In Soviet times, they possessed 4% of the total income. This is a marked reduction in the money flowing to the top.
Didn’t the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality?
Not sure a more oppressive model of privilege is the one to uphold.
More than a few would much rather take economic inequality over that bullshit.
Yeah, the soviet system was bullshit. I’ve never lived in it and only read about it, but from i can tell, it wasn’t good.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that’s mostly because there was less wealth to start with. People suffered and lived in poverty, and according to communist propaganda, it’s more important to ensure that the “people at the top” don’t have too much instead of assuring that the people at the bottom don’t have too little. I see it exactly the other way around.
Also i think that the “top-down” approach of making a very strong central government that controls all aspects of life through surveillance is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem of how to live a good life. Power over other people always leads to problems, because people group A will say how people group B shall live, while also not understanding the situation of group B or lacking context. Only the people themselves can meaningfully rule themselves.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that’s mostly because there was less wealth to start with
Wealth inequality in Tsarist Russia was infinitely higher than in Soviet times, and the country was much poorer. So no, that’s not the reason. The reason was ideology and politics.
People suffered and lived in poverty
People in the tsarist empire up to 1917 died at the ripe age of 28. By the 1960s, life expectancy had risen to almost 70 years of age. The country went from being a feudal backwater composed of 80% peasants in 1929, to being the second world power by the 1970s, with universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, the abolition of unemployment and homelessness, and the least wealth inequality the region has ever seen. The GDP levels reached by the late 80s weren’t recovered until the 2010s in most post-Soviet republics, and even now some of them like Ukraine never fully recovered from the devastation of the return to capitalism.
Someone’s confused about words.
The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, where totalitarianism is the most extreme authoritarianism.
Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.
That places it on the authoritarian edge & far left of the ideological map.
It’s not on the left edge, because the hierarchy between political elites & the governed features some economic inequality & tremendous inequality in political power/authority.
The degree of control in totalitarianism differs from that in ordinary authoritarian regimes.
An authoritarian régime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature: they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested.
In contrast, a totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren’t inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights.
Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed.
Dissent is punished.
Unauthorized political activities aren’t tolerated.
State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
Economic control.
Liberal democracies with market economies lie somewhere on the libertarian side of the ideological map.
They may be a number of things, however, authoritarian they are not, and definitely not that extreme variety of it.
So yes, many of us who think human rights are fundamental would much rather deal with some economic inequality in a liberal democracy than the extreme political inequality & authoritarian repression in a totalitarian state.
The latter at best trades one kind of inequality for another far worse inequality.
The original comment made very specific questions which I addressed. Furthermore, you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians. Actually the top earners were highly trained professionals like university professors, popular artists, or high level researchers. But sure, I’ll address your concerns.
Didn’t the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality?
If there had been an oppressive ruling class exploiting everyone else, there would be no material explanation for why healthcare was completely free and guaranteed for everyone, why education was completely free to the highest level, why jobs were guaranteed, why housing was guaranteed and costed on average 3% of the monthly income, why the overwhelming majority of workers were unionized and had power to replace directive personnel at their workplace through union… Had there been a chaste of bureaucrats exploiting the rest of the country, you’d expect at least to see a luxury industry from which they could obtain specially expensive goods such as luxury cars, yachts, designer clothes, luxury watches, luxury photo cameras… There was no such thing. I’m not saying there wasn’t ever corruption (as in any system), but the outcomes were the most egalitarian the world has seen, and even in eras of economic growth slowdown the purchase power of the average citizen went up significantly.
you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians
Reread it: it mentioned nothing of the sort.
There are worse kinds of power than economic.
That was the criticism: trading economic inequality for a more pernicious, repressive inequality in political authority.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights: according to Soviet legal doctrine, the state is the source of human rights.
it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual
Resources don’t make up for a lack of liberty, especially when rights there are worth nothing.
The political repression isn’t great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities.
State terrorism isn’t great: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
How is life there worth living if the secret police could just disappear you or take it away the moment an authority deems you inconvenient?
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don’t have that.
They don’t have Soviet legal theorists treating rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law as excesses of “bourgeois morality”.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights
By guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, housing, retirement and work to everyone, the Soviet Union de-facto promoted human rights more than any other state at the time. You simply don’t care about the welfare state if you think those aren’t human rights in the most obvious sense. Whether some state “signs a declaration” is worthless, the important and measurable thing are the outcomes, and by any metric, the Soviets excelled in them.
The political repression isn’t great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don’t have that
You’re just a western supremacist if you truly believe that. The USA has literally bombed its citizens for their political opinions. It holds the highest prison population in the world by a long shot, comparable to the height of the Soviet prison system during World War 2. There are currently fascist henchmen legally disappearing citizens based on the colour of their skin, 25% of black men go through prison at some point in their lives…
And those are only the sins within the empire. Go ask a Palestinian, an Iraqi, an Irani, an Afghan, a Mexican, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Cuban or a Congolese what they think of American support of human rights. Go ask an Algerian, a Malian, a Burkinabe what they think of French support of human rights. Go ask a Guatemalan, a Peruvian or an Ecuadorian what they think of Spanish support of human rights. The USSR, by fighting against colonialism and imperialism, was the de-facto biggest supporter of human rights in the world. Not having colonies was the ultimate expression of support for the equality of all humans.
Sure, there where excesses in repression in the USSR when they were under threat of extermination at the hands of Nazis according to Generalplan Ost. After WW2, the prison population was reduced to the lowest the region has seen (remember what came before and after the Soviet Union), and persecution was stopped as there was no longer a Nazi threat. Sure, excesses were made, but the country was under the heaviest duress possible, and it still managed to save a hundred million lives from poverty, disease, and outright extermination.
You don’t really believe in human rights if you don’t think that raising life expectancy from 28 to 70 years of age in 40 years isn’t a miracle.
Didn’t the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality? Not sure a more oppressive model of privilege is the one to uphold. More than a few would much rather take economic inequality over that bullshit.
Yeah, the soviet system was bullshit. I’ve never lived in it and only read about it, but from i can tell, it wasn’t good.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that’s mostly because there was less wealth to start with. People suffered and lived in poverty, and according to communist propaganda, it’s more important to ensure that the “people at the top” don’t have too much instead of assuring that the people at the bottom don’t have too little. I see it exactly the other way around.
Also i think that the “top-down” approach of making a very strong central government that controls all aspects of life through surveillance is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem of how to live a good life. Power over other people always leads to problems, because people group A will say how people group B shall live, while also not understanding the situation of group B or lacking context. Only the people themselves can meaningfully rule themselves.
Wealth inequality in Tsarist Russia was infinitely higher than in Soviet times, and the country was much poorer. So no, that’s not the reason. The reason was ideology and politics.
People in the tsarist empire up to 1917 died at the ripe age of 28. By the 1960s, life expectancy had risen to almost 70 years of age. The country went from being a feudal backwater composed of 80% peasants in 1929, to being the second world power by the 1970s, with universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, the abolition of unemployment and homelessness, and the least wealth inequality the region has ever seen. The GDP levels reached by the late 80s weren’t recovered until the 2010s in most post-Soviet republics, and even now some of them like Ukraine never fully recovered from the devastation of the return to capitalism.
You’re right, definitely better to be oppressed by the authoritarian power and political inequality of capitalist elites.
Inb4 “tankie!”: no, both are/were shit.
Someone’s confused about words. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, where totalitarianism is the most extreme authoritarianism.
That places it on the authoritarian edge & far left of the ideological map.
It’s not on the left edge, because the hierarchy between political elites & the governed features some economic inequality & tremendous inequality in political power/authority.
The degree of control in totalitarianism differs from that in ordinary authoritarian regimes. An authoritarian régime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature: they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested. In contrast, a totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
Liberal democracies with market economies lie somewhere on the libertarian side of the ideological map. They may be a number of things, however, authoritarian they are not, and definitely not that extreme variety of it.
So yes, many of us who think human rights are fundamental would much rather deal with some economic inequality in a liberal democracy than the extreme political inequality & authoritarian repression in a totalitarian state. The latter at best trades one kind of inequality for another far worse inequality.
No you’re right, I’ve changed my mind. I’m happy to get fucked over by someone as long as their power comes from being wealthy…
Tap for spoiler
/s because i have a feeling you’ll need it.
The greater evil doesn’t justify the lesser.
The original comment made very specific questions which I addressed. Furthermore, you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians. Actually the top earners were highly trained professionals like university professors, popular artists, or high level researchers. But sure, I’ll address your concerns.
If there had been an oppressive ruling class exploiting everyone else, there would be no material explanation for why healthcare was completely free and guaranteed for everyone, why education was completely free to the highest level, why jobs were guaranteed, why housing was guaranteed and costed on average 3% of the monthly income, why the overwhelming majority of workers were unionized and had power to replace directive personnel at their workplace through union… Had there been a chaste of bureaucrats exploiting the rest of the country, you’d expect at least to see a luxury industry from which they could obtain specially expensive goods such as luxury cars, yachts, designer clothes, luxury watches, luxury photo cameras… There was no such thing. I’m not saying there wasn’t ever corruption (as in any system), but the outcomes were the most egalitarian the world has seen, and even in eras of economic growth slowdown the purchase power of the average citizen went up significantly.
Reread it: it mentioned nothing of the sort. There are worse kinds of power than economic. That was the criticism: trading economic inequality for a more pernicious, repressive inequality in political authority.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights: according to Soviet legal doctrine, the state is the source of human rights.
Resources don’t make up for a lack of liberty, especially when rights there are worth nothing. The political repression isn’t great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities. State terrorism isn’t great: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps. How is life there worth living if the secret police could just disappear you or take it away the moment an authority deems you inconvenient?
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don’t have that. They don’t have Soviet legal theorists treating rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law as excesses of “bourgeois morality”.
By guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, housing, retirement and work to everyone, the Soviet Union de-facto promoted human rights more than any other state at the time. You simply don’t care about the welfare state if you think those aren’t human rights in the most obvious sense. Whether some state “signs a declaration” is worthless, the important and measurable thing are the outcomes, and by any metric, the Soviets excelled in them.
You’re just a western supremacist if you truly believe that. The USA has literally bombed its citizens for their political opinions. It holds the highest prison population in the world by a long shot, comparable to the height of the Soviet prison system during World War 2. There are currently fascist henchmen legally disappearing citizens based on the colour of their skin, 25% of black men go through prison at some point in their lives…
And those are only the sins within the empire. Go ask a Palestinian, an Iraqi, an Irani, an Afghan, a Mexican, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Cuban or a Congolese what they think of American support of human rights. Go ask an Algerian, a Malian, a Burkinabe what they think of French support of human rights. Go ask a Guatemalan, a Peruvian or an Ecuadorian what they think of Spanish support of human rights. The USSR, by fighting against colonialism and imperialism, was the de-facto biggest supporter of human rights in the world. Not having colonies was the ultimate expression of support for the equality of all humans.
Sure, there where excesses in repression in the USSR when they were under threat of extermination at the hands of Nazis according to Generalplan Ost. After WW2, the prison population was reduced to the lowest the region has seen (remember what came before and after the Soviet Union), and persecution was stopped as there was no longer a Nazi threat. Sure, excesses were made, but the country was under the heaviest duress possible, and it still managed to save a hundred million lives from poverty, disease, and outright extermination.
You don’t really believe in human rights if you don’t think that raising life expectancy from 28 to 70 years of age in 40 years isn’t a miracle.