Why did 'socialist' countries create poor quality consumer goods?

[Blanquist]

Why were countries like the SU unable to create quality clothing?

Trotsky says something about the lack of freedom for producers and consumers of these goods but what does he mean? Why was it so? What was he proposing differently and why would it it work?

He says that the SU could create, and copy, big industrial projects but the longer and further the question of quality will arise and the SU won't be able to cope (if I understand correctly.) Why not?

The socialist block was huge yet it seems every country had this problem.

Many people got rich simply selling western jeans in Russia. Why was Russia unable to make quality jeans?

[krazny]

Pure speculation on my part, I'm not a sociologist, but I strongly suspect the lack of quality came from a lack anyone bothering to ask what was needed or wanted. If the people making those hypothetical jeans are instructed to make x pair, but no one bothers to survey where or how they'll be worn, it's not so much that they're poorly designed as that they're poorly designed for their intended use. The people making the decisions at the top of the pyramid had absolutely no connection to the end results, and so didn't know they were making things in ways that didn't meet needs. In many societies, one can vote with one's wallet. That wasn't so much an option in the USSR, so the decision-makers never got the hint.
On a side note, but quite related, I did a term paper in undergrad, the central thesis of which was "socialism didn't fail, the USSR was brought down by an ongoing series of lies the leaders told themselves, as to their capabilities and those of their enemies." I think the same premise holds when considering consumer goods as well, to some degree.

[Zulu]

1. The socialist countries were going for quantity first, because they were initially very poor and had to satisfy the basic needs of the as many citizens as possible as soon as possible.

2. While familiarizing themselves with the production process of new goods, they needed some time to adapt. This has been the case with China.

3. The quality gradually increased as the basic needs of the citizens were satisfied. Stalin not long before his death commented on the matter, praising the Soviet industry for accomplishing this task and setting the new one: increase the quality.

4. Later on with the reintroduction of profitability of the enterprises as one of the main economic criteria but keeping elements of the planning and state regulation of the market, the enterprises went for the quantity over quality again, simply because it's easier to demonstrate for the bureaucrats, while the people couldn't influence the process much by "voting with their money" for the quality, as happens in the free market admittedly (and this argument was vastly used by the advocates of full restoration of capitalism in the USSR).

5. You have to also keep in mind the quality/cost/price thing. Sure, some things made in the West were better, but they cost times as much.

6. Finally, some of it is simply typical bourgeois libel. Some goods made in the USSR had extremely long cycles (since the enterprises didn't really bother with the capitalist notion that "if it lasts too long in the hands of the consumer, I'll drive myself out of business", which leads to a lot of "quality" - as in: comfortable and shiny - things that have to break as soon as the warranty expires).

[khad]

Why were countries like the SU unable to create quality clothing?

Trotsky says something about the lack of freedom for producers and consumers of these goods but what does he mean? Why was it so? What was he proposing differently and why would it it work?

He says that the SU could create, and copy, big industrial projects but the longer and further the question of quality will arise and the SU won't be able to cope (if I understand correctly.) Why not?

The socialist block was huge yet it seems every country had this problem.

Many people got rich simply selling western jeans in Russia. Why was Russia unable to make quality jeans?

You know, Levi's shipped a bunch of unlabeled surplus jeans to Hungary and no one bought them. They were buying the label.

Domestic consumer goods were not inferior, and if they were their supposedly perceived inferiority was amplified by worship of Western consumerism.

[dodger]

If there is a queue, the price is too low.

Now where did "built in obsolescence" get it's baptism before travelling the globe? Used to be said by foreigners that Brit restaurants were the worst in the world. Fair comment. Now we have turned complaining into an artform. We still get the same shit, but it's presented better. Has the choice ever been much more than Guns or Butter? Strudel or Autobahns? Meatless days and bullets? Advertising is much maligned, misnamed, it is more about creating demand.California Prunes forever blighted by being a childhood cure for constipation, can with the help of Shamens and a drum become a sophisticated healthy fun drink. Even if the results are pretty much the same. The internal combustion engine has changed little in over a century...nor the Electric car for that matter. New? Innovation? SEX ON WHEELS!! The longer the throbbing bonnet the more old and shrivelled the dick driving it. A pronouncement from one forthright lady.
Perhaps advertising industry can turn it's attentions to stopping children urinating in public swimming pools. We however need to be up to scratch on who we are , what we want and what we need. That is not an invitation for a lecture , by the way. Priorities will be with us for many years to come.

[Prometeo liberado]

As I have read very little on this subject I would say that as for the supposed quality of certain consumer goods I remember hearing something about the lack of research and development departments for say the manufacturing of waffle makers. But more important is where do the comparisons derive from? Up until just recently most of the worlds consumer quality output could not be compared to the US. Now I am talking about the quality of consumer products in general, individual countries of course produced certain high quality products of course. I believe that comparing US products to those of the USSR during, lets say the 1970's without looking at compatible products from from france or taiwan or finland produces only a narrow and lopsided analysis of real general quality. Labeling a Volga car to a Cadillac of the same period as a distinction of good and bad quality is very misleading. The same comparison involving a Peugot and a Kia as well, I feel, put relative "quality" into proper perspective. Point being that the priority of consumer goods quality may not be as high in some parts of the world as they are in the US. Also marketing is an integral piece of the capitalist machine and part of the process to separate someone from their money involves repackaging the same crap over and over and labeling it as "new and improved" ie better quality.

[l'Enfermé]

Heavy emphasis on defense and heavy industry and unprecedented aid to other "Socialist" States. For example, from 1954 to 1959, the USSR spent 7 percent of it's national income on aid to China, in what can be described as history's largest technology exchange. The great potential of the command economy was also mostly wasted because workers weren't allowed to have an input, the old capitalist relations not being abolished.

[daft punk]

1. The socialist countries were going for quantity first, because they were initially very poor and had to satisfy the basic needs of the as many citizens as possible as soon as possible.

OK, fair enough, except that it wasnt socialism.



2. While familiarizing themselves with the production process of new goods, they needed some time to adapt. This has been the case with China.

Hmmm



3. The quality gradually increased as the basic needs of the citizens were satisfied. Stalin not long before his death commented on the matter, praising the Soviet industry for accomplishing this task and setting the new one: increase the quality.

Wow, the guy's a genius



4. Later on with the reintroduction of profitability of the enterprises as one of the main economic criteria but keeping elements of the planning and state regulation of the market, the enterprises went for the quantity over quality again, simply because it's easier to demonstrate for the bureaucrats, while the people couldn't influence the process much by "voting with their money" for the quality, as happens in the free market admittedly (and this argument was vastly used by the advocates of full restoration of capitalism in the USSR).

Hello! You call this socialism. But if consumers had no choice, how did this mechanism of 'profitablity' ensure quality? Please explain this mechanism.

So, what did the trendy Stalinists look like in their cool, profitable garb?


http://angelasancartier.net/wp-content/uploads/287.jpg




5. You have to also keep in mind the quality/cost/price thing. Sure, some things made in the West were better, but they cost times as much.

Hmmm



6. Finally, some of it is simply typical bourgeois libel. Some goods made in the USSR had extremely long cycles (since the enterprises didn't really bother with the capitalist notion that "if it lasts too long in the hands of the consumer, I'll drive myself out of business", which leads to a lot of "quality" - as in: comfortable and shiny - things that have to break as soon as the warranty expires).
Support?

[daft punk]

OK folks welcome to the Soviet Union in the 1950s, and the world of fashion. In 1956 some British fashion designers went to Russia and caused a sensation, but unfortunately for the Russians no British company ever go any offers of cooperation from Moscow.

http://www.realussr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/3-302x500.jpg

Jeans made a sensation. Nothing was more wanted — and unavailable.


Dior models shooting ad in Russia (to be used in the west - obviously) turn heads

http://englishrussia.com/images/soviet_dior/1.jpg

http://englishrussia.com/images/soviet_dior/8.jpg

http://englishrussia.com/images/soviet_dior/10.jpg

[Omsk]

Well,clothes were all right in the USSR,especially army clothing,which was first class.The Russian boots,furr hats,Telogreika,winter boots,and jackets were first class.You have to understand that the climate in the USSR called for quality winter clothing,and they did have excellent winter clothing.In the years of 1940-1950 fashion was hardly the greatest concern of the Soviet people.For an example,when the Soviets joined up with the partisan columns in Yugoslavia,there was a huge rush for Russian clothing,and people were ready to trade/pay for a pair of boots,and if someone could get jacker,or a Telogreika,he was a lucky man.

And the people who think the clothing in the USSR was bad,just a short answer for you: The clothing was great.

[Rooster]

I own some soviet cameras. Their quality isn't that great. They feel cheap and have some design issues. The main problem is a fault in the way that the lens was made. The actual model I have, an East German SLR from the 80s, has the shutter button next to the lens so that's a pain. The light meter is fine though, and the lens itself is good. But in comparison to even a cheaper camera from Japan or America at that time, the quality is nowhere near as good. Even in comparison to western cameras from the 70s, it doesn't hold up that well. The plastic cameras are pretty terrible as well construction wise. Concept wise, they're perfectly fine though. The cars have to be mentioned. Soviet era cars were terrible in comparison to cars from capitalist countries. On the whole, I don't think the quality wasn't too bad (apart from the cars) but they were not as good compared to commodities from the west. I've read that a lot of electronic goods, such as TVs, failed their quality control tests. But hey, at least they had quality control tests!

[Rooster]

especially army clothing

Eh, using the example of army goods is kinda loosing the definition of consumer goods.

[Omsk]

The 'army' clothing was used by both factory workers,railroad workers,seamen,police officers,woodcuters,miners,etc etc.And when it was cold (it was always cold in some parts of the USSR) military clothes were worn by everyone.And,there were 'coppies' of military type clothes,produced for civilians.

[daft punk]

I have to say their winter clothing does look pretty decent
http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/mydans/mydans005-59.jpg

[Rooster]

The 'army' clothing was used by both factory workers,railroad workers,seamen,police officers,woodcuters,miners,etc etc.And when it was cold (it was always cold in some parts of the USSR) military clothes were worn by everyone.And,there were 'coppies' of military type clothes,produced for civilians.

But goods made for the military are not the same as consumer goods. You wouldn't use tanks and aircraft as examples of consumer goods. What about tv sets? Cameras? Frying pans? Ice skates? Cars? Guitars? Pianos? Tape recorders?

I also think you've kinda provided an answer to the OP. The Soviet economy, apparently planned as it was, just wasn't planned towards consumer goods. All of the good things, the money and research, went into non consumer goods for non consumers such as the military.

[daft punk]

The problem the Russians had was getting changes made. They ran a taut economy and there was very little incentive for factory managers to implement changes, and quite a big downside if they got things wrong. Plus obviously consumers had little say.

What you need is democratic planning, with consumers represented.

[Omsk]

But goods made for the military are not the same as consumer goods. You wouldn't use tanks and aircraft as examples of consumer goods. What about tv sets? Cameras? Frying pans? Ice skates? Cars? Guitars? Pianos? Tape recorders?

Well,the clothing was first made for the military,and than,sets for the civilians were made too,after the success of the military version of the clothes.

(I though this thread was mainly about the clothing)



What about tv sets? Cameras? Frying pans? Ice skates? Cars? Guitars? Pianos? Tape recorders?


What period are we talking about?40-50,60?70-80? (A lot of things changed in the preiods i mentioned)

[m1omfg]

Our TESLA czechoslovak record player from the 1970s lasted until the late 2000s. You find (through rarely now) old Skoda cars on the road that lasted 40 years. My grandmother used a 1960s era hoover at home until late 1990s. She had to repair it with duct tape, but it worked well. The 1980s Czechoslovak LPs I have in my drawer still sound better than Youtube compressed crap, apart from scratches (and the scratches only add to the charm).

The "socialist consumer goods were poor" is such a pile of bullshit. They were not as good as say, 1970s USA goods, but they were definitely better than modern day Chinese crap. Modern day multicore Windows Pissta monsters cannot last even 4 years without screwing up, our ZX Spectrum clones from mid-1980s still work.

Seriously, stop fucking abusing the word "poor" in regards to socialist countries. The people who say how "poor" were the socialist countries and how "poor" their products were typically also say that Thailand and India are "vibrant democratic developing economies".

As for food, the quality is incomparable. Our food norms until 1994 were better than those in modern day EU. They had to cancel them because the whole 1989 revolutions were supposed to make dump the West their low quality products on us. If you offered the cheap "cheese" or "yoghurt" from Tescos here to a person before 1989, he/she'd would not even eat it. There was a lack of variety in goods, but definitely not lack of quality. You had 2 varieties of shampoo for example instead of 100, but at least you knew these 2 won't poison you.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I tend to see that if you look very close to the argument of that the socialist countries products had poor quality, its often obvious that its more about estetics (a highly relative and subjective thing). As said, most products where far more robust and during, but not so beutiful, at least in many westerners eyes, and therefor the conclusion of that they also must have been bad is taken.

[Zulu]

I tend to see that if you look very close to the argument of that the socialist countries products had poor quality, its often obvious that its more about estetics (a highly relative and subjective thing). As said, most products where far more robust and during, but not so beutiful, at least in many westerners eyes, and therefor the conclusion of that they also must have been bad is taken.


A little bit of illustration to this:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4607/bandagex.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4607/bandagex.jpg)

[NewLeft]

They could have used a better designer..?

[Imposter Marxist]

They were all state capitalist countries anyway. The state capitalist bourgeoisie in the party let no room for creative ideas to be persured, so they ended up with gray, boring, state capitalist goods.

[Rusty Shackleford]

did you know east germany was one of the biggest consumers of butter in europe? (why?) because all the wessies went over to the east for their groceries.


my conservative (by american standards) german teacher actually bought her text books in east germany when she was studying in the west. this was in the 70s/80s, possibly earlier.

[The Αnarchist Tension]

The CCCP may have created poor quality goods, but I think what matters more is quantity. People may have not liked what they got, but at least everyone got what they needed, even if it isn't pretty looking.

[Strannik]

I think one problem was that for light industry and consumer goods you absolutely need some democratic feedback, either market or some democratic voting or ordering. Production methods that work for heavy industry and basic goods do not work for consumer goods, where consumer preference plays a large role.

That said, as a child in Soviet Union I visited an exhibition of people's economy. It had examples of various consumer goods that were planned in various state enterprises - cookies, bikes, tv-sets, etc. And I was amazed how much cool stuff we could make - compared to stores that were mostly empty. So one problem was certainly that even though soviet enterprizes were able to plan, design and produce the goods, they did not arrive where they were wanted - they went where a bureaucrat directed them.

To get into a store, a consumer good had to go through several "gauntlets". First there had to be resources left over from state defence to make it. Then a bureaucrat had to approve that it was needed. Then a bureaucrat had to approve its design. And then a bureaucrat had to direct the produced goods into your area's stores.

Since there wasn't enough for everybody, all these decisions were ususally made not according to demand but as political or personal favors. Not always, but quite often.

And yet soviet goods had one thing going for them that makes them popular even now. There was no planned obsolesence. When, finally, something got made, it was at least robust. Gilette's razor blades last for a few weeks. I found my grandfathers razor blades from seventies and they still shave better than the new ones. Also, soviet waffle irons are in high demand even with all the capitalist alternatives in the stores. Because the alternatives are small and break after a few months.

[Lanky Wanker]

Stalin not long before his death commented on the matter, praising the Soviet industry for accomplishing this task and setting the new one: increase the quality.

I don't fully trust documentaries on things like this, but apparently Stalin demanded to see the production numbers and killed those who didn't produce enough which led people to lie about the numbers. On top of that he'd select random workers to be killed just to scare the others. Is this true or just propaganda?

[Deicide]

Perhaps, it was because of overemphasis on heavy industry and weapons?

[Deicide]

I have to say their winter clothing does look pretty decent
http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/mydans/mydans005-59.jpg

This reminds of where I grew up. Good times. Although I didn't know anything else. Man was I in for a culture shock when I moved to the UK.

During the 1970s and 1980s it was very easy to get hold of western clothing.

There were even shops which sold western goods. They were specifically for western visitors, and you could only buy the goods with U.S. dollars. Although you had to prove you're from the west.

Nonetheless, the soviet people got round this predicament.. By stealing them and selling them illegally! Adidas clothing was very popular, it was essentially a status symbol.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In the Soviet Union it was forbidden to try on shoes in a shoe store. There were three standard sizes for men and women. One had to sign up for a designated shoe size and then could only buy shoes in that size.Obviously this was absurd so there was a huge underground shoe trading network with friends and family. People would take their shoes which didn't fit and constantly trade them for ones which actually did.

Soviet clothing catalogues from the 70s and 80s are interesting.

[redflag]

Many socialist countries produce good quality products, but not all socialist countries are able to produce good quality products due to having lesser wealth and resources than capitalist countries. Capitalism just gives rise to meaningless consumerism. People in socialist countries have overcome the crass consumerism seen in capitalist countries. All socialist countries deserve our full support.

[Deicide]

In the Soviet Union it was forbidden to try on shoes in a shoe store.

I don't want to be an asshole, but who in the hell told you that? It may have been like that during Stalins time. But not during the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. And to be honest, if someone worked in a shoe factory, they would just take some shoes home with them.

In the Lithuanian SSR, you could try any shoes on in the stores, and as many times as you wanted. And there were more than three sizes..

Edit - I find it hard to believe you're being serious tbh.

[Imposter Marxist]

I don't want to be an asshole, but who in the hell told you that? It may have been like that during Stalins time. But not during the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. And to be honest, if someone worked in a shoe factory, they would just take some shoes home with them.

In the Lithuanian SSR, you could try any shoes on in the stores, and as many times as you wanted. And there were more than three sizes.. much more.

Edit - I find it hard to believe you're being serious tbh.

of course, it was all state capitalist shoes, produced by enslaving the proletariat

[Deicide]

People in socialist countries have overcome the crass consumerism seen in capitalist countries.

Although I've never seen a socialist country, considering socialism can't exist in one country. I'm guessing, however, that by socialism, you mean the USSR, etc.

There were black markets selling western goods all over the USSR. The navy used to bring back western goods too. I assure you, regardless of what the western USSR fanboys think, consumerism and commodity fetishism existed in the USSR. And a lot of people viewed western goods as prestigious items.

[Imposter Marxist]

we must remember as long as consumeroism exists, socialism does not

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't want to be an asshole, but who in the hell told you that? It may have been like that during Stalins time. But not during the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. And to be honest, if someone worked in a shoe factory, they would just take some shoes home with them.

In the Lithuanian SSR, you could try any shoes on in the stores, and as many times as you wanted. And there were more than three sizes..

Edit - I find it hard to believe you're being serious tbh.

Who told me this? I am from the US but I lived in Moscow, Russia for three years. The people who told me this were several dozen Russian people, long term residents of Moscow.Maybe the situation was different in Lithuania (Lithuania was famous as the USSR's "window to the West" and was known for greater economic experimentation).

I have a Russian friend, in his thirties, who when he was a young boy his grandfather sold him a pocket watch (for some nominal price, a few rubles). He had to keep this fact a secret, if word got out that his grandfather sold him a watch both he and his grandfather could have gotten in trouble. I've heard other stories like this (I don't know why the grandfather didn't just give him the watch, I'm just relating the story).

During Sovietskaya vreminiya, Soviet times, all economic activity was, in theory, controlled by the state. It was against the law to moonlight, to have a second or third job on the grounds that this would create unfair income disparities. A large number of people did this anyway.

If someone's age and occupation were known it was easy to know how much they made, the income progression was like clockwork. After the SU collapsed it was disorienting to people in their forties who's children in their teens or 20s often made 5 or 6 times what they made in entry level jobs.

Its complicated. It is hard to imagine but most people led controlled lives. People were dependent on the state bureaucracy for just about everything. This was combined with a high degree of atomisation.

On the other hand, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the destruction of an industrial economy which drove a large part of Russia's population into extreme poverty,was a crime against humanity.I could share many nightmare stories of the poverty and destitution I saw in Russia


The fact that Russian society had been atomized, and the fact that people were confused by their legitimate hostility to the Soviet bureaucracy, made worker's resistance very difficult. Hopefully we may be seeing a gradual upsurge in class struggle in Russia, besides the fact that the current protests are dominated by liberal middle class elements.

[Deicide]

Lithuania also turned into an unbearable shithole when the USSR collapsed. In fact, it's the reason why my family moved to the UK. Lithuania still has a major, if not catastrophic, problems with its youth fleeing the country to places like Scandinavia, UK, Australia and America.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I have a Russian friend, in his thirties, who when he was a young boy his grandfather sold him a pocket watch (for some nominal price, a few rubles). He had to keep this fact a secret, if word got out that his grandfather sold him a watch both he and his grandfather could have gotten in trouble. I've heard other stories like this (I don't know why the grandfather didn't just give him the watch, I'm just relating the story).

Because giving gifts was illegal and carried draconian sentences. My uncle spent 14 years in the Gulag for giving a watch to his wife as a birthday present.

[Ocean Seal]

of course, it was all state capitalist shoes, produced by enslaving the proletariat
This really just sounds like silly exceptionalism (from someone who believes that socialism was long gone in these countries at that given time).


we must remember as long as consumeroism exists, socialism does not
This is absolutely incorrect. I don't want to live in a society of austerity just because there are a few red flags dangling from the rooftop.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Because giving gifts was illegal and carried draconian sentences. My uncle spent 14 years in the Gulag for giving a watch to his wife as a birthday present.

Do I sense a wee bit of sarcasm here? That's fair. Well, some clarification on my previous post. It wasn't forbidden to give gifts in the Soviet Union. The fact is that all economic activity outside the control of the state was forbidden (I'm not saying that's completely bad either actually). I got the story somewhat garbled. Basically my friend was given a watch by his grandfather for a token payment, equivalent to 25 cents. Harmless and little chance he'd get in trouble. My friend was a little kid at the time, over reacted and for a long time thought he'd be accused of being a "bag man", an illegal street merchant.. This was an over reaction but for a long time he was afraid to tell anyone about his watch.

[Imposter Marxist]

This really just sounds like silly exceptionalism (from someone who believes that socialism was long gone in these countries at that given time).


This is absolutely incorrect. I don't want to live in a society of austerity just because there are a few red flags dangling from the rooftop.

What a stalinist response.

[Kotze]

I own some soviet cameras. Their quality isn't that great...I don't know shit about cameras, but apparantly some people are very fond of some USSR cameras (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=120&t=51792).

Did your cameras have the State Quality Mark of the USSR (Государственный знак качества СССР) (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=120&t=51793)?

[BonapartistSocialist]

In all reality we have to take a step back and examine the situation from outside the box.

We must think of what Marx would say, i mean you guys should read more about the origins of socialism, Marx had a lot to say about Napoloean and the way his socialism operated. Have any of you guys read up on ol' napolean? He had A LOT, and I mean A LOT of good theory.

For anyone whose interested I'll be holding an online discussion later using skype regarding getting back to our true socialist roots, the Bonaparte ones.

[Grenzer]

For anyone whose interested I'll be holding an online discussion later using skype regarding getting back to our true socialist roots, the Bonaparte ones.

Huh?

What the hell are you talking about?

Napoleon did some progressive things, such as starting the continent's first welfare fund for widows; but he could hardly be considered a socialist. In fact, he was a direct participant in one of the worlds first bourgeois revolutions.

I think you're terribly confused. I'm not exactly sure what to tell you, but it seems that you don't really understand what socialism is.

I recommend going here (www.marxists.org).