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

[GEChallenger]

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

Exactly. That's what I've been saying.

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.

It's probably forgiveable that people call these countries communist, since that's what they're traditionally referred to-- I think even they refer/ed to themselves as communist. You're right, quite literally, no communist country has ever failded simply because there never has been one. All of the socialist ones, which are only a step on the way to communism, have failed, however, so it's safe to say that true communism would too for this and other reasons. China like I said is not a socialist country anymore; Cuba will almost certainly restructure after Castro dies. I'm not even sure if Cuba is all that socialist anyway; I don't know much about its economy.

 

[Mise]

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.

Ok you're right here. Either way, it's mostly semantics, defining communism, since as you say the word 'communism' has been used and abused so much that it is now not necessarily refering to Marx's original definition/chain of events. I guess I'm one of those people who misuses the word

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

Well, heirarchy and competitiveness are a means to and end, the end being contentment, or more waffley, a "satisfactory standard of living". If, as in a communist utopia, we are all perfectly satisfied with our standard of living, then competitiveness, heirarchy and self improvement become useless and would just disappear. That's what I meant. Not sure if it works like that but I would still argue that communism doesn't require those traits to be eliminated or suppressed.

 

[GEChallenger]

Ok you're right here. Either way, it's mostly semantics, defining communism, since as you say the word 'communism' has been used and abused so much that it is now not necessarily refering to Marx's original definition/chain of events. I guess I'm one of those people who misuses the word

True... really, most terms like that tend to get abused, like liberalism, conservatism, etc. I had a hell of a time last semester in polysci class un-learning everything. I'd argue that it's the intent of the word that matters, but I guess that everyone using in the same manner makes for easier discussion. Or something like that.

Well, heirarchy and competitiveness are a means to and end, the end being contentment, or more waffley, a "satisfactory standard of living". If, as in a communist utopia, we are all perfectly satisfied with our standard of living, then competitiveness, heirarchy and self improvement become useless and would just disappear. That's what I meant. Not sure if it works like that but I would still argue that communism doesn't require those traits to be eliminated or suppressed.

I get what you're saying now. I would argue that, even if everyone had an equally satisfactiry standard of living, folks would still look to be better than their neighbors, and they would still eventually fall into a social heirarchy, simply based on human instinct. I guess there's really no way of knowing though, since it's never been tested.

 

[thestonesfan]

The very idea of it practically embraces failure. "Ned can't do as well as Bill, so Bill owes Ned some of his livelihood."

Yeah, that'll work.

 

[anarres]

GEChallenger,

If you ever open a book I suggest putting one or two from Ian M Banks on your list to read. They are set thousands (possibly millions) of years in the future, and the basic premise is that energy (via fusion power) and space is limitless, so all of mankinds needs can be met. In that society people work because it gives them meaning and happiness. Those who choose not to work don't have to, but then they get their kicks some other way.

It's a total extreme example, but when there are no physical needs left for society why on earth would people still use money? When you can have whatever you want, why want more?

I guess I'm just trying to say "never" is a very long time. Possibly much longer than you give it credit for, and certainly long enough for human society to change.

 

[Mise]

The very idea of it practically embraces failure. "Ned can't do as well as Bill, so Bill owes Ned some of his livelihood."

Yeah, that'll work.

Well, in my version of communism, Ned would compensate for his lack of ability by working for longer hours, and Bill works for shorter hours. Thus, Ned in some way earns the money Bill would have earned had Bill worked instead of being forced to not work.

 

[GEChallenger]

GEChallenger,

If you ever open a book I suggest putting one or two from Ian M Banks on your list to read. They are set thousands (possibly millions) of years in the future, and the basic premise is that energy (via fusion power) and space is limitless, so all of mankinds needs can be met. In that society people work because it gives them meaning and happiness. Those who choose not to work don't have to, but then they get their kicks some other way.

It's a total extreme example, but when there are no physical needs left for society why on earth would people still use money? When you can have whatever you want, why want more?

I guess I'm just trying to say "never" is a very long time. Possibly much longer than you give it credit for, and certainly long enough for human society to change.

Well... we could also kill ourselves off, or Jesus could come and take us to heaven, or we could degenerate back to savages, or turn ourselves into robots... any number of things could happen in the distant future, all of which are impossible to predict or prove. I prefer not to speculate though, and when I do I base it off of all of recorded history-- which shows (in my estimation) that human nature changes very little through time.

As for the books... I'll consider them, although I don't read fiction all that much lately. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The very idea of it practically embraces failure. "Ned can't do as well as Bill, so Bill owes Ned some of his livelihood."

Yeah, that'll work.

Ned can't do as well because he lost his job when the company had to relocate to Asia, whilst Bill only got his job because of his dad's influence in the company

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Communism is a utopic system that can never be achieved. One it requires everyone to work there hardest knowing they wil still get the ame amount as somebody who may not work as hard. In addition it is supposed to have no centeral government and is a little step above anarchy in that sense, as no society even on a small scale can achieve that.

 

[anarres]

GEChallenger,

I think killing ourselves off is somewhat more likely than us being here in 2000+ years, but what you said was:

pure communism will simply never work, because it fundamentally contradicts human nature.

I am saying human nature is mallable, we are not just instinctive animals anymore. Even if you believe it fundamentally contradicts human nature now, that's not to say it will contradict it in the future.

 

[GEChallenger]

GEChallenger,

I think killing ourselves off is somewhat more likely than us being here in 2000+ years, but what you said was:
I am saying human nature is mallable, we are not just instinctive animals anymore. Even if you believe it fundamentally contradicts human nature now, that's not to say it will contradict it in the future.

Okay, I see now. I still disagree, because I still believe (as I said above) that human nature is inherent and unchanging-- I don't think that it is malleable or will ever change. I'll stand by my statement that it will never work based on this belief.

Of course, there's no way of proving that human nature will/won't change, so you may very well be right. No one can predict the future.

 

[Rhymes]

By the way I can assure anybody that Capitalism has never worked in any country, not more then communism. They are two extremes, and every country in the world are right now somewhere in between.

IMO, pure capitalism is 10 times worst then pure communism.

In Canada, about half of our paycheck goes to the different taxes, so basically, wouldn't we be more communist then capitalist????

 

[Sims2789]

Human society naturally advances, but very slowly. For the most part, governments are more conservative than the people. When the conservatives do not give enough concessions to the liberals, a revolution occurs. For example, in 1848, most of the governments did not give concessions and thus experienced revolutions. Exceptions include Britain, which made concessions beginning in the 1820s, and Russia, whose government did not have to make concessions, as there was not enough discontent for a revolution to occur.

What you call "communism" failed because none of the societies that experienced "communist" revolutions were ready for communism, and did not become communism as a result. In the "communist" Soviet Union, the Party leaders replaced became the nobility and the czar as the oppressors of the proletariat.

Note that by "liberal" and "conservative," I am referring to conservatives as those against reform, such as the governments in the Age of Metternech. By liberal, I mean those that want the government to reform.

 

[phoenix_night]

Why ? Why has it failed everywhere within a hundred years of inception , and caused a hundred million deaths in the process , both through slavery , and famine .

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

Are you trying to say capitalism has never failed?

Because if you are...

 

[Souron]

Why ? Why has it failed everywhere within a hundred years of inception , and caused a hundred million deaths in the process , both through slavery , and famine .

Small comunes did asstablish themselves durring time of depression. These failed becouse those depressions ended.

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

I don't know were your getting this, but this is not true at all. For the clearest example, the Depression was a world wide capitalist famine.

Please tell me the reason for this monumental failure . Don't give me the claptrap about it never being implemented properly . If , in spite of so much effort , you cannot implement an ideology properly , then it has failed . So tell me both , the reasons for the failure of the system as it was implemented , and for the failure of the implementation of the system as it was envisaged .

Communism requires three things:
1) The devoted support of the populus.
2) The lack of a prospering alternative.
3) Some way to get started.
All of these things never happened, and when they did, they did not last. This is why communism failed.


BTW, I think you are seriously misinforemed about Communism. You should learn more before saying communism is bad.

 

[Sims2789]

^Pure capitalism (if you ignore the enviroment) is the best way for our society. As humans becomes less heirarchial and people become less greedy, a new society will slowly emerge. Eventually, this society will not be based on greed and heiarchy but instead on equality and fraternity. Just look back in time for proof. Examples include the French Revolution. It's ideals were far from communist, but they were still moving closer towards communism. I doubt that there will ever be a literally 100% perfect society, though, but, assuming that we don't go extinct, we'll get close enough so that it won't matter. Remember, Sir Thomas More chose the Greek word Utopia as the title of his book, which described a communist-like society, because in its original language it means "no place." But More simply could not see his society become that. Communism will be a new society that evolves slowly from the old, and will never stop evolving as it will never be completely perfect.

 

[eyrei]

I love how people constantly need to secure their own world view by railing against a ghost their government created to scare them...

 

[Souron]

^Pure capitalism (if you ignore the enviroment) is the best way for our society. As humans becomes less heirarchial and people become less greedy, a new society will slowly emerge. Eventually, this society will not be based on greed and heiarchy but instead on equality and fraternity. Just look back in time for proof. Examples include the French Revolution. It's ideals were far from communist, but they were still moving closer towards communism. I doubt that there will ever be a literally 100% perfect society, though, but, assuming that we don't go extinct, we'll get close enough so that it won't matter. Remember, Sir Thomas More chose the Greek word Utopia as the title of his book, which described a communist-like society, because in its original language it means "no place." But More simply could not see his society become that. Communism will be a new society that evolves slowly from the old, and will never stop evolving as it will never be completely perfect.

I recomend you read the book The Giver, for a somewhat beleivable communist world.

Anarcho-Capitalism would fail just as it did durring the great stock market crash.

 

[GEChallenger]

I love how people constantly need to secure their own world view by railing against a ghost their government created to scare them...

Come again?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, in my version of communism, Ned would compensate for his lack of ability by working for longer hours, and Bill works for shorter hours. Thus, Ned in some way earns the money Bill would have earned had Bill worked instead of being forced to not work.

I usually stay out of these debates, but you guys missed the fundamentals of the Ned an Bill story. Ned can't do as well as Bill because he is stupid, unmotivated, clumsy, unable to function with others, a pissy person or all of them rolled into one. People are not equal, the same or inclined to deviate far from their own self interest. That's why communism will not work. Communism is intellectual masterbation for those who don't want to/can't adapt to the realites of being human.

Have a nice Day.