[meerita]

The Soviet Union was a vast and diverse territory with a wide range of cultural and educational systems. However, the reality for many in the scientific community was one of forced labor and control by the politburo. Fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and academic freedom were suppressed and non-existent.

Modern people must remember that they were told what to work on, when, and how much they would get paid. There wasn't the concept of Sundays or vacations as we have today. There were no choices, only the government's choice.

[ivan_gammel]

This is not true.

[nickpp]

I can attest that in the Eastern Block (not USSR) where I lived, this was indeed true.

Things could've been different in the USSR which was the conquering country while the Eastern Block their vassals. Many goods produced went straight to the benefit of Russian occupiers while lacking in the Eastern European countries.

[ivan_gammel]

So you can attest something different than life of middle class of SU. How is this relevant? I lived in middle class family in SU and I see it differently.

[meerita]

Just look at the evidence: scientists fleed USSR as soon as they had the chance and not the reverse, scientists invading USSR begging to be in the science paradise the propapaganda sells. If you go to Cuba to learn medicine, you will realise everything is so outdated that cannot be treated seriously. Same happened in USSR, but the propaganda aparatus still works trying to sell the idea of the science paradise, all I've seen traveling to ex USSR, and some communist-socialist places is quite the opposite.

[ivan_gammel]

This is certainly not true. I do not know where you get it from, but real brain drain started after transition to a presumably better capitalist democratic system and it happened due to economic reasons. The funding simply went down by orders of magnitude, which made scientific work impossible.

Your personal tourist impressions are not making you closer to understanding of such a big country with such complicated history. Try reading some books if you are really interested.

[meerita]

I have read books, of course. But brain drainage for sure were prior the dissolution. You can read for example about the Operation Osoaviakhim, where 2500 scientists (and their families) were forced to go the soviet union as war reparations. Or the book The Murder of Nikolai Vavilov: The Story of the Persecution of One of the Great Scientists, were you can read how beautiful was science in the soviet union.

[ityngyn]

The real brain drain started when people were finally allowed to flee the paradise and what was left of it. It wasn't their fault your apparatchiks and yesterday's party members, the real owners of everything, started to carve up their posessions calling themselves capitalists this time. Before the fall only establishment members could flee (illegally) and jews (since the 1970s).

[mantas]

This is completely true aside from „no sundays“ bit.

[meerita]

You can read more about https://www.history.com/news/soviet-union-stalin-weekend-lab... and I also bought the books and it was amazing.

[mantas]

This was true for a very short time though. That’s like painting whole USSR in the spirit of NEP or the corn experiment or Holodomor.

On the other hand, all of that is a good example how experimental and far-reaching the totalitarian regime was. Which is a frequently overlooked feature of this „progressive“ mindset. Every societal change comes with a cost, frequently unexpected.

[meerita]

Yes, most of the things we discuss weren't applied the entire 80 years it lasted, and not even totally in all territories. But you all get the point.

[ivan_gammel]

Forced labor in science? Probably you are referring to “sharashka” — research labs using work of prisoners, but they existed only in Stalin era. There was no forced labor in scientific work before 1928 or after 1953-55. So what exactly is completely true in that fiction?

[mantas]

1) Not working was illegal in USSR.

2) After graduation, you'd get an assignment for your first workplace. Technically you could choose, but in reality the choice was limited and it was more like companies headhunting students. There was no option to refuse all assignments and go on your own.

A partial opt-outs was to get married while in university. If your partner already has a job, then you'll probably get an assignment in same city. Although sometimes they'd just get your partner to move too :)

3) Hiring even for unskilled jobs was highly political. E.g. political prisoners of Stalin era, after returning, would have very hard time to get even a cleaner's job. If somebody had a specific position for you in mind, they had all tools to make it happen.

4) Changing jobs was pretty difficult. You couldn't just leave, move to another city and then look for another job. You couldn't get registration in another city without employment. You'd have to find a company that will agree to hire you first. And if you were needed at your current job... They could easily talk to that company to not hire you (after all both managers were members of the party). Unless that other company really wanted you and the manager had enough political weight to make it happen.

All in all, was it forced labor at gunpoint? No. But free will to pick employment was very limited to say the least.

[ivan_gammel]

(1) Yes (2) Yes, but that was only for university graduates, it was time-bound and came with additional job security guarantees and often with guaranteed accommodation. Not sure if it’s really different from some modern contracts. (3) I suggest to stop referencing Stalin era as something that is characteristic for the entire history of SU. It was not the longest period and it was indeed special. In other periods being forced to do a particular job was a rare thing. (4) There were restrictions on the process of changing the job, but compare that to modern world: large notice periods on contracts, non-compete agreements, visas - is it the world of forced labor or sometimes employers have stronger negotiation power than you?

[mantas]

> (2) Yes, but that was only for university graduates, it was time-bound

Time-bound forced work is still forced work.

> and came with additional job security guarantees and often with guaranteed accommodation

Serfdom and slavery also comes with job security and accommodation. It's still forced labor though.

> Not sure if it’s really different from some modern contracts.

You're free to not sign up a modern contract.

> (3) I suggest to stop referencing Stalin era as something that is characteristic for the entire history of SU. It was not the longest period and it was indeed special. In other periods being forced to do a particular job was a rare thing.

Specific example was about post-Stalin era. Many political prisoners and their kids were released from gulags after Stalin's death. Coming back home, even to full-of-anti-soviet-resistance Lithuania, was not easy. A distant relative had to live in Kazakhstan for decades since he couldn't get a registration closer to home. We're talking „lax“ Chruschiov era.

> (4) There were restrictions on the process of changing the job

And there was a lot of unwritten rules were special persons would just fall in a never ending quagmire.

> but compare that to modern world: large notice periods on contracts, non-compete agreements

Non-compete is illegal in many jurisdictions. Few weeks notice seems fair to both sides TBH. Dropping a job on the spot is not nice.

> visas

That doesn't apply to 99.9% of people. If you work in foreign country and don't have permanent residence there, it's up to you. But when you need visa equivalent to move to a city from a village in your native whereabouts...

[bawolff]

I'm not disputing that the soviet union lacked freedom, but:

> how much they would get paid

Most people in capitalist countries have very limited control over how much they are paid.

[nickpp]

You mean like negotiating their pay, changing their employer or even the city they lived in? Those simple things were completely impossible under communism: the only employer was The State and you needed papers to move.

Of course things were different if you were part of the nomenklatura (leading party) or the secret police. You were a winner in communism then.

[ivan_gammel]

Changing employer or city was certainly possible. I do not think you are really familiar with history of SU.

[meerita]

Of course it was, but I am not talking about possibilities, but more on the probabilities side, just to point out:

In a socialist regime, job assignments are made by the state. The state controls most industries and companies, and is responsible for assigning jobs to citizens. However, there may be corruption in the system where individuals in positions of power use their influence to give jobs and favors. It's important to note that the reality of socialist systems can vary significantly depending on the country or region in question and may have different characteristics than described.

But the basics of the corruption system is the same. In fact, low level officials traded jobs, cigarettes, food, for sex if it was a woman who wanted a favor or a job, and rubles if they were males, there are accounts of men giving their wives in order to obtain promotions, jobs, or moving to a another city.

In Venezuela as an example, or Cuba, it happens the same. Citizens don't deal with the State, they deal with low level officials who have the veto power. Basically you become a slave.

[dragonwriter]

> In a socialist regime, job assignments are made by the state.

In a socialist system, the workers exercise control of the means of production, and, as a consequence, of industry.

There are models of socialism where this control is exercised centrally through the state, but it is controversial within socialism. It is widely known because a branch of socialist theory that attempted to adapt Marxist theory (itself one particular corner of socialism) to avoid capitalist development as a prerequisite was influential with groups that haf some success establishing control of various states and implemented it, but it is not the only model of socialism.

So, yes, in the USSR this is a (gross simplification of) the system, but it is not general to “socialism”.

[ivan_gammel]

> In a socialist regime, job assignments are made by the state

This is a generic and oversimplified statement that does not apply to Soviet Union. Its history is divided into several periods in some of which mobility of workforce was severely restricted (1940—1956), but not most of the time. You only had to have work, but moving to a different job or different city was certainly possible with 2 weeks notice period (in modern Germany typical contract requires 3 months notice). Some HR departments in manufacturing even had to solve the retention problem due to high churn.

If you want to study history, do not go to nearby book store, read real historians instead.

[estaset]

Becoming a multi-millionaire nowadays is possible, too. Why aren't you one?

[meerita]

It is not the same. In capitalists countries, you have options, and new options come out each time someone wants to control the wage, and it's not a problem of the capitalist system but the goverments setting up mininum wage and other controls that kills free market. In socialists regimes there is no options and no chance to even discuss raises with your employers. If you got to Cuba, NK or any other similar country you will see how well prepared people is working on mundane jobs, by force, I've been there and I've been taken from my hotel to airport by a driver in Cuba that he was a doctor. Tell me how these systems will be pro-science if you cannot have access to the best of the technology, market, literature, etc.

[bawolff]

Ask your average min wage service worker how much freedom they actually feel they have

Communism sucking does not magically make USA style capitalism a magical utopian paradise where everyone has a private yacht. Sure between the two i'd definitely pick usa - hands down, but lets not pretend that the average worker in usa can just dictate what their wages will be.

[mantas]

Average american worker has freedom to tell jokes about US president. Average soviet worker also had freedom to tell jokes about US president :)

[meerita]

He doesn't have any option because the market is regulated. In unregulated market he can move to a better paying position, it always happens like this. Just look the IT market, the moment you're feeling you're not well paid you find out someone else who will pay you more, until you reach a line.

[vintermann]

They had options in the East Bloc countries too, it was just that they were limited by who you knew rather than how rich you were.

And I totally agree that being at the mercy of someone you have to ask permission, can be every inch as dispiriting being at the mercy of a person who can set a price.

[nickpp]

Oh no. It doesn't even compare. The current "price" is set by the free market and it can be met, negotiated or worked for. It's clear and it's fair even if sometimes steep.

But asking for permission was dehumanizing. You ass belonged to them afterwards. Like asking for a favor from the mob. You were a slave. They were the aristocracy and you were less than dirt.