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:

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    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 . . .

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        both China and Russia seem like they are near pre-revolution levels of income disparity right now.

        Uhhhh China’s life expectancy pre revolution was 33 years old. There is absolutely zero comparison between China of today and the humiliation years of hyper exploitation by the British, Americans, Japanese and so on.

        • Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • stilgar [he/him] @infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah they need some socialist roaders back in power, probably won’t happen any time soon though.

      One things for sure, Xi isn’t the man for the job.

      • RedDawn [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’ll see, he’s been doing a lot of rooting out corruption and ending food insecurity and extreme poverty while building up the infrastructure of the country and contending with the endless hostility from America, but he has recognized that inequality is a problem which needs to be addressed over the next several 5 year plans.

        Personally, I’ll defer to the hundred million members of the CPC to determine whether he does a good enough job at it or if somebody else needs to take the reins.

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US getting worse correlates with the destruction of the USSR. The ruling class saw the exact moment in time they had won and began to exploit harder knowing they no longer had to put up anymore pretence to compete with the socialist threat.

        • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not to worry. Income inequality in the USA is at similar levels to France in the pre-revolutionary era. These two times and places are vastly different, of course, but if you were a member of the bourgeoisie, would you feel secure? I’ve been feeling lately that the relentless sinophobia in the corporate press is a kind of proof that the monster is indeed afraid. If they were unafraid, they would have no problem with occasionally allowing communists to speak in public. But even on the internet, outside of a few niches like hexbear, this is strictly forbidden. Even the American masses are not actually that stupid and are perhaps not even so evil. Given the right circumstances and education and leadership, they could become just as radicalized as people in China during the revolution.

          • jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unlike Feudal France, The US exercises complete control over media and other propaganda spreading tools. Add an overbloated military and police force and a population brainwashed to fight amongst themselves for “Good” vs “Evil” where both sides are owned by the same people, there is zero chance to see anything similar to the French revolution in the US.

            • immuredanchorite [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is an imperfect comparison. But, despite the things you listed off, the basic contradiction still exists and revolutionary moments will begin to present themselves as the system becomes increasingly untenable. I think the “decoupling” from China and loss of the petro-dollar could easily undo a lot of brainwashing as peoples lived experiences continue to become discordant with media narratives. When the chips begin to fall, and where things go (in the US) will ultimately be up to revolutionary organizers in the US. The Paris Commune only lasted a few months before it was washed away in blood. Revolution would be shaped by the forces within the context it develops, so leftist in the US should be working very hard to shape them

  • geikei [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People here miss the main reason for the Chinese graph. Due to rapid modernaziation and urbanization China is at a point where it has two countries with different levels of income within itself. One with some 200-300 million people in the big cities earning basicaly European level salaries and incomes and one of some 200-300 million rural residents that make 2-3 times less at least (and then various stages in between).So in the process of massive urbanization in a very short period of time a shitton of people have been uplifted to high income status while a shitton are in the way and a shitton are still not uplifted but most likely will. That creates a very unique impact in inequality metrics without context

    Also that doesnt translate to equaly huge disparty in quality of life or purchasing power since in rural or small town China life ,even beyond rent, is indeed much cheaper compared to urban ereas in a degree not seen in the vast majority of countries . That particular configuration is very specific to China. For example the median US “rural” income is just 20% lower than the median urban one and despite that income inequality is so immense nationwide

    And all that ignoring the particularities that arise if you try to make a wealth graph for China instead of income. With 90% home ownership rate, very large savings compared to other countries, an ever present in kind welfare state and a “at least on paper” people’s state that can be argued to actively control most of the wealth in various ways . Even for a “de formed” workers state how can you really make a wealth graph that accounts for the non capitalist particularities of ownership and control

    Also how can you even compare stats like that between different modes of production. The bottom 50% in 1930s China were landless peasant serfs slaving on feudal warlords and living till 33 years old. What does them having 25% of Chinas income share even mean or even matter? How can you compare it to the situation I described above. How is it even calculated in such a context ?

    It’s nothing like comparing and calculating the stats in Western capitalist countries now vs in the 30s or 40s

    • Assian_Candor [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good points, but rich mfers in China are still really rich. There’s a big delta between tech bros and Foxconn workers living in Shenzhen or whatever. Still, even the folks on the bottom of the ladder are afforded life’s necessities, you won’t see tent cities for example

    • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I absorb all my China info 3rd hand or worse from internet communists, but word on the street is that the CPC had explicitly stated that the primary contradiction of this era is uneven development between rural and urban areas, and resolving this contradiction is now a primary focus.

    • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The graph also doesn’t take imperialism or colonialism into account, how amerikkka’s global south vassals are vastly poorer than the vast majority of Americans living within the USA’s borders. Income also doesn’t always equal class. Labor aristocrats in the USA can make more money than the petite bourgeoisie, for instance.

    • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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)

    • jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s probably true. Liberalisation fucked up China until Xi came along and started curbing the billionaire menace to a degree Greater than many of his predecessors.

      • GaveUp [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It didn’t “fuck up” China, their metrics were still amazing before Xi

        I think the biggest mistake before Xi was not being very diligent about corruption

        • jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Billionaires had far more leverage over the government before Xi came in. Add corruption to that and you had insane scandals in China every now and then.

      • RedDawn [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s worth noting that in China the poorest have seen incredible increases in their standard of living and extreme poverty has been essentially eliminated during the same time period. So its entirely incomparable to say, the United Kingdom or United States where life is getting worse for poor people while the rich get richer.

        That said, yeah, income inequality is a contradiction that comes with using capitalism, even a controlled form of it, to develop the means of production. It’s a contradiction that the Communists running China are aware needs to be managed as evidence by plans to address it in upcoming 5 years plans, whereas the focus of previous 5-year plans has been about growing the means of production and eliminating the worst poverty and food insecurity, goals which were met or exceeded.

      • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • stilgar [he/him] @infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          AES is when you ride on the coattails of the work and achievements of the communists who came before you while you lead the country towards capitalism.

          • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I would recommend you read this short essay by Red Sails, particularly this quote by capitalist Deng Xiaoping, cynically saying why socialism must be an act in the future and thus enriching himself and his buddies:

            It is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.

            Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

            Wait, shit, sorry, that was Marx and Engels. This one is actually Deng:

            Deng: We summed up our experience in building socialism over the past few decades. We had not been quite clear about what socialism is and what Marxism is. Another term for Marxism is communism. It is for the realization of communism that we have struggled for so many years. We believe in communism, and our ideal is to bring it into being. In our darkest days we were sustained by the ideal of communism. It was for the realization of this ideal that countless people laid down their lives. A Communist society is one in which there is no exploitation of man by man, there is great material abundance and the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is applied. It is impossible to apply that principle without overwhelming material wealth. In order to realize communism, we have to accomplish the tasks set in the socialist stage. They are legion, but the fundamental one is to develop the productive forces so as to demonstrate the superiority of socialism over capitalism and provide the material basis for communism.

            There is no sense whatsoever, practical or principled, in refusing to credit Deng for his confidence in the Chinese people, in Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and in democratic centralism as a bulwark against capitalist subterfuge. People who rightfully acknowledge Lenin’s innovations over Marx and Engels and then turn to reject Deng’s contributions are simply practising chauvinism.

            I want readers to abandon their unearned sense of moral superiority, the one that leads Westerners to arrogantly declare Chinese choices betrayals. I want them to adopt instead a curious approach, one that tries to understand why someone like themselves would make such choices, even if it doesn’t appear obvious at first. With this mindset, it turns out anyone, not just “scholars” and “experts,” can participate in the conversation, simply by considering the difficulties and contradictions China must manage:

            Many people are not selfless, and in fact downright selfish and greedy, so that dream keeps them working hard. Making room for their ambition stems the brain-drain of talent, which is a zero-sum game. Some of the fiercest and most dangerous opponents of the Soviet Union and Cuba were in fact vengeful “expats,” whereas in China’s case most vile but intelligent capitalists stay behind, within disciplinary reach of the Communist Party.

            Billionaires work as “adapters” to the rest of the capitalist world, enabling trade and collaboration as well as tempering anxiety arising from fear of the unknown, which helps prevent encirclement.

            They exist as scapegoats if one is ever needed. Consider how narratives about the Soviet Union always attribute every incident that ever occurred in its history to the deliberate malice of the Communist Party.

            It might be possible that instead of us, living in fully capitalist societies, being the ultimate arbiter of what socialism and communism is and is not, we might instead be the students and the Chinese and Cubans and North Koreans and so on are the teachers.