Charles Brown wrote:
> So your position is that the now-defunct Soviet Union did or did
> not have a reserve army of unemployed motivating them to work ?
The reserve army was clearly very small even if it wasn't zero. There
were often labor shortages. It wasn't large enough to motivate workers
by invoking fear (as it does under capitalism).
> Or is it
> your position that there was very little work done in the now-defunct
> Soviet Union ?
I said that the amount of effort per worker-hour was low, compared to
in the so-called "West."
Of course, there were exceptions, as when people still were willing to
work hard for the revolution (late 1910s, early 1920s, fading) or when
they were subject to direct coercion (later on, on and off).
> If so, little work was done, how come so many use-values
> were produced ?
Repeating what I said: even if effort per worker-hour is low, it can
be compensated for (raising the amount of use-values produced) by
raising the number of hours actually worked by each worker. Or by
bringing in lots of workers from the countryside.
Repeating what I said: in general, the _quality_ of Soviet use-values
was low. They produced shoddy goods.
The fundamental reason is due to class antagonism: there was not
enough harmony between workers and their state-appointed supervisors
and managers to motivate workers to produce high-quality products.
This meant that the reserve army of the unemployed was sorely missed
-- that is, if your only goal is to produce high-quality use-values.
--
Jim Devine / "The radios blare muzak and newzak, diseases are cured
every day / the worst disease is to be unwanted, to be used up, and
cast away." -- Peter Case ("Poor Old Tom").
