• keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Politicians were paid around the middle of the income scale in the Soviet Union.

      Unless you’re talking about like the occasional free beer or taxi ride for competently administering your job, which I gotta tell you, however much you think Communist party members did it… Like, have you had a job and talked to your boss and their inter-business negotiations? Holy shit

      • supertrucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I’m a government official in near complete control of billions in resources, it doesn’t matter what I take home in salary, I’m essentially have the power of a billionaire, so long as I keep my bosses happy

        • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you think that a random party guy in Siberia can just say “Nope, the USSR cannot get any oil now” and nothing would be done and he’d be showered in women and coke? Or… Yeah, what the fuck are you talking about?

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top

      Therefore the best system is the one that directly rewards the most horridly destructively greedy assholes around without the slightest obligation toward the rest of society!

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For all the communism understanders reading this thread: communists still want unequal pay for unequal jobs. The experts and hardest workers collectively owning twice as much as the average workers is acceptable to all of us and desired by some of us.

          Our only demand is that you earn the money you generate, everyone earning the same is completely orthogonal and something anti-communists use to steer the conversation and misinform. It would be nice if we were more equal, but it’s not what we plan to further with our economic policy. We want everyone to own the means of production, and then you actually gotta do the production to turn that into money.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is an ultimate goal

            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.

            Also Marx:

            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.