Communism - what went wrong?

agreed pinguin, i dont think theres a government system that is evolved enough to totally deal with populace needs, anywhere.

The main problem with communism's real failure was that the Soviet Union ended up as a single party dictatorship rather than a democracy.

In a way, it wasn't the Soviet Union's fault. Russia had had an absolutist regime prior to the Soviet revolution, and after civil unrest ceases, countries revert to a similar form of government that they previously had.

There were also the following problems with the ideology which encourages dictatorship taking over real governments:

1. Purity of thought. The constant ideological purges that existed even before there was a single communist country was a paradoxical package. On the one hand it permitted the always tiny communist parties to wield a lot more power through organized members that they actually deserved by its numbers.

However, once the party makes it to power, this culture of ideological purity and discipline develops into a dictatorial a single-party mentality.

Also, the war mentality made many of these countries clamp down on freedom of the press.


2. The violent revolution doctrine. Another paradox. Up to that point, the only way that people could think of getting in power was a violent revolution. This meant that revolutionary cells always were engaged in seditious or semi-seditious activities. This meant that government repression was always a problem.

And the violent revolution theory may have led to Communist taking over Russia.

At the same time, the violent revolution meant that the USSR and every Communist country became a threat to other countries since they vowed to support other communist groups willing to start a revolution elsewhere. This meant that non-Communist countries would always end up working to undermine Communist countries.

In turn, Communist countries felt a greater urge to fund revolutions so that they could increase the number of allies. A very negative cycle.

3. War economies and policies. Most Marxist countries had war economies. This meant that the bulk of their economic output was focused on the military.

The military is an expensive mistress. It will suck most of a countries resources. And it is an unproductive sector of the economy. It doesn't feed people or increase their standard of living.

However, the violent revolution made it necessary to arm yourself and arm others. And it is always even to fund it since it is always claimed that they survival of the country is at stake.

The USSR crumbled to a great part because it spent itself into the ground by keeping a military that it couldn't afford. Its greatest enemy was... its military industrial complex, the "defender" of the motherland.

To think about it, Communism actually has a lot in common with Fascism.

Both systems have planned economies where state intervention plays an important role in trade, as opposed to a free market economy; both system believe in a heavily, militarised society and a �homogeneous� population.

Fascism believes in homogenizing the population into one ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity eliminating and supressing all those who did not conform.

Commumism attempted to homogenise the population into a colourless, godless, languageless mass without any traces of tradition; and like the Fascists, they eliminated and suppressed all those who opposed.

 

Ironically, in Spain, the government that most protected the workers� rights was that of Franco�s � a Fascist. Under his rule it was impossible for any company to lay anyone off and all major corporations were nationalized.

When the Socialists came into power in 1982, ironically, they liberalised the economy!

I must say that I don't know why so many people focus on how fallible humans are for the topic of Communism. I don't believe that any communist country ever got to the point to test the nobleness of men.

From my understanding, its main problems had to do with the most pedestrian problems bad management. Specifically, they went bankrupt through overspending on military and weren't democratic. We can say the same about many other countries.

Hi, Parnell,

Hey, I agree with you that if we ever get to a point where property will be radically abolished in greater society, it won't work.

However, Communist states never got close to actually testing this idea.

Many of them were party dictatorships with a welfare system.

Their collapse have little to do with people not working hard enough or not sharing enough. It had a lot more to do with limited freedom and bad accounting practices.

And the selfish human theory is not totally correct. It is partially right, but not completely I will develop this idea later on

Originally posted by Mughaal Free Market trade works better. American system is okay too; but wouldnt work if they didnt have so much wealth

Would not work if they did not have that much wealth huh? A little jealous are we?

What history has proven is that Communism certainly does not work because not a single Communist regime has saved itself from turning into a tyrannical dictatorship with the bulk of the population living in poverty.

The problem, gathering the summary of many of the opinions posted here: is the single party system and its violent revolutionary mentality obsessed with the purity of thought; combined with its rigidly planned economy that discourages motivation and innovation.

Nevertheless, many communist regimes have made sound improvements on the country�s educational standard and the status of women in society.

 

However, I do not also agree with the common conception that Democracy + Capitalism is equal to prosperity and freedom.

After reading up about so many regimes in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and even in Europe at the turn of the 20^th century, I am becoming more and more convinced that Democracy and Capitalism could only work well if:

-          the country does not have a deep divide between rich-poor

-          most of the country�s population are educated to a decent standard

-          the country does not live in a tribal society with deep ethnic hatred

 

Many countries who lack these 3 criteria that have tried to practice democracy and capitalism have resulted in chaos, anarchy, civil unrest, and even civil wars.

 

No offence to anyone here, but in my opinion, India, Pakistan, Brasil, and Mexico are the worst examples of where a corrupt democractic and market economy system could lead to.

 

 

Originally posted by calvo What history has proven is that Communism certainly does not work because not a single Communist regime has saved itself from turning into a tyrannical dictatorship with the bulk of the population living in poverty.

I do not think that this is true. They either were "tyrannical dictatorship" from the very beginning or they were very different kind of tyrannical dictatorship all along.

Originally posted by calvo The problem, gathering the summary of many of the opinions posted here: is the single party system and its violent revolutionary mentality obsessed with the purity of thought; combined with its rigidly planned economy that discourages motivation and innovation.

IMHO, a lot of people on this page overestimate superficial characteristics of communism.

1. Communist economy is just less effective than capitalist economy. There can be no doubt about that in anyone who understands economy. Marx ideas about price are just flat out wrong. Believe it or not, you actually have to force people to use economic system that is less effective. Planned economy also makes you a slave, thats just clear.

2. There is huge potential for corruption, because people don't have personal interest in whatever they are doing.

3. Violent revolutionary mentality isn't there. Marx advocated violence only based on that he believed (correctly) that controllers of production means aren't going to just give them up. Lets not pretend that social democratic countries are doing something else than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Try not paying taxes and you will see some violence too.

4. Commmunist leaders aren't slaves and have greater salaries than bulk of populace. That is because they decide their own salaries; its no different than what happens in modern companies where top managers receive hundreds of times more than workers no matter how much they work. In fact in communism leaders would not receive so much more. It is also a running joke here how much modern megacorporations resemble planned economies, with all their trappings.

Originally posted by calvo Nevertheless, many communist regimes have made sound improvements on the country�s educational standard and the status of women in society.

Really? Which ones?

What went wrong?Quite simple: it was doing holes every where

Originally posted by calvo Originally posted by Choranzanus Originally posted by calvo Nevertheless, many communist regimes have made sound improvements on the country�s educational standard and the status of women in society.   Really? Which ones?   There are many, beginning with USSR, China, and Cuba. These countres used to live under regimes where 80% of the population were illiterate and had never the opportunity to go to school. Russia and China also had very chauvinistic societies where the only role for women to fulfill was as wives and mothers. The communist system gave all the country a basic education and everyone an opportunity to work.   I do not justify at all these regimes, but all tyrannies have also had positive contributions. These are just a few examples.

Obviously, I disagree.
Russia and China might get better education than what they would get were there previous (non-communist and non-democratic) regimes, but they would get much better education if there was democracy in the first place.
Cuba I can give you, but they received significant help from other communist countries, so they are now significantly better off then similar countries in the region.

I certainly fail to see any advantages to tyrannical regimes.