liberation getting co-opted by selfish assholes and becoming the thing they swore to destroy
Totally, like the USSR. They started out with a good idea of redistributing and communalizing the means of production, but ended up creating a new ruling class of politicians that exploited people just as much. Just look at modern evidence of income inequality in the USSR compared to Tsarism (pre-1917) and capitalism (post-1990):
See? By looking at factual evidence… wait… hold up… Income inequality actually maintained itself at the historical lowest in the region during communism’s entire existence… Well, time to disregard my comment because I’m a tankie and a Ruzzian bot, amirite?
The hierarchies present in the USSR didn’t take the form of income inequality. You’re taking a metric that is very useful for analyzing capitalist countries and using it in a context where it doesn’t make much sense.
Anyway, the comparison with the west isn’t really relevant to the comparison I would make in that case, which would be between the initial revolutionary movement and where it ended up.
The hierarchies present in the USSR didn’t take the form of income inequality
Wonderful, do you have any numeric data to present?
Non-income sources of access to goods and services perhaps? Such as the universal access to jobs, and universal access to housing mostly through the work union? Universal access to education to the highest level for free? Widely available, high quality, dense, affordable, high frequency public transit? High quantity of public sport facilities, art centres and so-called “culture houses”? Which of those was, numerically and with data, less egalitarian in the USSR?
the comparison I would make in that case, which would be between the initial revolutionary movement and where it ended up
The graph goes from pre-revolution, to Bolshevism, and to capitalism. You can see that income inequality remained somewhat stable during Socialism, and was much lower than before or after.
What somebody formally owns and gets in income isn’t the same as the wealth they actually control in authoritarian systems
Great, why don’t you provide us with some numerical metrics of that in the Soviet Union vs. modern Russia or USA? Or are you possibly just making it up without evidence?
wealth equality through being poor isn’t that brilliant
I agree. So did the soviets, and that’s why they took a backwards feudal nation in Europe with 85% of the population composed of exploited peasants with an average life expectancy of 28 years, and industrialized the country until it was the second world power, the majority of the population were city dwellers with modern lives and amenities, and rose life expectancy to 70+ years.
Totally, like the USSR. They started out with a good idea of redistributing and communalizing the means of production, but ended up creating a new ruling class of politicians that exploited people just as much. Just look at modern evidence of income inequality in the USSR compared to Tsarism (pre-1917) and capitalism (post-1990):
See? By looking at factual evidence… wait… hold up… Income inequality actually maintained itself at the historical lowest in the region during communism’s entire existence… Well, time to disregard my comment because I’m a tankie and a Ruzzian bot, amirite?
The hierarchies present in the USSR didn’t take the form of income inequality. You’re taking a metric that is very useful for analyzing capitalist countries and using it in a context where it doesn’t make much sense.
Anyway, the comparison with the west isn’t really relevant to the comparison I would make in that case, which would be between the initial revolutionary movement and where it ended up.
Wonderful, do you have any numeric data to present?
Non-income sources of access to goods and services perhaps? Such as the universal access to jobs, and universal access to housing mostly through the work union? Universal access to education to the highest level for free? Widely available, high quality, dense, affordable, high frequency public transit? High quantity of public sport facilities, art centres and so-called “culture houses”? Which of those was, numerically and with data, less egalitarian in the USSR?
The graph goes from pre-revolution, to Bolshevism, and to capitalism. You can see that income inequality remained somewhat stable during Socialism, and was much lower than before or after.
What somebody formally owns and gets in income isn’t the same as the wealth they actually control in authoritarian systems.
Also, wealth equality through being poor isn’t that brilliant
Great, why don’t you provide us with some numerical metrics of that in the Soviet Union vs. modern Russia or USA? Or are you possibly just making it up without evidence?
I agree. So did the soviets, and that’s why they took a backwards feudal nation in Europe with 85% of the population composed of exploited peasants with an average life expectancy of 28 years, and industrialized the country until it was the second world power, the majority of the population were city dwellers with modern lives and amenities, and rose life expectancy to 70+ years.
Just wanted to say: keep up the goated work, like in this thread in general
Thanks comrade