It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property.
“True” socialism isn’t a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in.
I would put it differently: there should be only one true form of socialism, but the methods for achieving it may vary.
As for my own experience: my father—who held a Ph.D.—earned a lower salary than the father of one of my classmates, who was a highly skilled fitter.
And I understand perfectly well that you cannot even begin to imagine that such a thing is possible. Yes, salaries were relatively modest—the idea being not to let money corrupt people. But you had free healthcare, free education, and a free apartment; and the utility bill for a 70-square-meter apartment—like the one I had—came to… $3 a month. Plus, a free one-month summer vacation at a sanatorium somewhere in Crimea.
Places where the oligarchs’ massive mansions had been confiscated and converted into holiday retreats for the people.
Now you understand what kind of socialism I am talking about. I know of no other kind—and I have no desire to know of any other!
I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism” implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are “false socialism.” Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background.
However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism”
Here, again, is a small caveat: we are not discussing the process—but rather the result—of building developed socialism. And we aren’t even considering the economic aspect here. The USSR faced immense difficulties back then, particularly when the U.S. sought to drain its resources using various hoaxes—the Moon landing, and other such nonsense. Incidentally—in case you weren’t aware—it turned out that the U.S. actually lacked the rockets needed to fly into space; once the Space Shuttle program failed, they were forced to pay $80 million per astronaut for transport provided by Russia to the ISS. And it begs the question: what on earth happened to the Apollo program? The ISS is only 400 kilometers away, yet the Moon is 400,000…
But I digress. That was the USSR’s path toward socialism—a path that was incredibly thorny and arduous. Whether before World War II or after it, the USSR was under siege from all sides.
Be that as it may, socialism was successfully built in the USSR—in what amounted to its roughly final form. It may have lacked glitz and glamour, but it was, undeniably, socialism.
As for the Cubans, Koreans, and Vietnamese—their situation is far more challenging, as their nations lack the self-sufficiency that the USSR possessed. The USSR had the industrial capacity, the natural resources—everything required to withstand isolation and continue forging ahead. However, in light of recent events—specifically the ongoing realignment of the global order—these nations now appear to hold immense promise for future development. But building developed socialism requires a lot of money.
China, for its part, built its brand of socialism using Western capital. It constructed a form of socialism that suited the West’s interests… at least until very recently, that is. China proved to be far more complex than the West had anticipated—and ultimately outmaneuvered the West! Yet, fundamentally, that does not alter the nature of the matter.
My hope is that China will, in the end, achieve its true objective. As things stand, what currently exists there doesn’t quite measure up… I’m not sure if one can accurately apply the term you placed in quotation marks to it—so I won’t venture to say.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its “final form,” such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev’s farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years…
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
That sounds very sweet… )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don’t you understand me?
These aren’t my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don’t believe what I’m saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!
It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property.
“True” socialism isn’t a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in.
I would put it differently: there should be only one true form of socialism, but the methods for achieving it may vary.
As for my own experience: my father—who held a Ph.D.—earned a lower salary than the father of one of my classmates, who was a highly skilled fitter.
And I understand perfectly well that you cannot even begin to imagine that such a thing is possible. Yes, salaries were relatively modest—the idea being not to let money corrupt people. But you had free healthcare, free education, and a free apartment; and the utility bill for a 70-square-meter apartment—like the one I had—came to… $3 a month. Plus, a free one-month summer vacation at a sanatorium somewhere in Crimea.
Places where the oligarchs’ massive mansions had been confiscated and converted into holiday retreats for the people.
Now you understand what kind of socialism I am talking about. I know of no other kind—and I have no desire to know of any other!
I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism” implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are “false socialism.” Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background.
Here, again, is a small caveat: we are not discussing the process—but rather the result—of building developed socialism. And we aren’t even considering the economic aspect here. The USSR faced immense difficulties back then, particularly when the U.S. sought to drain its resources using various hoaxes—the Moon landing, and other such nonsense. Incidentally—in case you weren’t aware—it turned out that the U.S. actually lacked the rockets needed to fly into space; once the Space Shuttle program failed, they were forced to pay $80 million per astronaut for transport provided by Russia to the ISS. And it begs the question: what on earth happened to the Apollo program? The ISS is only 400 kilometers away, yet the Moon is 400,000…
But I digress. That was the USSR’s path toward socialism—a path that was incredibly thorny and arduous. Whether before World War II or after it, the USSR was under siege from all sides.
Be that as it may, socialism was successfully built in the USSR—in what amounted to its roughly final form. It may have lacked glitz and glamour, but it was, undeniably, socialism.
As for the Cubans, Koreans, and Vietnamese—their situation is far more challenging, as their nations lack the self-sufficiency that the USSR possessed. The USSR had the industrial capacity, the natural resources—everything required to withstand isolation and continue forging ahead. However, in light of recent events—specifically the ongoing realignment of the global order—these nations now appear to hold immense promise for future development. But building developed socialism requires a lot of money.
China, for its part, built its brand of socialism using Western capital. It constructed a form of socialism that suited the West’s interests… at least until very recently, that is. China proved to be far more complex than the West had anticipated—and ultimately outmaneuvered the West! Yet, fundamentally, that does not alter the nature of the matter.
My hope is that China will, in the end, achieve its true objective. As things stand, what currently exists there doesn’t quite measure up… I’m not sure if one can accurately apply the term you placed in quotation marks to it—so I won’t venture to say.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its “final form,” such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev’s farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
I recognize the American socialist in you… )))
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years…
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
https://www.facebook.com/cgtneuropeofficial/videos/russian-spacecraft-delivers-american-astronaut-to-space-station/944741044208435/
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
That sounds very sweet… )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don’t you understand me?
These aren’t my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don’t believe what I’m saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!