Communism - what went wrong?

Originally posted by Cjones Indeed, Communism requires that humans cease to be humans.  It's also about corruption: What's to make a Dictator want to step down from power once he has it?  It's nothing different than an abused form of Monarchy.

dicatorship is not a communist ideology, nor is corruption. To understand its roots and how it was ment to work, one would have to go back to Marx and not stop at Stalin.

my point is, the problem lies with the execution of an ideology not the ideology itself.

Stalin was very much a bigger version of what was going on all over Europe. So communism was not a factor for dictatorship.

as for what i think went wrong..

 Communism was meant to start in the industrial and more developed western Europe and was conceived as a evolution of capitalism. Instead it came into power in mainly agrarian societies, like Russia or China, which had not developed a political system much beyond monarchical rule. Further, communism morphed into a mainly third world, anti imperialist political rallying point, which if it wasn't executed by the wrong people was certainly executed in the wrong countries and societies. Most simply did not have the ability, resources or leadership to make it work. That is, many communist states, being ex colonial/imperial holdings with little or poor internal development.

 i would regard this as a still birth of the ideology and a freak of history, that gives us no genuine example to judge the ideology in its originally conceived state. So this is the easy to see failure;  Communism never evolved from an advance state of capitalism and advanced polity.

The next question would be asked; Why didn't this ideology take hold in western societies as originally conceived?

The psychological pull of the 'consumer' was totally under estimated by Marx. While his critique of capitalism can be seen as relevant today, he was wrong in believing that these faults alone would be powerful enough to want change. It isn't capitalism that communism needs to defeat but consumerism which is the real engine room of the western system. Most of us just want a newer, smaller ipod  and a newer BIGger plasma TV for the playstation2 3. Who cares if we aren't getting the full value of pay from our work, rather about how we can earn more money to fund our consumerism or pay our debts. Here, this ideology falls down in a heap.



Edited by Leonidas - 28-Dec-2007 at 12:26

Originally posted by Choranzanus Originally posted by calvo <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;" lang="EN">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.</span> <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">IMHO, a lot of people on this page overestimate superficial characteristics of communism. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">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. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">2. There is huge potential for corruption, because people don't have personal interest in whatever they are doing. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">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. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">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.

I don't understand. You start by disagreeing with the statement from Calvo, and then you agree with it.

The reason why real communist countries had a bad economy was because they rigidly embraced the planned economy. You state it differently, but what you are saying is the same. So you agree with that statement.

Second, it is absurd to say that there wasn't a violent doctrine with communism. The USSR was active in many world communist armed revolts, providing money, weapons, and education. And, unlike planned economies, the violent overthrowing of non communist countries was, and is, a key component of Marxism.

Obviously, other countries will try to destroy you since you are set on destroying them. This violent revolution doctrine means that most of the output of the economy will have to be directed to the military.

You yourself say it: the same kind of corruption that existed in the Soviet Block exists today in modern corporations. Yet most corporations manage to survive for a long time despite corruption.

In fact, many corporations today thrive under the same corruption conditions that destroy the communist block. What was the difference then?

Economically, the managers of communism wasted their resources in spending too much on the military when they couldn't afford it.

Politically, it came down for its lack of political freedom.

Originally posted by hugoestr Originally posted by Choranzanus <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">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. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">2. There is huge potential for corruption, because people don't have personal interest in whatever they are doing. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">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. <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">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. I don't understand. You start by disagreeing with the statement from Calvo, and then you agree with it.

I do not see things so black and white as some people here, despite the fact that I find few redeeming qualities of communism.

You can say that communist countries were dictatorships and undemocratic regimes and just be done with it. In such countries criticism is dangerous and not seen as a necessity for change. So you have reduced feeedback and with it reduced economic output.

But it is absolutely nowhere near being this simple. There is also communist economy, which contributed significantly to its "success" as well as downfall. You cannot simply think about one or the other, because these things are connected in communism.

Originally posted by hugoestr The reason why real communist countries had a bad economy was because they rigidly embraced the planned economy. You state it differently, but what you are saying is the same. So you agree with that statement.

Yes. And I disagree that it would be because they were undemocratic or spend too much on military(or at least it wasn't significant contribution).

Originally posted by hugoestr Second, it is absurd to say that there wasn't a violent doctrine with communism. The USSR was active in many world communist armed revolts, providing money, weapons, and education. And, unlike planned economies, the violent overthrowing of non communist countries was, and is, a key component of Marxism. Obviously, other countries will try to destroy you since you are set on destroying them. This violent revolution doctrine means that most of the output of the economy will have to be directed to the military.

I believe that communist disagree with you on what are central tenets of their doctrine. Violence is means to an end, not end of means. There is nothing inherent in communism that would indicate greater investment in military.

If Soviet leaders invested in military force so much that it undermined their economy, it was a siple mismanagement on their part, nothing unusual in communism.

We could, like Reagan, say that communism doesn't work because it puts too much money into military and just be done with it. But that would be even greater fallacy than above.

Originally posted by hugoestr You yourself say it: the same kind of corruption that existed in the Soviet Block exists today in modern corporations. Yet most corporations manage to survive for a long time despite corruption. In fact, many corporations today thrive under the same corruption conditions that destroy the communist block. What was the difference then?

I have not claimed that corporations are like communism, I just used this as example of some ideas (why are communist leaders better off than bulk of populace). Of course corporations with mismanagement do not stay very long on the same market as corporations without said mismanagement, just like commmunism...

Originally posted by hugoestr Economically, the managers of communism wasted their resources in spending too much on the military when they couldn't afford it. Politically, it came down for its lack of political freedom.

That is not so certain. Its economic fallacies contributed to this significantly, much more than too much spending on military.