Why did communism fail
- Thread starter higs
- Start date
Socialism and Communism are not the same, although best buddies. This article [Source: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp] addresses socialism, but the notion of equal distribution addressed in regards to socialism applies to communism. Whether genuine or fictional the account makes a valid point:
I don't think this point is valid, considering that taking a test and having a good life are two different things. Also I find the lack of ingenuity in the students troubling if they are college students. Like, maybe the smart ones should help, or at least bully the others, so that they can pass and graduate on time. That example is one of those grandma-facebook-chain-letters.
From my view I see the underlying principle being the same - that having a system of reward/payment (be it grades or money) that is based not on performance, qualification, or ability, but solely on the fact of participation, takes away from a human sense of motivation to do well and to want to do their best, since regardless they'll be taken care of, or will get something out of it. Hence although I agree this 'experiment', likely fictional, is a bit trite and grandma-facebook-chain-lettery (that made me lol! so true), I see it as a fairly apt microcosm of macro socialist policy in society - if pay was equally distributed to all the average person would not exert themselves or desire others to, since few operate on wholly idealistic and altruistic motives, but want something tangible to reflect their output. Without this, most wouldn't bother - if at the end of the day, their tangible (financial) reward is the same. But yes, the example itself sounds artificial, but as a hypothetical it is certainly a plausible, even likely situation. Would people bother to bully others to do well in such an instance? Some might, most people would probably take it for granted that everyone else will try hard enough, and so expect a free ride.
Edit: I should add, I don't know enough about Obama's alleged socialist policies, but was quoting this article as addressing the pit falls of a policy which would equally distribute pay.
Last edited:
No one got a free ride. They all failed. These people lack forethought and judgement. At the very least they would chicken out and go back to the way it was. Is money your only motivator? I don't believe the average person is as idiotic as you seem to believe.
Nope, you're right, no one got a free ride - but in this 'real' or 'fake' example they expected a free ride thus put no effort in, since they expected to get a decent grade from the average; and indeed they lacked forethought and judgement. At least in this example they had a greater motive to do better, since by doing as such they would have pushed up the mean grade, and thus received a higher score. So in reality, as you say, eventually they would likely chicken out and go back to what it was, but maybe only when they did fail, maybe sooner, either way one can take this scenario as hypothetically demonstrating a plausible outcome. In a society where income is the same no matter what, there even lacks this little motivator, since unlike the students who could increase the mean grade by working harder, in such a society even by working harder or having a higher qualification, the income would remain the same, it wouldn't increase the mean income. But of course in most jobs, once someone has that job, and is getting paid, they'll work at varying degrees of quality based on their various motives - [money alone doesn't determine work output, but it can affect it].
"Is money your only motivator?" Money is on the bottom of the list of my personal motivators; it's mere necessity and a motivator in the sense of needing money to function in the society in which I live. The level of pay I get never effects the quality of my work as personal standards and interpersonal goals are my prime incentives. For a lot of people money is a more important motivator (sometimes out of need, sometimes greed), and if they were going to get the same pay regardless of what they did, in regards to doing harder jobs with greater health risks, or work load, without a greater income offered, such harder work would be less desired than if there were a financial incentive. I don't think people are idiotic, just that income plays a role in motive and incentive on some level, for most people - that seems fairly reasonable. My father would carry out jobs that involved a greater health risk, since it offered more money, and thus made it easier to provide for his family. Without this incentive, he wouldn't do such jobs.
This is my view, a view which I'm fine with if you disagree.
Last edited:
Is this why Communism failed? I remain unconvinced that its this simple. One has to remember that Communist societies as they functioned were never without a system of reward/payment. There was always a black market economy where people were making money to get ahead, underground capitalism but still capitalism. Then there was the competition within the party itself, to prove you were the best Communist, the most orthodox, the closest to Stalin, certain material rewards came your way. So to say it was a society that lived up to its ideals, its not entirely accurate. I thinks its more accurate to say that Communist societies did not lack competition, they lacked ways to generate wealth in a meaningful way. Also they degenerated into oligarchy and as time went on, deviated more and more from their ideals. Why? Lack of transparency and lack of accountability which inevitability lead to corruption. Democracy (not necessarily capitalism, and you can have one without the other) has checks and balances on power. Look at North Korea and contrast it to South Korea. Now the elite of North Korea (if they ever had any ideals) has completely abandoned them in favour of the elite's self interest.
You don't know about Obama's socialist policies because they don't exist