Why did communism fail

[higs]

In Russia or any other place the ideology was in place structurally and politically that you know of. Was the reason always a totalitarian government or is there independently an economical reason as in, it just doesn't work for producing riches and maintaining a country? I understand countries that went through communism basically went through misery during that time, poverty, if the central point of communism is an even redistribution of goods/riches does this mean it is unable to produce the riches to go around(I realize this may be a rather brainwashed capitalist view) I don't know anything about this stuff, educate me if you can. Preferably historians and economists but anyone with an opinion will do. Cheers.

 

[JJJA]

The moment a state begins to centralise its powers in order to redistribute wealth, all kinds of problems arise. I could refer you to several books written by economists, historians and political scientists that provide a broad explanation of the queries you mentioned, and with great clarity, too. I recently finished a thesis which touched upon the issue of the soviet bloc, but was mostly concerned with the British context. During the 1970s, the British government became increasingly experimentalist with economic policies that would be considered socialist (or 'socially democratic') by today's standards. It began to use state-power to drastically increase public expenditure on welfare programs, increasing the national interest rate and the deficit despite them knowing we had an inflation crisis. The government also began to capitulate to the trade unions and their constant demands for increasing pay rises, despite the fact that the country couldn't even afford to pay for enough energy to last more than 3 days per week (hence the '3 day week'). Nobody is trying to brainwash you into thinking capitalism is perfect. It is not, and nor should it be, but the point here is that socialism isn't just not perfect, it is fundamentally a flawed system which is designed to limit both economic and political freedoms of ALL of its subjects, not just the wealthy. The prosperity that the country enjoyed in the short-term after Attlee was elected was only because employment was extremely high for a short period, and thus productivity was also high. But once the state begins to centralise itself and commit itself to a planned economic policy, with a complete contempt for the individual and their own decisions and opinions, and instead opting for the collectivist strategy of over-taxing and over-spending until the economy collapses. There is no such thing as utopia. Individual decisions by each member of a society cannot possibly be the same and perfect in every way, and people always make mistakes. The Utopian ideal is about as wishful thinking as suggesting that we can completely eradicate crime. Instead of going on and on about it, I will recommend a couple of books on the subject:

Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, Condensed Version (IEA: London, 2005)
Hayek, F.A., Economic Freedom and Representative Government (IEA: London, 1973)
Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1982)

Even after writing my thesis, I still can't completely understand economics. It's certainly not something you can learn overnight, but I hope these texts help bring clarity to your queries.

 

[PintoBean]

Not an economist or historian, but this quote pretty well sums it up to me:
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
-Frank Zappa

 

[Night Owl]

No expert either. But here's my worthless 2 cents...

When we're dealing with human beings an idealistic political ideology will never never translate into reality. Maybe to some degree for a short period of time in a micro-society, but not in a macro-society. What are the chances of everyone sacrificing their 'right' to private ownership, especially if they have a position of power which affords them opportunities for personal advancement over and above 'their comrade' and 'the set standard of living'.

Communism in theory: common ownership of the means of production, classless society.

Communism in reality: oppressed underclass ruled by an elite who controls the means of production (or corruption of some kind going on that brings in the $$) and eats silver for breakfast.

P.S. I don't fully adhere to any political system (even though I think some are 'better' in practice than others), so this isn't coming from a righty slagging the left.

 

[Tamagochi]

G. Orwell's "Animal Farm" pretty much sums it all.

Having a "privilege" of being born in communist USSR, my own opinion is the system collapsed because it had no binding values. No one really believed in what they were saying or doing - neither elite nor the masses. Private property was declared sinful, but in reality everyone tried to steal as much as possible for their own good. Because if it belongs to the state, then it is not really stealing Another major flaw was transfer of individual responsibility to someone higher up the chain. Everyone felt powerless and expected that someone else will take care of them and make the decisions. Those who tried to think on their own, quickly discovered faults in the system and were declared enemies of the state. Unfortunately this way of thinking became so ingrained in people minds, that even today, after 25 years of communism state collapse a lot of people still retain this attitude.

Nowadays Scandinavian countries are trying out a "modern" version of socialism / communism. They do that first of all by enforcing social equality. For example, there is a reserved quota for women in state institutions and even management boards of private companies. The income ladder is one of the shortest in the world: senior employees get only about twice as much as juniors. Software developer gets roughly the same salary as, say kindergarten teacher. Taxes for CEO's and other high income people are draconic. Recently Finland began pushing an idea of "fixed income" for it's citizens. Basically everyone would receive 800 EUR check a month until they die, regardless if they are employed or not. It will be interesting to see the results of such an experiment. To me such concepts are a bit scary, for I've had enough of communism already

 

[Sinny]

The moment a state begins to centralise its powers in order to redistribute wealth, all kinds of problems arise. I could refer you to several books written by economists, historians and political scientists that provide a broad explanation of the queries you mentioned, and with great clarity, too. I recently finished a thesis which touched upon the issue of the soviet bloc, but was mostly concerned with the British context. During the 1970s, the British government became increasingly experimentalist with economic policies that would be considered socialist (or 'socially democratic') by today's standards. It began to use state-power to drastically increase public expenditure on welfare programs, increasing the national interest rate and the deficit despite them knowing we had an inflation crisis. The government also began to capitulate to the trade unions and their constant demands for increasing pay rises, despite the fact that the country couldn't even afford to pay for enough energy to last more than 3 days per week (hence the '3 day week'). Nobody is trying to brainwash you into thinking capitalism is perfect. It is not, and nor should it be, but the point here is that socialism isn't just not perfect, it is fundamentally a flawed system which is designed to limit both economic and political freedoms of ALL of its subjects, not just the wealthy. The prosperity that the country enjoyed in the short-term after Attlee was elected was only because employment was extremely high for a short period, and thus productivity was also high. But once the state begins to centralise itself and commit itself to a planned economic policy, with a complete contempt for the individual and their own decisions and opinions, and instead opting for the collectivist strategy of over-taxing and over-spending until the economy collapses. There is no such thing as utopia. Individual decisions by each member of a society cannot possibly be the same and perfect in every way, and people always make mistakes. The Utopian ideal is about as wishful thinking as suggesting that we can completely eradicate crime. Instead of going on and on about it, I will recommend a couple of books on the subject:

Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, Condensed Version (IEA: London, 2005)
Hayek, F.A., Economic Freedom and Representative Government (IEA: London, 1973)
Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1982)

Even after writing my thesis, I still can't completely understand economics. It's certainly not something you can learn overnight, but I hope these texts help bring clarity to your queries.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - The old paedophile protecting, sewer rat, Thatcher.

***​

Well Mrs Thatcher, the problem with Imperialism is that you eventually run out of other people's countries.

Tony Benn was a proud and most inspiring democratic socialist, who rabidly opposed the centralisation of government. I think when it come's down to the capitalist/socialist debate too many people want to speak in absolutes, and too many people rely on historical hap haps, rather wanting to push ahead and create new hap haps. All our governments have been compromised by a self serving internationalist/globalist block. The majority of previous models of socialism and capitalism have each equally been distorted and mutilated by our elite paedophile aristocrat/pharaoh/bankers.

I'm a 'lefty' and proud (although I care not for labels, a number of my supported policies are on the right)..
Think of how much 'wealth' has been accumulated by the private bankers, monarchies, and the Military Industrial Complex... Just to name a few.
There is more than enough imaginary money to go around. Just look at how much needless WASTE the 'capitalist' west produce. We COULD feed Africa like 20 time's over... IF WE WANTED TO.

I'm unsure, (don't have the details), about all the other communist nations - besides reasons relating to ideology & oppression, but I do know that Russia experienced an internal struggle for power from the 70's onwards, and the commie's/Bolsheviks lost. Bolshevism is a cousin of Zionism... If Putin is to be believed, both ideologies are an enemy of Russia... and those who implemented those ideologies to begin with are enemies of humanity... Did you know that the Bolsheviks around the time of the revolution were like 85% Jews, (or something like that), it was hardly a 'Russian' revolution, LOL.

According to some, (a credible 'some', imo), Bolshevism and National Socialism (Nazi's) where both instigated as political tools to maneuver various countries into the BANKERS wars.... As nearly all war's are bankers wars.

It seems to me that no matter what ideology we attempt to implement, the parasitic elites will jump on it and distort it regardless. We need to take that fact into account and implement our own safe guards which will prevent that from happening in future.


BLOODLINE's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

We will struggle to remove them from their palaces with walls so high. I say we burn the fuckers out, and refuse to fucking piss on them. Failing a murder spree (which I'm all game for), we need to uncover their crime's, and map their organisation and structure... and fucking dismantle it.

Thankfully for the rest of humanity, us 'Conspiracy Theorists' have been documenting that information for you.

Key targets for the revolutionaries to dismantle: Monarchy, Vatican, Rothschild & Rival banking/oil cartels and, most certainly, Freemasonry....
Just to name a few.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning - Henry Ford​

 

[JJJA]

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - The old paedophile protecting, sewer rat, Thatcher.



Well Mrs Thatcher, the problem with Imperialism is that you eventually run out of other people's countries.


Tony Benn was a proud and most inspiring democratic socialist, who rabidly opposed the centralisation of government.

I think when it come's down to the capitalist/socialist debate too many people want to speak in absolutes, and too many people rely on historical hap haps, rather wanting to push ahead and create new haps haps.

All our governments have been compromised by a self serving internationalist/globalist block.

The majority of previous models of socialism and capitalism have each equally been distorted and mutilated by our elite paedophile aristocrat/pharaoh/bankers.

I'm a lefty and proud.. Think of how much 'wealth' has been accumulated by the private bankers, monarchies, and the Military Industrial Complex.
There is more than enough imaginary money to go around.

Just look at how much needless WASTE the 'capitalist' west produce. We COULD feed Africa like 20 time's over... IF WE WANTED TO.

I'm unsure (don't have the details) about all the other communist nations - besides reasons relating to ideology, but I do know that Russia experienced an internal battle for power from the 70's onwards, and the commie's/Bolsheviks lost.

Bolshevism is a cousin of Zionism... If Putin is to be believed, both ideologies are an enemy of Russia... And those who implemented those ideologies to begin with are enemies of humanity... Did you know that the Bolsheviks around the time of the revolution were like 85% Jews (or something like that).

According to some, Bolshevism and National Socialism (Nazi's) where both instigated as political tools to maneuver various countries into the BANKERS wars.... Nearly all war's are bankers wars.


It seems to me that no matter what ideology we attempt to implement, the parasitic elites will jump on it and distort it regardless.
We need to take that fact into account and implement our own safe guards which will prevent that from happening.


BLOODLINE's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

We will struggle to remove them from their palaces with walls so high. I say we burn the fuckers out, and refuse to fucking piss on them.

Failing going on a murder spree, we need to uncover their crime's, and map their organisation and structure... and fucking dismantle it.

Thankfully for the rest of humanity, us 'Conspiracy Theorists' have been documenting that information for you.

Key targets for the revolutionaries to dismantle: Monarchy, Vatican, Rothschild & Rival banking/oil cartels and, most certainly, Freemasonry....
Just to name a few.

I hope you don't infect the rest of my beloved country with this trash demagoguery, otherwise I am moving to the States immediately.

 

[brightmoon]

The moment a state begins to centralise its powers in order to redistribute wealth, all kinds of problems arise.

This simplified world view sums up the ideas of the whole neo-con movement. The market is sacred, and should never be tampered with. Trust the all mighty market and it will provide everything and anything that is required. Friedman and Hayek believe in "trickle down economics". The problem is the whole philosophy is a complete fraud. It turns out a system that runs on complete self interest only serves the needs of the elite and everyone else, well they are just supposed to shut up and be happy with the crumbs that fall off the banquet table.

The UK is a prime example. Look at the people in the midlands and industrial heartland after the devastation of the Thatcher years. What trickled down to them when the UK became a service economy? Nothing.

Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work either, largely because people just are not willing to give up self interest, at this point in human development. The democratic component is also essential. What is required is a hybrid system, the best of both so to speak.

 

[invisible]

Socialism and communism: different words, different concepts

 

[Sinny]

I hope you don't infect the rest of my beloved country with this trash demagoguery, otherwise I am moving to the States immediately.

Do you have anything constructive to add?
And what country would that be? England? Scotland? Northern Ireland? Wales?
Fucking... Britain?! lol.

 

[JJJA]

Do you have anything constructive to add?

I refer you to post #2 of this thread.

 

[Sinny]

I refer you to post #2 of this thread.

Specifically in regards to what I said, you infer that I am being irrational??

 

[JJJA]

This simplified world view sums up the ideas of the whole neo-con movement. The market is sacred, and should never be tampered with. Trust the all mighty market and it will provide everything and anything that is required. Friedman and Hayek believe in "trickle down economics". The problem is the whole philosophy is a complete fraud. It turns out a system that runs on complete self interest only serves the needs of the elite and everyone else, well they are just supposed to shut up and be happy with the crumbs that fall off the banquet table.

The UK is a prime example. Look at the people in the midlands and industrial heartland after the devastation of the Thatcher years. What trickled down to them when the UK became a service economy? Nothing.

Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work either, largely because people just are not willing to give up self interest, at this point in human development. The democratic component is also essential. What is required is a hybrid system, the best of both so to speak.

As somebody that was actually born in the Midlands, I can tell you that the reason this part of the country has deteriorated over the last few decades is due to it being controlled by a Labour Party Council. I lived in Wolverhampton, which is regarded as part of the 'industrial heart' of the country during the Industrial Revolution. Almost every year since 1974, the council has been borrowing tens of millions of pounds which has greatly increased interest rates, causing economic stagnation. The projected repayments of these loans has come up to over £250 million. This is what happens when an authority attempts to speak for the rest of its subjects by using other people's money to spend on other people.

 

[Sinny]

As somebody that was actually born in the Midlands, I can tell you that the reason this part of the country has deteriorated over the last few decades is due to it being controlled by a Labour Party Council. I lived in Wolverhampton, which is regarded as part of the 'industrial heart' of the country during the Industrial Revolution. Almost every year since 1974, the council has been borrowing tens of millions of pounds which has greatly increased interest rates, causing economic stagnation. The projected repayments of these loans has come up to over £250 million.

This is what happens when an authority attempts to speak for the rest of its subjects by using other people's money to spend on other people.

HARK!

As somebody else who was born and raised in the midlands, I blame the monetary system, the old feudal system, the parasitic elites, and plain old change. As has been noted, we aren't in the industrial revolution anymore.. and we have yet to adapt fully to the new service based economy. We need more education, and an increase in the living wage... I can't very well start up my own business without the know how, or two pennies to rub together.

Labour borrow, borrow, borrow and SPEND.
Whilst the conservative's borrow, borrow, borrow and CUT.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk-borrowing-_n_4316084.html

Common denominator? Where they are getting the 'money' from.

Most of the money in our economy is created by banks, in the form of bank deposits – the numbers that appear in your account. Banks create new money whenever they make loans. 97% of the money in the economy today is created by banks, whilst just 3% is created by the government. This short video explains:

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/

We bailed out the bankers (the enemies of humanity)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package

And since then we have just lined the conservative's pockets via their private business endeavors.

'Selling off NHS for profit': Full list of MPs with links to private healthcare firms
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154

Blaming 'labour' just doesn't cut the mustard, or get to the HEART of the issue.

I'm a firm believer that true progression and evolution will be a cross party endeavor.
None of this bollox about blaming the previous ministries - like that will accomplish anything, I'm more interested in whats being done now.
And no, I'm not happy to call its quits at the easing of the deficit.

I want the debt wiped clean.
I shouldn't have to pay back any fucking national debt on money taken out (From mafia banking cartels, BY BOTH PARTIES) to finance wars and what have you, dating from nearly 500 years ago to now.

New Labour has been influenced by the political thinking of Anthony Crosland, the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell's media campaigning. The political philosophy of New Labour was influenced by the party's development of Anthony Giddens' "Third Way", which attempted to provide a synthesis between capitalism and socialism. The party emphasised the importance of social justice, rather than equality, emphasising the need for equality of opportunity, and believed in the use of free markets to deliver economic efficiency and social justice. In 2002, Giddens named spin as New Labour's biggest failure, but commended the party's success in certain policy areas and at marginalising the Conservative Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour

Can you tell the Labour/Tory Manifesto's apart?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...nd-Labour-2015-election-manifestos-apart.html

To listen to the party political duelling last week following the publication of the growth figures, you’d think the Westminster village was riven by fundamentally opposed positions on the economy. In fact, the opposite is the case. There may be differences of detail but on the big policy responses, something like a new 'Osballs' consensus has emerged.

https://www.thersa.org/discover/pub...ow-have-almost-identical-policies.-be-afraid/

Sounds like all these goons are dancing to the same tune... But that would be a conspiracy now wouldn't it? lol

 

[brightmoon]

I can't say I agree with everything you say [MENTION=14074]Sinny[/MENTION] but at least you aren't putting all your faith in pure capitalism or one system. Skepticism is healthy. For me bankers did get off free after the 2008 meltdown. The influence of money over the political process is massive and in the US its worst of any country. [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] if you think that the US is some sort of capitalist utopia you are sadly mistaken. The divisions in the US are massive, with some people living in Third word conditions and others living in fantastic wealth. This more than anything explains the rise of Trump, a latter day "Daddy Warbucks" who going to fix everything with his bravado and simple solutions, blaming the immigrants and foreigners for taking America down. His appeals is to the losers and the disenfranchised who think they have nowhere to turn, but just don't understand that are being played for fools.

What is really needed is another FDR



Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br>1938
Franklin D. Roosevelt
1938

To the Congress:

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

Sound familiar?

 

[Sinny]

Great quote [MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION].

 

[Eventhorizon]

This simplified world view sums up the ideas of the whole neo-con movement. The market is sacred, and should never be tampered with. Trust the all mighty market and it will provide everything and anything that is required. Friedman and Hayek believe in "trickle down economics". The problem is the whole philosophy is a complete fraud. It turns out a system that runs on complete self interest only serves the needs of the elite and everyone else, well they are just supposed to shut up and be happy with the crumbs that fall off the banquet table.

The UK is a prime example. Look at the people in the midlands and industrial heartland after the devastation of the Thatcher years. What trickled down to them when the UK became a service economy? Nothing.

Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work either, largely because people just are not willing to give up self interest, at this point in human development. The democratic component is also essential. What is required is a hybrid system, the best of both so to speak.

How can you say pure capitalism doesn't work? The world has never seen it.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Socialism and communism: different words, different concepts

Dont agree at all. Socialism is the stepping stone to Communism.

 

[brightmoon]

How can you say pure capitalism doesn't work? The world has never seen it.

There's a reason why we have not seen it. It's really unworkable. When we have come close, we have seen the consequences. Unfettered and unregulated markets lead to crony capitalism, massive concentration of wealth and power, general bypassing of any type of environmental or social considerations, and huge income disparity.

 

[Faye]

If you use the criteria that Marx/Engles originally came up with (i.e. a proletarian controlled government) to define communism, then communism has never really existed. What we know as 'communism' was more an ideology employed by totalitarian regimes in order to rapidly industrialize, often at the expense of the lives of millions of people (i.e. what happened in Russia and China). These regimes would also be considered capitalist because they still resulted in a small elite controlling and benefiting from society's resources while the vast majority went without. The difference is the used more state control and perhaps more brutality to achieve this than countries that were able to industrialize more gradually.

I don't think they failed in what they set out to do, which was to industrialize rapidly and become military powers. They did fail to actually be communist, but it was never really possible for them anyway because, contrary to what Trotsky believed, it is not possible to go directly from an agrarian state (i.e. Czarist Russia or China prior to their 'revolution') to communism or even socialism. Supposedly, socialism is supposed to precede communism anyway.

I think that contemporary European welfare states are a better reflection of actual socialism than Russia/China ever were under Stalin and Mao. I sort of view the demise of 'communism' in places like Russia as a product of Russia having caught up to the rest of the world and become more integrated in global capitalism (or globalism). The ideology had outlived its usefulness, and it was nothing but a smokescreen to begin with anyway. Its sad/funny to watch the Chinese hold to that smokescreen despite being so immersed in capitalism these days.