• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.