6 ms·

Nothing like any other society. I lived through Communist Poland. Comfortable life for officials meant that they could use stores with stuff from the west (to

Nothing like any other society. I lived through Communist Poland. Comfortable life for officials meant that they could use stores with stuff from the west (to buy Levi's jeans, Marlboro cigarettes, or perhaps even a walkman - you can google Pewex to read about these stores). Many of them had also homes. Not as in villas, but as in plain homes that you see in american suburbs. One of the country leaders in 1950s built himself a villa once, but he never got to live in it, because the rest of the leaders make it understandable to him that it will end badly. So he ended in one of the regular homes. (you can google Ochabówka - I've been inside, and again - it's like twice as big as a regular american home, nothing like a villa you would imagine). You can also google how Gorbachev and other Soviet party leaders were living. It was better than common people but not much. The main difference in quality of life was that the regular police couldn't just lock you up (secret police could though), and you wouldn't be beaten up by simply showing on a street during work hours, or doing some other crazy stuff like wearing colorful socks or long hair. I mean, no party official would dare to do it anyway, but regular police wouldn't stop them. So on one hand - yeah, the societal divide was way lower. But it meant nobody was free and everybody was poor - as in no TVs, no meat, and even a toilet paper was a luxury. Nobody I know would want to get back to that.

firejake308 3y ago
Thanks for sharing your perspective! I found it very interesting, as I don't get to meet many people who lived through the USSR
- p1esk 3y ago
  From what I remember life in communist Poland was better than life in Soviet Union.
robertlagrant 3y ago
This is really interesting. I always balk against people talking about inequality with this sort of thing in mind: the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving. It requires no talent, only power, to take people's stuff and redistribute it. It requires talent and effort to create new things that raise the bar for everyone, and just as much to maintain the political environment that allows that to happen. I don't know if that fits your story; if not apologies, as I didn't mean to hijack it!
- n4r9 3y ago
  > the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving I understand this perspective, but I still think inequality is important. Inequality is a measure of how good the low standards are Vs how good they could be.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I suppose that's true, but I don't think that's how it's used. Also, that's only useful where it's helpful. We don't live in a world where everyone can eat expensive meals every night, because those require work from other people. What is actually helpful is the rich buying a load of stuff, some of which is crazy, and the useful things are identified by entrepreneurs as being worthy of trying to bring to mass market, and then suddenly (almost) everyone can afford them, and they can even be sold in other countries for a lower price that couldn't make them in the next 500 years. E.g. reading glasses were once for the rich, and now are so prevalent that we don't realise what a privilege being able to access them is. But none of that requires knowledge of inequality. Simple market forces will do that.
- opportune 3y ago
  Humans are social creatures with an innate sense of “status”. Absolute material inequality is only one form of inequality. You can feed, clothe, and give iPhones to the very poor but if they are at the bottom of a very deep social hierarchy with no hope to climb out of it, that inequality is still going to cause a lot of problems. People might turn to a life of crime for lack of better options, or participate into a violent machismo culture in an attempt to salvage their masculinity/status as a man. Of course, the fallacy of every attempt at socialism is that “abolishing class” simply replaces the capitalist social hierarchy with a new hierarchy based on position within the Party or blessed sectors like the military, science, or intelligence, complete with large differences in material living standards. However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards.

firejake308 3y ago

Thanks for sharing your perspective! I found it very interesting, as I don't get to meet many people who lived through the USSR

p1esk 3y ago
From what I remember life in communist Poland was better than life in Soviet Union.

robertlagrant 3y ago

This is really interesting. I always balk against people talking about inequality with this sort of thing in mind: the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving. It requires no talent, only power, to take people's stuff and redistribute it. It requires talent and effort to create new things that raise the bar for everyone, and just as much to maintain the political environment that allows that to happen. I don't know if that fits your story; if not apologies, as I didn't mean to hijack it!

n4r9 3y ago
> the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving I understand this perspective, but I still think inequality is important. Inequality is a measure of how good the low standards are Vs how good they could be.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I suppose that's true, but I don't think that's how it's used. Also, that's only useful where it's helpful. We don't live in a world where everyone can eat expensive meals every night, because those require work from other people. What is actually helpful is the rich buying a load of stuff, some of which is crazy, and the useful things are identified by entrepreneurs as being worthy of trying to bring to mass market, and then suddenly (almost) everyone can afford them, and they can even be sold in other countries for a lower price that couldn't make them in the next 500 years. E.g. reading glasses were once for the rich, and now are so prevalent that we don't realise what a privilege being able to access them is. But none of that requires knowledge of inequality. Simple market forces will do that.
opportune 3y ago
Humans are social creatures with an innate sense of “status”. Absolute material inequality is only one form of inequality. You can feed, clothe, and give iPhones to the very poor but if they are at the bottom of a very deep social hierarchy with no hope to climb out of it, that inequality is still going to cause a lot of problems. People might turn to a life of crime for lack of better options, or participate into a violent machismo culture in an attempt to salvage their masculinity/status as a man. Of course, the fallacy of every attempt at socialism is that “abolishing class” simply replaces the capitalist social hierarchy with a new hierarchy based on position within the Party or blessed sectors like the military, science, or intelligence, complete with large differences in material living standards. However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards.