This is objectively and historically not consistent (although authoritarian systems do tend to open the floor to shining examples). I can speak for my country and my parents and grandparent's experience - I'm from Bulgaria. We had a successful financial and society driven socialism. It way way way to broad and somebody probably needs to do a documentary about it, since I definately won't be able to type it all down. The day-to-day reality of a socialist system is not without it's merits. You are absolutely ensured you will have housing. It will also depend on how many children you have and receive the appropreate property. You will be given a car per family of 2 or more with a small tax (1 month's salary), food is calculated to be enough, so that you could have food on the table (it's what planned economy is for), you get state sponsored vacations on the seaside, mountain resorts, etc. The government finds you a job, so unemployment is practically zero, if there's no job for you, you still get a government salary, list goes on. As Tim mentioned in the video today, yes, the party does not tolerate decent, but nobody decented. The story about a woman being taken away - it could happen if there are other reports, and there will surely be some connections to show that it was a lie.

at least in a non-Ukrane one, since Ukrane was an absorbed state. The main reason socialism was bad and horrifying is it suffacated art, it stomped out ambition and it was traded in influence, rather than anything else.

this is why people revolted and wanted democracy, not because it failed financially... because contrary to popular belief, it didn't

then you were lucky to have more producers than consumers.

we exported to the USSR a huge portion of production. It was just that it wasn't a madman in charge.

same for Poland, same for Hungary, same for Romania, etc.

it wasn't a single country that did well

more did well than didn't (financially)

in the states we have a bit of an issue, a large group of people hitting ages where they cannot work, with a very small relative young population to support them.

now, i image when you don't need to worry about the cost of kids, this is less likely to happen

but i would imagine the suffocation of art is that you need to make sure you have enough extra production to ensure you can weather bumps along the way

Artistic endeavor thrived the most under systems with a noble class.

also, those are pretty small countries all things considered no?

well, maybe some medium

the extra production wasn't a problem in most socialist states. You obviously have the horrid examples shoved in your face, where that wasn't really the common occurance. Bumps were offset by distribution of resourses between different Warsaw pact countries

including the USSR

Ukrane was beaten down, because there are ethnic tentions between Russiand and Ukranians

same with Yugoslavia - big country, rich on resourses, varied ethnicly, failed miserably

All I'm trying to say, the argument it was a system of scarcity and terror is simply not true for the most part

then what crushed art?

well why would you? what would inspire you? Besides, to be an artist, you had to go and get an education to be one. You can't just pick up a guitar and be inspired and finance your record, the state would have to approve it and why would it? You are not educated anough to be a musician. Or if you draw a painting... it's probably pretty, but you are not educated in the area to have a mandated place in a galery, there are people that studied 4 years for that. Or a poet or a writer... who's gonna publish you?

artists need to be educated?

why would you show ambition? The state will find a job for you - you have a skillset you're good at, you do that for a living.

well yeah, art school 😃

is pretty new, and only useful to people not innately talented

Not necessarily

do you see now the sinister and scary bit about socialism...

You can have good hand eye coord but it doesn't mean you'll have a good grasp of the "rules" of art/perspective. You can self teach for sure but not everyone has the drive

(my cat is a fucking jumpscare, fucking came out of no where, and jumped from under by desk onto my lap. the fucker)

wait, isn't it ironic that a a lot of artists are of the hippy commie/socialist kind?

indeed, but that doesn't mean that you'd have a pool of artists as rich. Besides, you are mandated to be a painter or a musician, or a composer. And you are state mandated to be just that. What would inspire you 😉

No, artists rely on patrons

State as patron could easily be viewed as beneficial

oh did I mention that you are not allowed to NOT work if the state finds you a job? You might really want to be a singer and you probably have a tallent for it, but if you don't get an art education, or have a patron or the right connections, you are a baker... for life...

Also creativity/openness tend to be higher in lefties iirc

in liberals, not lefties.

In a liberal/conservative dichotomy the two are often used interchangeably

Mostly because it's not a good dichotomy

the more you use liberal as interchangeable with left, the more this is going to get worse imo

I generally don't use the dichotomy

Either left/right or liberal/conservative, beyond light shitposting