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

While it might be true there is no real communist countries it is also true there is no true capitalist country as well. Given that the polar opposite of communist is democracy (based on popular conception), and that India has proclaimed itself the world's largest democratic country. It seems Aneeshm is telling us about his opinion.
 
Capitalism is essentially the seperation of economy and state , with only the police , military , and courts being provided by the government to protect the rights of its citizens .

Wikipedia said:
Excessively large tracts of prime land had been granted by Britain to British lords, effectively forcing the indigenous Irish farming community to rent back and work the land their forefathers had worked for generations before them. This act of oppression led to cheap labour and increased revenue for 'absentee' British landlords, some of whom managed their affairs very badly, and cared little for the plight of their 'tenants'. The increased pressure on the native Irish meant long hard toil, and bare subsistence living. Traditional methods of supplementing the diet, such as game hunting and fishing often resulted in imprisonment and deportation to other parts of the British colonies (notably Australia and Tasmania), because the land and the wildlife thereon now belonged to the British landlords. Excessive rents often led to evictions and compounded the problems, with many Irish families left homeless.

Yep , Government granting land to aristocrats is just soooooo free-market , isn't it ? So is bonded labour , no ?


As to all the arguments that say that communism has never been implemented anywhere properly enough , it seems those people did not read my initial post carefully . If you have an ideology that cannot be implemented inspite of so many efforts , then there must be something wrong in the ideology that prevents it from being implemented . Thus , the ideology has still failed , in the implementation phase .
 
Wherever it has been implemented even partially , it has been hugely successful . Look at Japan , Hong Kong , America in its earlier days , et cetera . Look at India's economic revival after the reforms of 1991 .
 
Neither pure capitalism or pure communism is good. Human nature will make communism fail even with extra controls. It also makes capitalism fail, though human nature tends to agree with capitalism more. However, lots of regulation and socialism are required due to this very human nature.
 
^Human nature in this society would make pure communism fail. If humans change, which we slowly are, we can get close enough to communism that it really matter.
 
Sims2789 said:
^Human nature in this society would make pure communism fail. If humans change, which we slowly are, we can get close enough to communism that it really matter.

Interesting point. Although we can't do it, it would be neat to start a colony with folks who believe it and would teach the children in this concept.

I suspect the world will naturally move to capitalism with STRONG socialism until there is a major catastrophic event.
 
Something that struck me awhile ago is that the only ones who truly truly believed in communism and thought it might work was the US government throughout the whole 20th century. Why else expand so much time, effort and money on discrediting it and be so scared ****less of it as a philosophy that they were willing to involve themselves in several wars to stop it from gaining ground?
 
joacqin said:
Something that struck me awhile ago is that the only ones who truly truly believed in communism and thought it might work was the US government throughout the whole 20th century. Why else expand so much time, effort and money on discrediting it and be so scared ****less of it as a philosophy that they were willing to involve themselves in several wars to stop it from gaining ground?

Would USSR have been capitalist, the US would have find an other reason for the cold war. These wars weren't really about communism (which was rather the popular support lie) but about more serious national security and economic issues.
 
Birdjaguar said:
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. :D
Well since you asked..... I agree, it is intellectual masturbation, but for me, I accept that people aren't equal, or selfless. That's why I don't mind using the stick as well as the carrot. If Ned doesn't get his arse in gear, he doesn't get any food, and he starves and he dies.

Frankly, I never claimed my version of Communism would be utopic, just that it would work, and we would all enjoy the same standard of living as we do in the West right now.
 
aneeshm said:
As to all the arguments that say that communism has never been implemented anywhere properly enough , it seems those people did not read my initial post carefully . If you have an ideology that cannot be implemented inspite of so many efforts , then there must be something wrong in the ideology that prevents it from being implemented . Thus , the ideology has still failed , in the implementation phase .
:rotfl: :rotfl:


Aneeshm, you really gotta think before you write this stuff man!

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN PURE FREE MARKET ANARCHO-CAPITALISM IN THE WORLD EVER!!!!!

By the same logic, YOU HAVE FAILED!
 
aneeshm said:
Wherever it has been implemented even partially , it has been hugely successful . Look at Japan , Hong Kong , America in its earlier days , et cetera . Look at India's economic revival after the reforms of 1991 .
I suppose Western Europe and in particular Scandinavia is a third world country now that the Socialists are in power :rolleyes:
 
What I don't understand, Mise. Even if your version of Communism could work. Why even bother? We're doing great as it is. Why change something that might fail, when we got something that's fine?

Im talking Social Democracy here, for those who don't know.
 
Like Birdjaguar said, it's intellectual masturbation. I just wanna try and prove that some form of collectivisation/communism CAN work as an economic system, given the current state of our civilisation.

There are social ills in the world, and if the world ever decides that a new system of government is needed to erradicate those social ills, some form of communism would be there as a last resort.
 
A system where you give a guy a sack of money and say "redistribute this", is doomed to failure.

That said, communism saved more lives than it took.
 
One more thing:

There is much more to economic growth than merely "liberalising" the economy. In fact, most countries achieve rapid economic growth through active government intervention in creating a positive environment for businesses. Look at South Korea, Germany, Japan, the Industrial Revolution.

Then look at the USSR under Stalin. The 5-yr plans took Russia from a backward nation with a struggling economy to a Superpower defeating the Nazi war machine and then rivalling the corporate powerhouse of the USA for half a century. Whatever you say about the means, there's no doubt that the USSR's economic growth was staggering, and it was all under the iron fist of Communism.
 
Rhymes said:
Would USSR have been capitalist, the US would have find an other reason for the cold war. These wars weren't really about communism (which was rather the popular support lie) but about more serious national security and economic issues.

Had the USSR not been an agressive nation, the US wouldn't have had a reason. As long as they were an agressive nation, the US would have found a buzzword. Had they been friendly, the US would have traded away until both were rich beyond belief.
 
Mise said:
Then look at the USSR under Stalin. The 5-yr plans took Russia from a backward nation with a struggling economy to a Superpower defeating the Nazi war machine and then rivalling the corporate powerhouse of the USA for half a century. Whatever you say about the means, there's no doubt that the USSR's economic growth was staggering, and it was all under the iron fist of Communism.
I'd rather live in America...
 
To point a small flaw in the "brilliant" plan of Comrade Stalin in achieving such fantastic growth for the Soviet economy, ..he slaughtered 5 million people to do it:p
The population figures had dropped so drastically that Stalin refused to allow their publication. Even the Nazis were kinder on the Russian people..they killed only 2.5 million or so:p


Dragging back ourselves to the debate....ideology is basically meaningless if it is not a vehicle to improve people's quality of life. No amount of harping on "capitalism" or "communis" and anything else that ends in an ism will fill bellies or provide clean drinking water. Ultimately, it is a matter of lookign at others' experiences in tackling the matter and modifying it to suit your own needs. Ideology is meaningless if it does not result in the betterment of mankind.
 
allhailIndia said:
To point a small flaw in the "brilliant" plan of Comrade Stalin in achieving such fantastic growth for the Soviet economy, ..he slaughtered 5 million people to do it:p
The population figures had dropped so drastically that Stalin refused to allow their publication. Even the Nazis were kinder on the Russian people..they killed only 2.5 million or so:p
You are WAY, WAY below the estimated figures, for both.
Count about 10 millions for Staline, and something like 15-20 millions for the nazis (including military deaths).
 
Back
Top Bottom