The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.
It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.
Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.
Top 10% owning 10% of wealth makes no sense as it means perfectly equal wealth redistribution. It is an ultimate goal, but it is not practically achievable. 20% is close enough.
it isn’t though. Wealth distribution isn’t the aim of communism, just inevitable effect of it. And as such it don’t have to be exactly equal. Quoting Lenin:
The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
As you can see total equality is neither achievable nor desirable under socialism and meaningless under communism.
The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.
“True Communism” isn’t a thing. You don’t measure metrics by how purely they adhere to ideology, but by measurable improvements for the Working Class. There is Capitalism, Socialism (where the USSR stood), Lower-Stage Communism, and Upper-Stage Communism. Each of these phases takes time and looks different. Marxism has never been about equal pay, but the Proletariat taking control and working towards Communism. Communism cannot be instantly lept to, and even if it could, it has never been about equal pay.
Additionally, pay was higher for doctors, engineers, professors, and other skilled workers, as is in line with Marxism. It wasn’t just Party Members.
It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.
In what way? In the USSR, Healthcare and Education were free, housing was cheap, public transit was highly developed, and workers had more vacation days and earlier retirement than US workers.
Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.
That tends to be a general problem with human societies, and as Cowbee points out there’s nothing about communism that makes society more prone to corruption. If anything, I’d argue it’s the opposite since you have less inequality. In general, I look at corruption as a form of inefficiency. So, a government that has corruption, but works in the interests of the majority overall is still a better scenario than one that works in the interest of a capital owning minority.
What about the Soviet system is more prone to corruption than, say, your standard Western Country? If you can answer specifically what you’re concerned about, then we can answer why the Soviet System is better, or has had advancements since the USSR such as the concept of the Mass Line to account for weaknesses.
If you’re unfamiliar with Marxism, I can recommend some good reading to understand it. It’s incredibly easy to make up your own conclusions about Marxism if you are only aware of part of Marxism, which is a broad topic itself.
Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top
Quick, explain this graph:
The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.
It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.
Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.
Top 10% owning 10% of wealth makes no sense as it means perfectly equal wealth redistribution. It is an ultimate goal, but it is not practically achievable. 20% is close enough.
it isn’t though. Wealth distribution isn’t the aim of communism, just inevitable effect of it. And as such it don’t have to be exactly equal. Quoting Lenin:
Also Marx:
As you can see total equality is neither achievable nor desirable under socialism and meaningless under communism.
“True Communism” isn’t a thing. You don’t measure metrics by how purely they adhere to ideology, but by measurable improvements for the Working Class. There is Capitalism, Socialism (where the USSR stood), Lower-Stage Communism, and Upper-Stage Communism. Each of these phases takes time and looks different. Marxism has never been about equal pay, but the Proletariat taking control and working towards Communism. Communism cannot be instantly lept to, and even if it could, it has never been about equal pay.
Additionally, pay was higher for doctors, engineers, professors, and other skilled workers, as is in line with Marxism. It wasn’t just Party Members.
In what way? In the USSR, Healthcare and Education were free, housing was cheap, public transit was highly developed, and workers had more vacation days and earlier retirement than US workers.
Explain what you mean by any of that gibberish.
whats the y axis?
it demonstrably doesn’t, but brainwashed smooth brains will never stop regurgitating this in face of all evidence
The problem I understand is that it always end ups in corruption, how do you avoid the corruption of your government
That tends to be a general problem with human societies, and as Cowbee points out there’s nothing about communism that makes society more prone to corruption. If anything, I’d argue it’s the opposite since you have less inequality. In general, I look at corruption as a form of inefficiency. So, a government that has corruption, but works in the interests of the majority overall is still a better scenario than one that works in the interest of a capital owning minority.
What about the Soviet system is more prone to corruption than, say, your standard Western Country? If you can answer specifically what you’re concerned about, then we can answer why the Soviet System is better, or has had advancements since the USSR such as the concept of the Mass Line to account for weaknesses.
If you’re unfamiliar with Marxism, I can recommend some good reading to understand it. It’s incredibly easy to make up your own conclusions about Marxism if you are only aware of part of Marxism, which is a broad topic itself.
You get rid of the people who would bribe them and then you pay government officials the same as the average worker.
You took highlighting the problems of capitalism as pro-communism? One-way track mind?
To be fair, this is the Meme community hosted on Lemmy.ml, and OP is a prolific Communist poster.
Wait, OP has only communism in mind?
OP is a Communist, they post pro-Communist and anti-Capitalist posts, generally.