Well actually socialism has been historically concerned with maximizing human creativity. Fourier’s utopian vision was “libidinal” work that aligns passions with labor. Marcuse has a similar view in Eros and Civilization. Chomsky views creativity as axiomatic for humans, and syndicalism the appropriate system for harnessing it.
> Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally.
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.
The trouble with your definition is the violence necessary to steal the means of production so you can set it up for your workers. A totalitarian government is required to do that. The workers will be severely constrained in what they can do - like set up their own businesses.
You also conflation democracy with freedom. 49% gets subjugated by the other 51%.
> violence necessary to steal the means of production
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 argue that private property is theft [...]
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?
The Soviet Union was notoriously poor at prioritizing consumer goods, it’s probably one of the reasons for their downfall. One must admit though that both thym and the PRC have achieved something in uplifting backwards feudal empires towards something resembling modernity. I’m not sure that could’ve been achievable counterfactually, and as we saw with the sudden free market capture of post-Soviet Russia in the ‘90s, with a much smaller body count.
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.
Digital watches of far greater accuracy are available in a blister pack on a peg in the supermarket for $5.
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!
Cheap digital watches lack the aesthetic charm of mechanical, not to mention are dependent upon battery power.
> 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.
That’s why cooperatism is superior to socialism and capitalism. It’s a free market of worker-owned companies, creating things by running their businesses together.
The free market is a set of principles between companies, not a principle for how companies need to be organized internally. Capitalism is based on single-owned companies. Cooperatism is based on worker-owned companies. Cooperatism is a better free market based economy. It’s capitalism 2.0.
Ah, the starry-eyed utopianism. Marxists and Objectivists are truly funhouse mirror images; they may look completely different from one another, but both belong at the carnival.
Free markets are a ideal which has never been achieved, much like socialism. There is, and never has been, a market without regulation, and with only voluntary participation and without stolen goods being exchanged.
