Socialism

5151 readers

1 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

dessalines@lemmy.ml

Soviet goods were more about quality than quantity. (www.rbth.com)

submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The article doesn't even mention stuff like planned obsolescence or the fact that a lot of new goods end up being destroyed to artificially inflate prices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] uno_yakshi@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not sure how that contradicts anything given that housing had to be built quickly out of necessity. Please do enlighten us all what your solution would’ve been.

Let's start with the basics. This thread's title claim "for USSR goods, quality > quantity". Then you say "plenty of cheap housing". "Plenty of cheap" means "quantity over quality". Hence, you contradict yourself.

there was plenty of communism in USSR

I guess not having a monetary system and an oppressive government are not parts of communism for you. Got you.

repressing capitalist provacateurs like you

I'm more into anracho-communism, thank you. After anarchists and radical socialists were driven out of the country, or sent to labour camps, or just being killed by the 1930-s (if you want "proofs", I have the notes from archives right next to me), I tend to be sceptical towards people praising the USSR system w/o mentioning how many lives it costs (and how big of a negative impact it still is in modern Russia).

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Let’s start with the basics. This thread’s title claim “for USSR goods, quality > quantity”. Then you say “plenty of cheap housing”. “Plenty of cheap” means “quantity over quality”. Hence, you contradict yourself.

You're intentionally making a disingenuous argument here. Producing quality goods is the goal, but in some situations quantity becomes more important. The fact that USSR produced mass housing when it was necessary doesn't contradict anything.

I guess not having a monetary system and an oppressive government are not parts of communism for you. Got you.

Having the means of production under public control and ensuring that everyone has their needs met are in fact pats of communism for me. Nobody said USSR was perfect, but it sure as hell was better than actual alternatives we see in the real world. Anarchists love to compare USSR to some Platonic ideal of society as opposed to societies we have.

I tend to be sceptical towards people praising the USSR system w/o mentioning how many lives it costs (and how big of a negative impact it still is in modern Russia)

A really strange claim to make given that quality of life in USSR was far better than in any former USSR republic today. The only negative impact was the dissolution of USSR.

Meanwhile, anarchists have consistently failed to create any sort of society of their own in over a century. All anarchists do is complain how other types of socialism aren't good enough without providing any workable alternatives.