.
What was USSR Gini index compared to Tsarist and modern Russia?
-
My view is that all existing attempts of constructing disposable income Gini (let alone wealth) for the Soviet period are fundamentally futile. Relative wages and prices have little meaning when most consumer goods are distributed through grey markets, barter between state companies, or special channels affiliated with various state agencies.
More or less reliable wealth and income inequality measures could be constructed starting from late 1880s when zemstvas started collecting income data for much of rural population. According to a number of existing estimates, income and wealth inequality in 1905 was at almost exactly the same level as in mid 1990, and was going down until 1913 (the last year for which we have reliable imperial data).
-
If we look at the decile coefficient, Russia in about 1901-1904 had a ratio of about 6.5 (i.e. the top 10% of income earners had 6.5 times more than the bottom 10%).
This was quite a lot lower than Western countries of the time (US was around 16 at that time, while UK around 22).
What it was in Soviet times is difficult to quantify since income data is difficult to believe, but in 1988 it was estimated at around 4.1 (gini coefficient of about 25).
By 1998 in Russia this had grown to about 23.3 (in the US at the same time it was about 18, currently it is over 20)
So we can say that in the RI it was relatively low, in Soviet times it was a bit lower, and certainly not comparable to the 1990s Russia, or the US in general (which has steadily been in the 20s range throughout the past century)
-
If we look at the decile coefficient, Russia in about 1901-1904 had a ratio of about 6.5 (i.e. the top 10% of income earners had 6.5 times more than the bottom 10%).
This was quite a lot lower than Western countries of the time (US was around 16 at that time, while UK around 22).
What it was in Soviet times is difficult to quantify since income data is difficult to believe, but in 1988 it was estimated at around 4.1 (gini coefficient of about 25).
By 1998 in Russia this had grown to about 23.3 (in the US at the same time it was about 18, currently it is over 20)
So we can say that in the RI it was relatively low, in Soviet times it was a bit lower, and certainly not comparable to the 1990s Russia, or the US in general (which has steadily been in the 20s range throughout the past century)Re Tsarist numbers, I suspect if you changed it to the top 1% versus the top 10% the numbers are less pleasant. The Russian middle class was much smaller than in the US and UK, which certainly was a factor behind the Revolution.
-
If we look at the decile coefficient, Russia in about 1901-1904 had a ratio of about 6.5 (i.e. the top 10% of income earners had 6.5 times more than the bottom 10%).
This was quite a lot lower than Western countries of the time (US was around 16 at that time, while UK around 22).
What it was in Soviet times is difficult to quantify since income data is difficult to believe, but in 1988 it was estimated at around 4.1 (gini coefficient of about 25).
By 1998 in Russia this had grown to about 23.3 (in the US at the same time it was about 18, currently it is over 20)
So we can say that in the RI it was relatively low, in Soviet times it was a bit lower, and certainly not comparable to the 1990s Russia, or the US in general (which has steadily been in the 20s range throughout the past century)Re Tsarist numbers, I suspect if you changed it to the top 1% versus the top 10% the numbers are less pleasant. The Russian middle class was much smaller than in the US and UK, which certainly was a factor behind the Revolution.
You can change it anyway you want, but you'd have to do the same for the comparison groups as well. I doubt that in RI the inequality between the top/bottom 1% was worst than in the US or most of Europe of the time.
Realistically, the Russian revolution had little to do with economics. It had mostly to do with political reasons. After all, it wasn't poor landless peasants that revolted, or lowly servants. It was much better off workers and mostly young intellectuals.
Of course, the economic situation become bad by the late stages of WW1, as it did in most of Europe, and that contributed to many revolutions throughout Europe. The Russian one was just the only one that was successful, mainly due to a much weaker government compared to others and too many political grievance groups and special interests.
-
The other important factor is that during ussr times property was free. One has to wait for it but it was free.
Hardly free. It was usually awarded first to the best workers; i.e. that's just another form of remuneration. Otherwise, there were lots of "black market" means of buying all sort of property, and legal secondary markets.
One of the problems was that some people had too much money but little to spend it on. Someone who worked as engineer, or even a regular worker, in the gas fields of the north made a lot of money. Much more than could be made by someone in the same profession in Moscow.
But what to spend it on? A car? Sure, you could buy it on the secondary market for twice what it cost in government stores. You wouldn't need to wait in line. But you still got the same car as everyone else, just perhaps faster. Furniture? Good luck waiting 3 years in line for furniture in a government store. Or you could buy it from Georgian "black market" dealers for twice the price. But you still got the same furniture as everyone else.
At best you could buy some more foreign-made electronics compared to others, or more rare to find food. But the level of consumption was pretty limited. Big-item purchases were few.
-
The workers in RI were quite well paid, on the level of modern tech engineers.
The progressives had really hard time reaching out to them.
Most of them were foreign spies trying to sabotage military industry with strikes.
The revolution was done entirely by Latvian armed forces with support from local woke degenerates.
-
"They" loved the queer camp.
(https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-gy46wg7bfvgujmei6ki4ulguyu/)
His Christian dad is super proud of "them" huh!Kieran Leonard won't end up like Jude Maloney ,huh
(https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/02/04/beloved-univ-of-md-student-lgbtq-activist-jude-maloney-dies-at-19/) -
The workers in RI were quite well paid, on the level of modern tech engineers.
The progressives had really hard time reaching out to them.
Most of them were foreign spies trying to sabotage military industry with strikes.
The revolution was done entirely by Latvian armed forces with support from local woke degenerates.That is a rather large over-exaggeration, but yes, in general the "workers" were relatively well paid in relation to the rest of society. Better than British workers were paid 50 years earlier at the time Marx was writing.
It is no coincidence that the majority of the revolutionary leadership were young intellectuals, emigrants, or members of ethnic minorities. All of these were grievance groups that were after political goals, not economic.