Socialism and Consumption

Necessary Inequality

Socialist ideology has wavered between justifying and decrying consumer inequalities. Vladimir Lenin, the architect of the Russian revolution, argued that society first had to pass through a transitional stage of socialism on the path from capitalism to communism. To consolidate power, Lenin argued, socialist regimes must prioritize reorganizing relations of production over social justice in consumption. Goods would be allocated based on work rather than needs. Thus, the revolutionary slogan “Only the Red Army will give us bread,” was tempered with Lenin's injunctions: “He who does not work shall not eat,” and “An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor.”

Joseph Stalin cited Lenin to justify starvation rations for peasants, whose labor contributions were seen as less critical to building socialism than those of skilled workers, army officers, or party leaders. Amid widespread dearth, Stalin promised prosperity was around the corner. Socialism was supposed to yield an abundance of products for consumption by all members of society and would lead to prosperous and cultured lives. This potential was exemplified in a baroque architectural style and in the production of luxury goods such as champagne and chocolate. This ideology of socialist luxury represented a dramatic shift from Leninist asceticism. Although in short supply, the existence of such treats reinforced the promise of a radiant future.

Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin's successor, decried the trend toward “excessive inequality.” The needs of the lowest common denominator were asserted to justify a priority on agriculture, wage and pension [Page 1334]reforms, and a shift in style toward simplicity and utility in architecture and design. Leonid Brezhnev, on the other hand, returned to the doctrine of necessary inequality in introducing the ideology of “developed socialism.” In this discourse, the USSR had achieved great advances in production and social unity, yet the socialist phase of development would last much longer than previously anticipated and the dream of equality must again be deferred.

Continuous improvements in living standards were promised despite persistent inequality. Prosperity had become a universal right, at least discursively. The Twenty-fifth Communist Party Conference declared the importance of consumer well-being to the development of the Soviet state, and the Soviet media, in showcasing prototypes of new appliances and consumer electronics, promised an immanent “consumer revolution.” Statistics on increasing per capita ownership of televisions, washing machines, and cars were rolled out so frequently as to belie authorities' fears that progress was not entirely self-evident. Entitlements to housing, education, medicine, vacations, and pensions, as well as to low and stable prices on basic goods, were also invoked as evidence of socialism's superiority over capitalism. Cars and separate apartments were simultaneously luxuries and entitlements for ordinary, hardworking people. Ritualistic criticism of producers and shops in the Soviet press, as well as publication of letters of complaint over poor quality and service, also conveyed that the party-state cared about consumers' difficulties.

...