Socialism for the elite but not for the masses?

  • supernicepojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Dawg, I dont know man…. To each according to their needs is kinda hard to subscribe to before the definition of a post-scarcity society, considering we all have the same needs generally speaking. To use Stalinist USSR as an example work was assigned according to ability, and in some cases who you were or who you knew. Someone had to work the party lines and admin to assign this stuff based on “something”

    Edit: i know this example isnt real communism

    • klay1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      in communism, ‘class is abolished. The ability to earn more than other workers is almost nonexistent.’ Therefore i’d argue that a rank or housing and pay by rank, are very counterproductive.

      Stalinist just means authoritarian to me. There was no equality