Yeah, party elites had more than the average workers. The Soviet Union was not socialist in my opinion.
Results 1 to 20 of 35
have heard Capitalists say in the Soviet Union.
I have heard Capitalists say in the Soviet Union there was no Equality and that the Communist Party Leaders like Lenin/Stalin for example had more money than the average citizen can this Right Wing claim be disproven ? Or does it make sense that the Leaders under Socialism had more money than the average citizen they always bring up the Book Animal Farm.
[FONT=Verdana]Animal Farm
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]George Orwell[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] "Animal Farm" successfully presents how the mechanism of propaganda and brainwashing works in totalitarian regimes, by showing how the pigs could make the other animals believe practically anything. Responsible for the propaganda was Squealer, a pig that "could turn black into white". Squealer managed to change the rule from "all animals are equal" to" all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". He managed to convince the other animals that it was for their sake that the pigs ate most of the apples and drank most of the milk, that leadership was "heavy responsibility" and therefore the animals should be thankful to Napoleon, that what they saw may have been something they "dreamed", and when everything else failed he would use the threat of " Jones returning" to silence the animals. In this simple but effective way, Orwell presents the tragedy and confusion of thought control to the extent that one seems better off simply believing that" Napoleon is always right".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
http://bookreviews.nabou.com/reviews/animalfarm.html
Yeah, party elites had more than the average workers. The Soviet Union was not socialist in my opinion.
Far from me to defend the Soviet Union under Stalin or any similar nation, but the burden of evidence rests on the accuser. I am sure there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the party elites in the Soviet Union lived better than the average worker, but you need to confront that evidence directly (such as accept it or have another explaination).
A right-winger simply making the claim that this or that was so amounts to little. Also, Animal Farm is not the best evidence to use. It is a work of symbolic fiction, not a work of research or an eyewitness account. It would be like me disproving libertarianism by using Jennifer Government as my evidence.
Last edited by RedZezz; 17th October 2011 at 05:27.
Thank you for your answers.
Thank you for your answers.
I did find this.
Perhaps the most significant fact about Russia's social structure is that ideology no longer determines social status. During the Soviet era, membership in the CPSU was the surest path to career advancement and wealth. Political decisions rather than market forces determined social status. Despite Marxist-Leninist (see Glossary) notions of a classless society, the Soviet Union had a powerful ruling class, the nomenklatura , which consisted of party officials and key personnel in the government and other important sectors such as heavy industry. This class enjoyed privileges such as roomy apartments, country dachas, and access to special stores, schools, medical facilities, and recreational sites. The social status and income of members of the nomenklatura increased as they were promoted to higher positions in the party.
http://countrystudies.us/russia/27.htm
Its true, the party elite had more wealth than the worker, and the system was undemocratic and thus un socialistic in my opinion. But the wealth disparity in the USSR was nothing compared to capitalistic countries so capitalists using that argument is kind of rediculous.
It's not that party officials just had more money, they also had more places to acquire and access goods and services. They had special shops that they could go and get things that weren't available, or were difficult to get (such as the during the constant goods famines), for the average citizen, they could send their children to university and so on, because they had party connections.
My view is
My view is even if the Party Elites had more wealth under Socialism the inequality can't be compared to and be on the same level as under Capitalism my question is did Karl Marx and Frederick Engels say there would still be inequality under Socialism untill Communism accomplishes a society without classes ?
What is Socialism? Socialism is a transitional phase from Capitalism to Communism. The working class (the proletariat) controls the means of production (factories, machinery, resources, land, ect) and re-distributes the wealth. It is a period Marx calls "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Wages are paid through labor certificates, or more likely in our modern era, labor credits, and these are given only through labor. Less work is required by each worker throughout the day unless they volunteer it, as a great amount of surplus value is no longer required for a capitalist’s profit. What is required for a time however, is for some labor to be appropriated by the state to keep useful social programs running and to generate economic growth. Society also continues to become more advanced and eventually Communism emerges as all class is destroyed.
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Communism/faq.html
Marx and Engels never differentiated between socialism and communism. Marx did discuss how s society in the lower stages of communism might compare to a higher one though in his Critique of the Gotha program.
Removing classes is the revolution. The way that society can become more equal is through the increase of productive capacities. Marx said, IIRC and I'm paraphrasing, that there would be initial differences based on individual people. One person might be able to work for longer for instance. But this has nothing to do with class or class antagonisms.
Is this really true ?
'IT'S BEEN TRIED BEFORE AND IT FAILED.'
You mean the collapse of Communism and 'the end of history'. Well, Soviet Russia and its satellites were never classless societies, and they didn't even try very hard to be so: the rulers lived incredibly privileged lives and wielded immense personal power. They claimed that they wanted to overthrow capitalism but ended up trying to copy it.
http://www.newint.org/features/1996/07/05/manifesto/
I'm not sure, the burden of proof is on them. Most sources say that they lived quite austere lives and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Stalin wrote to a friend asking to borrow money. Btw, Animal Farm is not a primary source, lol.
Yes, they were so rich. I mean Lenin is right up there with capitalists like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky with their SWISS BANK ACCOUNTS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/33377.stm
Gorbachev earned around 1200 rubles a month while the average salary was around 200. So yeah, there was a definite income disparity but it was nothing compared to contemporary capitalist countries.
However, party functionaries did get privileges unavailable to most citizens. For example, they got official cars (far better quality than the ladas and moskvichs available to citizens), larger and superior quality housing, special shops made especially for them (or simply too expensive for the average worker) etc.
What I have heard correct me if Im wrong but under Socialism ?
What I have heard correct me if Im wrong but under Socialism the whole equal pay is a Capitalist myth to try to make it seem like Socialism can't work but under Socialism in the Soviet Union there were still People who got paid more money than others just not as unequal as under Capitalism is this correct can anyone quote Marx Engels or Lenin where they say this ? Under Socialism if there was Management did they get paid more than the average Workers ? Did the military Leadership get paid more than the average Soldier ? Also did the Politicians or the Communist Party Leaders get paid more than the average Citizens ?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/concept-eq....html?t=104576
Keep in mind that under the Tsars, the queen's bed was pure gold. Decorations around the palace would be worth millions of dollars today. Lenin was from a relatively wealthy family, so from birth he was well off. That doesn't mean that he was swimming in riches while he was leader of the USSR.
Thank you for your answers on this subject.
Thank you for your answers on this subject.
"goods famines" - what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Since when do people eat furniture and TV sets?
As far as the universities go, unlike in the US with its economical barriers everyone could go to university, provided they passed entrance exams.
Additionally, bear in mind that everyone who entered the highest echelons of state power after the original Bolsheviks, had come from either proletarian or peasant backgrounds - yes even Brezhnev and Gorby.
So we can say with confidence that social mobility in the USSR still to this day remains unmatched throughout the world.
Could any Soviet Citizen join the Communist Party ?
Could any Soviet Citizen join the Communist Party ?
Yes, if you satisfied the criteria.
Also Lenin and Stalin were known for their modesty and austerity.
Lenin publicly protested when some official illegaly raised his salary back in 1918.
Good post.
Good post.
