[flagged]
Not really. Socialism (the project of the labor movement) is concerned with workers being in control of their own work, not vessels for capitalist exploitation. Syndicalism is a form of socialism that emphasizes decentralization and federation, as opposed to command control. How resources are allocated under conditions of such federated governance is up for debate.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Socialism is older than Marxism and shouldn't be conflated with it.
> Where are all the creative products the Soviets made?
The USSR was a state capitalist/authoritarian regime, nothing like socialism.
That happens every time. Socialism gets implemented with high hopes, falls flat on its face, and gets declared to be not really socialism at all.
How many times does it need to fail before one realizes it is never going to work?
Simple litmus test for socialism: do workers manage production completely, through direct democratic processes?
You also conflation democracy with freedom. 49% gets subjugated by the other 51%.
Freedom means not being dictated to by the mob.
You could argue that private property is theft, necessarily enforced by a repressive state, and reappropriation is justice. The general strike is non-violent (until the police arrive).
> You also conflation democracy with freedom. 49% gets subjugated by the other 51%.
The interesting part about decentralization is that it somewhat relieves this problem. Federation allows for complex arrangements that coordinate towards consensus. So it might not be necessary to subject populations to laws they don't agree with with such broad strokes.
You could, but it wouldn't be convincing. It's a bit hard to convince me that things I bought or made I actually stole. Are you going to argue that if I hire someone to build a patio, I actually stole it from him?
Didn't they make Sputnik
Back in the heyday(!) of the USSR, tourists would routinely fill their luggage with blue jeans to sell on the black market there.
Anyway, you asked for Soviet creative products and I’ve named one. For what it’s worth, I’ve also heard good things about Soviet watches, I had a coworker who collected them and they’ve been discussed before on HN.
When the Red Army invaded Germany, the number 1 looted object was wristwatches. Soldiers would have a row of them affixed to their forearms. In multiple books I've read, they were always looking for wristwatches.
My father (B-17 crew) was issued a wristwatch, but I've been unable to find it among his stuff. Timekeeping was essential for coordinated military operations.
> have achieved something in uplifting backwards feudal empires towards something resembling modernity
The USSR was described as 3rd world country with a 1st world military. The PRC launched their economy by abandoning Marxism and embracing free markets. Cuba is a mess as it still tries to hang on to Marxism.
I did read the Soviet watch article when it was here - most interesting!
> The USSR was described as 3rd world country with a 1st world military.
And yet, tsarist Russia was even poorer and had worse standards of living. Pointing out that a change in state led to a difference in quality is not a moral judgment, nor does it necessitate an endorsement of that change.
This doesn't reflect the most well-known socialist axiom on the distribution of production...
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
...which you appear to be aware of. The entire point of idealizing "to each according to his need" is that different people have different needs.