\"Peace Labor may\"

A crowd of pacifists wanders along the street:
A few slogans, a flute and a guitar.
They express their dissatisfaction with the
politics of the madmen of the world of capital

Do you get the feeling that life in the seseser was somehow simpler?

Yes, for many it is easier, confidence in the future, social guarantees, a stable salary, and, moreover, the conviction that the plant / organization itself will not close tomorrow. You could roughly plan your life and calmly "go with the flow."

hello
In the USSR there was a stable job and salary. But there were also "pitfalls". For example: trips to Moscow for sausage. Then it took 5 hours to get by train. Now you can get to my hometown in 2 hours 40 minutes. At work he talked about fights in lines for green bananas. He talked about the shortage of goods. But there was a specialized store with imported clothes in Moscow for dollars. But they didn’t give dollars, they gave special checks when buying 1 dollar for 3 rubles. And these checks could be bought imported clothes. There were no traffic jams on the roads, the car was very expensive. For example: a Volga car cost 16,000 rubles with a salary of 500 rubles in Moscow and 125 rubles in the provinces

Denis Kyokushin
, it goes without saying - the lack of investment, plus constant injections into the economies of other countries, otherwise complete isolation after the "orange revolutions" in them.
Well, most of the "terrible" stories about the USSR are stories about perestroika times, they started and deepened it - and then everything fell apart on its own.

Sweety_Mustard
I would not call a terrible life in the USSR, but there was, however, less freedom than now. The apartments were state-owned, and if you got to places not so remote, you automatically lost your residence permit. 101st kilometer. And if you are on vacation, then there should be a certificate of this, so that the good uncle of the policeman does not dig in. Now you can work, or you may not work, sitting on the neck of your parents.

depending on who and how formed these slogans. now, apparently, these are the slogans of the opposition, the purpose of which is to change the order. and earlier slogans were formed by the current government and pursued the goal of convincing citizens that they live in a positive, stable country with high social guarantees.
otherwise, there would be all sorts of jokes like: communism has come! - there is no need for oil anymore.
and so from the point of view of life in developed socialism as a whole, a person did not need to think much about his future, because this path was basically thought out for him to a certain limit. now a person needs to think about it and the stakes are higher for it.
and so the socialism of the USSR, in its essence, little ideologically differed little from national socialism in Nazi Germany. the idea was based on the class struggle with the destruction of the capitalist as a class. in the developed USSR, this task was completed and classes as such no longer existed. that time of victorious socialism is remembered. if you are a representative of the correct proletariat of a worker or peasant with a proletarian-worker consciousness, then the structure of society is adapted, as it were, for you and you live well in it, respectively.

Denis Kyokushin wrote:
but
little Solzhenitsyn, who was nominated for the Lenin Prize for "Ivanadenisovich", cried somewhere. True, they didn’t give it - because the story is shit; C A little later in the "freest country in the world" - "In the period from 1961 to 1982, The Catcher in the Rye became the most banned book in schools and libraries,"
Moreover, Sellinger's book only shares children and teenagers.

As for you can work, or you can not - so the distribution was and the apartments were given. I xs, why with such a freebie it was necessary not to work.

Well, you can also notice that such a quantity of political and social satire, like that of Soviet writers, is still to be found.

hello wrote:
is there a feeling that life in the seseser was somehow simpler?
Arises. And there was still no Internet, forums .. holivars, trolling, harassment, hacking, even information wars were simple: everything was limited to paper newspapers and simple TVs (it’s good if there was at least one TV set in the family). In addition, the USSR is not one period, but a series of periods of history. What is it about? Stalin's time is one thing, Khrushchev is another, Gorbachev is completely different)

Denis Kyokushin
Speaking about freedom, you need to understand one detail: there was no Internet in the USSR, the Union did not live up to it. What and how would happen in the Union in the nineties and beyond? What laws and restrictions would be imposed on the use of the Internet and personal computers? That's a question without an answer, but how can you compare freedom without an answer to this question? It is impossible to imagine the 21st century without the pitch and the Internet, without total mobile communications! And the USSR is exactly like this: no pitch, no mobile phones, no Internet.
So if you compare, then without regard to all of the above. So, there was less freedom: you can’t just travel around the world, and much in the cinema was censored, as well as on television and in newspapers. An ordinary resident did not have access to the foreign press.
Many things were better, but some things were worse. The challenge is to keep the best and modernize, and remove the worst.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
Now you can work, or you can not work, sitting on the neck of your parents.
The downside is that there is unemployment. There should be no unemployment in principle, and then it is quite realistic to introduce a law banning parasitism) Well, besides, in the USSR it would be impossible to do business in some part of it. You can go under the article for "speculation", but under capitalism this is the norm. Plus or minus? And when trash streamers "earn money" with their nonsense, is it a plus or a minus? ) The same is true about the exchange (exchange speculation), about crypto and mining, about beauty bloggers and just bloggers. Plus or minus?...
MunchkiN 616
There were only formally no classes in the Union. In fact, there was a double nomenclature, laws worked according to concepts. This carried over naturally into the new Russia of the 1990s to a large extent and remains to some extent, albeit to a lesser extent, to this day. This needs to be changed, of course. That is, there were two main classes in the Union: the people and the elite. The second could do what the lower ones were not allowed to do. And secondly, this is the main problem of the USSR: it was this filthy part of society that destroyed the whole, living state from the inside without objective reasons. A unique case in the history of mankind. It’s a pity, only the Chinese bothered to carefully study the period of the 80-90s, modern Russia has yet to reconsider everything that happened then. If they want to give legal and honest assessments at all. But I'm afraid that then all sorts of "Yeltsin centers" will be demolished 8) Destroyed.

A.Soldier of Light
in my opinion the USSR ended for natural reasons. their essence is approximately such that he raised the standard of living of wide sections of citizens to a certain level after which he could no longer provide proportionately increased needs and people turned their eyes to where these needs in theory could be provided, that is, to the west in the developed cap countries. so there were Soviet goods. and ffuuuu soviet. Soviet export from the countries of the socialist camp was considered better. and finally, getting something foreign was considered elite. because it is an absolutely natural process of dividing into the mass and the elite and the desire to possess the elite in order to emphasize the identity, which is most likely connected with deeper biological principles and not just the superstructure of the end of the Neolithic.
the Soviet Union could exist in complete informational isolation and spiritually strong communist quasi-religion for some indefinite time. but since information from the outside penetrated this would mean that information about capitalist goods and services would flow, and if these goods and services were let in, this would destroy the very principle of the Soviet economy. sitting on 2 chairs would be impossible.

the only way out of this situation was to overcome the tribal philistinism and the transition to thinking outside the biological principle from which human needs would be formed according to a different principle. but I think that this is impossible for the current biological species of a person. instead, the Soviet Union was based on the principles of survival in specific difficult environmental conditions, which is such a type of "primitive communism", its essence is approximately that for the survival of a group of people, the collective must be higher than the private and there must be low mortality in the group, since this can critically undermine the productive activities and increase other risks in the group and lead to its death. but as living conditions improved, this principle became irrelevant.

still somehow, it means, I watched some kind of philosopher of a pro-communist orientation and a discourse on freedom. and the essence of thought is approximately such that the freedom of a healthy person is not absolute, but is limited by some certain factors in a natural way, according to the saying of a certain medieval philosopher. from the point of view of capitalism, freedom is limited to the material, i.e. capital. and from the point of view of a Soviet person, his freedom is self-limited by the framework of his thinking, with the practical absence of material restrictions. which boils down to the fact that a person with Western capitalist thinking will utilize and process all the resources available to him, and a person with a Soviet social communist fantasy will only up to a certain level, which he himself sets and considers necessary (in fact, such a level should be imposed by a quasi-religion). and it would be good to bring up such a person in the Soviet Union, but he died too early for that. (in fact, such work has either not been carried out, or has not been carried out since the 60s (or earlier), or was not carried out enough and the USSR was still a consumer society in the majority)
if all the same it happened and the USSR managed to hold out. most likely, his people would have degraded on the reservation, but thanks to scientific and technological progress, they could have ensured their existence for a long time in the regime of a besieged fortress with limited resources and shocks with weapons (the Indians, for example, did not have decent weapons and technologies to resist the colonialists). if this system was once blown away, a large number of people with deep slavish thinking were discovered who can be put in an open cage and they will not come out of it due to their cognitive adaptive abilities.
for giro-communism of excess resources, this is of course the only correct thinking, but planetary resources are quite limited.
therefore, all the advantage that deep planetary socialism or good variants of communism could give is a large number of educated people for a large population at the cost of hellishly eating non-renewable resources in order to rapidly develop technology for space colonization. or various quasi-capitalism where access to goods is uneven, such strong hyperconsumption does not arise because the conditions for the existence of society and civilization do not allow this. well, slow as a snail scientific and technological progress, respectively. which of these is better, I have not finally decided, but the first way seems to me more risky, the second is more conservative. without some normal theory of technological progress and its resting on physical principles, it is difficult to make a choice.

so praise to all the gods that the USSR has merged into the toilet with its humanistic ideology.

A.Soldier of Light
A.Soldier of Light wrote:
Besides, in the USSR it would be impossible to do business in some part of it. You can go under the article for "speculation", but under capitalism this is the norm.
In Moscow there was a specialized store for imported goods, where a bucks cost 3 rubles. But they didn’t give bucks in it, they gave checks for rubles, it was written in them how many bucks you bought. My grandfather told me at work, he was 68 years old. And about He talked about speculation, and about cutting down apple trees, and wool from sheep in the form of taxes. He pulled out a stroller for a child from under the floor.

Technoviking wrote:
There will be no alliances, no matter how old people may dream.
it was the USSR, and as it was in the USSR, then probably not. as well as it is difficult to imagine what will happen under the tsarism of the 19th century.
but socialism itself is possible. including some neo-Marxism may appear. technology is also evolving. the desire to redistribute resources does not disappear. there is also a high probability that with the automation of labor, the need for the number of people will decrease, while such a need for the economy will remain, which will cause social and economic problems. developed humanity will try to get around this by creating fictitious jobs and slowing down the introduction of high technologies into production. at this stage, developed countries can turn into the approach of socialism with the creation of useless labor or into the waiting room of communism as one option for an economic-production formation. so 40-300 years, in principle, all this can return to some extent.

techno- viking
elements of socialism and capitalism are present in society together (without going into the concept of what is one or the other) as, for example, there is no purely market and purely planned economy.
specifically, by socialism, I mean the mantra about income for the means of production, and various policies aimed at smoothing social inequality, as well as human-saving humanism.
in a narrower sense, I understand something not like the USSR, which gives high social guarantees in exchange for non-economic coercion to work and a ban or severe restriction on the use of wage labor by an individual or the provision of means of production or capital on loan. maybe only the state has such a monopoly or something that replaces it. as well as other economic and non-economic attempts to equalize incomes and living standards of citizens.
a technically deep enough developed variant of socialism or ussr 2.0, it may not be called that and occupy other territories, it may be built on technologies of the near future. this requires a slightly different type of money, digitalization and high labor productivity. however, such a society, in my personal opinion, is worse because it is less flexible in meeting needs than "deep capitalism" with purely economic coercion to any activity and distributed limited resources. also, under "socialism" the problem of high consumption of irreplaceable resources per person on average is not removed.
regarding the future - industrial capitalism described by Marx is coming to its natural logical end because technologies and methods of production are changing. in particular, the number of people necessary for the production of a certain product is reduced and there are many idlers who need to create jobs or put them somewhere. in turn, modern capitalism is based on the mass production of products in order to reduce the cost of its production in terms of abstract labor costs (which, by the way, is unprofitable in terms of resources, which will most likely be said about communist-minded boys). and if most not participating in production chains will simply disappear, then it will be bad for capitalism in the old economic system, since its super high labor productivity will not be needed and this will entail a banal collapse of the economy to about a handicraft level of production. one of the ways out of the situation is the introduction of a basic unconditional income in order to maintain the consumption of goods and the need for them at the same level, which will be near the socialist approach and will have a great demotivating effect on the necessary working specialists and does not remove the problem of a large number of consumers of resources. and it seems that capitalism will face its own insoluble problem and one of its solutions will be the leftist approach of chaps and equality - look, look! Lenin wrote to us here 160 years ago - the dictatorship of the proletariat. here.
There is also a story about communism. a good variant of communism, I call fat communism, is when there will be so many resources and labor productivity will be so high that there will be enough for everyone and the distribution of resources will become inconsistent. but a fairy tale is a fairy tale, and in the Middle Ages there were fairy tales about jelly rivers and milk banks, bread growing on a tree, and about the fact that if someone wants to work in such a country, he needs to pay for it and not vice versa. because it does not withstand resource criticism. and even if it does, it will simply move to redistribution of another type of resources and labor coercion within them, or it cannot fill the top of Maslow's pyramid of needs. because let's say that some schoolboy wants to make his video game on the level of GTA5 and Witcher 3, and for this he needs to be either an expert in many areas, as well as to spend a lot of time and personal effort on acquiring the necessary skills. (which is in principle impossible or difficult for a person due to his materialistic biological characteristics. For this, the life expectancy of a schoolchild must be under 300 years and, in general, the division of labor is a very important fundamental achievement of the reasonable) therefore, such a schoolchild will have to bend down to the magic of forcing other specialists to work so that they make him GTA6 and the Witcher 4. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that probably more people would like to make their own GTA6 than just enjoy the process of writing code or creating 3D models. this will mean that GTA 6 dream games for many people will remain unfulfilled due to the fact that they will fill the needs of some one person. in capitalism, everything is simple with this, only a schoolboy must be golden, and in a natural way, only a very small number of people will be able to download their breed of needs, the rest will be slaves. familiar socialism like the ussr with this will be a little tighter in it your needs must meet the standards of ideology then slaves will be allocated to you. but only it turns out the focus is like all slaves. but under communism .... let's say labor productivity has grown as promised, it is prohibitively high thanks to scientific and technological progress that a schoolboy puts on a brain helmet and after 30 minutes he has the game of his dreams. if he does it for himself then it's certainly cool, but most likely he satisfies the need for recognition because other resources are no longer needed for him, he is fighting for food. and here the file is waiting, since there will be a lot of such games of vysers of the GTA or Witcher level and they will not cost anything even likes in the comments and numbers in the download. there will be all grief and despondency from fat-communism and the pyramid of needs will be underfilled. and so that this was not needed a fundamentally biologically different person.

hello
It's just that in the USSR for "Russian" slogans a MIB in leather jackets could have come and no one would have seen this person again. Therefore, they were not spoken.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The problem is that the needs are determined by the bureaucrats, who themselves eat with their mouth and ass. Why did the USSR collapse at all? Thieves and traitors crawled into its top. At first they forbade any structures like the OBKhSS to investigate their activities, then they rushed to fill their pockets, and by the end of the eighties they decided that they wanted to use the loot openly. They had everything, but now they needed a cheap show off. As a result, several drunks, ignoring the results of the referendum, stupidly waved and divided.
The second reason was (and hasn’t gone anywhere, in fact) an openly drug-addicted distribution of benefits, in which everything from all over the country was brought to Moscow, then sent to the republics, from which the same Baltic states just didn’t burst with fat, and the center of Russia the last horseradish without salt finished eating. And, logically, no one came out to defend the Union.
You can solve these two problems - build at least the USSR 2.0, at least something, the model itself is viable and stable, because it is self-sufficient, provided that no one will piss in the ears of the population that they need that pink imitator with rhinestones for 99 .9$.

requiemmm wrote:
Why did the USSR collapse at all? Thieves and traitors crawled into its top.
Well, then Mona doesn’t worry about Raseyushka, everything is in order with her business - there is no one else in her top acre of crystal-clear and decent people. bow to the ground and thanks to Vladimir Vladimirovich, he brought out all the corrupt evil spirits, thieves and embezzlers of public funds with a red-hot iron. it’s like under Brezhnev (even though he’s been in power for 18 years, and it’s no good to spoil a fool with a fool), you will find a short cut at once - he built such a vertical of power that is indestructible and unbending for the feast for the eyes of the entire Russian people, which is dear to look at.

MunchkiN 616 wrote:
their essence is approximately the following: he raised the standard of living of wide sections of citizens to a certain level, after which he could no longer provide for proportionately increased needs
. And therefore, the standard of living SHARPLY fell down, that there were fights even for the usual banal sausage? )))
An interesting opinion ...
MunchkiN 616 wrote:
to get something foreign was considered elite
Because probably there was no better analogue? And whose problem is this? If the elite of the state considers everything foreign to be the best. But what does this have to do with the natural movement towards the self-disintegration of the country? Dont clear. I don’t see anything natural there, I see the deliberate destruction of the state due to the fact that the elite is rotten. Just like the president of the USSR himself, he was the first and the last who did not want to arrest and try the conspirators in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. He was kind.
MunchkiN616 wrote:
"primitive communism" is about the fact that for the survival of a group of people, the collective must be above the private and there must be a low mortality in the group, since this can critically undermine the productive activity and increase other risks in the group and lead to its death. but as living conditions improved, this principle became irrelevant.
The collective is always above the private in any situation. What is in Europe, what is in the USA and so on. The presence of laws is an example of the collective that weighs on the private. The state, in principle, cannot exist otherwise. Without the pressure of the general over the particular in one way or another. This MEASURE is already everywhere its own, different.
MunchkiN 616 wrote: the USSR has
merged into the toilet with its humanist ideology.
It is said as if it is the ideology to blame 8) Funny, however. People are to blame. Always people, not ideology or science, religion or whatever. Concepts are not to blame, the people who use them are to blame. And how they are used. And under capitalism, you can build an excellent system, a solid state. And under communism, socialism, dictatorship.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
Grandfather told you at work, he is 68 years old. And now some people in Russia and the USA told you about speculation
about the sale of drugs, which, however, are prohibited, and they are severely punished for this.
techno-viking wrote:
However, it cannot be radically interpreted/embodied, put above the same private, because the private-personal is also natural and no less inalienable human in fact.
We just need to find reasonable compromises, beneficial for the most part to all parties, as far as possible. Of course, there can be no compromises regarding destructive elements.
requiemmm wrote:
Why did the USSR collapse at all? Thieves and traitors crawled into its top.
Yes, parasites inside the government. This is a typical problem of most, if not all, states of the world throughout our history in general.
The fact that parasites are trying to climb into power is understandable. And the system must be debugged by non-parasites in such a way that it would be very difficult for the parasites to do anything, if at all possible. Parasites, by the way, perfectly climbed into the camp of the Bolsheviks, hence the terror with all the ensuing negative conclusions. Sticking to the main force is a perfectly reasonable solution for parasites. This must be stopped and identified inside, identified and filtered, or disposed of after interrogations. Cockroaches, the enemies of the state, harming society. Similar cockroaches in Russia are periodically planted, but alas, few, very few, sickly, slowly. And they are not only in power, there are parasites in the educational environment, which is no less dangerous from the point of view of national security, the future of young generations ...

hello wrote:
there is no one else in its top acre of crystal-clear and decent people.
There is no one else, don't worry 8) And if we talk about specific names and surnames, you can see what we have. For example, what do you have against Mishustin and Sobyanin? Write down. Here Luzhkov is a big question, what did he rule over there, "unsinkable" with his cherkizon ...
hello, he wrote:
thanks to Vladimir Vladimirovich, he brought out all the corrupt evil spirits, thieves and embezzlers with a red-hot iron
Alas, he did not bring him out. Barely started. Others will continue, not such Leopold Cats as he ...
hello wrote:
for nothing that he has been in power for 18 years, but to no avail - a fool is a fool
Are you talking about him? No need to rave 8) Like, nothing has been done since 2000. It's time for you to get out of the bunker, Russia has long been different. Not the oligarchic garbage heap it was in the nineties.
his plan, which is secret and not clear to anyone.
Example? Refusal to storm "Azvostal" at the end of April.
The result during the assault: a lot of our own dead and almost no one alive from the other side.
The result of the refusal of the assault: since May 16, almost 2,500 warriors who have settled there have surrendered themselves. Everyone is alive: both their own and others. Your sarcasm is not needed.

technoviking wrote:
(gaming companies, for example) are no longer needed, since everyone has their own personal (their own game) and can no longer appear better than their own from the outside.
so as not to overload the concept, it did not matter, so here (in relation to products) the principles of synthetic evolution and any social Darwinism will begin to work. and in this case, we meant games that attracted many and served as a source of inspiration against the background of the mass of games that went unnoticed because they lost in the competition. the fact that everyone will have their own personal kind of such a creative synthetic product does not change the situation, since there will also be hype known and discussed products. about the same, for example, for modern bloggers - there are popular bloggers with millionaires and there are dudes with 100 subscribers.
and here, in fact, the purely Kamenian gravitational capitalist principle works, when several molecules in a scattered cloud where they were all relatively equal successfully wound all matter around themselves and turned first into thick stars and then black holes that continue to suck matter.
it's just that in this example I wanted to show humanity, which, thanks to the scientific and technological, has already gone beyond the limits of surviving and fighting hunger, but has moved to a higher level. and an abstract schoolboy, as an example, may not be very interested in the material, since it is assumed that he is already provided with them and all sorts of entertainment, and he can move on as "as if under communism."

about free software. I believe that it carries a potential danger if it can compete with proprietary software and defeat it in terms of the distribution of conditional resources based on labor and its demand. then at first it will be interesting something like at the beginning of the history of the USSR. many people will be involved in the process of filling various free libraries but then gradually after a few generations there will be a decline because progress requires constant development through overcoming some obstacles of ever-increasing complexity, which requires more and more human intellectual work. and since the celiks are not endless, there will be a change of generation, which will have to be taught to perform this work. but they will not want it because it will not be able or will slightly improve their life, life and sexual reproductive competitive attractiveness per unit of labor input. thus one of the biological principles is realized. and free software will go into complete stagnation and collapse, hurting proprietary software along the way.
therefore, in general, communism must provide first - the most fundamental basis, vital needs, then a higher need, then everything else, and building a house from a roof hanging in the air like in minecraft will not work.

MunchkiN 616 wrote:
in this case, they meant games that attracted many and served as a source of inspiration against the background of the mass of games that went unnoticed because they lost in the competition
There is a way to correct this misunderstanding: the creation of a portal (a good one that will be heard by everyone, like any other massive portal), where little-known games will be placed. Those who lost the competition did not have advertising so that millions would know about them, etc. Thus, if someone wants to study the lists of little-known games that have been published, and there will certainly be such ones, there will be a platform where they are located. Some are downloaded for free, some are bought, in every way. So that the little-known is not forgotten, remaining only on individual hard drives of amateurs (and therefore no one knows anything about them outside of a very small circle of people).

MunchkiN616 wrote:
progress requires constant development through overcoming some obstacles of ever-increasing complexity, which requires more and more human intellectual work
. And this is not necessary everywhere and not always. Some things have long since acquired their final form. For example, a bicycle, an elementary invention, over the years just new chips are attached to it, which fundamentally do not change anything. It is a mechanical device, not a motor (electrical). There is nothing to progress and it is not necessary. Just an example.
With some games exactly the same ;] The same Doom 2 or Minecraft: they are already perfect in their final form, it only remains to add cosmetic improvements, as well as new content in the form of maps and mods, that's all. These games, like some others, are eternal, they have reached their peak of progress and will always have their audience as long as someone creates something for them.
example - Minecraft
example - Doom 2