this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13548 readers
1 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: Piketty's World Inequality Report 2022

I shared this deep in a dunk thread earlier and figured there's probably many comrades who haven't seen this data. I think it's very good rhetorically because a lot of libs have an incredibly vibes-based impression that the Soviet Union was just an Animal Farm old-boss-same-as-the-new-boss situation.

Instead, this demonstrates that Russia underwent one of the most dramatic inversions of income inequality of any country in recorded history.

For comparison here is the US over the same time period:

China:

And the UK:

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Comparing China negatively to the USSR makes sense, but comparing it negatively to the UK shows how people on this board are still very capable of being birdbrained and taken by a single, specific data set without considering the broader context. While the UK is making strides in austerity, China is continuously building [back] up from the gutting by Deng and making advancements in socialization. Show me where in the UK they build entire modern apartment complexes for dirt-poor villages living in rustic conditions and turn them over for free. How many hospitals do they erect, how many miles of new rail do they lay to provide infrastructural support?

Of course the UK, being so small and having spent so long as the industrial center of the planet (though those days are long past) already has some of this infrastructure rather than needing to build it . . .

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the positive correlation between the prominence of the USSR and income inequality in other countries is notable - even if you are in the imperial core, you benefit from actually existing socialism

and the corollary to that helps explain why the imperium steps on AES as much as possible - even if you are the imperium, you make less money if actually existing socialism exists

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The USSR in its prime was able to challenge the USA on a lot of moral issues that would have never been brought up by other powers. For instance, I'm pretty sure that civil rights was not able to progress as it did without the ability for the USA to be shamed into action.

That said, both China and Russia seem like they are near pre-revolution levels of income disparity right now. So, I don't know who would be the standard bearer pushing for economic equality now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

russia is no shock, but the chinese stats are disappointing. bottom 50%'s percent of income is lower than it was pre-revolution. I wonder how this squares with the milestone of eradicating extreme poverty

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's disappointing but necessarily surprising tbh. China has been doing state capitalism for a while now.

As for your question these statistics aren't necessarily contradictory to the idea of extreme poverty being reduced/eradicated. As this is basically a measure of wealth inequality, and while it might be worse than pre revolution, the standard of life is undoubtedly much higher. This is a result of China's explosive economic growth, there is simply way more wealth in China than ever before. So a higher wealth inequality isn't necessarily a good indicator of poverty. It is however an apt representation of the CCP's economic policies over the past two decades and is a good indicator that poverty will rise once China's growth slows down if wealth inequality isn't addresed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

China has been doing state capitalism for a while now.

good

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Wow, looks like something bad happened in 1991 that caused inequality to get even worse than under Tsarist Russia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Massive income inequality w Chinese characteristics.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually existing socialism is when you have worse inequality than post brexit Britain.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

actually existing socialism is when you manage to achieve what China has achieved from the absolutely destitute conditions that the communists started with, and didn't have the advantage of having the largest empire in human history up to that point feeding material surplus into the core

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah the communists did a great job of priming China for a rise to superpower status, but I think they'd not be so stoked on this turn to state capitalism

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are texts out there which Mao wrote, which I wish I could find, where he sounds just like Deng. China is different from the USSR for many reasons, one of which is that the Bolsheviks rapidly gained power over a vast region while the CPC governed various regions of China for decades before winning the civil war. Both before and after that victory they constantly had to deal with the issue of how you build up the productive forces when you have almost nothing to begin with WITHOUT betraying the revolution. China’s current policy is basically the USSR’s NEP on steroids, and is anyone here going to argue that the NEP was not socialist?

I’ve also been thinking of something Deng said—how a market is socialist if socialists control it and capitalist if capitalists control it. This might seem ridiculous at first glance, but would any Marxist call an ancient Roman slave market capitalist? It really is something qualitatively different, even if it is still horrifying and exploitative.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Be interesting to see this for wealth in addition to income

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah it definitely would be. If you follow the link for the source you'll find some data but it's not as exhaustive. One of the refrains in Capital in the 21st Century is that wealth inequality is always more dramatic and extreme, and another is that it's incredibly irresponsible for states to not be recording and publishing data about wealth so citizens can make informed decisions. (You can already hear the libness coming out - it's a good book if you can get past that)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

for a second I thought you were talking about Das Kapital and were calling marx a lib and I was genuinely impressed

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's disappointing but not that surprising to see the level of disparity between the wealthy and the poor in modern day china, what is surprising is to see that the fucking UK is more "equal" than china

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is income inequality, wealth inequality in the UK is of course magnitudes worse.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Like i comment elsewhere a very large part of Chinese income inequality is the huge rural-urban divide. All countries have it but its an order of magnitude worse in China so there are basicaly 2 different countries within China . Having 300 million people in the biggest cities earning western levels of income and 300 million people in rural small towns and villages earning a fraction of that skews the metric a lot EVEN tho life in rural ereas is also much cheaper and without taking into account that this is a symptom of the rapid urbanization and mpsernization that will probably uplift the latter group like it did the former

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

stalin shouldn't have stopped at berlin

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know everyone here is doing China discourse here but the honestly not insignificant inequality that remained in the USSR is kinda interesting to see.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In the USSR, the highest paid occupations were scientists, artists, engineers, not CEOs and managers like in capitalist countries. Their top 10% was not the same as our top 10%.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That may be, but the fact of the inequality remains (and it remains a bad thing imo)