I have heard right wing Capitalists say that in the Soviet Union the small Communist

[tradeunionsupporter]

I have heard right wing Capitalists say that in the Soviet Union the small Communist Party elite had all the money wealth and power and that there was no real income equality because of this elite how do Communists answer this Capitalist claim ?

[Catmatic Leftist]

Tell him that the USSR was never socialist and that communism is a process.

[Crimson Commissar]

It's just exaggeration of a problem that, while it did exist, was far from being anything serious. At least people in the Soviet Union could live a decent life without fear of losing their job or not having enough money to buy food. In the west there are far more problems with society and no one even bothers to take notice of them.

[Obs]

It's just exaggeration of a problem that, while it did exist, was far from being anything serious. At least people in the Soviet Union could live a decent life without fear of losing their job or not having enough money to buy food. In the west there are far more problems with society and no one even bothers to take notice of them.

It's folly to ignore this flaw in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. Obviously the problems are much greater in a capitalist state, but that's because nepotism and inequality are inherently part of capitalism. It shouldn't exist in a society that claims socialism, and moreover, it was a symptom of the emerging revisionism and abandonment of proper Marxism-Leninism in the CPSU.

Failing to pay heed to the flaws of the Soviet Union will lead to suffering its fate for any emerging socialist state - this is why almost all active revolutionary groups (CPUSA need not apply) in the world take an anti-revisionist stance, and remain critical towards the direction the USSR took during the Khrushchev era.

tradeunionsupporter, I seriously doubt you're ever going to read this (it seems like you never come back to a thread you've posted on here), but if you do, I really think you could learn a lot from just reading some of the discussions we have on this board, instead of just making these threads.

[Ocean Seal]

I have heard right wing Capitalists say that in the Soviet Union the small Communist Party elite had all the money wealth and power and that there was no real income equality because of this elite how do Communists answer this Capitalist claim ?


Economic corruption was slim to none. Ask them to back it up? Show some examples of a communist politician driving an Aston Martin into his 10 acre mansion? They can't find it because it never happened. I've heard a capitalist tell me that Mao lived a lavish life with many prostitutes and had several castles all to himself. Show me proof?

I can however attest to the fact that billionaires live rather lavishly in capitalist countries while the people starve, and that political corruption is rampant in Latin America, and that politicians constantly embezzle money. And for those who want an example ask them to see: Alberto Fujimori of Peru who stole millions from the treasury and went to live in Japan.

[tradeunionsupporter]

The person I was talking to was saying that the Communist Party Learders lived in luxury while the people did not here is my opinion since the learders make the laws and serve the people I think they should of lived in luxury.

[#FF0000]

The person I was talking to was saying that the Communist Party Learders lived in luxury while the people did not here is my opinion since the learders make the laws and serve the people I think they should of lived in luxury.

We don't agree. According to law, people in the government were supposed to be paid only as much as someone like an engineer or a scientist. Of course this law was casually ignored.

Different people think different things about the USSR but all will acknowledge this inequality, and none of us will say it was good or justified.

We will however point out that, while the nomenklatura did live better than the average worker, shit didn't really start getting ridiculous until, (I THINK) around Gorbachev's rule.

But, I like to take the Left-Communist position and look at the USSR from about like 1919 on as a Capitalist country with a capitalist mode of production.

[hatzel]

Okay, our dearest tradeunionsupporter...all of your posts seem to involve you talking to right-wing people about socialism, and it seems that you never know how to defend socialism against any criticism. Even the simplest criticism. So, for the mean time, can I please request, on behalf of the socialist movement, that you cease and desist? Refrain from talking to right-wingers about socialist until you can actually act as a semi-decent spokesman, because at the moment, it seems that you're not portraying us in a particularly positive light, particularly when saying things like:


here is my opinion since the learders make the laws and serve the people I think they should of lived in luxury

...and you're sure you're a socialist? :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

The Soviet elite lived a lot better than the Average Boris. They had big cars
http://www.4limos.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/image-33491505196902000.jpg

With drivers, large state apartments and houses in the country.

They had special stores with no lines to buy things and am assortment of luxury goods bought with hard cash. Party members were allowed to travel within the Soviet Union on special passports and often even allowed to travel outside the Soviet Union.

And to top it all off the Soviet elites even had special cemeteries where the elites had a marble likness of themselves over their graves so their statue could hang with the statues of their homeboys forever. (Seeing one of those graveyards is a real "what the fuck is this?" moments. :D )

Of course there was a downside:

mHpFj8oiHus

[hatzel]

Bud's post...

BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST IMPERIALIST AMERICAN LIES!!!

Actually, I think you're confused, Bud. The Soviet subjects, I mean glorious proletariat, didn't want these big cars, because they already had the finest cars known to man, which they realised could not be improved in any way...

http://tsonev.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/LADA_EVOLUTION.jpg

PERFECTION
doesn't require change

:rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Tell him that the USSR was never socialist and that communism is a process.
Are some socialists seriously going to let anything and everything be said about the eastern bloc just because it didn't have working class power? I mean jesus fuck would you let someone say Iran is going to attack the US? Because it's alright to say that 'cause Iran isn't socialist?

I'm sick of this socialist spinelessness.

OP: Party bureaucrats did live more luxurious lives then the average person, yeah. That's totally true. But that doesn't mean there wasn't generally income equality, there clearly was a general income equality in the USSR.

[#FF0000]

Are some socialists seriously going to let anything and everything be said about the eastern bloc just because it didn't have working class power? I mean jesus fuck would you let someone say Iran is going to attack the US? Because it's alright to say that 'cause Iran isn't socialist?

I 100% agree. I'm no fan of the USSR, but some of the things that are said about it are ludicrous.

[Manic Impressive]

The Soviet elite lived a lot better than the Average Boris. They had big cars
http://www.4limos.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/image-33491505196902000.jpg

With drivers, large state apartments and houses in the country.


Actually I'm pretty sure that their cars were owned by the state and not owned personally and the politburo all lived in one huge apartment block.

However, I did know one of the Chinese communist party members daughters, a real horrible [add reactionary expletive here] she used to come in where I used to work I remember she spent about £4,000,000 in one year and had been on a student visa for about 10 years and I'd bet any money she'd been to very few classes in that time. Really made me sick to see people like her throw away money like that compared to the conditions most of the Chinese people have to live in.

[Palingenisis]

Better question....Why talk to right wing capitalists? :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Actually I'm pretty sure that their cars were owned by the state and not owned personally and the politburo all lived in one huge apartment block. Watcfh the video I posted it will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about that apartment block. ;)



Better question....Why talk to right wing capitalists? :confused:

Talking to and learning from people of different beliefs is never a bad thing.

[RGacky3]

Talking to and learning from people of different beliefs is never a bad thing.

You should try it one day (the learning part).

[Palingenisis]

Talking to and learning from people of different beliefs is never a bad thing.

Up to a point. Some people you just have no common ground with and that makes conversation pointless.

[#FF0000]

Up to a point. Some people you just have no common ground with and that makes conversation pointless.

You can find common ground with anyone, I think. Depends if those involved want to or not, though.

[Palingenisis]

You can find common ground with anyone, I think. Depends if those involved want to or not, though.

I dont know...Anyone economically right of social democrat if they actually understand their position and its not just going along stupidly with what they have been thought I dont have much love for.

[Palingenisis]

Maybe its do with understanding...I can understand why you like Left Communism, or maybe not you but why a person would, and though I think its a bit naive and simplistic I also think its reasonable, and has humanity's best interests at heart. But why would some one support out and out capitalism? :confused:

I admit that I have hatred for Zionists because the only reason I can think of that people would support Zionism is racism....Same with capitalism...The only reason I can think of someone supporting it is out and out fuck everyone else greed.

[hatzel]

I dont know...Anyone economically right of social democrat if they actually understand their position and its not just going along stupidly with what they have been thought I dont have much love for.

To be honest I don't think many of us expected you to have enough love to dish out to all and sundry :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

Best mod what the story with you have a quote for me in your sig?

[#FF0000]

Best mod what the story with you have a quote for me in your sig?

It's just a gr8 quote and I hate libertarians.


Maybe its do with understanding...I can understand why you like Left Communism, or maybe not you but why a person would, and though I think its a bit naive and simplistic I also think its reasonable, and has humanity's best interests at heart. But why would some one support out and out capitalism? :confused:

I wouldn't expect most people to be communists so I don't mind it when people support capitalism. And I can hang out with libertarians a lot of the time as long as they aren't sore losers when I destroy them in every political debate we ever have. Plus a few are so eccentric that it's endearing.

[Palingenisis]

I wouldn't expect most people to be communists so I don't mind it when people support capitalism. And I can hang out with libertarians a lot of the time as long as they aren't sore losers when I destroy them in every political debate we ever have. Plus a few are so eccentric that it's endearing.

There is a difference though between a social democrat and Ann Rand.

[#FF0000]

There is a difference though between a social democrat and Ann Rand.

Depends. My sort-of-kind-of-ex-girlfriend and I would break up over political arguments and she's center-left.

We'd be back together in a few hours though because we are children apparently.

tbh it really depends. If a person just has to point out every so often that the working class are leeches and he is the ubermensch and can't talk about anything else but his dumb ideas then it'd be a problem. I find that i can talk to libertarians about science fiction and music and get along pretty well so long as they don't mention anything political and hide their racism (which is always there in my experience) for awhile.

[Palingenisis]

Outside of two mates who consider themselves anarchists, most of my friends and people I know are "radical" social-democrats outside of my boss's daughter....Who is another story. My parents are more or less Tankies...I was in East Germany as a four year old! :)

[Sir Comradical]

Income inequality in the USSR at its worst was at a ratio of around 4:1 whereas under capitalism it's more like 10,000,000:1. The leaders of the USSR didn't earn a greater income than the rest of the population but they did have perks and slightly larger apartments. The inequality in the USSR existed in direct opposition to the goals of socialism whereas this ability to command more resources/labour is an inherent part of the capitalist system. Even with these faults, the property-relations of the USSR were progressive and should be defended as such.

[Palingenisis]

I wouldn't expect most people to be communists so I don't mind it when people support capitalism. And I can hang out with libertarians a lot of the time as long as they aren't sore losers when I destroy them in every political debate we ever have. Plus a few are so eccentric that it's endearing.

If I ever met a Libertarian in real life I would probably attack. I hope other people would find their shattered noses endearing. :blushing:

[Leninster]

That statement makes no logical sense whatsoever.

So the Communist Party leaders had SO much wealth (millions of houses, cars, factories, clothes, food) to their personal name that there was none left to the Soviet population?

Also, it is nonetheless a hypocritical argument, because the wealth distribution in the United States itself is ridiculous. One percent of the population alone owns 40% of the wealth.

[RGacky3]

Personal Income inequality was'nt really a big problem in the USSR, the problem was econoimc control inequality, in which the communist party leadership had a huge amount of actaul control, which meant that public funds went to things that did not nessesarily benefit the people (like competing with the US militarily, which it was in NO position to do, in the space race, which again it was in NO position to do, as well as subsidising other socialist states, and other socialist movements to try and strengthen them).

In other words the USSR was trying to act like an empire when it was in no position economically to do so, Russia was dirt poor during the revolutoin and WW2 devistated it economically. Had the USSR been more democratic public funds would more likely have been used for public ends rather than a sort of social-imperialism.

But personal wealth disparities were not the problem, lack of economic democracy was the problem.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Sorry the reason I asked this is because I thought under Socialism everyone made the same income can anyone quote Marx where he said not everyone will be equal as far as economics goes ?

[MarxSchmarx]

Sorry the reason I asked this is because I thought under Socialism everyone made the same income can anyone quote Marx where he said not everyone will be equal as far as economics goes ?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

[synthesis]

Sorry the reason I asked this is because I thought under Socialism everyone made the same income can anyone quote Marx where he said not everyone will be equal as far as economics goes ?

Socialism and communism are two different things, and I'm not sober enough to adequately explain this at the moment. The most important thing to understand is that the Russian Revolution created an imperialist bourgeoisie, not socialism or communism. Same goes for the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, etc.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The USSR was better than, say, the USA in terms of personal property inequality. However, in terms of access, political corruption and a lack of transparency, it was just as bad. And these are forms of economic equality just as important. So Brezhnev may not have had a mansion, but he had the power and personal authority to have as many cars and pretty clothes as he wanted because hey, any Proletarian who had a problem with the corruption of the intelligentsia could be roughed up by the police and "dissuaded" from complaining too much.

And corruption, even if it produces less extreme differences in wealth, is often more socially harmful for a socialist movement, as people will associate it with corruption, stagnation and double standards for party members, police and the army. Capitalism openly admits, even encourages the wealth divide, and its lack of hypocrisy means that people take it for granted. But a socialist state suffering from corruption discredits itself in the eyes of the masses, and it seems from history that it does so to a greater degree.

anyways, just my 2 cents.