How accurate is the vision that the Soviet Union was a "two class society" -- the nomenklatura and the masses?

How accurate is the vision that the Soviet Union was a "two class society" -- the nomenklatura and the masses?

Worse than most monarchies.

It's accurate, but you'd be better off calling it the upper class and the lower class. It's more accurate that way.

first Tsar nobility then the Bolsheviks then the Communist Party of the USSR then the Nomenklatura then the Oligarchs
>"everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same" Tancredi Falconeri

but there were no borders between these "classes"

Any ordinary weaver or combine operator could become a member of Politburo (and did!)

There were significant borders you lying faggot. You had to be a party member for years if not decades, you had to suck a lot of figurative commie dick, you had to be a "hero" of some kind. Joe Everyman absolutely could not become part of the upper class easily despite what you claim. Fuck off.

i gave you just two examples of members of your made-up class becomes members of your other made-up class, but you were too ignorant to see who i am talking about.

> You had to be a party member for years if not decades
> you had to be a "hero" of some kind
both are achievable for anyone

I recommend to look up what class borders actually mean and come back to me.

>posts the exception who managed to jump through all the hoops and get lucky enough to break the border
>calls it the rule
Commie apologists I swear to fuck. You faggots need to be fucking hanged.

> exception
I gave two very prominent figures on soviet politics who both very much a rule. You'd knew them if you spend more time reading over hateful shitposting.

Look up list of members of politburo at any moment of time
Check their biographies

>Election[edit]
To be elected to the Politburo, a member had to serve on the Central Committee.[19] The Central Committee formally elected the Politburo in the aftermath of a party Congress.[19] Members of the Central Committee were given a predetermined list of candidates for the Politburo (having only one candidate for each seat), for this reason the election of the Politburo was usually passed unanimously.[19] The more power the CPSU General Secretary had, the stronger the chance was that the Politburo membership were passed without serious dissent.[19]
Sounds positively easy to break into. Oh wait, it doesn't. Instead it's exactly as I stated: You have to be a member of the party (the vast majority of people were not). You had to suck a lot of figurative commie dick or you would be ignored at best, disappeared at worst, and you had to be a "hero" of some kind to get noticed by the Central Committee. You have a point (sort) by stating that it was "the lower class" that ended up becoming the politburo, because there was nowhere else to pick from. Even then these "lower class" people were the elite of the lower class. They were college educated people in the Soviet Union who jumped through a shit ton of hoops and got lucky. They were absolutely the exception not the rule. Now take a helicopter ride, commie shit.

You googled what "politburo" is (for the first time in your life it seems) and copy-pasted some excerpt from it

You STILL have no idea what actual class border is.

And you still didn't pull list of member of politburo and check their bios.

If that is too hard for you -- you can just check secretary generals.

fifel pls go

>Shucking and jiving this hard
Just fuck off already.

Serfs could also become nobility in feudal society (serfs promoted to nobility were called ministerialis )

but that was extremely rare

while communist party officials were entirely made of "working class", they WERE working class

The inverse was true -- you had a hard time entering the elite if you had aristocratic roots.

There was Leningrad mayor (i forget what his actual soviet position was, but he was a mayor for all intents and purposes) with the last name Romanov. That fact alone -- even if he could prove through paper trail that he has nothing to do with nobility stalled his carrier.

What the heck is your point? They were the working class just like ministerials were, but the original ruling class were the party members prior to the revolution, they were a new aristocracy (although Stalin purged most of them and created yet another aristocracy). They were the new warrior class that took over the country, this is how the aristocracy in England under William the Conqueror, for instance, almost completely replaced the prior aristocracy there

>What the heck is your point?
The point is literally the same

There were no artificial borders for any citizen to enter communist party and then to work and worm yourself all the way up to Politburo.

A peasant could not become a king. Combine operator could become secretary general of CPSU.

>Combine operator could become secretary general of CPSU.
Hell no, not unless he had connections with the people at the very top, in which case he wouldn't be any combine operator. That's like saying a peasant could be Pope.

But he could.

Fucking Gorbachev of all people was a combine harvester operator from the ass end of no where who joined the communist party in university.

The idea that the communist party was this impermeable entity that only a privileged few would ever get the opportunity to join really is nonsense.

>The idea that the communist party was this impermeable entity that only a privileged few would ever get the opportunity to join really is nonsense
It's positively absurd when you consider CPSU HAS to be huge to basically replace entirety of of governmental functions.

Shitposter doesn't know the first thing about SU.

This sounds a lot like the rhetoric of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' Capitalists wheel out when confronted with mass inequality.

I didn't say it was impenetrable anymore than the nobility was the serfs (most German knights, in fact, were elevated serfs at one point).

There is no way Gorbachev could have risen from where he was were it not for Suslov's continuous support

Now you're starting get the 'this is just state capitalism' critique.

Except it was less impenetrable than that. Random civilians joining the party wasn't remarkably uncommon as you may notice when you consider it had a member ship of close to 20 million.

>There is no way Gorbachev could have risen from where he was were it not for Suslov's continuous support
Yes, this is true of every political system. Rural combine operators don't get to leader of the Soviet Union any easier than black Hawaiians get to POTUS.

Serfs becoming ministerialis wasn't uncommon at all, either

>Rural combine operators don't get to leader of the Soviet Union any easier than black Hawaiians get to POTUS.
It's not too hard for a Black Hawaiian to be POTUS if there there is no democracy and he's extremely close friends with the second in command of the government.

except you don't have to be a millionaire or son of millionaire to become a member of a ruling class

>There is no way Gorbachev could have risen from where he was were it not for Suslov's continuous support
this is just how politics work since roman times, regardless of regime

There were still no borders for anyone to try his hand at politics, regardless who you are.

>Serfs becoming ministerialis wasn't uncommon at all, either
Nor was it particularly normal.
>It's not too hard for a Black Hawaiian to be POTUS if there there is no democracy and he's extremely close friends with the second in command of the government.
Except the USSR was democratic.

>Except the USSR was democratic.

:^)

...

>Nor was it particularly normal.
Yes it was. As I've just told you, they made up the majority of knights in Germany.

>Except the USSR was democratic.
There was generally only one person on the ballot, the person the party endorsed

americans are the worst
please ban them from this board

I can think of a load of people that are worse.

Can you provide source that people born to rural families, with no connections in the top. Made the majority of knights?

>Yes it was. As I've just told you, they made up the majority of knights in Germany.
You're beginning to steer the argument away from the USSR and towards medieval politics now.

>There was generally only one person on the ballot, the person the party endorsed
Yes, but elections were also a platform for communication with the local organs of government. Additionally the party was democratic in itself.

>commie janny deleted my posts which already btfo the commies
Fucking wew

So it's just like capitalism ?

So capitalism doesn't produce classes right? Because technically anyone can become a wealthy politician?

>wealthy politician
threshold is lower by way of removing "wealthy" part

Obviously because no one was wealthy in SU.

Yes. Capital was not controlled by the proletariat either.

Oh is that what commies are saying now?

Yeah, it's not REALLY possible to build a classless society, but AT LEAST there's social mobility!

Well guess what you have that in capitalism too! You don't need to create a genocidal dictatorship to have social mobility you humongous faggot!

>tankies
>not even once

OP doesn't understand what "classes" are (quotes are important, my hateful friend)

He equates classes with profession and presents party as impenetrable society of a few which is a glaring contradiction to the most basic facts anyone could look up on wikipedia (starting from the simplest ones like number of members)

This. The USSR was a shithole but it was demonstrably MORE democratic than the US, at least in terms of upper leadership.

Anybody could -- and did -- rise through the ranks of the nomenklatura, while becoming a president or even senator in the United States required almost unattainable wealth and influence.

So there were class borders for the former elite?

Nigga seriously stop.

Think before posting for a change: it can't be a "class border" if that class (aristocracy) doesn't exist anymore.

The guy i mentioned still DID become a mayor of the 2nd most important city in SU.

And you don't have to be a millionaire or the son of a millionaire to become one.

Are you some delusional 17 year old that is ass mad about his perceptions of social mobility in the west?
Do you honestly think there is none?
Do you honestly think the USSR was a paradise where you would be able to live to your full potential despite being a peasant?

Pro tip, there is no fucking rule in the west that says "you need to have a rich daddy to earn any good money", you just need to earn the money. Meanwhile in a political organization of course you need good political connections you dipshit. You have the same thing but dealing with different resources.

There is a border you fuckmutt, it's the line between "our politically aligned friends" and "everyone else, specially the people we doubt or dislike".

Have you ever been inside a political party's meeting?

is your intellectual bankruptcy making you so impotently mad?

Calm down.

In your anger you shifted the definition of "class border" into something else entirely

You are so eager to prove me "wrong" and "win" you didn't even notice how you disproved yourself completely with this cute nonsense of yours:
> it's the line between "our politically aligned friends" and "everyone else, specially the people we doubt or dislike"

>Do you honestly think the USSR was a paradise
of course not
it was pretty shitty

> where you would be able to live to your full potential despite being a peasant?
But that part was true, because everyone were "peasant and workers".

How did I disprove myself?

Look:
>Requirements to become upper class in the captalist west: earn enough financial capital
>Requirements to become upper class in the communist east: earn enough political capital
Done deal, why is by your definition so impossible to become a good professional capable of earning enough dosh to be middle or upper class?

But somehow proving yourself to be a good professional and politically aligned and loyal and friendly to the established upper class is "easy".

So fucking what? There is nothing stopping you from becoming ultra mega rich, the only barrier is your own capability.

Meanwhile in the USSR since the upper is politically defined you actively need to engage in politics. Wow, so much... Easier? Less distinctive? No not really.

You're basically excusing a class divide with "it's easier than in the west", but the truth is you only think it's easier than in the west because you're a lazy dipshit.

Case in point: the majority of the upper and middle class of my country is formed by peasants that managed to accumulate capital, while the old burgeois and aristocracy is kinda mehd out. Yet somehow, you're telling me there was a barrier that stopped these peasants and that they didn't actually become upper class because "cool guys club no peasants allowed"?
Fuck off lad.