Why did communism never work?

[Forogil]

This thread is troll bait.
Nonetheless, to answer the question seriously:

1) Nobody managed to implement communism.

Communism is supposedly introduced in several steps. Step 1 is to form a revolution, overthrow the current leadership. Step 2 is to secure communism, weed out the dissidents. Step 3 is where the revolution ends and everyone lives happily ever after.

The problem is that new people are born every year, and they have new ideas on how society is supposed to be run.

But what if they inherited the indoctrination of their parents? That's one reason Lysenko was liked in USSR.

[ControlWarrior]

Karl Marx really was vague as to what a Communist or even Socialist State was supposed to work. While Marx had some sharp things to say about Capitalism's negatives, and boy did it and continue to have negatives Marx was not necessarily very clever at engineering a solution.

Once more, most Communist revolutions have not been communist in a sense, they have mainly been Anti-Colonial rebellions, and at times fell quickly to cults of personality and essentially became strong man dictatorships. Other than the Soviet Union, very few of the Communist states were as dedicated to the project of Communism as they were overthrowing a previous corrupt regime or throwing out a foreign power and installing a new power.

The Soviet Union to an extent came to be the head leader of the Communist world but it quickly became not THAT different from the regime it replaced, though the new Tzar was no longer hereditary. In North Korea it is effectively a hereditary Monarchy.

Why did the Communist world utterly fail? WELLL..... there is a lot of reasons,

1) The Soviet Union and the United States spent more time fighting each other, the Soviet Union could never settle in and enact its project, plus it had terribly paranoid leaders and terrible leaders in Stalin. But more over the United States was dedicated to destroying the Soviet Union in any way it could, thus the system was sort of perpetually under siege and couldn't really devote resources to its project.

2) Technology, to an extent Communism is an idea that might just not be at present or at that time technically feasible.

3) Human nature might play a role, complete equality might be unattainable, humans might not be able to live in that sort of "brotherhood of all mankind," and the Socialist Workers Paradise might be about as "real," as like Heaven or something. Its a nice idea but cannot exist in the material world.

4) Its inherently incomplete, Marx never actually knew exactly what a Communist world would be beyond some vague promises.

Very thoughtful post. Thank you.

[Sevyvia]

Well, pretty much all communist states in the world have been led by a malevolent dictator, which is the reason why they haven't worked, not communism itself.

Yes, definitely nothing to do with communism, that.

You know, all fascist states have been lead by a malevolent dictator, which is the reason they haven't worked, not fascism itself.

This fucking forum.

[Deleted]

Well as interesting some aspects of communism could be - it is the human error, the human greed that fucks it over. With in the end almost everybody being poor as fuck with a crazy wealthy elite.

[Danner]

But what if they inherited the indoctrination of their parents? That's one reason Lysenko was liked in USSR.

Show me a teenager anywhere that listens to their parents

It probably doesn't help that very very few dictators would be interested in relinquishing their power. And as with any dictatorship, purging political opponents was a never-ending process, often magnified by paranoia. The communist process probably never counted as a factor anywhere.

[Deleted]

It is sort of the central part of Das Kapital, try to understand this from Chapter 1 - "As exchange values all commodities are definite quantities of congealed labour-time" (it was a time since I read it, had to search for that quote).

Yeah labour time. Which is inclusive of time spent studying, so a lawyer is still paid significantly more than a cleaner.

This was and is borne out in practice in socialist or self-proclaimed societies. There was a wage differential and you had comparatively rich and poor people. The only difference is that people at the bottom were paid quite well and there were no equivalent of modern billionaires.

Unless you were right at the bottom or the very small minority at the top you wouldn't notice that much difference between pay in a capitalist or socialist state.

To summarize: pay is incentivized in socialist states just as it is in capitalist states. The only difference is that it is done more fairly in socialist states, unless you really believe Bill gates works as hard as 27 countries do.

[ControlWarrior]

Well as interesting some aspects of communism could be - it is the human error, the human greed that fucks it over. With in the end almost everybody being poor as fuck with a crazy wealthy elite.

No system has really addressed the concentration of power issue that well. It's just been more prone to abuse in newly formed states which championed Marx in name only.

[Deleted]

Well as interesting some aspects of communism could be - it is the human error, the human greed that fucks it over. With in the end almost everybody being poor as fuck with a crazy wealthy elite.

Something you rarely hear about that is that even in authoritarian socialist states where the dictator goes a bit mad, the poor still generally do substantially better than they would under capitalism.

If the poor were ever to learn this capitalists would be fucked, which is why you will never hear it mentioned in western media.

[khazmodan]

For the same reason none of the systems work, greed.

Actually greed is not the problem, dishonesty is the problem and since we have brought a ton of dishonest people into the country recently we are feeling the effects through higher cost of living and stagnant incomes. If you have an honest capitalism then problems of supply and demand will work itself out but dishonesty undermines capitalism through bribery, political corruption, theft, forced monopolies, and legal problems created by those that dont want to work for money.

[Deleted]

Except you are literally wrong, you are demonstrably wrong, I know its the internet but dont sit here and claim blue is red.

Proof or gtfo.. your opinion is meaningless unless you can back it up with facts.

[Theodarzna]

Very thoughtful post. Thank you.

It should also be noted that Communism arose in an age with a fundamentally different view of human nature, namely Tabula Rasa or the Blank Slate. In Marx's day they didn't know much about the brain, how it worked, or evolution. Darwin and Marx were contemporaries at the time but the dominate view then was the Blank Slate hypothesis, which argued for total socialisation as being the cause of human behaviour, under that thinking you could imagine a society, write it down, have people follow it and there would be now flaws.

Concepts of evolutionary psychology or the idea that some aspects of human behaviour might be programmed into our DNA were not known at that time. Even today this is still at time a controversial idea.

Communists were trying very hard to construct a society with a poorly written guide--an incomplete guide--and with incorrect ideas about human behaviour.

[ControlWarrior]

Something you rarely hear about that is that even in authoritarian socialist states where the dictator goes a bit mad, the poor still generally do substantially better than they would under capitalism.

If the poor were ever to learn this capitalists would be fucked, which is why you will never hear it mentioned in western media.

Well, to be fair. Marx does get discussed quite heavily among political science MA students. I'm proof of that xD

[Deleted]

Well, to be fair. Marx does get discussed quite heavily among political science MA students. I'm proof of that xD

I'm sure it is. I was referring to the mainstream media. Universities can't suppress Marxist discussion for various reasons.

[Fencers]

The communist party of China is still around and that works pretty well for China. So to speak.

Though China has had a far less of true communist economy for some time. Probably since I was a kid- and I am fairly old.

[ControlWarrior]

I'm sure it is. I was referring to the mainstream media. Universities can't suppress Marxist discussion for various reasons.

True. /10 chars

[Deleted]

Communism worked:

1) Full employment.
2) Universal healthcare.
3) Low cost of living to the extent that a cleaner could live comfortably if unspectacularly off their wage.

I'm not sure why some seem to think capitalism "works" when it can't do any of these things.

Really, what are these amazing achievements capitalism has produced?

Sustainability.

[Deleted]

Seems like a sensible and rational system.

It's very sensible. Very rational. But also incredibly naive and very exploitable.

That said, true communism hasn't existed. If it did, it would span the world today, because that's what communism is. What has existed, are a lot of systems that followed communist ideas, without implementing the most fundamental things that'd make functional communism.

I really recommend reading up on the source material, it's origin. Then check on how history actually unfolded, and you'll see why it didn't work.

[Deleted]

The communist party of China is still around and that works pretty well for China. So to speak.

Though China has had a far less of true communist economy for some time. Probably since I was a kid- and I am fairly old.

Actually China is more capitalist than even the US now, thats why its economy is thriving. Its still technically controlled by the communist party but in name only.

[Deleted]

The communist party of China is still around and that works pretty well for China. So to speak.

Though China has had a far less of true communist economy for some time. Probably since I was a kid- and I am fairly old.

China isn't a communist state by any measure of the word. It's what they CLAIM to be, but they are capitalists. The only thing different in China is their political system and who gets to control what.

- - - Updated - - -

Sustainability.

Exponential growth isn't sustainable.

[Theodarzna]

Sustainability.

To what extent can we attribute the Soviet Unions demise to bad planning, micromanagement attitudes and having to essentially fight a global conflict with someone dedicated to your annihilation.

The Soviet Union was dealt a very bad hand but when every force on the planet also wants to to collapse and fail, its kind of a struggle to resist that AND carry on with your project.