Can someone explain to me what average day life for a soviet

>>2801067
First thing to understand is that Soviet Russia was not Communist. The workers didn't control the means of production.

>>2801073

It was literally all smaller unions within a super union. Politicians and rich people had to suck off the working class in order to advance in any way

>>2801073
>The workers didn't control the means of production.
What does this mean?

The workers produce things using the means of production, ergo all workers are 'in charge of the means of production'.

Please stop using this fucking meme phrase.

>>2801083
Das rite kids, the politicians and factry owners liked our boots. We wuz soviets n shieeet.

>>2801067
Eisenhower said in "Crusade for Europe" that during WWII workers in the tank factories would work 72 hours per week.

I'm guessing that was only during the war, though.

>>2801134
They didn't decide what was produced, how they produced it, how much time they'd spend producing it, what was done with the production, what was done with the resulting resources, etc. etc.

In what way did they control the means of production? They had no say in any aspect of it. They couldn't even strike.

Look at the early days of Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo, when all the workers got together once a week to decide all those things, while working the other four. That's what it means for the workers to have control over production.

Obviously that doesn't work once your organization reaches a certain size - can't have your warehouse workers having a say in software design decisions - so no, communism doesn't work, especially not on a national scale. That's why "it's never been tried" - it's obvious from the outside that it's impossible.

But even the Soviets didn't claim what they were doing was communism. They claimed that their "national socialism" (really just nationalized totalitarianism) was the first step towards communism, and just never made the next step - and probably never intended to, as it'd mean relinquishing practically infinite power.

File: sovietworkinghours.png (46KB, 528x376px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 528x376px

>>2801184
correct

>>2801083
>Politicians and rich people had to suck off the working class in order to advance in any way
What odd delusion is this?

Politicians and rich people only had to suck other rich people's and politician's cocks (and, occasionally, the military's). Neither of those groups has ever had to suck working class cock in all of history, save to throw them enough lies of placation for them not to go full French Revolution on their asses. (And vote for them, in democratic republics - certainly not an issue in the USSR.)

>>2801067
In short, life was shit - but I'll try to answer this bait...

>Did they have a boss? could they get fired?
It was sorta possible to be fired, but hella unlikely. You could get fined for not doing your work. Regional trade union organizations could fire managers and administrators not doing their job properly - and these were effectively your bosses.

Granted, if you did get fired, for good reason, you were quite likely to end up in a prison work camp as a "non-producing citizen" if you didn't quickly grab another job.

>Could they choose their profession?
Most of the time, yes. After graduating from university, there was a three year period where you were assigned work, but after that, you could continue working there or seek reassignment, which was generally granted. Certain fields were of course no-go (being viewed as "anti-Soviet"), and during WWII, at least, leaving a crucial military job was considered treason, even if you were a civilian.

>Like, if you were an electrician, EVERY electrician in the union were coworkers?
Essentially, but you were divided into local unions and local labor organizations.

>Was everyone just employed by the state, with no companies?
Every enterprise was officially owned and controlled by the state, and thus everyone was indirectly employed by the state, but this is more of a thing on paper than in practice. They didn't, however, have much say in business-related activities such as marketing, buying-and-selling and financial decisions. They were each "production associations" with goals and quotas determined by the state.

...

>>2801335
>How did they determine wages? were there raises?
Under Stalin the wages were piecemeal, so if you worked harder, you were paid more (which is oddly American - as far as the concept of the "hard work means more money" myth goes). This lead to a problem with too many folks overfilling quotas, so they tried to mitigate this with various reforms, which backfired pretty solidly, as said reforms effectively meant everyone would be paid less, and the suppliers kinda sorta rebelled by creating artificial shortages that had to be filled quickly, thus temporarily creating massive quotas.

>I also remember seeing a pic of a soviet woman working in a pepsi manufacturing plant
Pepsi was an odd case, but this branch, like other enterprises, had set quotas, and it kind of turned into a pepsi<->vodka international trade. Mind you, this was 1972, and things were already starting to fluctuate by then.

>Also, didnt they have different car companies? how could they have competing car makers in a communist system? isnt that capitalistic?
They did have different car companies (or "enterprises"), but they produced different tiers of cars, and cars for selling abroad, so they weren't competing. Nonetheless, of course, the best cars were reserved for the top Soviet officials (and pricey taxis) - and there's several shady rumors about the fear a Black Volga riding through town would generate.

>>2801342
>>2801242

People like you come around 1/100 threads and really make /his/ worth visiting. Thanks based anon.

>>2801134
>he workers produce things using the means of production
same as in capitalism

in gommunism the workers own the mop