Why did communism fail

Yes I agree with [MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION]. One should also make the distinction between democratic socialism and communism. Communism defined socialism as the period inbetween capitalism and true communism (the society where class distinctions cease to exist and government also ceases to exist). Democracy, as we know it, to true communists, is nothing but a construct which is a method to dupe the proletariat into believing that freedom is actually possible, while the true power, held by those who control the means of production continues to reside with the bourgeoisie. Communists always hated democratic socialists and considered them to sell-outs and class traitors.
 
I always thought that communism is about owning the means of production. That doesn't seem to be what is being pushed by those governments; they seem to be more oriented on Regulating the resources of individuals from the top down.

communism seems to me, to be more similar to an ESOP arrangement than a distribution system.
 
brightmoon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Friedman and Hayek had completely different economic principles, and both were based on Liberal values.
 
Why did communism fail?

Communism is an obstacle to individuals achieving their own measure of personal success. This makes the failure of communism, or at least escape from it, a significant prerequisite step for the most ambitious and capable individuals. Communism doesn't really work, if the achievements of exceptional individuals aren't available for theft by the unexceptional, or if they are resisting/undermining it.
 
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] that depends on how you define "personal success". Is this solely based on the accumulation of capital? Is "ambition and capability" measured solely on the accumulation of wealth? Because someone has more money than me, does that make them a better more successful person?

Jim Walton and Charles Koch are worth billions of dollars. How did they get all that money? By being smarter and more ambitious than the rest of us? Nope. By being born into money. Even Bill Gates who you could earned his money, earned it through a combination of luck, skill and intelligence.

Communism failed because it assumed that people are really more virtuous than they actually are. It also assumed that the end justifies the means, and that somehow the road to utopia could be achieved through the use of torture and the Gulag. History is proven that it can't.

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] Please tell me how different Hayek and Friedman are because at the end of the day they sure seem similar to me.
 
brightmoon said:
@Flavus Aquila that depends on how you define "personal success". Is this solely based on the accumulation of capital? Is "ambition and capability" measured solely on the accumulation of wealth? Because someone has more money than me, does that make them a better more successful person?

Jim Walton and Charles Koch are worth billions of dollars. How did they get all that money? By being smarter and more ambitious than the rest of us? Nope. By being born into money. Even Bill Gates who you could earned his money, earned it through a combination of luck, skill and intelligence.

Communism failed because it assumed that people are really more virtuous than they actually are. It also assumed that the end justifies the means, and that somehow the road to utopia could be achieved through the use of torture and the Gulag. History is proven that it can't.

@JJJA Please tell me how different Hayek and Friedman are because at the end of the day they sure seem similar to me.
Click to expand...

Isn't it up to the individual himself/herself to determine what their own measure of achievement will be?

Trying to define and impose achievement on individuals, and calling such a system utopian is hellish and fundamentally disrespectful. I see no lack of virtue at having issues with being fundamentally disrespected as an autonomous social person.
 
Its not that simple is it? What happens when that measure of achievement is dependent on the exploitation of others? What about the autonomy of the people being exploited?
 
brightmoon said:
Its not that simple is it? What happens when that measure of achievement is dependent on the exploitation of others? What about the autonomy of the people being exploited?
Click to expand...

The claim of exploitation is not evidence of exploitation.

If too many people train to be lawyers, the fees lawyers can on average charge are driven down by oversupply and competition. The fact is that too many people are too lazy to equip themselves with professional skills, and end up competing with hoards of other lazy people for non-skilled jobs, is why they can't expect higher wages. This is not a matter of exploitation, but of trying to sell services/labor that millions of others are also trying to sell.
 
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] I was thinking more of the Third World and the conditions there which are exploited by multinational corporations. Are we really saying the millions of people that toil in India and Pakistan so we can war cheap clothing are "too lazy to equip themselves with professional skills"

It becomes a different conservation when you think about these things globally.

But even if you don't are you really saying there is equality of opportunity for everyone in your country regardless of their background? Can you say indigenous people have the same opportunity as non-indigenous people on your country. I sure cannot make that claim for my country.
 
brightmoon said:
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] I was thinking more of the Third World and the conditions there which are exploited by multinational corporations. Are we really saying the millions of people that toil in India and Pakistan so we can war cheap clothing are "too lazy to equip themselves with professional skills"

It becomes a different conservation when you think about these things globally.

But even if you don't are you really saying there is equality of opportunity for everyone in your country regardless of their background? Can you say indigenous people have the same opportunity as non-indigenous people on your country. I sure cannot make that claim for my country.
Click to expand...

Multinationals employing cheap labour in poor countries is a benefit, not exploitation. If they weren't there employing, the situation for the locals would be far worse. Global communistic outlooks might consider it against their own principles that people in one country get paid less than in another country; but if this weren't the case, why should companies go to those countries in the first place? If it weren't for very low wages historically, the present day folks in China, Taiwan, India, etc. wouldn't have electricity, plumbing, cars, hospitals, etc.

Is it exploitation when you ask for tenders for something like repairing your roof/gutters, and contract the lowest bid? How would you feel, if government stepped in and barred you from accepting the lowest quote/tender on ideological grounds?
 
Kind of like the trickle down theory of economics isn't it? People should be happy with whatever the market will pay them and happy with whatever crumbs trickle down to them. The problem with this theory is nothing ever seems to trickle down.

The comparison of transaction between two individuals where the power dynamic is relatively equal compared to the power dynamic between multinational corporations and third world workers does not hold up. You seem to suggest that the power is relatively equal between those who are forced to sell their labour because that's all they have to sell versus those with the capital to buy labour and anything else they want to buy.
 
brightmoon said:
Kind of like the trickle down theory of economics isn't it? People should be happy with whatever the market will pay them and happy with whatever crumbs trickle down to them. The problem with this theory is nothing ever seems to trickle down.

The comparison of transaction between two individuals where the power dynamic is relatively equal compared to the power dynamic between multinational corporations and third world workers does not hold up. You seem to suggest that the power is relatively equal between those who are forced to sell their labour because that's all they have to sell versus those with the capital to buy labour and anything else they want to buy.
Click to expand...

Power has nothing to do with this. Wages/money is offered, and those who find the terms acceptable apply. If the wages were too low, no one would take the jobs.

This is employment, not kidnapping.
 
is no one willing to work their way up the ladder anymore? if you want more money, earn it. don't force those who have already earned it to kick down. how is that fair?
 
@Flavus Aquilia Power has everything to do with it because money and power are the same thing. People are forced to sell their labour because to the highest bidder because they have nothing else to sell
[MENTION=13999]Pleiades[/MENTION] What happened working your way up the ladder? How about what happened to basic fairness? Take a look at the CEO-Worker pay ratio. http://edit.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014 How much greater does income disparity have to get before the middle class disappears entirely and there are only two classes, the super-rich and those living in poverty?

It seems there a lot of right wingers on this board, it also seems they are mostly younger than I am which is depressing to say the least.
 
brightmoon said:
@Flavus Aquilia Power has everything to do with it because money and power are the same thing. People are forced to sell their labour because to the highest bidder because they have nothing else to sell
[MENTION=13999]Pleiades[/MENTION] What happened working your way up the ladder? How about what happened to basic fairness? Take a look at the CEO-Worker pay ratio. http://edit.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014 How much greater does income disparity have to get before the middle class disappears entirely and there are only two classes, the super-rich and those living in poverty?

It seems there a lot of right wingers on this board, it also seems they are mostly younger than I am which is depressing to say the least.
Click to expand...

Who/what is forcing them to work for multinationals?
 
brightmoon said:
@Flavus Aquilia Power has everything to do with it because money and power are the same thing. People are forced to sell their labour because to the highest bidder because they have nothing else to sell
[MENTION=13999]Pleiades[/MENTION] What happened working your way up the ladder? How about what happened to basic fairness? Take a look at the CEO-Worker pay ratio. http://edit.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014 How much greater does income disparity have to get before the middle class disappears entirely and there are only two classes, the super-rich and those living in poverty?

It seems there a lot of right wingers on this board, it also seems they are mostly younger than I am which is depressing to say the least.
Click to expand...

I AM working my way up the ladder. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. you have to want to achieve something and be motivated to do so. I am proud to do so. And when I reach the top, why should some one who isn't working hard get to just take what I have earned? such laziness disparages the American dream -- which is OPPORTUNITY, not handouts.

I always felt that there were a lot of leftists here. and I always thought the leftists were the young ones and that makes me fear that when it comes time to retire, all my hard earned funds will be regulated to the ass-sitting masses and i will be left to die in a public camp for old conservatives. i am gen-x
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=13999]Pleiades[/MENTION] But you have social responsibility we all do. Elizabeth Warren said it best:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually believes in "the American Dream" anymore which seems quite frankly kind of naïve, but again not being an American, maybe it just have the same kind of resonance for me. I do work hard for what I have but I have no aspirations to be fantastically wealthy or anything like that and I am grateful for the advantages I have been blessed with. These are advantages that others around me simply do not have.

By most measurements, social mobility is decreasing, as wages stagnate and income inequality increases. This idea that the poor are poor because they are lazy is also false for the most part, at least in my experience. The idea that everyone has basically the same opportunities just does not hold water either.

For the record I am Gen-x too, or late to the Boomer party, however you want to define it.
 
brightmoon said:
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.
Click to expand...

We can say that socialism doesnt work as the world is littered with failed examples of it. The most current Greece.
Its only opinion that Capitalism cant work on its own. Its not opinion that Socialism doesn't work.

For what its worth though I dont think the pure 100% capitalism lends its self to the quickest possible innovation and growth for a country. Something as simple as a common infrastructure of roads is a great example of this.
 
brightmoon said:
[MENTION=13999]Pleiades[/MENTION] But you have social responsibility we all do. Elizabeth Warren said it best:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually believes in "the American Dream" anymore which seems quite frankly kind of naïve, but again not being an American, maybe it just have the same kind of resonance for me. I do work hard for what I have but I have no aspirations to be fantastically wealthy or anything like that and I am grateful for the advantages I have been blessed with. These are advantages that others around me simply do not have.

By most measurements, social mobility is decreasing, as wages stagnate and income inequality increases. This idea that the poor are poor because they are lazy is also false for the most part, at least in my experience. The idea that everyone has basically the same opportunities just does not hold water either.

For the record I am Gen-x too, or late to the Boomer party, however you want to define it.
Click to expand...

the American dream is FREEDOM to be able to PROVIDE FOR YOURSELF for your family... for LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That is freedom to take an opportunity and to do what you want with it. it's not necessarily to become fabulously wealthy. if you want to go live in a van down by the river, that's your prerogative. if you want to build an empire, you can. my family came here from England in 1905 seeking OPPORTUNITY. That is what people who emigrate here now are seeking. Impose Communism and it all falls down. Capitalism is what makes this country amazing. Our businesses create jobs that lead to careers. Capitalization provides opportunity for all. Everyone can reach for whatever goals they want. How can that not be inspiring?

And I do honor my civic duties. I vote. I pay my property taxes. I do not agree with what my rather liberal state is doing with most of them, but I do wish they would instead apply my taxes to roads and infrastructure (that's why seattle sucks-- they have medieval roads-- it's awful)

I know a ton of people who have selected the Welfare route. They work the system and mass-produce children to get tax breaks and free money. it's disgusting. and they ARE lazy. Obama increased their numbers. I remember when he got elected. I saw a facebook post that said. "ok we got Obama. Now where's my money????" I am rich by no means. But I have enough to get by and have earned every penny of it. I would be ashamed to take something that I did not earn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top