
For 11 Years, the Soviet Union Had No Weekends (2018) - EndXA
https://www.history.com/news/soviet-union-stalin-weekend-labor-policy
======
trhway
Don't forget "subbotniks" (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subbotnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subbotnik)
) - on weekends many workers would "voluntarily" do unpaid labor like cleaning
city parks, etc.

------
petermcneeley
The economics of this is quite sound for capital intensive production. A more
sane version of this is shift work. With 2-3 shifts working a factory around
the clock 5 days a week.

------
bborud
Am I the only one squeamish about sharing anything with the History Channel
logo on it?

There'd be a thousand "It was probably ancient aliens that made the Soviets do
it, eh?"-jokes as a response if I shared the link.

------
jackschultz
There's always talk about the format of the 7 day week, about how people want
4 days of work and 3 day weekends. What I haven't seen talked about, and what
I'd want to try, is 8 day weeks, with 5 working days and 3 day weekends. I can
handle working 5 days in a row but really want the 3 days off between. I'm
sure there's good history involved with where the 7 day week came from, and
the different history of the names of the days, meaning which culture they
came from and with the 8th we'd need something, but if you take a step back
and think about it, the number of days in what's considered a week comes from
nowhere. We could have 6 day weeks right now and nod our heads with that
making sense. Human history is really interesting, though I really wish we
could change this part.

------
muglug
Google cache:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hlGqIx...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hlGqIxGOFfEJ:https://www.history.com/news/soviet-
union-stalin-weekend-labor-policy+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

Wikipedia link:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_calendar#Work_weeks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_calendar#Work_weeks)

~~~
selimthegrim
I always wondered if that Strugatsky book _Monday Begins on Saturday_ was
playing on something else...

------
colinrand
When I run for public office, my platform will be a 5 day week. 3 days work, 2
days off. Nobody likes Monday's and I'm willing to sacrifice Wednesday.

------
hirundo
> The nepreryvka was supposed to ... set a match to productivity

So it succeeded! Or does this mean set a match as to a rocket rather than to
Joan of Arc?

------
nimbius
This reminds me far too much of "mandatory overtime" in America. Federal
overtime law under the FLSA does not prohibit employers from forcing employees
to work mandatory overtime.

Its technically illegal, but theres nothing to stop an employer from firing
you for consistently refusing overtime shifts. Time clocks rarely allow you to
punch in anything later than the time specified in the system, or 5 minutes
before.

Employers can also retaliate for your lack of participation by altering your
work shifts between day/night, or cutting your work hours to make you poor.
This was pretty common at most of the factories in the south i worked in while
saving up for trade school. I once worked at a glue manufacturing plant that
routinely scheduled 14 hour overtime on the weekends a few times a month. I
refused once, and was fired the next week.

~~~
DickingAround
This is a lot worse than a job asking for overtime. I say 'asking' because you
can leave that job. If the soviet state demanded it; it's not optional, there
is no leaving, there are no other jobs.

I actually think the American corporate system is the best of both worlds; you
have central control and authority of a corporation which makes it efficient
but if that central authority is poor the corporation dies so they're
incentivized/evolved to be competent. And you as a worker can leave that
corporation anytime you want, so as long as workers are scarce they're
strongly incentivized to be good to you. Not a perfect system, but pretty good
compared to any alternatives I've seen (e.g. soviet-style top down government
control with violence as the enforcement mechanism).

------
jefftk
A downside they don't discuss in the article is that there's less slack in the
system. If you're already running your machines constantly, and something goes
wrong (ex: war, pandemic, famine) where you suddenly need to scale up, you
were already right at the edge of what you could be doing.

~~~
nradov
The USSR at that time was extremely poor and already trying to scale up
production as fast as they could (although the manner they went about it was
cruel and inefficient). There was no way to keep spare production capacity in
reserve even if they wanted to.

~~~
briandear
They were even more poor because Communism destroyed the free market and the
will of anyone to create business or meaningful economic activity.

------
captainmuon
One thing I never understood about so called "communist" states is why they
treated their workers so badly. You would think a workers' state would
prioritize workers' wellbeing above everything else, even to the detriment of
other goals.

In school, I wondered why the East German government beat down the workers
movement so violently, and why they locked their citizens behind a wall.
Surely they should have been very _pro-union_? The state should have done
everything to keep their citizens happy, and if they wanted to leave, then why
not just let them leave? After all, isn't the point of communism that the
people are in charge? My teacher was baffled and couldn't understand my naive
question :-D

Now, my mental model of these "real socialist" states is that they are just
degenerate capitalist dictatorships - namely, you only have one single
capitalist, and that is the state itself. I find this explains a lot of their
dysfunctionality.

~~~
DickingAround
Agreed. I think we overlook what really happens when power gets concentrated
in a place where it's easy to seize. You make the state own everything? Well,
who owns the state? All the people can't do that collectively, so you get some
central authority. Once there's an authority, it attracts the least
altruistic, most corrupt. It's really not even a problem with humans in
general; it's a problem of statistics: There's going to always be some tiny
fraction of really awful reasonably competent individuals. And the more power
you concentrate, the more it's attractive to the very worst of us.

------
tantalor
The way it is described (workers have 6 days on, 1 day off) is identical to
the old system, so in terms of wages, productivity, and cost of materials it
is actually identical.

The only difference is lower costs for machines; since machines are never idle
you need 6/7 as many.

By example, if your widget factory has 7 workers and 7 machines, by shifting
their schedules so each worker takes a different day off, you can do the same
amount of work with only 6 machines.

~~~
winfred
> The way it is described (workers have 6 days on, 1 day off)

That's not what it describes.

> Eighty percent of the workforce were told to go to work; 20 percent to stay
> home. The continuous week began as a five-day cycle.

Every day 1/5th of the workers were off. So that's 4 days on, 1 day off.

~~~
tantalor
I see... that it actually _less_ productive than before. Workers are
furloughed 1/6 of time instead of 1/7.

------
metelev_sv
Such a calender is not first try to change calender. There was so-called
"French Republican calendar" with ten days in a week, for example. And also
they try to count years from the beginning of revolution, both in Russia and
in France.

The change of starting point of years counting is also religiously motivated,
because currently we have a 2020 years from the birth of Jesus Christ.

When I see that BC and AD change the meaning, I suspect that it is a part of
the same process, probably third try to change calender.

~~~
Natsu
In ancient times, dates were usually the Xth year of some king's reign. The
Holy Roman Empire declared Jesus as their king and made the calendar
accordingly, which spread throughout the west.

Various revolutionaries naturally want to put themselves on the top or are
otherwise hate Christian culture and therefore have tried to change the
calendars or change what the BC/AD/BCE/CE acronyms stand for or whatnot due to
their desire to exclude Christianity from their cultures.

There are plenty of other calendars in existence, though. Japan still has eras
based on their emperor at the time, for example, though the western calendar
is a lot simpler because you don't have to memorize a huge list of emperors
and do a lot of math to figure out how many years ago something happened.
Quick, how long ago was Showa 55 if Showa went up to 64, Heisei up to 30, and
2020 is Reiwa 2?

And that's an _easy_ one.

[https://www.ewc.co.jp/Pages/Information/CalendarEN.aspx](https://www.ewc.co.jp/Pages/Information/CalendarEN.aspx)

Yeah, it was 1980, so that was 40 years ago. How many got the overlapping
wrong and were off by 1, though?

~~~
metelev_sv
> The Holy Roman Empire declared Jesus as their king

In west tradition it is often INRI inscribed above Jesus head. That stands for
"Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdæorvm". Not king of Romans, but king of Jews. That was
declared as His fault, because that time Judea was a province of the Roman
Empire, not independent kingdom, so when one declare himself as a king, he
really declare rebellion. This was used by the Jews to force Pilate to execute
Him.

Implicit side of this: He was really the King of Jews and He put the end of
Old Testament history.

Birthday of Jesus Christ was accepted as a starting point for calender several
hundred years after His death and Resurrection. Roman Empire does already
transformed to Byzantine Empire at that time.

Nevertheless in Byzantine Empire commonly was used calendar since creation of
the universe. And in Russia also, till 1700 AD.

So it is not such a straightforward acception of the calender, but status of
calender nowadays as a status of English language, most of us understand it,
even if not use in everyday life.

And it is really important, because makes the birthday of Jesus Christ just
one day in history, which in turn makes Him real person, non fictional, non
mythological.

------
droithomme
Decades ago in the US I worked at a big factory that had an odd schedule very
similar to this. It was absolutely exhausting. I was far less productive then
than I ever have been. Also my coworkers were by and large imbeciles and
criminals since anyone normal or competent quit after six months as I did.

------
hn_throwaway_99
Damn the Soviets did some dumb shit.

------
c3534l
The Soviets met their production quotas, at the cost of unrelenting and
dangerous working conditions for little to no pay, a stark lack of consumer
goods, and in many cases starvation and mass execution or deportation. But
they got Stalin his steel. They met the quotas set at the top.

~~~
mitjak
eh, would Stalin really tell the world the quotes weren't met after all that
effort?

------
strategarius
In Soviet Russia, weekends have you.

------
galuggus
Many jobs in China have two days off a month. This is true of waiters,
cleaners and many factory workers. Software developers are a bit better off
often working six days a week from 9am to 9pm

~~~
sgt
6 days a week working 9am to 9pm? When do they go to the grocery store or even
have time to spend at home?

~~~
wutbrodo
Perhaps they're more likely to have traditional family roles? Leaving aside
extended families, I'd find it hard to imagine that a nuclear family unit
could sustain both adults working a schedule like that.

~~~
retrac
This is very true. The 12 or even 16 hour workdays we hear of in the early
industrial era in the West seem incomprehensible. Until you realize that the
factory complex was essentially their whole life and community. Don't need to
walk far to work, or go shopping, or spend time cooking, when you live on-site
in the dorms and your wife works in the company canteen. And you get most of
your paycheques deducted for that privilege, so going anywhere else is mostly
theoretical anyway even if you had time off.

~~~
sixstringtheory
There's a great 99PI episode about something like this: _Fordlandia_
([https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/fordlandia/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/fordlandia/))

------
daenz
Unfortunately the lessons learned here are from such a distant past that many
people think they no longer apply. We'll be doomed to repeat these mistakes by
people who tell us it will be different this time around.

~~~
WilliamEdward
I would be more worried about repeating mistakes from the other side of the
political spectrum this time, since that's more likely and currently what
seems to be happening.

~~~
int_19h
These things go in pairs. Fascism and other forms of right-wing extremism were
a response to the socialist revolutions of early 20th century. And it, in
turn, reinvigorated left-wing movements in countries it affected.

So if we're really repeating that stretch of history, look out for the modern
equivalent of the Spanish Civil War somewhere.

------
Avshalom
I haven't had a weekend in 8 years.

~~~
sgt
Maybe give it a shot this weekend. It's Easter, too.

~~~
Avshalom
That's not how retail works, I could put in for vacation at least two weeks
from now but otherwise I get one or more days off more or less at random that
by design don't really line up with any one else's days off

~~~
petsfed
The apparent randomness of the retail schedule was one of my leading
complaints.

I didn't really mind that I didn't have Saturday and Sunday off per se, it was
that I never had the same day off, so my friends couldn't include me in a
consistent game night or something. The constantly changing schedule made
retail deeply corrosive to all of my interpersonal relationships, and made
holding down a second job nearly impossible (which I really needed when I was
part-time).

------
ph0rque
Here's one cultural tidbit: the Russian word for Sunday means Resurrection.
That was one of the reasons the authorities did not want that day to exist.

~~~
cousin_it
Yes. And the Russian word for Saturday is "Subbota", derived from Sabbath.

~~~
asveikau
True in many other European languages too. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese come
to mind.

In English we derive it from Saturn, which is also a god, but I guess too far
removed for us to think about it. AFAIK a fair number of European names for
days are derived from pagan gods. Even more if you count the Sun and Moon
(Sunday, Monday) as gods, as many historical European cultures would have.

Even Thursday is for Thor, Friday for Freya. Which is to say Germanic gods
too, not just Greco-Roman or Hebrew.

~~~
mportela
As a fun fact, although weekdays are named after Roman gods in Romance
languages, Portuguese is a notable exception. It uses a literal translation
from the ecclesiastic Latin weekdays, which refers to the days when God worked
in creating the world: Monday is "Segunda-feira" (second workday), Tuesday is
"Terça-feira" (third workday), and so on.

The weekends had already received Judaic/Christian names, therefore weren't
changed and are quite similar to the other Romance languages: Saturday is
"Sábado" (derived from Sabbath) and Sunday is "Domingo" (Dominicus, Lord's day
in Latin).

Also, early in the Catholic tradition, Sunday the first workday and only
Saturday was reserved for religious activities. For this reason, in
Portuguese, the week starts in the "second" day.

~~~
the_af
I wonder why Spanish, with its strong Catholic tradition, uses Roman gods for
the weekdays. Especially since Portuguese and Spanish are so closely related
languages...

~~~
mportela
In Portugal, this movement was push forward by the royal court (together with
the Catholic church, of course), so Portuguese was the only language to do so.
For some reason, the Spanish course didn't follow suit.

------
oldsklgdfth
"we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us"

~~~
collyw
It amazes me that so many millennials seem to be pushing for communism.

~~~
oldsklgdfth
Communism is a very broad term.

Unfortunately, propaganda (from both sides) has made it synonymous with full
blown authoritative Soviet unions style regimens.

~~~
yters
How do you propose to take away everyone's possessions and give them to the
state without full blown authoritarianism? I assure you no one will do so out
of the goodness of their heart.

~~~
Talanes
Taking everyone's possessions is not a fundamental tenet of Communism.

~~~
yters
The concept of communism is in the name. Individuals don't own property.
Everything is common to all. Hence, the need for force against those who want
to individually own something.

~~~
Talanes
If you're not willing to learn anything about the ideas you want to critique,
why are you speaking up? Making arguments about something based entirely on
the name of the thing is a six year olds game, you can do better I'm sure.

~~~
yters
I've read the communist manifesto. The concept and reason for its downfall is
all really obvious, and you can understand easily from the name why it is
going to necessitate totalitarianism.

------
sethammons
> But though Sundays were holidays once again, they came at a different cost:
> For ordinary workers, quitting one’s job, missing a day’s work or being over
> 20 minutes late became criminal offenses, with mandatory prison sentences.

Damn. Recently, talking with folks down at a resort in Mexico, the workers all
reported 1 day off per week, and it was staggered. Seems similar to what was
described in the article. Painful.

For me, it would be ideal if everyone worked 3-4 days. A day for rest, a day
for errands, and a day for fun means three day weekends are ideal from a
worker perspective. And it is important that those days can overlap with
others - what good is a day of fun if you can't do it with friends and family?

~~~
NikolaNovak
I'd agree as something I'd "want".

But from your own example, it is _completely_ unfeasible for the resort, and
myriad other businesses where there is no "productivity booster" \- you just
need bodies in slots :/

~~~
earthtourist
Of course there are productivity boosters. The dishwashers, vacuum cleaners,
vehicles, computerized booking, and many other pieces of technology have
replaced the need for many additional workers.

The problem is that, as states, we are not translating these increased profits
into increased quality of life for citizens. UBI is the most obvious way to
start doing it.

What we want is to in effect charge companies in relation to how much profit
they're making off replacing workers (increasing productivity). When a company
is able to replace 10 workers with technology, they should pay at least enough
taxes for 5 workers to live off UBI. Repeat until everyone that wants to can
live comfortably off UBI. While other people voluntarily work to make a lot
more money than UBI.

~~~
WalterBright
> The problem is that, as states, we are not translating these increased
> profits into increased quality of life for citizens.

Are you sure about that? For example, air travel used to be a luxury only for
the wealthy, and you wore your best clothes for a flight. Now airplanes are
filled with people dressed in sweats and paying very cheap fares. Tourist
destinations are buried in tourists the world over.

Buying a home computer used to cost $3,000. Now you can get one for a couple
hundred, and that's in inflated dollars.

What you get when you buy a car is enormously better than what was available
in the 1960s. I love old cars, but I'm well aware of the overall poor quality
of them, lousy crash resistance, high maintenance, crummy handling, etc.

Clothes are historically cheap as dirt. My mom would sew layer after layer of
patches on my jeans. Nobody does that anymore. My aunts would knit socks for
me. Nobody does that anymore. (Still have the socks, they're treasures now.)

In general, things are so cheap it makes no sense to fix or maintain them.
Just get another one.

Kids get a small mountain of toys for Christmas. Back in the 60's you got a
handful of items, and did not feel deprived at all.

You can get a color TV for a couple hundred bucks, one that is far better than
the $$$$ ones from the 1960s.

Think about all the entertainment you can get for free from the push of a
button. You can get an MIT education for free in your home. You can get any
question answered by typing into your computer.

Steak is much, much cheaper than when I was a boy. Then it was a luxury.

Fresh food from all over the world, 12 months a year, at your local grocery.

Our homes are much bigger than they used to be.

Car stereos used to be so expensive people stole them all the time. Today car
stereos are so cheap they are worthless.

I built a home theater in my basement from equipment I got at the thrift store
for $50. The HD projector was $600 new, and is probably even cheaper today.
The screen was $50. The same setup would have cost $20,000 25 years ago, and
wouldn't have been HD.

I remember when home stereos were expensive, like $thousands. Now you can buy
excellent equipment at the thrift store for $20.

I remember buying stuff mail order from Sears with 3 to 6 weeks delivery time.
Now I am spoiled rotten by getting it in 2 days.

Teenagers were expected to work starting at age 16, at least up through the
70s. Now a person's first job is often after college.

Nobody had a microwave or dishwasher when I grew up. Every meal meant time at
the sink washing everything by hand. People rarely ate out. My how that has
changed.

Seriously, we live in a golden age.

~~~
novok
The luxuries and toys got cheaper but many large essentials have gotten
significantly more expensive on a cost/(hours worked) in most cohorts.

You used to be able to cover tuition and living expenses on a single part time
job as a college student.

A single family household from a single high school educated worker could
support a house, a car, children, a non working spouse, food and utilities.

Healthcare did not used to be this ruinously expensive.

Our TVs being cheaper, bigger and more colorful is cold comfort in comparison.
It's great the tech, car, logisitics and textile industries has delivered more
for less, but the rest have gone the opposite direction. Many would be very
happy if they could buy a 1970s lifestyle at 1970s prices.

~~~
WalterBright
I replied to some of those points in another reply here. I'll just point out
that one factor in increased housing costs is government regulation.

Building codes require houses to be middle class houses. That means they cost
more. If there are any left, take a look at homes in your area that were built
before 1960. Quite a different. It would be illegal today to build the house I
first bought, in almost every aspect. But it was a typical mass produced house
built around 1970.

Secondly, at least in Seattle, the city government regularly heaps more and
more expensive burdens on landlords. For example, recently they passed a law
that the landlord is financially responsible for damage to an apartment caused
by domestic violence. Regardless of your feelings about that, that causes
rents to go up. Ever increasing restrictions on evictions causes rents to go
up, again, regardless of whether those restrictions are justified or not.

~~~
mywittyname
This is neither here nor there. For the most part, new construction has always
targeted the middle or upper class, with the less fortunate living in older,
depreciated construction from decades past. It's why mature cities have
mansions converted into apartments and newer, massive suburban enclaves on the
parameter of the city.

It's not until the land is completely used that cities turn to revitalizing
their core. But even then, new construction favors the upper class. If you're
going to tear down a bunch of old bungalows, they need to be replaced with
something pretty expensive to make the project economically viable.

~~~
WalterBright
Again, take a look at the remaining older homes in your area. It's not
depreciation that makes them cheap. They are very small and poorly, cheaply
built by modern standards. Saying they were originally targeted to the middle
and upper class says a lot about how the standard of living has improved.

> they need to be replaced with something pretty expensive to make the project
> economically viable.

Which implicitly requires there being lots and lots and lots of people who can
buy them.

