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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes because workers owning their own workplace and directing activity democratically with no owner class siphoning profits has to work the exact same because…
Oh wait, it doesn’t and you’re just a fucking moron
My grandparents were forced to cut onions in the soviet onion! they still remember this when they cry and how stalin was holding the big spoon up to them and demanding more onions! “mr stalin sir too many onions is going to cause flatulence” they screamed but stalin didnt care
“Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top,” you think to yourself as the crimson Poverty Line flashes upwards across your field of view. “Capitalism is the only system that works.” The wind is rushing hard in your ears now; the bottom of the Money Pit is coming up fast. “Besides, they worked hard to swim in the Money Pool, they deser–.” Splat.
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!
Name them, Captain Smug. Tell us about whatever quaint Northern European social democratic paradise that you got excited about after reading about it on Reddit, that compartmentalizes and outsources all the suffering you don’t want to know about.
Fair enough, so without any name calling, please name some of those alternatives you mentioned.
EDIT: you commented continously for 11 further hours after this post, without answering anyone in this thread, so i would safely assume you deserve all the name calling and more.
you can either have private jackasses own everything like petty kings of their little financial fiefdoms, or you can have capital be socially owned and operated without the explicit need for next quarter profit seeking, those are your fucking choices you nerd
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
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
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?
Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top
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.
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.
“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.
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.
whats the y axis?
Distribution of pretax national income (before taxes and transfers, except pensions and unempl. insurance)
Yes because workers owning their own workplace and directing activity democratically with no owner class siphoning profits has to work the exact same because…
Oh wait, it doesn’t and you’re just a fucking moron
Buh b but muh totalitarian Soviet Onion! Muh authoritarian Borf Goria! Muh jorjorwell 8491 Chy Na!
My grandparents were forced to cut onions in the soviet onion! they still remember this when they cry and how stalin was holding the big spoon up to them and demanding more onions! “mr stalin sir too many onions is going to cause flatulence” they screamed but stalin didnt care
“Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top,” you think to yourself as the crimson Poverty Line flashes upwards across your field of view. “Capitalism is the only system that works.” The wind is rushing hard in your ears now; the bottom of the Money Pit is coming up fast. “Besides, they worked hard to swim in the Money Pool, they deser–.” Splat.
DuckTales theme plays
deleted by creator
Fascism? Feudalism? What is it that you’re implying here?
Fascism is still capitalism so they must meant one of the previous systems.
We know that, they may not.
Retvrn to feudalism.
What other modes of production are currently in use by existing nations?
Make way everyone! The big communism understander has entered the thread
He skimmed the communist manifesto for 15 minutes then stepped up to
I found the moment they met on video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL94sCAsPPg
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!
It’s not an either/or situation, there are more alternatives available.
Name them, Captain Smug. Tell us about whatever quaint Northern European social democratic paradise that you got excited about after reading about it on Reddit, that compartmentalizes and outsources all the suffering you don’t want to know about.
I refuse to believe that someone who calls me ‘captain smug’ is seriously interested in my opinion.
Fair enough, so without any name calling, please name some of those alternatives you mentioned.
EDIT: you commented continously for 11 further hours after this post, without answering anyone in this thread, so i would safely assume you deserve all the name calling and more.
I’m not and would prefer you just fuck off, but since you’re still here, NAME ONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES THAT HAS A SYSTEM YOU CLAIM IS BETTER.
Name one
Neither communism, nor capitalism. A mysterious third way ((it’s fascism)and thus still capitalism))
Kautsky
Every person who says this will simply describe capitalism with more welfare
you can either have private jackasses own everything like petty kings of their little financial fiefdoms, or you can have capital be socially owned and operated without the explicit need for next quarter profit seeking, those are your fucking choices you nerd
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
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
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?
When asked to criticize communism, liberals will simply describe capitalism.
Don’t you know that Stalin owned the whole Soviet Union?!?
He collected it all for himself in one mighty scoop.
party leaders deserve to top me
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.