4 ms·

So far, all of the experiments to make everyone equal have resulted in soviet-style housing for the many and well-appointed dachas for the few -- and that's at

So far, all of the experiments to make everyone equal have resulted in soviet-style housing for the many and well-appointed dachas for the few -- and that's at best. I'm doubtful that future experiments will have a different result.

petra 8y ago
Maybe. In countries with socialized medicine, access to healthcare services is usually more equal than countries without socialized medicine. So if some equality can be created in such an important choice, maybe it could be achieved in the less important choice of counter tops, if someone we're to bother.
- tomp 8y ago
  Why would "equal" matter though? E.g. if noone has access to medicine (probably some African countries), they're all "equal". But... The point is, "equal" is just a buzzword that needs to be deconstructed and analysed in each specific scenario. In medicine in particular, extremes are usually bad (completely private => expensive, completely public => inefficient), and middle ground (public & private) seems to be decent.
  - petra 8y ago
    People living in equal societies are happier, and less stressed. Maybe it's because differences in status translate to differences in the natural anti-depressant chemical, Serotonin.
    - htmk 8y ago
      No reason to force everyone to be equal, just create your equality paradise and open the doors to the world.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Kibbutz are pretty egalitarian. The New Testament describes the early Christians as living with everything in common ownership. Not every attempt to be equally valued has resulted in the disparities you suggest. The problem is top-down vs bottom-up ... eg https://www.quora.com/How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/answers/57676367?share=1 https://www.quora.com/How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/ans... . Genuine question, which bits of the Soviet projects were targetting making everyone equal -- all I've seen are the bits where a dictator rides the coattails of communist ideology to subdue the people. I'm still learning about this part of history, so am keen to understand which bits were started "properly" from a communist perspective. It strikes me that in all cases a portion of society wanted to impose communism, those who didn't want to give up their supremacy (of power or wealth) perverted that system. As (IIRC) Galbraith says (paraphrase?) "in Capitalism man exploits man, in Communism it's the other way around". The thing is that communism at least seeks to gain equality, capitalism seeks to exploit others up to the legal limits imposed.
- varjag 8y ago
  > which bits of the Soviet projects were targetting making everyone equal Private property of means of production and accumulation of capital were outlawed. It was the best attempt to follow Marx tenets. > It strikes me that in all cases a portion of society wanted to impose communism, those who didn't want to give up their supremacy (of power or wealth) perverted that system. No. The latter were massacred in 1918. Then the remaining ones executed and sent each other to GuLAGs in several waves. Separation of wealth (even if minuscule on the scale of developed capitalism) appears to be an emergent property.
  - secabeen 8y ago
    That mainly seems to happen at the large scale. At the small, community scale, there are plenty of examples of communal societies with many decades of history that continue as an ongoing concern. For example, the Bruderhof's in New York and Pennsylvania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities

petra 8y ago

Maybe. In countries with socialized medicine, access to healthcare services is usually more equal than countries without socialized medicine. So if some equality can be created in such an important choice, maybe it could be achieved in the less important choice of counter tops, if someone we're to bother.

tomp 8y ago
Why would "equal" matter though? E.g. if noone has access to medicine (probably some African countries), they're all "equal". But... The point is, "equal" is just a buzzword that needs to be deconstructed and analysed in each specific scenario. In medicine in particular, extremes are usually bad (completely private => expensive, completely public => inefficient), and middle ground (public & private) seems to be decent.
- petra 8y ago
  People living in equal societies are happier, and less stressed. Maybe it's because differences in status translate to differences in the natural anti-depressant chemical, Serotonin.
  - htmk 8y ago
    No reason to force everyone to be equal, just create your equality paradise and open the doors to the world.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Kibbutz are pretty egalitarian. The New Testament describes the early Christians as living with everything in common ownership. Not every attempt to be equally valued has resulted in the disparities you suggest. The problem is top-down vs bottom-up ... eg https://www.quora.com/How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/answers/57676367?share=1 https://www.quora.com/How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/ans... . Genuine question, which bits of the Soviet projects were targetting making everyone equal -- all I've seen are the bits where a dictator rides the coattails of communist ideology to subdue the people. I'm still learning about this part of history, so am keen to understand which bits were started "properly" from a communist perspective. It strikes me that in all cases a portion of society wanted to impose communism, those who didn't want to give up their supremacy (of power or wealth) perverted that system. As (IIRC) Galbraith says (paraphrase?) "in Capitalism man exploits man, in Communism it's the other way around". The thing is that communism at least seeks to gain equality, capitalism seeks to exploit others up to the legal limits imposed.

varjag 8y ago
> which bits of the Soviet projects were targetting making everyone equal Private property of means of production and accumulation of capital were outlawed. It was the best attempt to follow Marx tenets. > It strikes me that in all cases a portion of society wanted to impose communism, those who didn't want to give up their supremacy (of power or wealth) perverted that system. No. The latter were massacred in 1918. Then the remaining ones executed and sent each other to GuLAGs in several waves. Separation of wealth (even if minuscule on the scale of developed capitalism) appears to be an emergent property.
- secabeen 8y ago
  That mainly seems to happen at the large scale. At the small, community scale, there are plenty of examples of communal societies with many decades of history that continue as an ongoing concern. For example, the Bruderhof's in New York and Pennsylvania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities