Somebody: Well, the new Chinese and Vietnamese workers are also recently urbanized peasants, and the Soviet workers during the periods of highest growth were as well. Conversely, the workers of the period of stagnation in the 70's were often the children of peasants. So, I don't know how much you can point to that as the cause of the poor labor discipline which seemed to fester over the course of Soviet history.
On the other hand, the right to work continued to be an issue. I wonder if we could theorize a socialism which *didn't* have a right to work - i.e. one that has the Marxist equivalent of the Netherland's so-called flexicurity.
Matthias: Analytic points: one, what counts as "socialism?" I'd be fine with a system of worker-owned cooperatives plus a social democratic welfare state, but obviously not all would. Two, what labor/leisure tradeoffs are legitimate for a society that "works?"
Somebody: You're right, I should have clarified. By socialism I meant basically a state modeled after the Soviet Union or the People's Republic under Mao, wherein the bourgeoisie has essentially been liquidated, and even the petty bourgeoisie is tightly contained.
If I were to redefine socialism I would prefer your understanding of it. A society comprised of worker owned coops and a welfare state would be close to my ideal, as well - something like Sweden if it had fully undertaken the Meidner plan in the 70's.