What is there so difficult to understand? The word 'currency' is not confined to just printed money or coinage. It mean anything in possession that can be used to engage in trade, be it of or for tangible or intangible things. In any dictatorship where capitalism is oppressed, political connection and patronage are the currency.
That's not a Communist state. It's not really even a Socialist one.
Capitalist states with "political connection as the currency" exist all over the world surely.
Of course such high partisanship exists if we are talking about the hard core few in every political party. But the point here is that IF there is a multitude of political parties, then by definition the nature of the entire people cannot be credibly slandered as 'sheeple'.
Sheeple exist everywhere and probably to the same extent. They don't make political decisions in Communist societies, they do in Capitalist societies. They're still sheeple, but with extra decision making power.
Of course you cannot. If the people is compliant enough, what need is there for any bait for by its nature a bait is a form of persuasion. A compliant people will simply do as they are instructed. No need to prey on anyone.
Of course they can be preyed upon. They're sheeple
You have a compliant population of sheeple. No need for any bait, they will do your bidding because they're sheeple. You can prey on them for your own benefit.
You have another population of sheeple that can make their own decisions. You need to bait them but you can also prey on them again for your own benefit.
It's simple.
Please...Those creative scientists and engineers were given privileges that in terms of disparity compared to the average Soviet citizens those privileges were equivalent of higher pay and privileges in the West. Those Soviet scientists and engineers lived in secret cities filled with Western amenities that exist nowhere else in the Soviet Union. They were given the freedom to travel to the West for both professional purposes and for simple tourism. In short, for the most parts they had to be motivated through non-ideological measures. The Soviet leadership understood this part of human nature but they had gone too far into the fallacies of communism to back out. The secret cities served both interests and needs without damaging too much the facade of communism.
Yet you called the Soviet Union a Communist state in previous posts.
Now you're saying the Soviet Union was not a truly Communist state.
Your argument is inconsistent.
Was the Soviet Union a Communist state or not? If it was, as you've stated above then how do you explain that there was an elite group in a classless society?
If it was not, as you've also stated above, that might make better sense but then no Communist society then has existed for you to know the answer to.
Ah...If it is presumed that all resources are 'communal' properties from the start then of course any excess will be taken away. But then this lead back to the original problem where if no one has any property rights to start, then no one will be motivated to be creative. Looky here, if you want to be a communist, come out and say so. Stop beating around the bush.
Argument fail. Much like the call everyone an Islamist argument, the call everyone a Communist is hollow.
How do you know noone will be creative if there has never been a Communist society? Socialist societies were successful though according to you, it was all down to Capitalism.