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

[Sims2789]

I would love to see a marxist country. Leninist Communism is mistaken for Marxist Communism way to often.

Human society is not ready for communism (by communism I mean the last stage Marx described). It will take eons for us as humans to become communist. Even when we do it will never be perfect, but will be close enough that it won't really matter. And the "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing was a bunch of bull. When society is ready for communsim there will be no need for a revolution. But revolutions can help move a society closer towards it, even if that is not the revolution's goal.

 

[microbe]

According to Maxism, Communism is supposed to be a successor to Capitalism, when the productivity is so high that people don't need to work for a living. Socialism is just a primitive stage of Communism.

I am not sure how long it will be, or whether it will ever come, but this is the main reason why it has failed so far. The technology and productivity simply haven't reached the point where it makes sense.

 

[Sims2789]

According to Maxism, Communism is supposed to be a successor to Capitalism, when the productivity is so high that people don't need to work for a living. Socialism is just a primitive stage of Communism.

I am not sure how long it will be, or whether it will ever come, but this is the main reason why it has failed so far. The technology and productivity simply haven't reached the point where it makes sense.

No, according to Marx, socialism is after capitalism. According to Marx a revolution will overthrow capitalism and socialism will be very short. The socialist stage was the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Of course, in Russia, the ruling class became the new nobles and the new czars. They never had a dictatorship of the proletariat*. Marx used the word "communism" to mean the final stage, as opposed to the whole process and philosophy.

Society has not reached the point where humans are no longer greedy and self-serving. If we had a police force with no government in any society, the Bay Area included, it would turn into a warlordship. In pure, 100% communism, there will be no police force. Even if humans don't go extinct, I don't think we'll ever get that far, as we're imperfect, but we could get so close that it won't matter; where there might be a small police force that simply tries to prevent and punish the few crimes that occur without becoming power-hungry.

*Note that I think Marx was wrong with this particular point.

 

[BasketCase]

According to Maxism, Communism is supposed to be a successor to Capitalism, when the productivity is so high that people don't need to work for a living. Socialism is just a primitive stage of Communism.

I am not sure how long it will be, or whether it will ever come, but this is the main reason why it has failed so far. The technology and productivity simply haven't reached the point where it makes sense.

It will never happen. As productivity goes up, and luxury goods go up, and the comfort level goes up, human expectations increase.

 

[allhailIndia]

Enough with the excuses for why Communism does/Doesn't work and Capitalism doesn't/does work...

It all comes down to the people who run the damn thing....Communism or capitalism is usualy the excuse for having F***ed up as a ruler

 

[Mise]

Freedom is all about making decisions. I don't want you or anyone else telling me to work less hours as some cheap reward. I want my value determined by the market and not by your system. I may want a bigger car or more money rather than shorter hours. You presume to know what everyone wants, and you don't. I might not want to live a fancy western lifestyle or I might want a second home at the beach. For some reason youseem to devalue the individual at the expense of the masses.

It's funny, but I never expected it would take 5 pages for this to come up. I have two responses to it. One is economical/practical, the other is more philosophical.

First the economical one. "The market" is merely an equation. It's not set in stone, it has variables, constants and differentials and the result is entirely dependent on what boundary conditions you apply to it. Governments have been playing with these boundary conditions for two centuries, and they've become pretty good at it. They impose taxes and quotas on imports, they tax corporations, the deem it illegal to pay people an hourly wage below a certain level, they (in the past*) have effectively set a maximum wage, they make it illegal to sell certain products on the open market, they control spending and savings rates through interest rates, they control how much of your disposable income you spend on food and how much you spend on luxuries through sales taxes, they control who you can have children with and at what age; in short there is no decision that the government cannot and has not influence. The government controls the market by setting different boundary conditions and different variables into the market equation, forcing a new equilibrium. Every new government forces a new equilibrium at a different position to the last, with the intention that it is better than the last. The only difference is that my equilibrium is radically different from the current equilibrium.

I should also say that you are still free to use your wages however you want, and buy whatever you want, at whatever prices the manufacturer wants to sell it for.

Second, the philosophical one. This links in very nicely with what I said about the government, only this time, it's the market that's the culprit. Just as the government dictates market conditions, the market dictates social conditions. Do I want a McDonald's for lunch? Yes. Do I want to pay £3.69 for a large meal? No. I don't, I want to pay the price it was last year, £3.49, but market conditions have changed, and now, people are willing to pay 20p more for McDonald's large "extra value" meal. How free am I to negotiate a new price? How free am I to go up to the greasey teenager behind the register and say: "I want to negotiate a new price, because I don't feel the market equilibrium suits me. I am not willing to pay £3.69, I wanna pay £3.49. Are you willing to supply me a large meal for that price?" ? It's the same problem: the only way I can negotiate a new price is if EVERYONE negotiates a new price. Similarly, in communism, the only way I can get a new car is if EVERYONE gets a new car.

I don't believe that freedom is the ability to buy a new car or a large "extra value" meal at McDonald's. Freedom simply means free will. And human nature has an uncanny ability to work with the boundary conditions and craft a better future using them. We've been doing it for this long, you think people will just give up just because the rules have changed?

Freeing people from poverty is a wonderful goal, but you want to do it at the expense of everyone else regardless of whether or not they feel the same way you do. Why should your ideal world be mine? Especially when mine is much better than yours.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't find this economic system agreeable, but there's sod all I can do about it, unless EVERYONE does something about it.

--
*- In the past, there was a 97% tax on earnings over some very large number, £150,000 or something.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's funny, but I never expected it would take 5 pages for this to come up. I have two responses to it. One is economical/practical, the other is more philosophical.

Discussions evolve, like markets. Do keep in mind that you see all this from a UK perspective and I look at from a US angle. I'm sure that there are differences that each of us may not be fully aware of.

First the economical one. "The market" is merely an equation. It's not set in stone, it has variables, constants and differentials and the result is entirely dependent on what boundary conditions you apply to it. Governments have been playing with these boundary conditions for two centuries, and they've become pretty good at it.

Elections are one way that boundary conditions are shifted. Bush has set a whole new variation into play that is very different than those set by clinton. The US congress will shape them further. I don't know how that works in the UK.

They impose taxes and quotas on imports, they tax corporations, the deem it illegal to pay people an hourly wage below a certain level, they (in the past*) have effectively set a maximum wage, they make it illegal to sell certain products on the open market, they control spending and savings rates through interest rates, they control how much of your disposable income you spend on food and how much you spend on luxuries through sales taxes, they control who you can have children with and at what age; in short there is no decision that the government cannot and has not influence. The government controls the market by setting different boundary conditions and different variables into the market equation, forcing a new equilibrium. Every new government forces a new equilibrium at a different position to the last, with the intention that it is better than the last. The only difference is that my equilibrium is radically different from the current equilibrium.

They try to control all those things, but can only hope for results at a macro level without too many unintended consequnces (capital flight, emmigration of skilled people etc.). What chance would you have in getting your conditions adopted by any politicians? If not very likely, why not? Your thinking may not be perceived as better by the majority of citizens. That leaves you only a coup d'etat.

I should also say that you are still free to use your wages however you want, and buy whatever you want, at whatever prices the manufacturer wants to sell it for.

But my wages are fixed in your system and I would guess that product selection will drop dramatically with your system. Innovative products begin with introductions of very high end versions, followed over several years by lower cost versions for the masses. Without that high end stage, few new products would be introduced. Cell phones and plasma screen TVs are two very recent examples. Color TVs and hand held calculators are others. The four function (+,-,/ , x) calculators you buy today for $5 or less, cost over $200 in the 1970s.

Second, the philosophical one. This links in very nicely with what I said about the government, only this time, it's the market that's the culprit. Just as the government dictates market conditions, the market dictates social conditions.

Do I want a McDonald's for lunch? Yes. Do I want to pay £3.69 for a large meal? No. I don't, I want to pay the price it was last year, £3.49, but market conditions have changed, and now, people are willing to pay 20p more for McDonald's large "extra value" meal. How free am I to negotiate a new price? How free am I to go up to the greasey teenager behind the register and say: "I want to negotiate a new price, because I don't feel the market equilibrium suits me. I am not willing to pay £3.69, I wanna pay £3.49. Are you willing to supply me a large meal for that price?" ?

In our market system you can choose to pay the higher price or eat somewhere else. You vote with your dollars (or pounds or euros) If enough people agree that 3.69 is too high and eat at Burger King, McD will have to make changes to regain market share. Business come and go creating both turmoil and opportunity. You seem like you want to avoid any turmoil or uncertainty by tight controls. I prefer the turmoil and change. And yes those who cannot cope, struggle. Life isn't fair and shouldn't be.

I don't believe that freedom is the ability to buy a new car or a large "extra value" meal at McDonald's. Freedom simply means free will.
And human nature has an uncanny ability to work with the boundary conditions and craft a better future using them. We've been doing it for this long, you think people will just give up just because the rules have changed?

What is free will if its not the ability to choose not only what to do but how to spend personal resources beyond time, mental effort and physical skills? You want to impose stringent boundary conditions and tell people to "get over it" and work within your parameters. You will need a big ad budget and propaganda machine to sell it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't find this economic system agreeable, but there's sod all I can do about it, unless EVERYONE does something about it.

Ahh after 5 pages (good ones to be sure) we get to the bottom of it all: you don't find the currrent system agreeable. Well, why not? What don't you do well enough to thrive in the system as it is? Whree is the mismatch between you and market based systems? The problem may not be with the current state of affairs, but with you. It is probably easier to retrain you than to rebuilt the economic sytem to accommodate your personal foilbles.

 

[Mise]

But my wages are fixed in your system and I would guess that product selection will drop dramatically with your system. Innovative products begin with introductions of very high end versions, followed over several years by lower cost versions for the masses. Without that high end stage, few new products would be introduced. Cell phones and plasma screen TVs are two very recent examples. Color TVs and hand held calculators are others. The four function (+,-,/ , x) calculators you buy today for $5 or less, cost over $200 in the 1970s.

That's something I hadn't thought about

Still, the current standard of living is good enough for most people. Most people don't even notice 2.5% growth per year.

In our market system you can choose to pay the higher price or eat somewhere else. You vote with your dollars (or pounds or euros) If enough people agree that 3.69 is too high and eat at Burger King, McD will have to make changes to regain market share. Business come and go creating both turmoil and opportunity. You seem like you want to avoid any turmoil or uncertainty by tight controls. I prefer the turmoil and change. And yes those who cannot cope, struggle. Life isn't fair and shouldn't be.

Again, I think this just reinforces my opinion. I don't have "freedom to choose", all I have are limits. Now, it's BK, McD, KFC, ETC, along with my neighbours, controlling how much I pay. In my system, it's the State who is in control. What difference does that make to my freedom?

What is free will if its not the ability to choose not only what to do but how to spend personal resources beyond time, mental effort and physical skills? You want to impose stringent boundary conditions and tell people to "get over it" and work within your parameters. You will need a big ad budget and propaganda machine to sell it.

Who says I want to sell it . I don't say that this will be a good system, I stipulated that in the beginning. All I say is that this system will retain our current standard of living indefinately, and end poverty.

Ahh after 5 pages (good ones to be sure) we get to the bottom of it all: you don't find the currrent system agreeable. Well, why not? What don't you do well enough to thrive in the system as it is? Whree is the mismatch between you and market based systems? The problem may not be with the current state of affairs, but with you. It is probably easier to retrain you than to rebuilt the economic sytem to accommodate your personal foilbles.

I find poverty repulsive -- in this day and age, we should not have any poverty. There are enough resources to go round the whole world. Yes, I know, the problem is distributing them in an economical manner. But even in the West, there are people starving. It hurts whenever I throw away food, because I know that there are people who will be eating it out of another bin next week.

People say that there is no way to end poverty, that we in our current condition must accept that poverty exists and that it always will exist. I can't, and that's why I want to come up with another way. I just want to prove that there is another way. I don't want people, intelligent people with a decent grasp of economics, business, sociology and politics, to ignore the problem in the selfish belief that laissez faire will solve the world's problems.

It's a lot easier to retrain me to believe that "poverty exists, get over it" than it is to end poverty, I know, but there is at least room for both options.

 

[Gelion]

Nice read all. [bookmarking the thread in hope of posint something in the future]

 

[aneeshm]

@ Mise

You want to end poverty ? Fine . Go ahead . Just don't steal other people's money to do it , OK ? That's all I'm asking .