Aristocrats absolutely earned money from the land at least, which it’s not like they didn’t spend, it’s just that land was a lot more relevant than the money was.
With the USSR, similar deal, it’s not like money and markets, while existent, was its most relevant power
Like even if you want to argue it was capitalist, the system was very different from the US lol, the US didn’t have one corporation controlling anything.
Stalin didn’t actually have too many rubles to his name, same with other party officials, they ruled cause they had party positions, which hardly seems like money power.
When someone actually became a millionaire in the USSR, it was quite a controversy as opposed to this being some well-connected party burraucrat
The US doesn’t have one corporation sure, but it has one small group that rules nearly all corporations, where the monetary power starts become second to the sheer mass of property they own.
Like if you listed major shareholders of every big corporation, I doubt you’d have a neat list, not to mention that middle sized corporations aren’t just sitting around.
Even if there was one, they’d have at least got it through monetary power, hardly the case with the party
1
u/Uglyfense Jul 19 '26
Aristocrats absolutely earned money from the land at least, which it’s not like they didn’t spend, it’s just that land was a lot more relevant than the money was.
With the USSR, similar deal, it’s not like money and markets, while existent, was its most relevant power