Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[samildanach]

How can you wish for a serious answer when you start the thread with such colossal idiocy ?

We agree on something.

The strategy of anarcho-communists in the U.K is that they wish to break Britains power in the world which in their minds would allow the third world to throw off their dictators and become nice little communist utopias. They have two main tactics -

1.Bring about the dissolution of the U.K. by breaking it up into its constituent nations. One vehicle for this is the SNP (Scottish National Party) which as little as twenty-five years ago was right wing but has now been infected by and hi-jacked by the communists.

2.Bringing the Capital (London) to its knees one way or the other. In the age of mass destruction this may be possible.


I have said the following to communists till I'm blue in the face but they never listen. The world must be free and democratic before communism can work. At some point in the future humanity will face hard choices of whether or not to give up some of their freedoms for the common good. These decisions may be brought about by over-population, climate change etc. But people must be free to make these decisions, they cannot be imposed. True communism will never be born from tyrrany. A communist utopia that has usurped power will have its fathers eyes.

 

[Fetus4188]

By contrast , no capitalist country has faced a famine , anywhere in the world . Ever . In its entire history .

So every famine before 1776, when Wealth of Nations was published and the term capitalism was coined, was what? Hunger strikes? Capitalism existed before the word did, and there were many, many famines before Adam Smith wrote his book.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why has Communism failed everywhere ?

Because theres never been a true communist state, just totalitarian states that used communist rhetoric to hoodwink their people. True communism is too utopian for this world.

 

[Arminius]

I agree with most posters that communism has never been seen in this world. I agree with their reasoning as to why it has never been seen. But I would like to add one thing: why I don't think it could work. Simply put, man is inherently NOT good-intentioned.

 

[sebanaj]

Communism failed because it was a lie. There was a superpowerful state managing everything.

Marx said capitalist property of the means of production should be dismantled, but he said that the property that wasn't capitalist should be kept. There could be some markets there, where a peasant could produce on his own farm, etc and with his family, but without hiring anyone to exploit labor force.

Another problem is that there would be classes always, because of the labor diversification. Some people do jobs that are more important than others, although the primary economical activities sustain all the superestructure, farmers were never the highest class.

In the Soviet Union they had to give back the property to the farmers. Another contradiction would be that being everyone equal, why would people try to do something sophisticated.

I agree though about Historical Materialism, in terms to explain the origins and mechanisms of society, and differ between ideologies and reality.

Intentions don't matter, facts matter. The men and the way they act in reality, not the content of their thoughts or words. From material facts the thoughts are formed.

Soviet communism was just a change of dictator. The State and alienation still existed. Like in slavery, progress was expansive, not intensive. They had to import technology all the time, which provoked a serious economical collapse.

 

[AceChilla]

Communism doesn't work because it opposes human nature.

And that's that

 

[stratego]

Communism is new maybe? I don't know. Capitalism had many years to improve and develop.

Anyways, I don't really see many people here defending the ideology, but rather defended the communists. I don't think that communism works, but I also don't think that the people who came up with communism (ie. Lenin, Marx) did it solely to gain power.

 

[GEChallenger]

True communism is too utopian for this world.

No, it's not.

The forms of communism used throughout the twentieth century are, if I understand it proplerly, socialism; the economies were planned and state-run. In the true communism that everyone talks about there would be no central planning authority; everyone would be exactly equal and producing goods for the good of everyone. It sounds nice, if you're the type who would enjoy living in a n agrarian society where your whole life is already planned for you, with no chance of seeking to better yourself compared to your peers. If humanity had used true communism from the start, we'd still be hunting with sharp sticks.

Planned economies are ineffective because, simply put, the chaos of a market economy is much more efficient and effective than anything planned by a central authority. Market economies are self-organizing. This is not to say, however, that governments should never intervene-- this is necessary from time to time to enhance efficiancy and solve problems.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No, it's not.

The forms of communism used throughout the twentieth century are, if I understand it proplerly, socialism; the economies were planned and state-run. In the true communism that everyone talks about there would be no central planning authority; everyone would be exactly equal and producing goods for the good of everyone. It sounds nice, if you're the type who would enjoy living in a n agrarian society where your whole life is already planned for you, with no chance of seeking to better yourself compared to your peers. If humanity had used true communism from the start, we'd still be hunting with sharp sticks.

Planned economies are ineffective because, simply put, the chaos of a market economy is much more efficient and effective than anything planned by a central authority. Market economies are self-organizing. This is not to say, however, that governments should never intervene-- this is necessary from time to time to enhance efficiancy and solve problems.

GE, I dont get it, you start out by saying Im wrong, but then proceed to explain very well why communism is too utopian.

 

[anarres]

Didn't Marx intend Communism for Western Europe rather than Russia? IIRC he was in France when he wrote Das Capital (I could be wrong here!).

I think it would have been an interesting experiment, but would have probably ended up very corrupt. The basic tenant of Communism was that it was inevitable, because the masses would realise the deep pile of **** they were in and simply wouldn't stand for it. Wasn't it also the theory that as soon as one country went Communist then nearby countries would see it happen and follow suit?

When his predictions failed to materialise people should have payed more attention and realised that we are as a race far too greedy for Communism. Certainly now it would require a global brain-shift to work (as in Star Trek (sic)).

...If humanity had used true communism from the start, we'd still be hunting with sharp sticks.

True. And it's also a 100% meaningless statement, sorry.

Planned economies are ineffective because, simply put, the chaos of a market economy is much more efficient and effective than anything planned by a central authority. Market economies are self-organizing. This is not to say, however, that governments should never intervene-- this is necessary from time to time to enhance efficiancy and solve problems.

So - what you are saying is that to be as productive as possible you must have a market economy. This is true, but only because most of the world is 'capitalist' (using the word in a loose sense here guys!).

I would like to ask a question of all of those who think the concept of communism is fundamentally flawed:

Can you see the possibility in the future of a world-government, and a world where money doesn't exist? Even if you look 1000 years in to the future?

If 'no', then you need to expand your minds! If 'yes', then you've just proved to yourself that communism isn't fundamentally flawed, just inappropriate atm due to the world social climate.

 

[GEChallenger]

GE, I dont get it, you start out by saying Im wrong, but then proceed to explain very well why communism is too utopian.

I was probably being too sarcastic-- I assumed that no one in their right mind would want to live in a society with no opportunity for gain and a pre-determined lifestyle. For me, that would be as far from utopia as you could get.

 

[Mise]

People seem to be saying two things:
1. Communism defies human nature, and
2. Communism kills entrepreneurship and therefore kills growth.

In response:
1. One can overcome this by using force, or by artificially reshaping the economic climate in such a way that everyone earns the same money. Think progressive tax, only to the extreme -- it would not require any fundamental change in our human nature, only a change in the environment; a change we are easily capable of adapting to without changing our nature.

2. Growth can (and does) still occur in a communist country, in the same way it occurs in Germany (say). In the USA (and UK and Canada and Australia and all the English-colonised countries, because we exported our values from the ind. rev.), growth occurs primarily due to entrepreneurial spirit -- i.e. some genius has an idea, and turns that idea into a marketable product. For example, the Dyson vacuum cleaner. In Germany, Japan, the rest of Europe, growth occurs primarily due to incremental improvements in existing products, due either to increased efficiencies in the manufacturing process or in clever innovations to existing designs. For example, every single Japanese electronics gadget, or German dominance in Automobile manufacturing.

It's true that communism would kill (or at least, greatly inhibit) the "bright spark", but it would NOT affect innovative growth. Companies can still increase their profits through innovation, either in product design or manufacturing processes, which means economic growth.

 

[GEChallenger]

True. And it's also a 100% meaningless statement, sorry.

Hyperbole, perhaps, but I don't think it's meaningless. If no one has any incentive, why bother inventing things?

So - what you are saying is that to be as productive as possible you must have a market economy. This is true, but only because most of the world is 'capitalist' (using the word in a loose sense here guys!).

I would like to ask a question of all of those who think the concept of communism is fundamentally flawed:

Can you see the possibility in the future of a world-government, and a world where money doesn't exist? Even if you look 1000 years in to the future?

If 'no', then you need to expand your minds! If 'yes', then you've just proved to yourself that communism isn't fundamentally flawed, just inappropriate atm due to the world social climate.

1000 years is too far off to make any predictions at all, but I can't see any world governments anytime soon. I certainly hope not. I can't see money ever going away, though. I don't think I need to expand my mind at all; pure communism will simply never work, because it fundamentally contradicts human nature. Which is a good thing, in my opinion.

 

[Mise]

How does it fundamentally contradict human nature? Just out of interest...

 

[GEChallenger]

People seem to be saying two things:
1. Communism defies human nature, and
2. Communism kills entrepreneurship and therefore kills growth.

In response:
1. One can overcome this by using force, or by artificially reshaping the economic climate in such a way that everyone earns the same money. Think progressive tax, only to the extreme -- it would not require any fundamental change in our human nature, only a change in the environment; a change we are easily capable of adapting to without changing our nature.

2. Growth can (and does) still occur in a communist country, in the same way it occurs in Germany (say). In the USA (and UK and Canada and Australia and all the English-colonised countries, because we exported our values from the ind. rev.), growth occurs primarily due to entrepreneurial spirit -- i.e. some genius has an idea, and turns that idea into a marketable product. For example, the Dyson vacuum cleaner. In Germany, Japan, the rest of Europe, growth occurs primarily due to incremental improvements in existing products, due either to increased efficiencies in the manufacturing process or in clever innovations to existing designs. For example, every single Japanese electronics gadget, or German dominance in Automobile manufacturing.

It's true that communism would kill (or at least, greatly inhibit) the "bright spark", but it would NOT affect innovative growth. Companies can still increase their profits through innovation, either in product design or manufacturing processes, which means economic growth.

You seem to be talking about socialism more than communism. Socialism is workable, though flawed; communism is impossible. In true communism, EVERYONE would be equal, no one would be in charge, and there would be no need whatsoever for innovation.

How does it fundamentall contradict human nature? Just out of interest.

Social heirarchy is a cornerstone of human society, just as with wolves, chimpanzees, and other 'pack'' animals. Humans also seek naturally to improve their lot in life and compete with others. True communism seeks to stamp out this competetive/improvement drive, and calls for the abolition of a social heirarchy.

There are other examples, I'm sure; these are just off the top of my head.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think that before anyone makes a thread/post about communism they should actually do some reading up on the history of the subject and the varying factions. Understand the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and discover how the likes of the Soviet Union were governed by Marixt-Leninist groups.

Also (not that I am supporting it) but 'communism' is still going strong in Cuba, so the statement that 'communism has failed everywhere' is completely false. And of course China is governed under so called Maoists, and China is well on it's way to becoming a super power. Hardly a massive failure.

 

[GEChallenger]

I think that before anyone makes a thread/post about communism they should actually do some reading up on the history of the subject and the varying factions. Understand the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and discover how the likes of the Soviet Union were governed by Marixt-Leninist groups.

Also (not that I am supporting it) but 'communism' is still going strong in Cuba, so the statement that 'communism has failed everywhere' is completely false. And of course China is governed under so called Maoists, and China is well on it's way to becoming a super power. Hardly a massive failure.

China is hardly even socialist anymore, and Cuba, again, is a socialist, planned system. Not true communism. I'm sure Cuba will restructure itself after Castro dies anyway; people are hardly content there.

 

[Mise]

You seem to be talking about socialism more than communism. Socialism is workable, though flawed; communism is impossible. In true communism, EVERYONE would be equal, no one would be in charge, and there would be no need whatsoever for innovation.

Not sure about that really. I always thought of communism as any economy which seeks to distribute wealth perfectly equally. That's the kind of system I was talking about. (btw, communism is just a form of socialism -- socialism itself takes many forms.)

Social heirarchy is a cornerstone of human society, just as with wolves, chimpanzees, and other 'pack'' animals. Humans also seek naturally to improve their lot in life and compete with others. True communism seeks to stamp out this competetive/improvement drive, and calls for the abolition of a social heirarchy.

I think those particular traits are a "means to an end". If you already have the "end", you don't need the "means". It's like how we've suppressed our innate inclination to physically harm our enemies if another means serves the end better.

 

[ComradeDavo]

China is hardly even socialist anymore, and Cuba, again, is a socialist, planned system. Not true communism. I'm sure Cuba will restructure itself after Castro dies anyway; people are hardly content there.

The Soviet Union was not 'true communism' either. In fact there has been no 'true cxommunist' countries at all in my view.

However, in this thread and in the many threads on this site in the past people have inisted on calling the USSR communist, therefore China and Cuba are also considered communist by their definitions. So the statement that all communist countires have failed is false, because either a) there has nevber been a communist country or b)China and Cuba are still going strong. Whether you choose a or b is up to you.

 

[GEChallenger]

Not sure about that really. I always thought of communism as any economy which seeks to distribute wealth perfectly equally. That's the kind of system I was talking about. (btw, communism is just a form of socialism -- socialism itself takes many forms.)

As I understand it, and I could always be wrong, Communism was supposed to be the final incarnation of a society, and socialism was a means to that end. Basically, in order go from a free-market system to one where everyone is absolutely equal, the said society must first go through a period where a central authority distrubutes the weatlh equally and sets up the economy; after that's been completed the central authority can give up its power and everyone remains equal and doing what they were before.

Socialism nowadays means various things, including the welfare states of Europe-- which are not, by any means, truly socialist.

Basically, socialist is a state-run planned economy, while communism is a equal, moneyless state with no central authority.

Again, feel free to correct me anyone on the definitions-- my memory's a little fuzzy on all this.

I think those particular traits are a "means to an end". If you already have the "end", you don't need the "means". It's like how we've suppressed our innate inclination to physically harm our enemies if another means serves the end better.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here...