Is it true that in the Soviet Union China North Korea

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is it true that in the Soviet Union China North Korea and other Communist nations that the Commuist Party and Military leaders had the most monet the best homes and the best cars than the average citizen if this true is this a good thing how will Communists stop this in the future ?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It is true. However, those countries also had far less inequality than capitalist countries - so, although Communist Party leaders had better stuff than everyone else, the difference between the better stuff and the normal stuff was far less than it is under capitalism. And the same applied to money: the difference between the income of a Communist Party leader and the income of the average worker was far less than the difference between the income of a corporate CEO and an average worker in capitalism.

But still, it was bad that Communist Party leaders got those special advantages. The reason they were able to get them was because there was so little democratic control over political leaders in those countries. We will avoid this problem in the future by having socialist and communist societies that are a lot more democratic.

[Demogorgon]

Well it ought to be pretty easy to avoid the North Korean problem, nobody is ever going to try and repeat that. You have to remember that North Korea is only called Communist by opponents of Communism and a few nutters on the left so desperate to believe that there is a shining city on the hill out there that they will believe anything. Kim Il Sung and those around him were Communists in the forties, that is pretty widely accepted, but they rapidly ceased to claim to be such once in power. In 1973, I think, the state officially dropped all claims to Marxism and ever since since then has been periodically removing all remaining references to socialism and communism from its official documents. The most recent constitutional revision completed the process and all references are gone and North Korea is now officially a "military state" (to use a rough translation).

So a Government comprised of some ex-communists carries out some decidedly non communist policies and people call it communist. Why? Lee Kuan Yew was once a leftist and the People's Action Party was once a Socialist Party. Why don't rightists refer to Singapore as a socialist country too then? What we see is a plain old case of misuse of words in order to keep the word associated with as many negative connotations as possible.

I know this drifts from your question somewhat, by Kwisatz has largely answered it and I felt it important to head off this misconception at the pass.

[scarletghoul]

Actually the DPRK was officially communist long after they abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Juche. It's only this year where they removed references to communism from their constitution. Still, they are undoubtedly socialist. Not only is socialism still a huge part of their constitution, but you can also see in practice that their economy is collectively owned and controlled. The military aspect of their state is due to the constant attack of American imperialism. But even this is a collective democratic style of military organisation, rather than a junta or whatever.

[Bankotsu]

Lee Kuan Yew was once a leftist and the People's Action Party was once a Socialist Party.

Singapore is basically his personal fief.

Lee Kuan Yew had suggested "instigating riots and disorder" to crush opposition (http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/12/lee-kuan-yew-had-suggested-instigating.html)

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/12/lee-kuan-yew-had-suggested-instigating.html

[Demogorgon]

Actually the DPRK was officially communist long after they abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Juche. It's only this year where they removed references to communism from their constitution. Still, they are undoubtedly socialist. Not only is socialism still a huge part of their constitution, but you can also see in practice that their economy is collectively owned and controlled. The military aspect of their state is due to the constant attack of American imperialism. But even this is a collective democratic style of military organisation, rather than a junta or whatever.
Yes, case in point when it comes to the "few nutters" I referred to. With respect, try as I might, I find it impossible to believe you honestly believe what you wrote. You might try to convince yourself of it, but deep down you must know it to be false. If the economy is collectively controlled, give some examples of democratic decision making. If the military operates in a "collective democratic style" show some evidence.

Even the excuse of American Imperialism is wearing thin because America is blatantly losing interest in North Korea. Just look at the reaction to it developing Nuclear Weapons compared to the possibility of Iran getting them. Iran is far less likely to ever launch a Nuclear attack than North Korea but we are told it will be a disaster if it gets the bomb. The reason being of course that if it does so American invasion becomes impossible. North Korea on the other hand elicited little more than tutting when it acquired such weapons. The reason being America plainly has no intention of attacking it. The reason is obvious. American foreign policy has traditionally wanted an American dominated United Korea. These days however, when it is clear that the South Korean Government doesn't have enough money to incorporate North Korea it has moved to simply isolating it.

[mikelepore]

how will Communists stop this in the future ?

You have to understand closed circles of power.

For example, in the Catholic Church, the pope appoints the cardinals, the cardinals elect the next pope, that pope appoints more cardinals, those cardinals elect the next pope, etc., this looping process repeated for two thousand years. There's no input to the loop from outside.

That's how the government of the Soviet Union operated in some ways, although not entirely, and that's the system that was exported to every other country that copied them.

Realizing that, your question is really about what features should be included and excluded when drafting a new written constitution for a new form of government -- and on the latter subject I lave learned more from Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Jefferson than I have learned form Marx and Engels.

[Demogorgon]

You have to understand closed circles of power.

For example, in the Catholic Church, the pope appoints the cardinals, the cardinals elect the next pope, that pope appoints more cardinals, those cardinals elect the next pope, etc., this looping process repeated for two thousand years. There's no input to the loop from outside.

That's how the government of the Soviet Union operated in some ways, although not entirely, and that's the system that was exported to every other country that copied them.

Realizing that, your question is really about what features should be included and excluded when drafting a new written constitution for a new form of government -- and on the latter subject I lave learned more from Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Jefferson than I have learned form Marx and Engels.
Just to be pernickety, the particular looping of power in the Catholic Church has been going on for a thousand years, not two. They used a variety of other means before then.

Now that I have stopped being pedantic, there is a good point here. Power in any given society is divvied up amongst different institutions. In the West for instance these institutions will be things like Government, corporations and so on. In other cases religious institutions, independent military power and even organised crime might come into play. They share power amongst themselves and stop each other going too far, but because only one-at most-will be accountable to the public, they rule in a closed power loop with the rest of us only getting in a minor look in when we get to make a very minor impact at election time.

The solution is to open up all such centres of power to the people so that all are democratically controlled (well a few just need to be gotten rid of like organised crime for instance), concentrating all power in a few hands, even if that power is to be elected, is not a good idea.

[Drace]

My argument is -- So what?
The "best cars" and the "best houses" meant much different then they do here.

The USSR didn't produce much variations of cars anyway. Moskvich was all you had. And you wouldn't have houses the size of mansions and covered in gold.

It is stupid to use relate the wealth of the leaders to the poverty of the people, as if the leaders were hogging all the wealth by owning an extra car or house more than the average citizen.

In comparison, there are millions of capitalists now that own more houses and cars than they needed, and are in direct opposition to equal distribution of wealth. In other words, they are hogging all the wealth! The statistic is that 1% of the population own 40% of the wealth and the top 3 richest men in the world own more wealth then the bottom 10%!

Also, Obama in his White House and everyone in office is much better off than the average citizen.

[robbo203]

It is true. However, those countries also had far less inequality than capitalist countries - so, although Communist Party leaders had better stuff than everyone else, the difference between the better stuff and the normal stuff was far less than it is under capitalism. And the same applied to money: the difference between the income of a Communist Party leader and the income of the average worker was far less than the difference between the income of a corporate CEO and an average worker in capitalism.

But still, it was bad that Communist Party leaders got those special advantages. The reason they were able to get them was because there was so little democratic control over political leaders in those countries. We will avoid this problem in the future by having socialist and communist societies that are a lot more democratic.

Im not too sure that this is entirely correct. There have been studies conducted in the 1960s and 70s which suggested a comparable distribution profile between state capitalist USSR and the UK for example. I will try and get hold of the reference to one of these by a french academic which I came across some months back. Also, you need to bear in mind that money payments are only part of the picture and also that some in the nomenklatura had access to mulitiple salaries. More important than money payments were perks or payments in kind - dachas, chauffeurs, holidays abroad and so on. Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), argued that if you took these into account the ratio between low and higher earners was something like 1:100.

[ls]

Singapore is basically his personal fief.

Lee Kuan Yew had suggested "instigating riots and disorder" to crush opposition (http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/12/lee-kuan-yew-had-suggested-instigating.html)

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/12/lee-kuan-yew-had-suggested-instigating.html

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that the situation there was quite that bad, something can't be right when the largest majority of the populace lives in "social housing" though can it, I suppose it must be a bit like Dubai really with shit like this happening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8001534.stm.

[Comrade Anarchist]

its very true which is why the state must be abolished not just replaced with a dictatorship.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Im not too sure that this is entirely correct. There have been studies conducted in the 1960s and 70s which suggested a comparable distribution profile between state capitalist USSR and the UK for example. I will try and get hold of the reference to one of these by a french academic which I came across some months back. Also, you need to bear in mind that money payments are only part of the picture and also that some in the nomenklatura had access to mulitiple salaries. More important than money payments were perks or payments in kind - dachas, chauffeurs, holidays abroad and so on. Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), argued that if you took these into account the ratio between low and higher earners was something like 1:100.
Even if true, such a ratio would still be much lower than in any capitalist country.

Also, as I posted in another thread, the Gini coefficient in 1986 was 0.19 in Czechoslovakia, 0.22 in Hungary, 0.24 in Poland and 0.27 in the USSR. (source: Communism, A Very Short Introduction, by Leslie Holmes, p. 82) These numbers are very low by capitalist standards - the highest ones (such as for the USSR) are close to the lowest Gini coefficients that capitalist countries have today. In other words, the most unequal Soviet-style societies had about the same level of income equality as the most equal present-day capitalist societies.