Why Communism Failed

[Tahuti]

Let's face it, the state's a horrible planner, based on all the shortages and surpluses.

Not in itself. The problem is that the state - being the most powerful entity - usually has much less interest in planning properly. Planned economies and free markets are just different types of economic decision making and neither is inherently superior to the other. Markets do tend to be more smaller in scale than planned economics, making decision making easier, which may explain why Western capitalist economies tend to beat Soviet-style planned economics (note that I didn't say Communism).

 

[Crezth]

-Never mind, like anarchism and laissez-faire capitalism, it runs on ideal sets of circumstances. All these systems rely on people being ideal actors and accepting a set of circumstances. LFC requires we all accept inequality, Communism requires we accept equality(more or less), and anarchy necessitates we treat eachother like decent human beings without the hand of the state. Humanity is not ready for any of these.

That's not true. Modern socialism (not communism; the distinction is important) relies on a very realistic premise, it does not rely on the fact that all people will act exactly according to model. That's why they support stuff like government regulations and social safety nets, decidedly imperfect systems that nevertheless work because they account for the human element more effectively than, say, anarcho-capitalism or utopian socialism.

edit: I do agree, though, that utopia cannot precede the utopian. Utopia will exist the moment we are fit to inhabit it.

 

[Agent327]

Problem is almost no one understands the statement that way, as Traitorfish has suggested. That's because there is more than one meaning to the word "may", and by 'may' a lot of the time people don't mean 'can possibly'. Given that, and given that people are usually pretty proficient at guessing what other people mean thanks to extensive real life experience, what Cheezy meant would be pretty clear to most people. But time and time again, you have demonstrated that you don't fall under the category of most people when it comes to your understanding of the meaning of words, so I suppose we can't blame you for misunderstanding.

Never seen such an excellent description of oneself. Congrats aelf.

And the next:

We will not move on, because you are still wrong.

If I trade you a piece of my property, it's because you also have property that I want and think is equal in value to my own, which you desire. So we trade. We trade because while I have my property, you don't, and while you have your property, I don't. Now I don't have the property I used to, and now you don't have the property that you used to. Traitorfish still has neither piece of property, because one of us has it. If he wants it, he must have some sort of property that we want in order to obtain it.

If I have to explain more of this in tautologies, I will. It's embarrassing to have to do that, but if you can understand nothing more complicated then so be it.

Someone seems to have forgotten about common property, shared property, etc. There´s plenty of property that is not exclusively owned. Ergo, your ´definition´ is, by definition, flawed. (As for your ´explanation´, if a definition needs that much explaining, one needs to rethink one´s defintion. Which was my point, in case anybody missed it.)

And if anybody needs more explanation in detail, I´ll be happy to oblige.

 

[Crezth]

Someone seems to have forgotten about common property, shared property, etc.

Non-property owners do not own property. This is not difficult.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Not in itself. The problem is that the state - being the most powerful entity - usually has much less interest in planning properly. Planned economies and free markets are just different types of economic decision making and neither is inherently superior to the other. Markets do tend to be more smaller in scale than planned economics, making decision making easier, which may explain why Western capitalist economies tend to beat Soviet-style planned economics (note that I didn't say Communism).

Never mind the state has a problem private actors do not - bankruptcy isn't something that happens immediately. Unlike private individuals, who can have their wealth wiped out overnight if the stock market crashes or some such. A government, on the other hand, can rack up debt and debt for decades before it will see issues.

That and the fact the state is often used as a vehicle for whoever controls it, not for the common good. It's no accident nearly every movement tries to win over politicians or install its own.

That's not true. Modern socialism (not communism; the distinction is important) relies on a very realistic premise, it does not rely on the fact that all people will act exactly according to model. That's why they support stuff like government regulations and social safety nets, decidedly imperfect systems that nevertheless work because they account for the human element more effectively than, say, anarcho-capitalism or utopian socialism.

Which is why I never mentioned socialism, as that allows for a government to fix irregularities.

Unlike the other three, which are all inherently stateless(or just about), and so, if people do not regulate themselves, the system will implode.

 

[aelf]

Never seen such an excellent description of oneself. Congrats aelf.

That's a pathetic response.

 

[Traitorfish]

Communism, thus far, has failed for a variety of reasons:

-For one, all the states it has been tried in have no capitalist or democratic tradition. It has yet to be tried in a fully developed society such as one in Western Europe. Capitalism is supposed to develop the market, and then the state takes over; let's face it, the state's a horrible planner, based on all the shortages and surpluses.

Funny thing, Amadeo Bordiga offers exactly the inverse thesis: that the historical function of Stalinism was to allow for the rapid development of a capitalist economy, particularly through the resolution of the land question. Problem is, this only works up until a point, what he called the phase of "expansive development", but cannot handle the transition to "intensive development", and, unlike the Chinese, the Soviets didn't have the sense to open up the markets when they hit that point. (It doesn't help that Stalinism isn't necessarily the best way of going about this, either.)

-Never mind, like anarchism and laissez-faire capitalism, it runs on ideal sets of circumstances. All these systems rely on people being ideal actors and accepting a set of circumstances. LFC requires we all accept inequality, Communism requires we accept equality(more or less), and anarchy necessitates we treat eachother like decent human beings without the hand of the state. Humanity is not ready for any of these.

What "equality" was there in the Soviet Union for people to have the choice of accepting or rejecting? And does that actually have anything to do with why it collapsed?

edit: I do agree, though, that utopia cannot precede the utopian. Utopia will exist the moment we are fit to inhabit it.

Bleugh, idealism.

Someone seems to have forgotten about common property, shared property, etc. There´s plenty of property that is not exclusively owned. Ergo, your ´definition´ is, by definition, flawed.

Nobody said that exclusive possession couldn't be shared; it self-evident can. But that doesn't make it non-exclusive, it just means that a very marginally smaller set is being excluded.

(As for your ´explanation´, if a definition needs that much explaining, one needs to rethink one´s defintion. Which was my point, in case anybody missed it.)

Not a fan of books, eh?

 

[Crezth]

Which is why I never mentioned socialism, as that allows for a government to fix irregularities.

Unlike the other three, which are all inherently stateless(or just about), and so, if people do not regulate themselves, the system will implode.

Well, communism isn't exactly a system per-se, that can be instituted at will, but an end goal, the supposed result of socialism. That is to say: as Marx proposed, human society would eventually come to resemble something classless and stateless due to the inexorable tide of history.

That is not to say there is no room to criticize this view, but it's not exactly a model for society like libertarianism is. Just a prediction.

 

[Tahuti]

Never mind the state has a problem private actors do not - bankruptcy isn't something that happens immediately. Unlike private individuals, who can have their wealth wiped out overnight if the stock market crashes or some such. A government, on the other hand, can rack up debt and debt for decades before it will see issues.

Strictly speaking, a government can print all its expenses by itself without having to fear for (hyper)inflation, since an X% increase in money supply a year certainly doesn't mean X% inflation if the monetary velocity doesn't increase along. Too much inflation? Simply reduce government spending.
However, since most people do not realize this, governments won't do this fearing backlash from the people and financial markets.

That and the fact the state is often used as a vehicle for whoever controls it, not for the common good. It's no accident nearly every movement tries to win over politicians or install its own.

I think this has more to do with voters being naive rather than the a fault of the system: The system is created and kept in motion by those who participate in it, the unwilling ones included.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think this has more to do with voters being naive rather than the a fault of the system: The system is created and kept in motion by those who participate in it, the unwilling ones included.

Doesn't this assume that "naivety" isn't a product of the system itself? Which doesn't appear self-evident to me.

 

[Tahuti]

Doesn't this assume that "naivety" isn't a product of the system itself? Which doesn't appear self-evident to me.

No: In fact, any system is a product of the naivety that is perceived to be its product - which is also the reason why it survives and probably thrives as well. Who hasn't been at least once seduced by the charm of getting conforted by lies?

 

[Traitorfish]

No: In fact, any system is a product of the naivety that is perceived to be its product - which is also the reason why it survives and probably thrives as well. Who hasn't been at least once seduced by the charm of getting conforted by lies?

That doesn't really resolve my question, it just suggests that the "naivety" and the system have a chicken-egg relationship. (Which is actually what I meant, although I'll admit that I wasn't entirely clear on that.) It doesn't at all suggest that the current political system can be traced back to a bunch of free but naive plebs being taken for a ride by some crafty politico.

 

[Agent327]

Non-property owners do not own property. This is not difficult.

Nor is it relevant.

That's a pathetic response.

I thought it should match your post.

Nobody said that exclusive possession couldn't be shared; it self-evident can. But that doesn't make it non-exclusive, it just means that a very marginally smaller set is being excluded.


Not a fan of books, eh?

More conclusions that do not follow... Not to mention that the point of question isn´t being addressed.

Anyway, here´s a definition that´s simple and elegant and needs no explanation to define the definition:

Property is that which is acquired.

(Covers all aspects of what might be considered property. Note also the absence of ambiguity.)

 

[Crezth]

Nor is it relevant.

No, you don't seem to understand that it is integral to the point. If you own something, or something is your property, or a group of people's property, anyone who does not own that property does not, by definition, own that property. So that property is not owned by anyone else except the owners. It is, in this sense, that it is theft, as it is fundamentally depriving others of that ownership. This is implicit in the nature of the thing.

Jesus, now I'm starting to see Cheezy's point about tautologies.

 

[Agent327]

Tautology indeed: I didn´t argue that. So I don´t really see why it keeps being brought up... In fact, that a property is owned by its owner(s), and thus not by anyone who doesn´t own it, is so obvious, that I don´t see why it´s even being mentioned. Once again, that´s not the issue - which was giving a proper definition. But by all means, keep repeating if ye must.

 

[GamezRule]

I wouldn't say that communism "failed" any more then any other utopian ideology failed. It's just that it never truly existed in the way that it was intended, and the Soviet Union was poorly managed under the Brezhnev years. Basically, the USSR fell because Brezhnev was an idiot.

 

[Tee Kay]

Here's a Brezhnev Brezhnev joke.

 

[Traitorfish]

More conclusions that do not follow... Not to mention that the point of question isn´t being addressed.

Could you elaborate.

Anyway, here´s a definition that´s simple and elegant and needs no explanation to define the definition:

Property is that which is acquired.

(Covers all aspects of what might be considered property. Note also the absence of ambiguity.)

A broken arm is property. A rationalist epistemology is property. A reputation for boorishness is property. Got it.

 

[Leoreth]

Problem is, this only works up until a point, what he called the phase of "expansive development", but cannot handle the transition to "intensive development", and, unlike the Chinese, the Soviets didn't have the sense to open up the markets when they hit that point.

Have the Chinese really passed that point, already?

 

[Agent327]

Could you elaborate.

I did in post 143.

A broken arm is property. A rationalist epistemology is property. A reputation for boorishness is property. Got it.

Indeed: a broken arm is a property, a rationalist epistemology is a property, a reputation for boorishnness is a property.

I wouldn't say that communism "failed" any more then any other utopian ideology failed. It's just that it never truly existed in the way that it was intended, and the Soviet Union was poorly managed under the Brezhnev years. Basically, the USSR fell because Brezhnev was an idiot.

A thorough analysis there.

I can see this thread is really going somewhere.