4 ms·

Of course they were richer, way richer than common folk. You forgot to write access to western goods, skipping the lines for healthcare (some had privilege to u

• Joker_vD 6y ago
  Yes, because workers don't as a general rule get rich, the masters do. Again, my comment was not trying to argue for the benefits of Communism, but to explain why it does keep coming up. And it's because you can always come to the line personnel and tell them: "Don't you just hate it that while you do most of the actual work, the upper-ups earn hundreds times as much as you? Well, here's a solution: ..." And this solution was socialism and trade-unionism in the XIX century, communism in the XX, heck, even capitalism was sold as one in the very late Soviet Union, no kidding — it was seriously argued in the media that privately-owned firms would pay workers better than the state-owned enterprises, just look at the West, and many people actually belived that, really. Of course, none of those solution ever worked, and that's exactly why they will always be proposed, in one shape or another — socialism itself didn't appear out of nothing, "when Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" was uttered in 1381. So there you go: the spectre of communism will haunt us all as long as inequality exists, that is, until the humanity stops existing.