Can there be rich people in a Socialist state?

[UltraWright]

Can there be rich people in a socialist state? I mean, how would the system distinguish me from another worker if I work harder than him/her?

I understand that a worker who would create more products will be able to trade them for more stuff, but what about those who produce services and/or non physical products like mathematicians and physicians?

[Koba1917]

Well class struggle still is around in the Socialist state of Marxism. The 'rich' in the sense of millionaires will probably be becoming less and less around this time. Workers wages will be raised also.

[Lunatic Concept]

Depends what you mean by "rich". If we count poverty as being short of the comforts and nessecities of life, and rich being abundant with them, then you would be "rich" in a socialist state as you would have a good amount of posessions. Because the means of production would be so far developed under a modern socialist state, and if that many more workers were involved in the production and distribution of goods rather than useless jobs, we would produce so much that to avoid over production we would have to reduce the working hours and force earlier retirements on people, at which time they could retire from state service on full pay if they have done a good amount of work. This would mean there would be a huge amount more spare time for such things as your "non physical products" the creation of which even today is not usually done for profit, especially science. There is also no reason you cannot be "sucessful" in anything like art, sport or science, you just wouldnt have to be economically sucessful in a way that involves exploitation of labour or crushing others under your boot so to speak. Hope that made sense :)

[Lunatic Concept]

To quote the ragged trousered philanthropists:
`As we shall employ the greatest possible number of labour-saving machines, and adopt the most scientific
methods in our farms and factories, the quantities of goods we shall be able to produce will be so enormous
that we shall be able to pay our workers very high wages - in paper money - and we shall be able to sell our
produce so cheaply, that all public servants will be able to enjoy abundance of everything.
`When the workers who are being exploited and sweated by the private capitalists realize how much worse off
they are than the workers in the employ of the State, they will come and ask to be allowed to work for the
State, and also, for paper money. That will mean that the State Army of Productive Workers will be
continually increasing in numbers. More State factories will be built, more land will be put into cultivation.
Men will be given employment making bricks, woodwork, paints, glass, wallpapers and all kinds of building
materials and others will be set to work building - on State land - beautiful houses, which will be let to those
employed in the service of the State. The rent will be paid with paper money.
...`Another way of preventing over production of mere necessaries and comforts will be to employ a large
number of workers producing the refinements and pleasures of life, more artistic houses, furniture, pictures,
musical instruments and so forth.
...For every one labour-saving machine in use today, we
will, if necessary, employ a thousand machines! and consequently there will be produced such a stupendous,
enormous, prodigious, overwhelming abundance of everything that soon the Community will be faced once
more with the serious problem of OVER-PRODUCTION.
`To deal with this, it will be necessary to reduce the hours of our workers to four or five hours a day... All
young people will be allowed to continue at public schools and universities and will not be required to take
any part in the work or the nation until they are twenty-one years of age. At the age of forty-five, everyone
will be allowed to retire from the State service on full pay... All these will be able to spend the rest of their
days according to their own inclinations; some will settle down quietly at home, and amuse themselves in the
same ways as people of wealth and leisure do at the present day - with some hobby, or by taking part in the organization of social functions, such as balls, parties, entertainments, the organization of Public Games and
Athletic Tournaments, Races and all kinds of sports.
`Some will prefer to continue in the service of the State. Actors, artists, sculptors, musicians and others will
go on working for their own pleasure and honour... Some will devote their leisure to science, art, or literature."

Something like that lol :D

[Sword and Shield]

Can there be rich people in a socialist state? I mean, how would the system distinguish me from another worker if I work harder than him/her?

I understand that a worker who would create more products will be able to trade them for more stuff, but what about those who produce services and/or non physical products like mathematicians and physicians?

I don't think the standard of living for academicians in the Soviet Union was much different from the average worker's.

Personally, as a physicist, I only need a decent and stable standard of living, without having to worry about things like healthcare. I don't know any academician who wants to live a life of luxury to be honest.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Can there be rich people in a socialist state? I mean, how would the system distinguish me from another worker if I work harder than him/her?

I understand that a worker who would create more products will be able to trade them for more stuff, but what about those who produce services and/or non physical products like mathematicians and physicians?

Well communism doesnt have to be based on barter actually, it can continue to use money. Also, everyone would get a standard quota of necessities, allowing for a tiny bit of entrepreneurial spirit. An ideal socialist state would also be a true meritocracy IMO (something many socalled socialists have always left out or discounted). Not simply a aristocratic bureaucracy who benefits the already bureaucrats and their families.

Well everyone contributes towards society, even those who 'produce' non products. Where would we be if nobody taught calculus or chemistry you know? So, although quite a tricky question, I just have to ask. In the current capitalist mode of production, ask yourself the same question:

'how would the system distinguish me from another worker if I work harder than him/her?'

And you probably wont have a very clear answer either.

[Queercommie Girl]

There cannot be significant economic inequality in a genuine socialist society.

As Lenin explicitly stated, the difference in income levels between different workers cannot exceed a maximum of 4 times.

This is true even in the earliest stages of socialism.

So it is possible for everyone to be "rich" in a socialist society, due to improved production creating a state of material abundance for everyone. But no-one is allowed to be "rich" in comparison to others. (I.e. one is rich while other people are poor) Differences in material wealth between different people would be trivial. So for instance those contemporary sports superstars who make millions of dollars a year while the majority of ordinary workers only earn tens of thousands of dollars a year wouldn't exist anymore.

There will still be some degree of economic inequality in the early stages of socialism, but it wouldn't be significant at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Can there be rich people in a socialist state? I mean, how would the system distinguish me from another worker if I work harder than him/her?


Why would you wish to "distinguish" yourself in such a materialistic way? That's a rather elitist viewpoint. Everyone is economically and politically equal in a socialist society, regardless of one's talent.

The only way you could "distinguish" yourself in a socialist society is through the respect other people naturally have for you if you have made great contributions to society in general.

[Robocommie]

Personally, as a physicist, I only need a decent and stable standard of living, without having to worry about things like healthcare. I don't know any academician who wants to live a life of luxury to be honest.

Academia is a terrible career to get into if you want to be rich. :lol:

[RED DAVE]

Here is what socialism is all about.


On the day after the revolution, everyone: men, women and children, will voluntarity and unselfishly remove all their clothes in public. This done, all of us will be issued sandals made from recycled automobile tires and a potato sack with three holes in it.

This will suffice.

In the colder climates, a pair of socks made from used condoms will be issued to all, plus a recycled plastic garbage bag.

This will suffice.

Once clothing distribution is complete, the Internationale will be sung in Indoeuropean, Sumerian and Esperanto.

This will suffice.

Then everyone will go home to their packing crates. Sexual intercourse will be permitted.

This will suffice.

In the morning, unselfish labor will commence. Since electricity has been banned as harmful to the environment, and it is selfish to exploit our animal brethren, all persons will perform all work by hand.

This will suffice.

Since everyone has to vote together on everything, approximately 12 hours in every day will be devoted to voting. When coupled with ten hours of work (All hail the Revolution for decreasing our hours to only ten), this leaves 2 hours for sleep, eating (brown rice and raw vegetables) and recreation (meditating while sitting on anthills of red ants), all of which will be done unselfishly.

This will suffice.RED DAVE

[RedSunRising]

Here is what socialism is all about.

Red Dave stop pretending to being any type of Leninist and just let your inner anarchist out, its already bubbling up across the surface, just let it all out...You will feel better.

[red cat]

As Lenin explicitly stated, the difference in income levels between different workers cannot exceed a maximum of 4 times.


Why specifically 4 ? Why not 3 or 5 ?

[Queercommie Girl]

Here is what socialism is all about.



Socialism is all about economic and political equality. If some people have more economic or political powers than others, then either bureaucratic degeneration or capitalist restoration will happen.

If there is significant economic inequality in a supposedly "socialist" society, then such a society cannot be genuinely "socialist". Even Dengists in China believe in this point at least on paper.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why specifically 4 ? Why not 3 or 5 ?

Lenin explicitly said 4. It's a historical thing.

The precise amount doesn't matter so much. The key point is that there cannot be significant economic inequality in a socialist society, even in its earliest stages, among different workers.

If one worker earns 10,000 dollars a year while another worker earns 1 million dollars a year, then although technically "both are workers", in the concrete sense it would mean nothing. Such a society is not "socialist", and I want no part in it.

Socialism is all about economic and political equality. That's why I believe in socialism. Personally I hate rich people.

[red cat]

Socialism is all about economic and political equality. If some people have more economic or political powers than others, then either bureaucratic degeneration or capitalist restoration will happen.


To be more precise, if the power of the powerful people increases on the long run, then capitalist restoration will happen. Initially it is natural for the Chairman of the CP to have much more political power than a cell-member, for example.

[Queercommie Girl]

To be more precise, if the power of the powerful people increases on the long run, then capitalist restoration will happen. Initially it is natural for the Chairman of the CP to have much more political power than a cell-member, for example.

Economic wealth is power. A person earning 1 million dollars a year will never be equal to a person earning 10,000 dollars a year, whatever the political and socio-economic system is. Politics is ultimately based on economics.

The party chairman's political power must be kept in check by worker's democracy, otherwise socialism will collapse into bureaucratic degeneration. And the party chairman cannot earn significantly more than rank-and-file party members either.

Did Mao earn significantly more money than a Chinese peasant or worker? I really don't think so.

Similarly, no worker (no matter how talented) can be allowed to make significantly more money than other workers.

[red cat]

Lenin explicitly said 4. It's a historical thing.

The precise amount doesn't matter so much. The key point is that there cannot be significant economic inequality in a socialist society, even in its earliest stages, among different workers.

If one worker earns 10,000 dollars a year while another worker earns 1 million dollars a year, then although technically "both are workers", in the concrete sense it would mean nothing. Such a society is not "socialist", and I want no part in it.

Socialism is all about economic and political equality. That's why I believe in socialism. Personally I hate rich people.

But then, there is not much of a difference between 4 and 5, 5 and 6 and so on. I think instead of fixing such numbers as parameters of socialism, we should look at the dynamics of class struggle in the society. If the state apparatus runs in favour of the working class against the bourgeoisie, then we should call it socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

But then, there is not much of a difference between 4 and 5, 5 and 6 and so on. I think instead of fixing such numbers as parameters of socialism, we should look at the dynamics of class struggle in the society. If the state apparatus runs in favour of the working class against the bourgeoisie, then we should call it socialism.

My point is that worker's wages cannot be significantly different from each other in a socialist society. This is a very basic point. Both Lenin and Mao commented on this issue.

One cannot ignore quantity in favour solely of quality. When quantitative inequality reaches a certain point, it would result in qualitative inequality.

One must be either dumb, insane or ultra-pedantic to really think there is any kind of real equality between someone making 1 million dollars a year and someone making 10,000 dollars a year.

If you call that kind of society "socialist", then I'm an anti-socialist who would explicitly try to rob the rich worker's money.

Economic equality is my faith, one way or another, legal or illegal.

[red cat]

Economic wealth is power. A person earning 1 million dollars a year will never be equal to a person earning 10,000 dollars a year, whatever the political and socio-economic system is. Politics is ultimately based on economics.

The party chairman's political power must be kept in check by worker's democracy, otherwise socialism will collapse into bureaucratic degeneration.

Similarly, no worker (no matter how talented) can be allowed to make significantly more money than other workers.

My point is different. Say even after a proletarian revolution someone earns a million while another only 10,000 dollars. But within a year, these are changed to half a million and 20,000 dollars respectively. The next year to 250,000 and 40,000 and so on. How would you characterize this society ?

[Queercommie Girl]

My point is different. Say even after a proletarian revolution someone earns a million while another only 10,000 dollars. But within a year, these are changed to half a million and 20,000 dollars respectively. The next year to 250,000 and 40,000 and so on. How would you characterize this society ?

If the income level is not sufficiently equalised within a relatively short space of time, I say this "socialist society" is not "socialist" or "leftist" enough, and I would call for a continuation of the revolution of poor grassroots workers against the privileged rich.

Wealth is power. No economic equality, no political equality either.

It doesn't mean income levels must be exactly the same, but if they are significantly different, then it's not genuine socialism.

Why should revolutionaries risk their lives for socialism, when after the revolution, a minority of workers are still able to enjoy much more economic and social privileges than the mass of ordinary workers? There would be a riot.

[red cat]

If the income level is not sufficiently equalised within a relatively short space of time, I say this "socialist society" is not "socialist" or "leftist" enough, and I would call for a continuation of the revolution of poor grassroots workers against the privileged rich.

Wealth is power. No economic equality, no political equality either.

It doesn't mean income levels must be exactly the same, but if they are significantly different, then it's not genuine socialism.

"Sufficient" or "relatively short" are words that have different meanings in different situations. For example, the process of wage equalization might slow down significantly during an imperialist attack. On the other hand, a state with a max/min wage ratio of 3 might suddenly declare that there are no antagonistic classes in it. So these are not very reliable defining features of a socialist society. The nature of class struggle in a society is its ultimate characterizing feature.


Why should revolutionaries risk their lives for socialism, when after the revolution, a minority of workers are still able to enjoy much more economic and social privileges than the mass of ordinary workers? There would be a riot.Yes, class struggle within socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

"Sufficient" or "relatively short" are words that have different meanings in different situations. For example, the process of wage equalization might stagnate significantly during an imperialist attack. On the other hand, a state with a max/min wage ratio of 3 might suddenly declare that there are no antagonistic classes in it. So these are not very reliable defining features of a socialist society. The nature of class struggle in a society is its ultimate characterizing feature.


If the process of economic equalisation stalls, then it's a clear sign that the working class is not in democratic control of the revolutionary process anymore.

[red cat]

If the process of economic equalisation stalls, then it's a clear sign that the working class is not in democratic control of the revolutionary process anymore.

If it goes on in a very slow pace? During a war ?

[Queercommie Girl]

If it goes on in a very slow pace? During a war?


Why would it necessarily slow down during a war?

In fact, it could be the opposite, the Red Army could forcefully take over all economic resources in the country to aid the war effort, even without giving any compensation to the rich and the capitalists, possibly through violent and destructive methods, such as physically eliminating certain groups of people.

Someone owns a 10 million dollar worth mansion. Wouldn't it be good to forcefully take over such economic resources and use them directly for the war effort? Any resistance would simply be put down by the Red Army through violent force.

In a war situation, the Army would matter more, and even in capitalist society, economic inequality is less pronounced in the Army than in general civil society.

It would help the war effort objectively if the Red Army literally loots the rich.

[red cat]

Why would it necessarily slow down during a war?

In fact, it could be the opposite, the Red Army could forcefully take over all economic resources in the country to aid the war effort, even without giving any compensation to the rich and the capitalists, possibly through violent and destructive methods, such as physically eliminating certain groups of people.

Someone owns a 10 million dollar worth mansion. Wouldn't it be good to forcefully take over such economic resources and use them directly for the war effort? Any resistance would simply be put down by the Red Army through violent force.

Consider a slightly different situation. Immediately after a revolution the red army is technologically very weak. So it has to take help from bourgeois technicians who demand high wages. During an external imperialist attack the socialist government might have to rely on them so much that they will be effectively able to force the government to keep their wages high. There can be other situations with similar results.

[Queercommie Girl]

Consider a slightly different situation. Immediately after a revolution the red army is technologically very weak. So it has to take help from bourgeois technicians who demand high wages. During an external imperialist attack the socialist government might have to rely on them so much that they will be effectively able to force the government to keep their wages high. There can be other situations with similar results.

Bourgeois technicians would demand more wages, but not sky-high levels of wages. Even today engineers don't really earn that much more than ordinary unskilled workers.

I'm not ultra-leftist and I don't think one must have an absolutely economically egalitarian society in socialism. So higher wages for engineers would be ok, within reasonable limits.

But those rich capitalists who simply have a lot of money yet no useful skills would essentially be useless, so they can be liquidated. The same goes for extremely high-earning TV/film superstars and sports superstars who have no real useful skills. Their money can be taken easily by the socialist government.

[red cat]

Bourgeois technicians would demand more wages, but not sky-high levels of wages. Even today engineers don't really earn that much more than ordinary unskilled workers.

I'm not ultra-leftist and I don't think one must have an absolutely economically egalitarian society in socialism. So higher wages for engineers would be ok, within reasonable limits.


Things are a bit different over here. A good engineer easily earns above Rs. 50,000 while the minimum wage is something like Rs. 3000 a month, and most workers get far below that.

But those rich capitalists who simply have a lot of money yet no useful skills would essentially be useless, so they can be liquidated.Of course.


The same goes for extremely high-earning TV/film superstars and sports superstars who have no real useful skills. Their money can be taken easily by the socialist government.

I totally agree with this :D

[Queercommie Girl]

Things are a bit different over here. A good engineer easily earns above Rs. 50,000 while the minimum wage is something like Rs. 3000 a month, and most workers get far below that.

I recognise that in India things are very different from how it's like in the West.

In the West many engineers and professionals have essentially been "proletarianised" to a significant extent.

Of course a wage differential of 50,000 vs. 3000 is not ok.

[Robocommie]

Here is what socialism is all about.

Dave, this is the Learning forum, it's often the very first place for new posters to go to to learn about socialism and Marxism. This is not the place for your histrionic and sarcastic sniping against other tendencies. That should go for everyone, really.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism is all about economic and political equality. If some people have more economic or political powers than others, then either bureaucratic degeneration or capitalist restoration will happen.

If there is significant economic inequality in a supposedly "socialist" society, then such a society cannot be genuinely "socialist". Even Dengists in China believe in this point at least on paper.

That's quite a slippery theoretical slope.

It is quite possible for a vanguardist party to eliminate economic inequality using social democratic and welfarist means, and to say that it is ruling on behalf of the working class, and thus everyone has political equality.

You should be more explicit and say that Socialism is workers' genuine, democratic control over the means of production and the construction of a new society, based on the notion of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', initiated by the workers, rather than on behalf of the workers.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's quite a slippery theoretical slope.

It is quite possible for a vanguardist party to eliminate economic inequality using social democratic and welfarist means, and to say that it is ruling on behalf of the working class, and thus everyone has political equality.

You should be more explicit and say that Socialism is workers' genuine, democratic control over the means of production and the construction of a new society, based on the notion of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', initiated by the workers, rather than on behalf of the workers.

No you are wrong, because the two statements are not equivalent.

It's like a sets problem in logic.

Genuine worker's power is a logical sub-set of genuine economic equality, but not the other way around. So it is possible to have genuine economic equality without genuine worker's power (in theory, I don't really think this is actually viable in practice), but it is impossible to have genuine worker's power without genuine economic equality.

As you said, it is in theory possible to have genuine economic equality but no genuine political equality. Genuine Marxism fights for both.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are right, and your original statement was not explicit in its prohibition of the first statement ('it is possible to have genuine economic equality without genuine workers' power').

It was wrong to say that Socialism is economic inequality. That is not a fundamental tenet of Socialism, it is a logical consequence of giving genuine democratic power to the working class, as opposed to a vanguard, privileged class or bureaucratic elite (a la USSR) taking decisions for the working class.

[Queercommie Girl]

It was wrong to say that Socialism is economic inequality. That is not a fundamental tenet of Socialism, it is a logical consequence of giving genuine democratic power to the working class, as opposed to a vanguard, privileged class or bureaucratic elite (a la USSR) taking decisions for the working class.

No Leninist vanguardism does not imply economic or political inequality at all, since it's based on the system of worker's democracy. The USSR only became politically deformed due to the lack of worker's democracy and the formation of a privileged bureaucratic caste as a result of this. And the bureaucratic caste is not a separate social class in the Marxist sense.

[Lorax]

El Granma, under socialism, it's actually from each according to her ability to each according to her work. The need part comes in during the communist phase. Therefore a certain degree of inequality is expected under socialism. Actors and professional athletes produce entertainment which is in my opinion a very valuable commodity.

Lenin's rule of four sounds good to me although you could draw some arbitrary line elsewhere if you wanted to. The important thing is that people would be rewarded according to the value of their work, and that value would be based on what is best for society (hopefully) rather than market forces.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actors and professional athletes produce entertainment which is in my opinion a very valuable commodity.


The labour value of these people does not justify the ultra-high incomes some of them receive today under capitalism.

Preventing significant quantitative inequality is important. Whatever "line" is drawn may sound very arbitrary and artificial, but the nature of quantitative inequality, unlike qualitative inequality, is precisely that no absolute distinct line can be drawn anywhere. This however does not mean it is ok to have a "socialist society" in which one worker's income is 50 - 100 times higher than that of the majority of ordinary workers.

[Lorax]

The labour value of these people does not justify the ultra-high incomes some of them receive today under capitalism.

Preventing significant quantitative inequality is important. Whatever "line" is drawn may sound very arbitrary and artificial, but the nature of quantitative inequality, unlike qualitative inequality, is precisely that no absolute distinct line can be drawn anywhere. This however does not mean it is ok to have a "socialist society" in which one worker's income is 50 - 100 times higher than that of the majority of ordinary workers.

I agree. Like I said, I like the rule of four. I imagine an exceptional professor, scientist or economist might earn as much as a professional athlete or talented actor, possibly more. Interestingly recent science seems to support the idea of relative income equality, in that once people have a certain income, more money doesn't motivate them to do better or more work, nor does it make them happier.

[Red_Devotchka]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

[hatzel]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

So what? How does that have anything to do with this?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No Leninist vanguardism does not imply economic or political inequality at all, since it's based on the system of worker's democracy. The USSR only became politically deformed due to the lack of worker's democracy and the formation of a privileged bureaucratic caste as a result of this. And the bureaucratic caste is not a separate social class in the Marxist sense.

I didn't say it implied economic inequality.

The argument that the USSR was a political deformation of Marxism-Leninism doesn't wash. Lenin was as bad as Stalin for purging and repressing Socialist ideologies that were non-Leninist in their outlook, the only difference being that Lenin didn't purge/kill those in his party. So really, Leninism does imply a certain political inequality.

[Red_Devotchka]

So what? How does that have anything to do with this?

well, yeah i could have given an explanation. well, in poor words, Marx claimed that by introducing communist system and by abolishing private proprety the alienation would be defeated. and so to people would be given back their humanity, as what's defining us as humans is our production of goods. tht would make us be more ivolved in the process of production and so there would be no point in trying to find out who works harder. i do my best and i get what i need to live, so there is no sick competition as there is now.

[robbo203]

There cannot be significant economic inequality in a genuine socialist society.

As Lenin explicitly stated, the difference in income levels between different workers cannot exceed a maximum of 4 times.

This is true even in the earliest stages of socialism.

So it is possible for everyone to be "rich" in a socialist society, due to improved production creating a state of material abundance for everyone. But no-one is allowed to be "rich" in comparison to others. (I.e. one is rich while other people are poor) Differences in material wealth between different people would be trivial. So for instance those contemporary sports superstars who make millions of dollars a year while the majority of ordinary workers only earn tens of thousands of dollars a year wouldn't exist anymore.

There will still be some degree of economic inequality in the early stages of socialism, but it wouldn't be significant at all.

Traditionally - before Lenin , that is - "socialism" meant the same thing as "communism". It was just an alternative term for decribing a moneyeless, wageless stateless community in which individuals gave according to their abilities and took according to their needs.


The idea of rich or poor existing in such a society is an absurdity. Rich and poor are relative concepts that relate to a class society. So, no, there cannot be rich people in socialism when everyone has free unrestrictied access to the things they need.

The Soviet Union was not a socialist society but a state capitalist one. Lenin himself conceded as much. The policy of uravnilovka or income levelling which the Bolsheviks initally supported was very quickly abandoned as they sought to develop capitalism. In less than a year after assuming power, Lenin in an address given in April 1918 (published as "The Soviets at Work") he abjectly recanted on his earlier ideals:

"We were forced now to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed a very high remuneration for the services of the bourgeois specialists. All those who are acquainted with the facts understand this, but not all give sufficient thought to the significance of such a measure on the part of the proletarian state. It is clear that such a measure is a compromise, that it is a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule."

Stalin but went a lot further, denouncing the "evil of equality" and declaring Marxism to be the "enemy of equalisation". Uravnilovka, was vigrously opposed on the grounds that it undermined incentives and economic performance - a typical capitalist platitude. And most surreally of all, Foreign Minister Molotov declared that "Bolshevik policy demands a resolute struggle against equalitarians as accomplices of the class enemy, as elements hostile to socialism." (Tony Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia, p.69 http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm ).


It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that in Russia, the ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased from 1:1.8 just after the Bolshevik Revolution to 1:40 in 1950 (Ossowski S, Patterson S, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). John Fleming and John Micklewright in their paper "Income Distribution, Economic Systems and Transition" cite the work of researchers like Morrison who, using data from the 1970s, found that countries like Poland and the Soviet Union had remarkably high levels of income inequality, registering gini coefficients of 0.31 in both case, which put them on a par with Canada (0.30) and the USA (0.34) ( http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf).

According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet ruling elite (who even had access to their own retail outlets stocking western goods and various other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded) the ratio between low and high earners was more like 1:100. Some amongst this Soviet elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success!

[Queercommie Girl]

The argument that the USSR was a political deformation of Marxism-Leninism doesn't wash. Lenin was as bad as Stalin for purging and repressing Socialist ideologies that were non-Leninist in their outlook, the only difference being that Lenin didn't purge/kill those in his party. So really, Leninism does imply a certain political inequality.


Obviously as a Marxist-Leninist I think that's BS, but debating about Leninism is really outside the scope of this thread.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

In socialism you can have rich people but they are less rich than in capitalism so the working class is more rich

So if line of richness is 25 units and the poverty line is 10 units

And the rich man makes 30 units and the poor man makes 5 units

In capitalism rich stays really rich and poor man starves to death

In socialism the rich man is taxed so he has 25 units and now the poor man is at the poverty line of 10 units

That's the math behind it but on a small scale