Communism - what went wrong?

On paper, Communism might have looked like the most perfect ideology man has ever invented as it revindicated equality, human rights, solidarity, and freedom from religious and traditional restrictions.

However, in practice, not a single Communist state had managed to even approach this utopia. Instead, Communist regimes had always been rather the opposite: authoritaran systems that suppressed individual identity, collectivised all personal belongings that reduced all citizens to nothing more than slaves to the state, and the worst of all: encouraged family members and friends to denounce each other.

The Utopia of equality as defined by Marx seems a long way away from the collective farms of Stalin or the gulags of Siberia. Furthermore, under most Communist regimes the difference between "rich" and "poor" became even more pronounced than in capitalist countries with the top party members earning thousands times more than the common plebian...

What had gone wrong? What was the key that led to Communism's failure?

Human nature mate. were just corrupt to the bone if we like it or not. It's in our blood

Originally posted by calvo On paper, Communism might have looked like the most perfect ideology man has ever invented as it revindicated equality, human rights, solidarity, and freedom from religious and traditional restrictions. However, in practice, not a single Communist state had managed to even approach this utopia. Instead, Communist regimes had always been rather the opposite: authoritaran systems that suppressed individual identity, collectivised all personal belongings that reduced all citizens to nothing more than slaves to the state, and the worst of all: encouraged family members and friends to denounce each other. The Utopia of equality as defined by Marx seems a long way away from the collective farms of Stalin or the gulags of Siberia. Furthermore, under most Communist regimes the difference between "rich" and "poor" became even more pronounced than in capitalist countries with the top party members earning thousands times more than the common plebian... What had gone wrong? What was the key that led to Communism's failure?

Yup, i agree. There will never be such a thing as a purely man made utopia on earth, because of man's easily corruptible nature. It's seems to be in our blood too dominate the weak or defenseless!

Sometimes when I'm reading some of the things Marx wrote, I do get glimpses of something on the horizon, especially in this new debt-ridden economy we all live in. It's not at all like Soviet communism, but when Marx comes to his points about the average workers actually owning less and less, and becoming used to not actually owning their homes and tools and such, well that's exactly what's happened and continuing to happen.

I think alot of people misunderstood and continue to misunderstand what Marx meant about private property. They think it is as simple as "this is mine", which it is not. Private property in the sense economic historians talk about it is the kind of property that emerged from things like the Enclosures, property that you can own without ever actually setting foot on, using, or even seeing. Things like rent, mortgages, liens, and such. Private property isn't just "it's mine". Property carries all kinds of rights with it - right of possession, right of exclusion, right of transfer and so forth. Before private property, this was a "bundle" that couldn't be divided - a serf could not sell his plot, a lord couldn't rent out his barony. That was "it's mine" ... possession and ownership were one and the same. With the coming of private property, you could transfer a portion of these rights to another individual - that is, you could rent out land, and sell to the tenant the right of possession, right of exclusion, and a few others, while you retained right of transfer and a few others.

I think Marx was on to something that's coming in the future, but neither he, nor the Soviets, nor us, really have more than a few dim glimpses of what it will be. It may even come without us realizing it, in the form of an ever more heavily credit-dependant society and the increasing consolidation of economic power to a small number of transnational corporations. Put Marx together with his rival Proudhon, who spoke about building the new society in the shell of the old, add a little determinism rather than conscious effort ...

Edited by edgewaters - 08-Nov-2007 at 17:12

The ideology itself is lacking. I admire Marx and all, but I think some of his ideas devoided from reality way too much.

What I find intriguing is that if the economic system didn't work, then the regime would crumble and that's it.

Communism failed, because it was wrong from the beginning.

Their ideology of equality is totally absurd, it's simply against human nature and it's entirely unrealistic. Can you imagine a society without social classes? Who would lead it, etc?

Socialism also doesn't work. Why?

First, proletariat isn't an adequate class for ruling. I think, I needn't explain it any further.

The other problem is the economy: when everything is in common property, the system functions for only a relative short period. State owns the company, you buy the things cheep and you don't have a high salary. It's OK, apart from the low living standard.

The problem comes with two factors:

1. Infrastructure. There are no taxes and there isn't any profit, besides prices are low. The state won't have the money for developing, only maintaining.

2. Amortisation. What happens when the "nationalised" goods begin to lose their value? From what sources can the state have them repaired?

That is why the system really worked - for a time. When they began to develop, they automatically ran out of money, had to borrow and of course they got into debts, etc.

Two more things:

3. Bad mentality. When the company doesn't belong to you, you aren't responsible for it. You get your salary whether you work good or bad.
You won't work well
4. Dictatorship and dependence from another state. Neither is good.

The "right" ideology for reducing social differences was social democracy, which finally won in the West and was destructed in the East. It was better, because it maintained democracy and profit, which ensured the future, unlike socialism.

They had luck, we - in the East - hadn't.




Edited by kapeter - 01-Dec-2007 at 18:50

Communism as we knew it and marxism as Karl Mark wrote it, were very different.

Yes, but everytime a Marxist government has been tried, it's broken down and the government have had to implement measures to stablise the country so much that it isn't communist anymore. No one country can have a Marxist government completely at any one given time - people just don't work like that