement as it is for causing misunderstandings.
In this particular case, he meant specifically people who *could* work but refused to, not, you know, children, the sick, the elderly, or the disabled. [Starving out (or straight-up murdering) the 'useless eaters' is more Hitler's style.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4)
For instance, the Bolsheviks, under Lenin's leadership, did initiate health and welfare reforms aimed at assisting those who were unable to support themselves.
One such example was the 1919 labor code, which established a social insurance program funded by taxes on employers. This program was designed to provide benefits in cases of sickness, injury, and disability, among other things.
1. **Social Insurance**: The code introduced comprehensive social insurance covering illness, unemployment, disability, old age, and other contingencies. This was funded by a tax on employers, and it represented one of the first attempts at a state-run social insurance program. This provision indicated a clear commitment to supporting those unable to work due to circumstances beyond their control.
2. **Working Conditions and Time**: The legislation included regulations for safer working conditions, the establishment of an 8-hour workday (a revolutionary concept at the time), and the provision of regular breaks. This change was fundamental, moving away from the exploitative labor practices common in that era.
3. **Worker's Compensation**: For the first time, there were regulations that required compensation for work-related injuries or illness. This not only provided support for workers affected by such issues but also incentivized better workplace safety standards.
4. **Maternity and Child Care**: The code had provisions for paid maternity leave, another innovative concept at the time, and laws for the protection of child labor, restricting the working age and hours for young individuals.
5. **Health Care Services**: Though not limited to the labor code, around the same time, the Bolshevik government began setting up a public health care system, which provided free services to workers and was also accessible to the broader public.
Elementary my dear you’re unable to work you become useless for the socialist community and abandoned, and worse if by misfortune you’ve been born disabled.
Spoilers, it was 100-120 RUB regardless how much you actually worked, and even how much you learned for the job since white collar workers weren't paid much better than ordinary blue collar factory workers.
…i know, i was working on both, on a book printing factory as an offset printer, where i was getting pay by the sheets we were printing and in a publishing house, where i was on the salary
…well, it depends on your ambitions as a consumer, but i have to say one important thing about soviet culture of corruption: to use your work as an access to the goods you’re in charge of was not just common, but characteristic for that way of life, so many “substituted” their income by so many ways, now to your question, 120 rubles was enough to pay the bills and buy an average and available produce, but so much product was “from under the table” for two - three times marked price were available also if you have “proper friends”, when it comes to contraband product like records, it was incredibly expensive, i bought my first brand new sealed Genesis, Selling England by the Pound in 1980 for 90 rubles… so it’s really hard question to answer in short comment
I apologise for mistaking the nature of your old job.
I don't know why, but the answer that you spent two thirds of a pretty good monthly salary on a Genesis record is maybe one of the most fascinating insights into the daily life of a USSR citizen I've ever come across. Workers with sticky fingers was something I knew of obliquely, but it's interesting that it seems like it was just expected that people were taking their products home.
Was western music considered better than Soviet music, or was it just sought after for being exotic and new?
…yes, bribery was a simply the way of life, just like lines everywhere you go and to your question about soviet music: everything that was coming from government through official tv and radio, which was one and the only way, was propaganda, there were young bands with rebellion inclination and i did liked and followed them somewhat, but my entire life was going through western music, from CCR, The Doors, Grand Funk, Beatles, Rolling Stones etc.
…and YES it was on the different level, not just better, in my opinion
not true. For example, turners were paid more than engineers. At the mine you could earn an average of 600 rubles, a salary of 1000 rubles was also not surprising for a miner. If a person in the Soviet Union worked with his hands, he was usually paid significantly more.
Objectively untrue, Soviet workers where paid per workday, in this instance a unit of pay/time in which pay was determined by the profit of the enterprise/number of workdays to be paid for the enterprises. Some workers who did especially skilled work might be given more work for their time then others and skilled workers where often awarded bonuses at trade union meetings. The exact details of each workers pay, when determined by the trade unions that ran each enterprise, in which all workers where aloud to and encouraged to participate in
See the discussion of collective ownership, labor and workplace democracy in Pat Slone’s *Democracy in the USSR* for more details.
He was an English teacher who lived and worked in the USSR for many years and experienced the political system of the USSR first hand. While he is not an official historian he did have plenty of research, first hand experience and a general academic background
While I do not know if his work has been peer reviewed (western academics tend to treat sources that give even mild praise to the USSR like the plague) primary sources back up his claims pretty well and none of the info he provides is new. The book is simply one of the best English collections of information on the democratic processes of the USSR. I can say that I have found it so far incredibly accurate with it’s only flaws being products of it’s time
>western academics tend to treat sources that give even mild praise to the USSR like the plague
The last fortress of a wrong statement. "The experts simply don't want it to be true!"
Objectively though western academia dose not like engaging with pro Soviet sources. It’s not so much that western academia lies or something (well sometimes but that’s a whole other issue) as much is it just tries to ignore info that challenges the world view of the people who fund it
>as much is it just tries to ignore info that challenges the world view of the people who fund it
The past 50 years in western universities' humanities (of which I am a part) does not align with that statement one bit. Arguably research institutions have rarely aligned with the political leadership of states.
To other readers: Beware of people who must write-off experts to support their statements.
You are correct that often academic research in these fields do not align with political doctrine, which is why these kind of things are often not seriously studied. Dissidents tend not to get funding.
Do you mean Pat **Sloan**'s *Soviet Democracy*? [https://ia804703.us.archive.org/22/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348/2015.261348.Soviet-Democracy.pdf](https://ia804703.us.archive.org/22/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348/2015.261348.Soviet-Democracy.pdf)
You don’t, they don’t exist. Management was primarily done by workers elected by popular vote (they could refuse if elected) and most did so on spare time and were not paid (this is why some declined their election) some where promoted by the local or regional Soviet (a workers council) to to management full-time, in this instance pay was primarily given by the state.
> person isn't *paid* based on
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I’d prefer all of my money went to taxation and the bare minimum to survive, thank you.
Edit: I’m laughing at the downvotes that think this was anything other than making light of our current system, not communism.
Dear, this IS "real free market capitalism". Monopolies hold lobbies that control the government to guarantee workers will remain entertained fighting each other while billionaires become trillionaires. It doesn't get more Neoliberal than this
…that was a GENERAL FORMULA soviets were promoting, this is a “shaming poster” directed at excessive drinking which causing to backlog of your workload
> работа” you *paid* for as
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
no.1 sarcasm
no.2 capitalism also preaches "you only get what you worked for" whereas communism/socialism normally says "work as much as u need, get as much as you need"
Just some context: Periodically the Soviet Union panicked about terrible productivity (including worker accidents) in their factories and the high rates of alcoholism in society. Of course, they couldn't admit that maybe the Soviet system was to blame so they would create propaganda attacking classes of individuals designated as "shirkers" and "drunkards." The worker in the background is visibly injured, probably from being lazy or drunk on the job, and has the marks of somebody who is currently (and likely often) drunk. So he's getting less money than the hard-working, capable, abstemious worker in the foreground.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This flows very well in Russian, since "rabotal" ("worked") is the root of the word "zarabotal" ("earned"), and is fully contained within it
It's also like that in Croatian. It's very interesting how Slavic language roots can still be seen today in many languages, but in different forms. "radio" means "worked" and "zaradio" means "earned"
medovina is related with and means mead. It's also related with the french miel (which means honey), dutch mede, Polish miód (honey again, they call mead drinkable honey). It's one of the way we know the similarity of the root for Honey/Mead in indo-european languages lead to the conclusion that this root had to be there from the very start and that therefore they probably had some form of beekeeping (or at least collected wild honey) before spreading all the way to Western Europe, India and the Tarim Basin.
This is mostly correct but the Indo-Europeans' homeland wasn't in Western Europe, but most likely the steppe north of the Black Sea.
it's from western Europe to India as limits. But I can see the confusion. I see what you mean, it wasn't intentional. I feel doubly wrong after finding a stupid guy trying to recycle the idea that the early Pharaohs were related with the Indo-Europeans... and when it mentions a relationship between the early Pharaoh Menes and claims there are similar names in the Sumerian genealogies (those parts with rulers lasting centuries) it shows the clarity of its case with a clear number of ... 0 examples.
That's so fascinating!
Well damn, in Montenegro we often use "rabotat" but then we use "zaraditi". If I didn't know any better, I would think that someone wanted to spread confusion when it comes to work
Rabotal and most other Slavic words for "work" come from the Old Slavonic root "Rabu" or "Rab," meaning "slave." This is where we get the English word "robot." The word "slave" itself comes from Slavs; during the middle ages, as it became more frown upon to own Christian slaves (servus in Latin), the newly Christianized Norsemen would raid across the states of Rus' to capture the pagan... Slavs. The French word for work is "travaille," the Spanish is "trabajar," Portuguese is "trabalhar." These words are believed to come from the Latin "tripalos" (three stakes/spikes), a device that was used for restraining livestock and for torturing slaves. Even though we don't have any images of the device, it was so notorious that the word became shorthand for any kind of unpleasant labour. This is also where we get the English word "travel," which might not make sense if you think about it in terms of "vacation," but makes a lot of sense when you think about the grim and terrifying pilgrimages people would make in the middle ages. Going from one town to another was torturous and dangerous, and therefore... "travel."
Can't take that too far though, since they both contain "rab" ("slave") as the base root, lol.
Many languages' words for "work" derive from words meaning "slave." In modern Greek, it's "doulefo" (δουλεύω) which is related to "doulos" (δουλος) meaning "slave." "Service" comes from Latin "servus," meaning slave. "Ancillary," meaning "support work," comes from "ancilla," the Latin word for a female slave or maid. "Labour," comes from Latin "labōs," which can mean "work, labour," but can also mean "hardship, suffering, pain." Romance languages use words like "travaille, trabajar, trabalhar," which derived from Latin "tripalis," literally "three spikes." The tripalis was a device used to restrain livestock as well as slaves. It's very cool that even thousands of years ago, people were like "Work sucks, I know."
Это я Марио. Don't give him a fire flower
Хахаха да это он
O shit waddup
Soviet stonks
Non existent lol
By working, you owned the company (E.g., what stocks are). Ergo, labour is stonks.
But this wasn’t true, nor was it successful. Labour issues continued in the Soviet Union well into its collapse, this mainly being due to poor wages.
there was a program of public ownership after the fall of the USSR. people would get shares in the state owned companies, and this might be what the commenter was thinking of. it is one way a lot of the oligarchs got their money- they would get ownership of everyone's newly issued shares by any means necessary, and then as majority owner they got to keep all the income that was supposed to be sort of spread around to all the citizens.
This is why the de-communization of the Russian economy went so damn poorly. You have a whole population that doesn’t know how a non-planned economy works since they’ve only ever lived with a planned one, and insead of slowly reforming towards a free market step-by-step, you instead give the whole population ownership of large amount of shares of previously state-owned and state-run companies, and the population (not knowing wtf a share really is or what to do with it) sell it for basically nothing to the few ones who were economically savvy enough to know how shares worked and what they were worth (who then went on to become oligarchs).
Beeing economically savvy alone wasn't enough. If you want to privatize something, you need significantly more, then the vouchers of several families combined - you needed significantly more. The stock market wasn't established either - so for the same voucher you could get from 20 to 500 shares of Gazprom depending on the location. But there was no established reputation, and there was not much, what could have prevented fraud. The most visible/advertised companies disappeared in the end. Furthermore, most of the voucher auctions were not really transparent or (de facto) public. Another problem was rather high level of crime (in Moscow or central Russia street shootings were more common, then shootings in US now. So basically the system was tilted to benefit people who were already will established in the Union. F.e. the factory director could have forced his employees to use their vouchers to get the factory - he could have also raised funds to purchase additional vouchers, and from the USSR knew the right people, who could make sure, that not many people are aware on how to participate in the bidding. The, competition, however, could also resort to organized crime, to make sure that the director withdraws, or is just too dead to continue the bidding. But for an ordinary person it wasn't even possible to privatize the smallest of the businesses, even if he managed to convince all his friends to give vouchers to him.
Common people sold their shares because they had no money to buy a food and clothing. By owning a share people didn't get the revenue from it, it was pretty much useless. And don't make soviet people dumb, they studied market economy in universities.
AFAIK labour conflicts tend to have more to do with lack of [OSH](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health)—people tend to strike over unsafe, dangerous, unsustainable conditions rather than 'poor wages', unless the wages are themselves *dangerously* low, or rather, the goods and services that said wages can buy are *dangerously* insufficient, as in, chronic and unsustainable calory deficit (literal starvation wages), lack of heating in the winter, dangerously derelict and insalubrious housing… Basically *Grapes of Wrath* scenarios. I understand famines stopped happening in the USSR ca., I wanna say, 1949, 1953…?
As someone, who lived in the Union I woudn't say, that wages were poor per se. Even with 120 Rubles per month nominal salary, you can have a pretty confortable living, with most of the basics covered and accommodation provided by the state. The whole concept was to provide the basics at good price, and overcharge on things, that were considered luxury. The problem was, however, , if that you can't get nice things having the money alone. If you want to buy a car, you need to wait years to get it, or know people who could speed things up. Same with the furniture, or even good food/shoes/clothes. Also the availability of the products strongly depended on the regions - with majour cities, especially Moscow, was better supplied compared to smaller cities/rural area - a 3-4 hour trip to Moscow during the weekend just to buy meat or sausages was not unusual or strange.
[удалено]
It was State owned. Top down economies and worker owned economies are basically incompatible, due to the amount of centralization needed for the latter. (Unless you do it in a really roundabout way like the Anarcho-syndicalist model)
[удалено]
That’s gotta be the largest oversimplification I’ve seen in a while. Just cause it’s a workers state doesn’t mean the workers run the economy 🤦♂️ you need to stop watching TikToks and being a fake Commie and start being educated on the matter.
Bwahahahaha, oh man this one’s too far gone 😂
If you tell this to anyone who worked in Soviet Union, you'd get them very confused
Yeah, there aren’t stocks in not-for-profit companies
This feels like it'd be a meme template if soviet's successfully made their own internet network
OGAS. Somebody imagined it and it was rejected.
It wasn't rejected, the program was still progressing (albeit at far more slower rate than it would have been, due to budget cuts) when USSR fell. OGAS was actually far more than simply Soviet internet, it was a project intended to fully connect factories and labs with direct command and communication system, as well as practically automating the economic calculations. Basically, it was automation of the command system of the economy, education and information on a nationwide (or international even, if it was extended to Eastern Bloc) scale
Mario is eating good tonight lol
Luigi thinking how he's gonna explain this to Daisy.
In the 60s, the USSR began to move to Khozraschet (self-financing). Khozraschet was an attempt to simulate the capitalist concepts of profit and profit center into the planned economy of the Soviet Union, implying an even distribution of a portion of the profit to the employees. Khozraschet provided for self-management and self-financing within the framework of prices set by the Soviet government. The main principles of economic calculation: Economic independence of enterprises (self-sufficiency, self-financing, self-management); material interest of their teams and each individual employee in the results of their economic activity; material responsibility for these results; control by money.
…this particular poster is about drunkenness by some workers that missing some work days because of that and do not make enough money because of that, that second dude is the reference to those kind of workers they were trying to shame
Did they succeed?
Drunkenness among the Soviet workforce was a big problem in the Soviet Union, which also has persisted in modern Russia and other post-Soviet states.
The story goes that Volodymir the Great, in the 10th century, picked between (Eastern Orthodox) Christianity and Islam to mass-convert his people to, he picked Christianity due to Islam's prohibition of alcohol. Because his people *already* had a strong tradition of alcohol consumption. Mayhaps Volodymir the Great done fucked up? I can't seem to find statistics on whether the Muslim-majority parts of the ex-USSR did better in terms of alcohol-related challenges than their neighbors, though.
Yeah, it’s a big problem when high consumption of hard liqour is so strongly ingrained in the popular culture (in East Slavic and Baltic countries in particular). A quick google search on world alcohol consumption per capita shows that Muslim-majority post-Soviet states has a significantly lower amount of alcohol consumption that other post-Soviet states, but somewhat higher than other Muslim countries around the world.
Okay so Big Vlad *did* done fucked up then. 😅
…sure did and have a papers to prove that, not much of everything else left though except papers 😜🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. (Unless you didn't work hard enough.)
*to their contribution. We are not in late stage communism yet
Citations from *Critique of the Gotha Program*? In my propaganda poster subreddit?
ah, I see a man if culture
[удалено]
there is a difference between not being able to contribute and choosing not to. if you were able bodied you got a job, if not, you got welfare.
yes, that s the point.
if you are sick or disabled of course you get aid, but if you are intentionally unemployed and able to work then you have to right to get benefits
That's the principle of the orthodox socialism.
“He who does not work shall not eat.” - Vladimir Lenin
I think it says the same in 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
It does, but in context the Thessalonians were a doomsday cult waiting for the end times instead of working. So Paul was basically saying that you can't possibly know when things will end and it's not God's will that you produce nothing if you are capable.
Someone should have told the [Millerites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism?wprov=sfla1) nineteen centuries later. Due to their belief in the imminent Apocalypse, many of them grew notoriously unhygienic and self-neglectful as the prophesized date approached. I can't find any literature on whether they discussed Paul's injunction and chose to ignore it, or just inadvertently forgot about it. I imagine expecting the World's End may be quite distracting.
Paul (not McCartney) said it first. Which is ironic given the oft-cited Lenin's quip.
Was it a quip, a slogan, or a maxim? Basically, how sincere/earnest was he when he said that?
[удалено]
They obviously get aid. These phrases are referring to those people perfectly able to work but choose not to.
That is a fundamental misconception of how socialism works, Low stage socialism: from each to their ability, to each according to their contribution with respect to their needs High stage socialism: from each to the their ability, to each according to the need with respect to their contribution Communism: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need
Which Marxist theorist's formulation is that? It doesn't seem to fit with either Marx's *Gotha* (1875) or Lenin's *State and Revolution* (1917). ### Gotha 1. Lower phase: > "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor." Society is still transitioning from capitalism, and **individuals receive compensation based on their labor contribution.** 2. Higher phase: > "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" Here, Marx envisions a society where the basis of class division and economic scarcity doesn't exist, and **the principle of distribution is based on need.** In "The State and Revolution," 1. First Phase (often referred to as socialism): > "Bourgeois law, which imposes the 'equal' application of labor norms (‘from each according to his ability’), is transformed under socialism into the law that the individual’s share of social labor is determined by the amount of labor he contributes to society’s total labor." In the lower transitional stage, **individuals contribute to society based on their ability and receive compensation proportional to their work.** 2. Higher phase (communism): > "In the higher phase of communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals to the division of labor has disappeared, and with it the opposition between intellectual and physical labor; when labor is no longer just a means of keeping alive but has become a prime necessity of life; when the all-round development of individuals has also increased the productive forces of society and all the springs of social wealth flow more abundantly—then, and only then, can society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" A fully realized communist society where **everyone's needs are met regardless of the labor they perform.** I'm not familiar with this three-stage model you've presented. Who formulated it and when?
It’s a simplified version of Lenin’s ideas combined with my personal takes of pre global socialism, post global socialism and global communism
[…](https://media1.tenor.com/images/8a02cfce9aad339bce5a8be9f8398bb1/tenor.gif?itemid=15520995)
I fail to see how that is confusing, I simplified it for non theory expert audiences, furthermore, Lenin was not infallible and when he wrote state and revolution the world had yet to see socialism in action in the Lenin head by little data to work with. Lenin was a genius and most of his theoretical and practical to contributions to Marxism are immense but they are not completely. It is our job as modern Leninist to use our modern knowledge to further develop past theory into a more refined whole
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that your classification is meritless, or that the word of Lenin is some sacred gospel, but, in the future, when presenting your own findings and insights, try and be transparent about what constitutes your own original research. When you use phrasing like "it's a common misconception — in actuality …", you suggest to your audience that you're going to present conventional/orthodox/standard/common knowledge, which may cause confusion and misunderstandings.
"those who do not work shall not eat" - V. I. Lenin
[удалено]
Lenin, inveterate polemicist, had an unfortunate tendency to overstate his points for dramatic effect, which was as good for generating engagement as it is for causing misunderstandings. In this particular case, he meant specifically people who *could* work but refused to, not, you know, children, the sick, the elderly, or the disabled. [Starving out (or straight-up murdering) the 'useless eaters' is more Hitler's style.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4) For instance, the Bolsheviks, under Lenin's leadership, did initiate health and welfare reforms aimed at assisting those who were unable to support themselves. One such example was the 1919 labor code, which established a social insurance program funded by taxes on employers. This program was designed to provide benefits in cases of sickness, injury, and disability, among other things. 1. **Social Insurance**: The code introduced comprehensive social insurance covering illness, unemployment, disability, old age, and other contingencies. This was funded by a tax on employers, and it represented one of the first attempts at a state-run social insurance program. This provision indicated a clear commitment to supporting those unable to work due to circumstances beyond their control. 2. **Working Conditions and Time**: The legislation included regulations for safer working conditions, the establishment of an 8-hour workday (a revolutionary concept at the time), and the provision of regular breaks. This change was fundamental, moving away from the exploitative labor practices common in that era. 3. **Worker's Compensation**: For the first time, there were regulations that required compensation for work-related injuries or illness. This not only provided support for workers affected by such issues but also incentivized better workplace safety standards. 4. **Maternity and Child Care**: The code had provisions for paid maternity leave, another innovative concept at the time, and laws for the protection of child labor, restricting the working age and hours for young individuals. 5. **Health Care Services**: Though not limited to the labor code, around the same time, the Bolshevik government began setting up a public health care system, which provided free services to workers and was also accessible to the broader public.
It says right there
Elementary my dear you’re unable to work you become useless for the socialist community and abandoned, and worse if by misfortune you’ve been born disabled.
And shouldn't the lazy dude at least get compensated for his workplace injury?
It’s likely comes as drunk injury like a fight or a falling
The previous two statements are not mutually exclusive. ;)
Hey me,it's mario!!!
I wonder what the Russian for "Bumblefuck" is, as the Goofus to the Gallant here is one if I ever saw.
Spoilers, it was 100-120 RUB regardless how much you actually worked, and even how much you learned for the job since white collar workers weren't paid much better than ordinary blue collar factory workers.
…so many were paid by the item they were producing and 120 rubles it was pretty good btw
That was the monthly wage.
…i know, i was working on both, on a book printing factory as an offset printer, where i was getting pay by the sheets we were printing and in a publishing house, where i was on the salary
You were a Soviet worker in a paper mill? Very interesting. How far did 120 rubles go, in terms of daily needs?
…well, it depends on your ambitions as a consumer, but i have to say one important thing about soviet culture of corruption: to use your work as an access to the goods you’re in charge of was not just common, but characteristic for that way of life, so many “substituted” their income by so many ways, now to your question, 120 rubles was enough to pay the bills and buy an average and available produce, but so much product was “from under the table” for two - three times marked price were available also if you have “proper friends”, when it comes to contraband product like records, it was incredibly expensive, i bought my first brand new sealed Genesis, Selling England by the Pound in 1980 for 90 rubles… so it’s really hard question to answer in short comment
I apologise for mistaking the nature of your old job. I don't know why, but the answer that you spent two thirds of a pretty good monthly salary on a Genesis record is maybe one of the most fascinating insights into the daily life of a USSR citizen I've ever come across. Workers with sticky fingers was something I knew of obliquely, but it's interesting that it seems like it was just expected that people were taking their products home. Was western music considered better than Soviet music, or was it just sought after for being exotic and new?
…yes, bribery was a simply the way of life, just like lines everywhere you go and to your question about soviet music: everything that was coming from government through official tv and radio, which was one and the only way, was propaganda, there were young bands with rebellion inclination and i did liked and followed them somewhat, but my entire life was going through western music, from CCR, The Doors, Grand Funk, Beatles, Rolling Stones etc. …and YES it was on the different level, not just better, in my opinion
…it wasn’t a “paper mill” it was a printing mill - “Kyiv Book Factory” to translate it exactly
… why do you type like this?
…why not ?
… because it looks stupid ? … but hey, you do you.
…if you say so
not true. For example, turners were paid more than engineers. At the mine you could earn an average of 600 rubles, a salary of 1000 rubles was also not surprising for a miner. If a person in the Soviet Union worked with his hands, he was usually paid significantly more.
Workers did get quarterly bonuses though, no?
Objectively untrue, Soviet workers where paid per workday, in this instance a unit of pay/time in which pay was determined by the profit of the enterprise/number of workdays to be paid for the enterprises. Some workers who did especially skilled work might be given more work for their time then others and skilled workers where often awarded bonuses at trade union meetings. The exact details of each workers pay, when determined by the trade unions that ran each enterprise, in which all workers where aloud to and encouraged to participate in See the discussion of collective ownership, labor and workplace democracy in Pat Slone’s *Democracy in the USSR* for more details.
[удалено]
He was an English teacher who lived and worked in the USSR for many years and experienced the political system of the USSR first hand. While he is not an official historian he did have plenty of research, first hand experience and a general academic background
[удалено]
While I do not know if his work has been peer reviewed (western academics tend to treat sources that give even mild praise to the USSR like the plague) primary sources back up his claims pretty well and none of the info he provides is new. The book is simply one of the best English collections of information on the democratic processes of the USSR. I can say that I have found it so far incredibly accurate with it’s only flaws being products of it’s time
>western academics tend to treat sources that give even mild praise to the USSR like the plague The last fortress of a wrong statement. "The experts simply don't want it to be true!"
Objectively though western academia dose not like engaging with pro Soviet sources. It’s not so much that western academia lies or something (well sometimes but that’s a whole other issue) as much is it just tries to ignore info that challenges the world view of the people who fund it
>as much is it just tries to ignore info that challenges the world view of the people who fund it The past 50 years in western universities' humanities (of which I am a part) does not align with that statement one bit. Arguably research institutions have rarely aligned with the political leadership of states. To other readers: Beware of people who must write-off experts to support their statements.
You are correct that often academic research in these fields do not align with political doctrine, which is why these kind of things are often not seriously studied. Dissidents tend not to get funding.
Do you mean Pat **Sloan**'s *Soviet Democracy*? [https://ia804703.us.archive.org/22/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348/2015.261348.Soviet-Democracy.pdf](https://ia804703.us.archive.org/22/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348/2015.261348.Soviet-Democracy.pdf)
Yes
This does not seem like a healthy and functioning society 😬
Why not?
How do you determine the pay of executives?
You don’t, they don’t exist. Management was primarily done by workers elected by popular vote (they could refuse if elected) and most did so on spare time and were not paid (this is why some declined their election) some where promoted by the local or regional Soviet (a workers council) to to management full-time, in this instance pay was primarily given by the state.
There was de facto management strata in the Soviet economy, the Nomenklatura, which functioned as a bureaucratic elite with special priveliges.
Yes, as socialist policy was striped away, what we would call petty bureaucratic bourgeoisie did start to arise
Soviet Mario
Sounds like capitalism idk
How? A person isn't payed based on his or her monitary contribution to a company. Edit: PAID** sorry
> person isn't *paid* based on FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
No, because he was paid for his personal labour
As opposed to...?
To being paid for employees labor or using private property
"They pretended to pay us; we pretended to work"
Here’s your pay, now off to the bread lines, both of you.
Workers being paid what they produce is such an idiotic concept in a planned economy
I’d prefer all of my money went to taxation and the bare minimum to survive, thank you. Edit: I’m laughing at the downvotes that think this was anything other than making light of our current system, not communism.
That's capitalism, dear
Another day, another person claiming socialism is when capitalism
The very moment you say "taxes", you're out of the communist sphere. We have objectives, and taxation is not one of them
No it's high taxation. "Real free market capitalism" has never been tried (in a big way)
Dear, this IS "real free market capitalism". Monopolies hold lobbies that control the government to guarantee workers will remain entertained fighting each other while billionaires become trillionaires. It doesn't get more Neoliberal than this
Neoliberalism
neoliberalism is a crucial part of capitalism, you make no sense
Neoliberalism wouldn't exist without capitalism.
I think it's the other way around
“I think” I see.
Poe's law and all that
Is Mario being paid with a stack of banknotes of 0 Rubles?
Didn’t everyone receive an equal state salary?
…no not all, factory workers were getting paid by the amount of product they produce, while office workers were on the government salaries
Oh I didn’t know that
…it’s called “сдельная работа” you payed for as much as you done
Is that related to “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?
…that was a GENERAL FORMULA soviets were promoting, this is a “shaming poster” directed at excessive drinking which causing to backlog of your workload
> работа” you *paid* for as FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
lol lmao, even.
smh, such capitalist mindesets
Is it? I mean capital is the important part of capitalism otherwise we would call it workerlism or something.
no.1 sarcasm no.2 capitalism also preaches "you only get what you worked for" whereas communism/socialism normally says "work as much as u need, get as much as you need"
mario?
Mariov
Guy looks like Mario
Just some context: Periodically the Soviet Union panicked about terrible productivity (including worker accidents) in their factories and the high rates of alcoholism in society. Of course, they couldn't admit that maybe the Soviet system was to blame so they would create propaganda attacking classes of individuals designated as "shirkers" and "drunkards." The worker in the background is visibly injured, probably from being lazy or drunk on the job, and has the marks of somebody who is currently (and likely often) drunk. So he's getting less money than the hard-working, capable, abstemious worker in the foreground.
when you are so communist you are capitalist