Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 ma…
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.