p.s. Actually we can answer that question based on the topic.
Bauhaus was inventing forms for industrial production. This means using machines with the inevitable reduction of human labor in the production process. As this logically would ultimately reduce workers to consumers and designers (as ultimate reduction of craftmanship), the ownership of the production means is an issue. Unless this owned by the state, Bauhaus then is guilty of pretending to socialism while helping industry tycoons retool their factories. I opt for their sincerity and thus the unspoken truth of Bauhau's social program has to be a state where non-labor capital is owned by the people/state. Otherwise, they would focus on design that required substantial human involvement.
This is a very good read and answers your questions far better than I could:
International Communist Current: Success and failure of the Bauhaus (2012):
https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201207/5066/succes...
p.s. Actually we can answer that question based on the topic.
Bauhaus was inventing forms for industrial production. This means using machines with the inevitable reduction of human labor in the production process. As this logically would ultimately reduce workers to consumers and designers (as ultimate reduction of craftmanship), the ownership of the production means is an issue. Unless this owned by the state, Bauhaus then is guilty of pretending to socialism while helping industry tycoons retool their factories. I opt for their sincerity and thus the unspoken truth of Bauhau's social program has to be a state where non-labor capital is owned by the people/state. Otherwise, they would focus on design that required substantial human involvement.