4 ms·
In practice the USSR was an extremely unequal society in terms of wealth distribution. Growing awareness of the enormous gulf in the standard of living and pol
by retrac 5y ago
In practice the USSR was an extremely unequal society in terms of wealth distribution. Growing awareness of the enormous gulf in the standard of living and political power between the nomenklatura and the quasi-enslaved contributed substantially to its collapse.
- daenz 5y agoSounds like it "wasn't real socialism/communism."
- _skzr 5y agoThis is literally the “AckChyually IT WAsnT ReAL CommUniSM” meme
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zajio1am 5y agoI do not know about USSR, but AFAIK at least in Czechoslovakia the communist leaders do not really have big personal property. They have enormous political power and also access to property through their functions (assigned appartments and official cars), but not in form of direct ownership.
- retrac 5y agoThat is fair. But by similar logic, some medieval lords technically also owned nothing. They merely were administrators for the king's land. And yet that position enabled social and political connections that translated into fabulous wealth. The ability to control the disposition of nationalized property as the Communist leaders had, was a form of wealth, in my opinion.