Anti-Communist Lie: Communism Is Awful Because There Was a Priveleged Class (a Nomenklatura)

EPGAH writes:

Members of the right party or the right school get the goldmine, and everyone else gets the shaft.

This was never really true. Yes there was a nomenklatura, but so what? Isn’t a bit rich that US conservatives, capitalists and rich people attacked the USSR for having a class system? They should have been happy that the USSR had a class system.

Anyway, with anti-Communist critics, they want to have it both ways.

First they attack Communists for supposedly making everyone equal and paying everyone the same rate and thereby destroying initiative.

Then they have the gall to attack Communism for having a class system in which some people made more money than others.

You can’t win!

First you are bad because you pay everyone the same, and then you are bad because some people make more money! What a preposterous argument.

Yes there was a nomenklatura in the USSR, and they did live somewhat better than your average person. But they did not live dramatically better. Yes, were differentials between the nomenklatura and the ordinary people, but they were not dramatic differentials, and they were nothing like the wildly insane inequality you see under capitalism.

Yes, much was made of the fact that the nomenklatura had vacation dachas in the countryside, but the truth is that 50% of the urban population in the USSR had a dacha vacation home in the countryside. Incidentally most people grew their own food in the gardens of these dachas.

Even after Communism fell in the USSR, in modern Russia, everyone who had a dacha in the USSR got to keep it, so most Russians have a dacha even to this day, and they still use them to grow crops just like under the USSR. In fact, fully 50% of the harvest in Russia today comes from these small family gardens! Some people also keep livestock, and they were allowed to keep some pigs or chickens even during the USSR.

I believe that the dachas of the nomenklatura may have been significantly fancier than the average person’s dacha, but the USSR upper class did not live in anything like the preposterous mansions that no one needs that the rich have in capitalist countries.

Also it’s not true that some people lucked into a goldmine by being Communist party members or going to the right school, and it’s not true that ordinary people got the shaft either.

Ordinary people lived decent lives where they had most everything they needed, so they didn’t get shafted, and although the privileged did get to live somewhat better lives, it wasn’t a goldmine.

Anyway, those born into the right circumstances or who go to the right school get a goldmine and else gets the shaft is pretty much the way it goes in most capitalist countries, right? So if it was like that in the USSR (and it wasn’t) why would that even be a bad thing? If that statement were true, it would mean that the USSR operated under a privileged system similar to that of capitalist countries, and why would it be a critique to say that the USSR was similar to capitalist countries? Is that supposed to be an insult? I do not get it.


Filed under Agricutlure, Capitalism, Economics, Eurasia, Left, Livestock Production, Marxism, Regional, Russia, Socialism, Sociology, USSR

23 responses to “Anti-Communist Lie: Communism Is Awful Because There Was a Priveleged Class (a Nomenklatura)

  1. Santoculto

    “”””humanities””‘ is a sanatorium that pretend to be scientific.

    A bunch of demagogues and ideologues with few honest and sane people there.

    The inverted cross, their religious symbol.

    Indeed ordinary people tend to live better, little Better than in sane capitalistic country like Sweden in their old days.

    But what to do both regimes bad is always the human/problem factor.

    When you have stupid and insane people in the power, always will happen problems.

    What happen today in the education sector in first world countries with this lunatic (sluggish schizophrenia?? ) pedagogues on the left believing that everyone is just like care bears waiting for love and comprehension. What made humans “successful” was cleverness.

    • Jason Y

      Santo-culto is exxagerating things as most of the far right does. Yes, people need love and compassion. Of course, too much though can make people into sissies, Nonetheless, obviously hellholes like India, with all the poop in the street, could use more.

      Of course, some people do rise above poverty and dire circumstances, like Russell Crowe on the movie Gladiator. However, 90 to 98 percent of the time, the poor or other disadvantaged cannot rise above thier status in a poor society cause things are “too stacked against their favor”.

      For instance, can we say a 2 year old breathing Marlboros 24/7 should man up and maybe he will rise above the smoke? Can we say some kid who is bullied should man up, even though the bullying is sinking all his grades and leading to suicide?

  2. Jason Y

    I was shocked reading a Karl Marx biography in the 7th grade. I always thought Communism was evil, but when I read what it was really about it seemed awesome. Of course, later in life, I became cynical again.

    I think if something is painted evil by the media, then pretty much believe it’s evil. Nonetheless, somethings really are evil, like Nazi Germany, which the far right tries to whitewash.

    Some regimes like Aparthied South Africa and the Jim Crow south though were less evil than some have made them out to be, there seems to be more justifiable reasons for the abuse of blacks then we thought. Nonetheless, those places, overall all still sucked though, cause they never tried to change the environment for blacks. It’s just the same as India, the people walk thru shit cause nobody will do nothing for them, and they can’t help themselves cause it’s monoploy game where one player owns everything.

    • Santoculto

      Read Marx biography and change their idea about “communism evil#”…


      • Jason Y

        If you never saw Communism painted in a positive light, of course, your going to think it’s evil.

        Myself, Iv’e also seen Naziism painted in a positive light, but I still don’t buy into it.

        • EPGAH

          The only time I hear Communism painted in a positive light is when they say it replaced an even WORSE system. SO I ask what was so “worse” about the old system, then I get the crickets.

    • EPGAH

      How could they change the environment for Blacks other than boot them back to Africa, rather than offer them a trip that less than 13,000 took them up on, presumably because they knew they could stay here and bitch and riot and extort MORE freebies?

      The environment for Blacks WILL NOT CHANGE until Blacks change. Richer, better, maybe even smarter people than me have tried for centuries, and the best we can do is the ones HERE are not AS BAD as the ones in Papua?

  3. EPGAH

    It’s because of the hypocrisy, not because they are developing a Class System. If we believed they were evolving back into Capitalism, then yes, we should be overjoyed.

    BUT if they keep up the pretense of a classless system where everyone is equal, then we should point out the hypocrisy! They can keep being hypocrites, and we can keep pointing it out!

  4. siberiancat

    USSR was fairly egalitarian, and there was more than enough of vertical mobility, though it was significantly diminished in the last decade of its existence. There were elite dynasties all over, but if you look at the bios of the party leaders, or scientific or cultural luminaries, the majority of them were of humble origins.
    However the last decade was the rule of gerontocracy throughout the system, it was choking the vertical mobility, and new opportunities could have only been created from the top.

  5. James Schipper

    Dear Robert

    One anti-communist myth about the Soviet Union was that 50% of agricultural output came from the 2% of land that was privately owned. How do you measure agricultural output? There are many products, animal as well as vegetal. How does one add them all up? Well, the usual way in which it is done is to use monetary value. This is highly misleading. The output of one hectare of strawberries can have the same monetary value as the output of 20 hectares of wheat. Does it have the same feeding capacity? Obviously not. If Peter uses his land to produce rice and beans which are consumed directly by people while Paul uses the same area of land for growing corn and soybeans which are then fed to beef cattle, then the monetary value of Paul’s output is much higher while his feeding capacity is much lower.

    Very well, what people in the Soviet Union with private farm land did was to grow food items with a high monetary value such as fruits, vegetables, meat and eggs. This doesn’t mean that they could satisfy half of the food consumption of the Soviet people. What the anti-communists had to do was to prove that the 2% of Soviet farm land that was in private hands could feed as many people as the 98% that was state-owned. They failed to do that.

    None of the above implies that Soviet agriculture was a model of efficiency. It certainly was not. The productivity of both the land and the farm population was rather low, although much higher than it was in tsarist times. There was progress in Soviet agriculture, but it was slower than in the West.

    Regards. James

  6. Communism was bad because of the totalitarian political system that accompanied it, everywhere.

    Apart from the fact that single party rule followed directly from communist revolutions- and then the party did everything it could to weed out opposition to protect the revolution- it might also be significant that there was no private sector to limit the size and reach of government.

    Communism was bad because of its attempts to destroy religion, control culture and involve itself in private life….all in the name of protecting and advancing the revolution. Communism opposed and destroyed anything it saw as ‘bourgeois’ culturally (ie anything they felt threatened by) or anything that limited the power of the party. The party involved itself in private life far too much. The party had vast apparatus to spy on its own people and imprison or kill the ones it suspected as disloyal.

    Totalitarianism was the problem.

    A communist economic system could exist theory with democracy but is it likely?

    Anyway, why would you want 100% state ownership of the means of production? Its a bad idea as the quality of consumer goods and shortages in the soviet union might attest, and the only way you can have that situation is by central control and basically using the police to prevent people from doing what they naturally want to do and what they would do in a free situation.

    • Jason Y

      Communism was bad because of its attempts to destroy religion, control culture and involve itself in private life….

      It depends on what religion. Some like Hinduism are pivotal in promoting inequality and poverty. What good is Hinduism in revolutionary sense? None.

      • I agree that the caste system part of Hinduism is bad but generally speaking, its absolutely not the business of government to interfere with spiritual life, regardless of whether it is good or bad for their revolution.

        • Lin

          I think u’re taking a sanitized view of religions. As ronald Reagan said politics and religion can’t be separated. Religion is much less about just a set of beliefs than racial/nationalistic/tribal identity and internal social hierarchy. ‘Spirituality’ if one means helping the needy is fine but very often it is just a thin veneer/excuse over superstitutions and theocratic or clerical abuses. If one wants to defend something bad,one way is calling it ‘spiritual’

          (You also read the other links at the same site :
          Related Links
          The four-fold spiritual class system – a system created by God for spiritual progress
          Hindu caste system a myth, Hindu class system explained
          Hinduism stages of life in attaining the four pursuits)
          No wonder many fags also call butt sex/fisting ‘spiritual’ and using condoms is detrimental to ‘intimacy’.
          To me, Hinduism is sanctified Brahmin superiority over lower castes. Islam is the only major vehicle of arab or pan arab civilization/nationalism/tribalism. However both Christianity and Buddhism do have less ethnic colors. I’ve never met a pro-hindu Chinese Buddhist and one of the earliest Christian disciples was an Ethiopian, not that they don’t form the cultural pillars of some countries.

        • EPGAH

          Well, Communism is a religion, the State tries to be God!
          All-pervasive, all-seeing, all-controlling.

        • Lin,

          spirituality isn’t helping the needy as in relieving their poverty. It is mysticism. Its about realising the nature of consciousness, its insight through personal experience, its the meditative quest. Its something you can do with or without being part of a religion or subscribing to dogma but being part of a religion can help. In Hinduism and Buddhism there are philosophical teachings and techniques and even institutions like monasteries and experienced teachers.

          The communists tried to eradicate religion to create their utopia and it didn’t work and the effort was harmful and lots of people died. It just went underground. You can’t just force people to give up their religion. Its a right and it should be a right. Nobody can assume certainty and then force others to conform.

  7. Apart from American foreign policy- aggression and meddling abroad- the American system domestically was vastly superior to soviet communism. The average person in say the 1950’s-1970’s had far better material conditions,(secure job, nice house, good consumer products) much more freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, more freedom of speech and assembly and movement, and much better entertainment and more cultural freedom, with both religion and rock n roll and movies. You were economically and culturally better off and more free!

    If you could live in 20th century America or 20th century soviet union, it would be an absolute no brainier.

    • EPGAH

      I don’t see the aggression, I see us protecting our investments from Communists who would steal it for part of their “revolution”….or whatever other excuse.

      But yes, that’s why we had so many POLITICAL refugees–although apparently a good number of them were just infiltrators to infect our kids with the basis of Communist philosophy, which is why we have the Black Panthers, college tantrums, and of course “Everyone Gets A Trophy”.

      And ironically, Hate Speech and other Political Correctness laws where the Government impugns Free Speech to “protect” people who are too fragile to live, technically speaking.

      They USED our freedom to DESTROY our freedom!

      • In some instances, the CIA overthrew democratic governments to replace them with American friendly, pro business dictatorships.

        And there has been aggression, literally speaking.

        • EPGAH

          I think I already stated this, but “democracies” kept trying to steal our properties in other countries, we set up dictators as basically living antitheft devices. Better than “The Club”!
          If a savages steals from an American under “democracy”, the excuse is “Oh, well, Savages Will Be Savages”! If a savage steals from an American under a dictatorship, he’s treated as if he tried to rape the whole Royal Family and their pets too!

          The military operations were PUNITIVE, not AGGRESSION.

          If you want us to mind our own business, stop stealing it!
          Part of MINDING our business is PROTECTING it!
          I mean look through that list, everything from stopping kidnapping and “impressment” of American citizens to protecting citizens and interests in Nicaragua, to trying to STOP the overthrow of Vietnam and Korea!

          And don’t forget, Russia sent groups out to overthrow Governments, from China to Cuba to Vietnam to South Africa to Rhodesia–and AMERICA!
          The prevailing wisdom is that all but one of those were successful. My own view is that Communists poisoned America, it just took a longer time for the poison to do its work.

          The only thing that even tried to counteract the Communist poison was America, right? Or do you see any other force at work in that time?
          Maybe France? Cue Laugh Track

        • EPGAH

          Our violence was punitive, not aggressive.

          And you want us to “mind our business”, right?
          Part of minding it is defending it.
          I notice you don’t have a list of the regime changes Russia had a hand in, or even their attempts at undermining OUR Government?

    • Lin

      What I meant by ‘needy’ doesn’t refer to the financially needy and definitely there’s a mental dimension to human existence just like its stupid to describe love and affection only through biochemistry. But from a historical perspective, much of the ‘spirituality’ originated by deficiency in physical resources. I wouldn’t care how uplifted you’re after meditation but at the end of the day, a person need money to pay bills and buy food. I certainly would mourn a nephew who died in his 20s than an elder who passed away in his/her 90s. So material well being sure cut down the needs for ‘spirituality’. Not that ‘spirituality’ is irrelevant when it’s focused and well meant and I’m not an atheist(in fact only a very % of humans are true atheists). To help solving tough issues facing humanity is a spiritual exercise, so is graceful forgiveness. But its certainly true that the need for spirituality has decreased as science and material well beings improved.
      As a Chinese,I can tell you Buddhism is oftenly considered as escapism by confucist intellectuals and historical examples amply show. Outwardly Buddhism is just another religion. Let me quote a good example. Few non-Buddhists know Buddha actually had 3 wives and a son by the name Rahula. And Rahula was born 6 years after Buddha turned celibate. How did it happened? I was quite disappointed no entertainment enterprise has made it into a spicy TV series. Your guess is as good as mine. Anyway,it was a major Buddhist scandal during Buddha’s time and some of Buddha’s officials want to burn Rahula’s mom hindu style. If you throw the question to the average buddhist monks, he might turn agitated or give you an explanation not too different from Jesus’s immaculate perception. Anyway, I don’t consider Buddha a responsible father nor monarch

  8. Martin Amis on Stalin: “what he was was a Marxist, so he tried the socialist experiment along rigid Marxist lines, and with the results that you see. He tried to batter reality into this utopia and reality resisting all the time, of course.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s