3 ms·

... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappoi

by mantas 5y ago

... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.

refurb 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population. If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.
  - thodin 5y ago
    It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      Sounds like a great law.
  - yazantapuz 5y ago
    > rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?
      - yazantapuz 5y ago
        I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?
        nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Capital doesn’t “work”. People work. These are just objective English language definitions. What you’re saying is simply nonsensical. Can you try explaining again? Wrt “earning capital,” you may have purchased capital, but you sold your labor for wages. Compensation paid as stock options are an exception, and are a result of New Deal reforms to get more working people bought into the capitalist system, which has been successful, so far. But owning stocks is not the same as owning capital because you still do not control the capital and therefore cannot collect rents. Realize capitalists never directly trade the capital for the labor to operate that capital, unless forced. Historically, only communists have ever forced such a thing.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads. If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’ Very difficult ethical issues all around. In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations? Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?
      - seneca 5y ago
        > Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke? The person you're replying to didn't say any such things. Your replies on this post have followed a pattern of lazy swipes, and degrade the quality of discussion here.
        nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        My replies have followed a pattern of logical deduction and clarifying inquiry. Can you answer my questions?
  - mantas 5y ago
    In USSR you couldn't own much, thus rent-seeking was not possible. House ownership was limited per-square-meter (varies on exact period and location). Most rooms/apartments were technically state property and you just rented them. Building „cooperative“ apartments where one would own it was a rather late development. And even then I believe limits of apartments-to-own were in place. On the other hand, room-renting was tolerated in two cases. Resorts (no enough spots in hotels) and university towns (no enough places in dormitories). In resorts locals would move to, for example, garages to make money from renting their own apartments to holiday goers. Students renting was usually old lady business where after your kids are gone and husband dies you rent spare rooms.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Regardless, the USSR was heavy on the “you don’t carry the water, you don’t drink”.
Shin-- 5y ago
A collectivistic society expects everyone to do their part to reach a good standard of living for everyone. 8 hours/day, as was common, to rebuild destroyed countries and economy is less than countless people in capitalist nations have to work today. The biggest difference is, is that this amount of labour is necessary for their own survival, that there is no collective sense, without authorities trying to reward them in some ways to keep them happy, or even showing any appreciation for the work they do. Socialists don't say that socialism would suddenly lead to less work for everyone, a revolution and rebuilding after a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. It shall have meaning and be valued by society. And yes, eventually - even Marx talked about it already - work that is not necessary and labour that can be automated will become more free time for everyone.
- yucky 5y ago
  >a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. Does this ever happen in reality though?
  - krapp 5y ago
    No. I think every revolution serves the interests of the elites. Even the American Revolution was essentially a tax evasion scheme by the wealthy merchant class.

by mantas 5y ago

... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.

refurb 5y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population. If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.
- thodin 5y ago
  It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    Sounds like a great law.
- yazantapuz 5y ago
  > rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?
    - yazantapuz 5y ago
      I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?
      - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Capital doesn’t “work”. People work. These are just objective English language definitions. What you’re saying is simply nonsensical. Can you try explaining again? Wrt “earning capital,” you may have purchased capital, but you sold your labor for wages. Compensation paid as stock options are an exception, and are a result of New Deal reforms to get more working people bought into the capitalist system, which has been successful, so far. But owning stocks is not the same as owning capital because you still do not control the capital and therefore cannot collect rents. Realize capitalists never directly trade the capital for the labor to operate that capital, unless forced. Historically, only communists have ever forced such a thing.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads. If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’ Very difficult ethical issues all around. In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations? Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?
    - seneca 5y ago
      > Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke? The person you're replying to didn't say any such things. Your replies on this post have followed a pattern of lazy swipes, and degrade the quality of discussion here.
      - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        My replies have followed a pattern of logical deduction and clarifying inquiry. Can you answer my questions?
- mantas 5y ago
  In USSR you couldn't own much, thus rent-seeking was not possible. House ownership was limited per-square-meter (varies on exact period and location). Most rooms/apartments were technically state property and you just rented them. Building „cooperative“ apartments where one would own it was a rather late development. And even then I believe limits of apartments-to-own were in place. On the other hand, room-renting was tolerated in two cases. Resorts (no enough spots in hotels) and university towns (no enough places in dormitories). In resorts locals would move to, for example, garages to make money from renting their own apartments to holiday goers. Students renting was usually old lady business where after your kids are gone and husband dies you rent spare rooms.
- refurb 5y ago
  Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Regardless, the USSR was heavy on the “you don’t carry the water, you don’t drink”.

Shin-- 5y ago

A collectivistic society expects everyone to do their part to reach a good standard of living for everyone. 8 hours/day, as was common, to rebuild destroyed countries and economy is less than countless people in capitalist nations have to work today. The biggest difference is, is that this amount of labour is necessary for their own survival, that there is no collective sense, without authorities trying to reward them in some ways to keep them happy, or even showing any appreciation for the work they do. Socialists don't say that socialism would suddenly lead to less work for everyone, a revolution and rebuilding after a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. It shall have meaning and be valued by society. And yes, eventually - even Marx talked about it already - work that is not necessary and labour that can be automated will become more free time for everyone.

yucky 5y ago
>a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. Does this ever happen in reality though?
- krapp 5y ago
  No. I think every revolution serves the interests of the elites. Even the American Revolution was essentially a tax evasion scheme by the wealthy merchant class.