Why is Communism a failure?

[Sargun]

The moon landing was a hoax. I'm going to call on my defense attorney @Dabawss to provide memes that prove my point.

lmao

 

[Deus]

You know as a person born in the CCCP I support this message though the poll needs the right answer as well, which is that Communism fails to take basic human nature into account. Something that goes against basic human nature is a failure at conception.

 

[Rin]

You know as a person born in the CCCP I support this message though the poll needs the right answer as well, which is that Communism fails to take basic human nature into account. Something that goes against basic human nature is a failure at conception.

Do tell us the details. It would be nice to know the experience of someone who was actually there.

 

[Ernsters]

because capitalism lets people make dollas by building these:

 

[Deus]

Do tell us the details. It would be nice to know the experience of someone who was actually there.

Well I was 9 years old when SU collapsed, but what I remember is that everything was scarce - shops were empty, because of planned economy and theft all along the production chain. People didn't actually use the term buy, but rather procure. People were poor and repressed.

Communism ca work in a very small community where all the members agree with it and feel responsible, but in a big system where the state owns everything and the workers "own" the state, you end up owning nothing. If that's the case then who cares?

Also dictatorship of the proletariat can't end up well.

But then again I had a nice childhood. Lot's of being outside, building of tree houses, swimming in the sea, no to little parental supervision (because it was a lot safer). For a kid it was super, but for an adult (with opinions) not so much.

 

[hadesflames]

Well I was 9 years old when SU collapsed, but what I remember is that everything was scarce - shops were empty, because of planned economy and theft all along the production chain. People didn't actually use the term buy, but rather procure. People were poor and repressed.

Communism ca work in a very small community where all the members agree with it and feel responsible, but in a big system where the state owns everything and the workers "own" the state, you end up owning nothing. If that's the case then who cares?

Also dictatorship of the proletariat can't end up well.

But then again I had a nice childhood. Lot's of being outside, building of tree houses, swimming in the sea, no to little parental supervision (because it was a lot safer). For a kid it was super, but for an adult (with opinions) not so much.

Okay, so here's the thing. One, you seem to be implying that dictatorship and communism go hand in hand. They don't, it just so happens to be the case that every failed communist state has also been a failed dictatorship. Two, the communism that has been tried in these *extremely* repressive states has been a certain brand of communism that pretty much misses the point. The point of communism is "more for the people" so to speak, whereas what those states have been like seems a lot more like "more for the state." A dictatorship using communism as a means to attain power is not true communism. Where communism promotes fairness, equality, power to the people rather than the state etc, the USSR, China (not modern day) and all these other communist countries promoted the state over all else.

Someone else above raised a fair point that communism goes against human nature, and that's a fair assessment. Humans like to compete and be rewarded for their efforts. In a world where you get the same no matter what you do, that goes against that. It stifles competition and everything else I'm sure I don't need to argue. However, I would disagree that this means the idea itself is a failure as a result.

Our species is clearly trending towards mass automation of all jobs, skilled or not. In a world where you have mass abundance as a result of the means of production being achieved through complete automation, workers who don't require motivation, competitiveness or even a wage for that matter, this point falls flat. In this case society has enough goods and resources where money no longer even becomes necessary, and everyone is living in abundance and luxury so it becomes a non-issue. In fact, in that scenario, the true enemy to worry about is capitalism, which if you went too far into, would start to see the owners of those means of production reaping all of the benefits while the rest are forced to live off whatever charity the mega-elite are willing to give out. The exact same problem with Soviet Communism except now the table is turned. The mega-elite aren't very charitable and should not be trusted.

So is communism a failure? Absolutely not. It's just *very* ahead of its time. But fairly soon, not only will it be a good idea, it'll be a necessary one. You can already see the cracks of capitalism forming. In the US, wealth inequality is RIDICULOUS. The mega-elite own so much wealth that the could easily buy and sell the bottom half of the country. The poor are starting to hurt almost if not as bad as a soviet-era family might have been hurting. The middle class is starting to become indistinguishable from the poor. Capitalism's greed caused the worst collapse of the US economy since the great depression, that was only avoided due to the sacrifice of the tax payers, which is atrocious because the poor and middle classes ended up having to pay for the short comings of the rich, while the rich got bailed out and kept getting richer. Capitalism is clearly in the beginning stages of failure in the US, and all this red-scare garbage propaganda is doing more harm than good because whenever someone tries to do something even remotely good, like take care of people's basic needs (HEALTHCARE) they're labeled filthy commies and ostracized by the entire right and most of the center. It's ridiculous.

 

[Deus]

Okay, so here's the thing. One, you seem to be implying that dictatorship and communism go hand in hand. They don't, it just so happens to be the case that every failed communist state has also been a failed dictatorship. Two, the communism that has been tried in these *extremely* repressive states has been a certain brand of communism that pretty much misses the point. The point of communism is "more for the people" so to speak, whereas what those states have been like seems a lot more like "more for the state." A dictatorship using communism as a means to attain power is not true communism. Where communism promotes fairness, equality, power to the people rather than the state etc, the USSR, China (not modern day) and all these other communist countries promoted the state over all else.

Someone else above raised a fair point that communism goes against human nature, and that's a fair assessment. Humans like to compete and be rewarded for their efforts. In a world where you get the same no matter what you do, that goes against that. It stifles competition and everything else I'm sure I don't need to argue. However, I would disagree that this means the idea itself is a failure as a result.

Our species is clearly trending towards mass automation of all jobs, skilled or not. In a world where you have mass abundance as a result of the means of production being achieved through complete automation, workers who don't require motivation, competitiveness or even a wage for that matter, this point falls flat. In this case society has enough goods and resources where money no longer even becomes necessary, and everyone is living in abundance and luxury so it becomes a non-issue. In fact, in that scenario, the true enemy to worry about is capitalism, which if you went too far into, would start to see the owners of those means of production reaping all of the benefits while the rest are forced to live off whatever charity the mega-elite are willing to give out. The exact same problem with Soviet Communism except now the table is turned. The mega-elite aren't very charitable and should not be trusted.

So is communism a failure? Absolutely not. It's just *very* ahead of its time. But fairly soon, not only will it be a good idea, it'll be a necessary one. You can already see the cracks of capitalism forming. In the US, wealth inequality is RIDICULOUS. The mega-elite own so much wealth that the could easily buy and sell the bottom half of the country. The poor are starting to hurt almost if not as bad as a soviet-era family might have been hurting. The middle class is starting to become indistinguishable from the poor. Capitalism's greed caused the worst collapse of the US economy since the great depression, that was only avoided due to the sacrifice of the tax payers, which is atrocious because the poor and middle classes ended up having to pay for the short comings of the rich, while the rich got bailed out and kept getting richer. Capitalism is clearly in the beginning stages of failure in the US, and all this red-scare garbage propaganda is doing more harm than good because whenever someone tries to do something even remotely good, like take care of people's basic needs (HEALTHCARE) they're labeled filthy commies and ostracized by the entire right and most of the center. It's ridiculous.

I said it goes against human nature. Plus I stand by my statement that Communism wouldn't work in a democracy, because there will always be enough people opposing it, plus in a communist system there is no private property, so the state is responsible of the means of production. There is too much uncertainty in a state planned economy for it to work.

What you are talking about is socialism or social equality.