Why Communism Has failed

[Red Menace]

We have seen throughout history examples of countries trying to make Communism work, and it has ended in disaster. We see countries now that call themselves Communists but indeed are tyranical fascist dictators. What exactly has gone wrong? What can we do to ensure a future of communism?

Everyday, I am subjected to capitalist/bourgeoise doctrine. It kills my spirits. It kills me inside. I have no one to hearten or brighten my spirits. I want to believe Communism will work. I know it will work under the right conditions. I guess the question is, will those conditions ever come.

Anoter fear of mine, is if Communism does come, will we be taking a chance? We don't know if our country will just become another example. Another dictatorship that we will now be subjected to live under. That is the chance that I am afraid to take.

Please Comrades, assure me that my fears are faulty and illogical.

[LoneRed]

Your fears are the product of bourgeois propaganda pounded into your head from day one. yes we see what those societies ended up like, but luckily we have a method of analysis, historical materialism, to help guide us through the murky water, as to help us show why those societies weren't communist. I see communism ( or more properly) socialism, as the next step in the societal evolution. I am surrounded, as well as most people on here, by relentless attempts at discrediting our theory. It is good that history is on our side, and that we are resilent, and strong in our beliefs. If communism didnt have a chance of working, why does there exist so many self-proclaimed communists and socialists, and a renewed activism concerning those theories?

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 07:23 pm
Your fears are the product of bourgeois propaganda pounded into your head from day one. yes we see what those societies ended up like, but luckily we have a method of analysis, historical materialism, to help guide us through the murky water, as to help us show why those societies weren't communist. I see communism ( or more properly) socialism, as the next step in the societal evolution. I am surrounded, as well as most people on here, by relentless attempts at discrediting our theory. It is good that history is on our side, and that we are resilent, and strong in our beliefs. If communism didnt have a chance of working, why does there exist so many self-proclaimed communists and socialists, and a renewed activism concerning those theories?
Thank you comrade. I wish I was stronger. I try not to believe their propaganda, I often just brush it off, but it still lingers in the back of my head. I have no one who believes what I believe to confine in, This makes it makes it difficult.

You do make excelent points. I mean why would people continue to clash and protest our cause, if it is so exhausted and impractical and if it continues to have so many followers. In the end, I guess they must be frightnend, as well as they should be :D

[cenv]

We have seen throughout history examples of countries trying to make Communism work, and it has ended in disaster.
You have to ask yourself whether they were really trying to make communism work. As you said, most "communist" movements ended up in dictatorships of sorts. D'you really think that by turning the USSR into a bureaucratic police state, Stalin was "trying to make communism work"? Or d'you think that by worrying so much about military while ignoring the fundamental needs of the people, North Korea is "trying to make communism work"?

It may be that some of the so-called "communist states" did start off as genuine communist movements, but they were quickly hijacked by people that didn't have the workers' interests as their primary concern. So what allowed those movements to degenerate into state-capitalism and even totalitarianism?

In my opinion, it's simply because the workers didn't have enough power in those movements. Communist movements need to be started by the workers and exclusiviely for the workers. They need to be radically democratic to ensure that the movements stay in the hands of the people. They need to be run by the workers, for the workers.


Anoter fear of mine, is if Communism does come, will we be taking a chance? We don't know if our country will just become another example. Another dictatorship that we will now be subjected to live under. That is the chance that I am afraid to take.
If our movement is run by the working people and does not have a power structure that allows "leaders" to separate themselves from the masses, there's no need to worry. If we have majority support, there's no need to worry. We should only worry if a "leader" comes along and, well, leads the masses. As long as the movement is controlled completely by the workers, we needn't be concerned, but if someone tries to take too much power, it's necessary to take strict measures immediately. Should we do that, we're fine.

You probably mean "if socialism does come..." not "if communism does come...". There has never been a communist, because a communist society by definition does not have a state. Every "communist" country has simply tried, or claimed, to establish socialism. Think of socialism as a society somewhere in between capitalism and communism, a bridge if you will. In socialism, there's still a state, but it is under the democratic control of the working people. Now while the way to ensure that socialism doesn't turn into a dictatorship over the masses is to maintain an extremely democratic society, there's no chance that communism would become the aforementioned dictatorship.

The reason for this is that communism does not have a state. You can't have an authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorship if you don't even have a state. Communism implies that (1) the workers have overthrown capitalism, (2) they have established a functional socialist society, and (3) that socialist society has become a communist society. That means that the workers have learned to organize themselves and to fight against capitalism. Establishing a dictatorship following a communist society implies that the dictator would have to lead a forceful revolution to re-establish the state. Since, as I've already mentioned, a communist society implies that the workers of the world have indeed united, it would be an extremely difficult task to impose a dictatorship and revolution on such an advanced society.


Please Comrades, assure me that my fears are faulty and illogical.
Your fears are not faulty and illogical when speaking about past communist movements. However, I hope I've showed you how the forms of communism we promote differ and eliminate that possibility. I think you would find it very beneficial to read more about communism. Try checking out some of the pinned topics on this board. Good luck, comrade, and post any questions you have.

PS. The key is that you have to realize that what you hear about communism via our current society is mostly incorrect and/or extremely biased. Naturally, the bourgeoise do everything they can to keep the workers ignorant and submissive. As a communist, you have to stand strong and not give in to the pressure they put on you. Trust me, it can be difficult having to deal with people that are uneducated concerning communism, but if you take the time to learn as much as possible and spread the knowledge, you'll be very satisfied.

PPS. I didn't mean to make such a long post. Sorry, lol.

[Entrails Konfetti]

From what I gather anyways, most people just aren't interested in anything political unless its something like getting the county to fill in pot-holes, or get the school board to build a school theatre. Okay, so maybe people are interested in politics to a degree as in the war in Iraq-- though they don't believe voting will make much a difference, both parties are pratically the same, and theres the electoral college. The point I'm getting at is that most people just see politics as pointless, and politicians as distant. So they just don't bother with anything political, they don't look past todays society-- they don't want to look into the future, maybe it scares them or maybe they think nothing will change. So all they are concerned about is the here and now.

We are trying to look into the future, we are researching on our own about Socialism and Communism, and it's funny we have all found out there is so much more to it-- the history surrounding it isn't so black and white like history is taught in schools. In schools the history teacher really can't go to far into detail since they have teach in a required way-- they stray too far they get fired, and so students get knowledge painted in black and white isntead of multi-colours. So we get people telling us "oh it will all be like animal farm". Funnything is that you can look at that book in a Left-Communist perspective, Left-Commies always said that if workers don't take power and an elite party remains the USSR will collapse, on another note no one can even say Orwell was even trying to prove a point for the capitalists. Some people claim he was a socialist.

People are products of their society, society is governed by the economic superstructure. You know, it's funny if you'll look at old Sci/Fi B-movies with Mutant Bugs you can see social commentary, but when people of that time saw those movies they didn't see it's message.

[LoneRed]

Defy, we will always have those thoughts in our heads, but i dont see them completely going away, they are just pushed backed so far they are rendered useless

[R_P_A_S]

i told this idiot at work the other day.. "just how you believe that when you die there will be a heaven. I believe that the people can make their own "heaven on earth", so fuck off!

[blueeyedboy]

Defy. I have had exactly the same fears as you plaguing me ever since I came to be a leftist. I've had arguments at college with people who think they know what communism is, but they don't. They say communism isn't right because it just doesn't work, but the fact is it has been defeated and it hasn't actually failed. When I say defeated, I mean not defeated by capitalists, but by people wanting to lead, as in the USSR. Once this has happened, then it isn't communist, just state capitalism or a degenerated workers states for you Trotskyists out there.

As for your fears, if people tell you you're wrong, then ask them to prove it. Near enough ten times out of ten they won't be able to prove that it's wrong. Also, don't listen to the media and stupid propaganda that we are subjected to 24/7. It's structured in such a way that it makes us believe that it's right and there's no other way when there is.

[MrDoom]

History is on our side. We will crush them! *slams shoe on desk*

[Red Menace]

I thank you comrades for you support
I am now strong enough to continue throughout my day. :D

[jack_ryan]

First of all, I wouldn't be so fast to buy into the assumption that all socialist states have been tyrannical hell-holes in which democracy was/is completely non-existent. I think this is entirely untrue. I'd say that the people of the USSR had more rights than Americans do. Maybe they were different rights, but I would still argue they were more. And I definitely think that the Cubans today have far greater participation in their government than Americans do.

But I'm straying from the point that I really want to make.

People are often quick to say, "The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc collapsed. China, Vietnam, North Korea and even Cuba are experimenting with capitalism. This is PROOF that socialism doesn't work." But I remember back to my junior high history classes where we were taught that ancient Athens and Rome were the inspiration for modern democracy and the republic.

We were also taught that the Athenian democracy and the Roman republic collapsed. There was this little period of time that we like to call "the dark ages". Yet I have never heard anyone say that their collapse proves that the republic is a bad system and will never work. In fact, I think that most people in the world today would agree that, in one form or another, the republic is the best governmental organization there is, at least that anyone has come up with so far.

Another example is learning to ride a bicycle. I remember many moons ago when I was just a little buddy, and my father bought me my first bicycle. Of course, the first thing I did was go crash it in the ditch and hurt myself. Do you suppose he took the bike away and said, "Well, you've failed! It's obvious that you'll never be able to ride a bicycle!" Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

It's the same thing with society. If you want to make progress, you've gotta take some bumps and bruises and experience some setbacks. There is a very determined class enemy working against us, and they have a very good reason to be afraid of us, because we want to wipe them out. You can't expect them to go without a fight. But don't give up!

[LoneRed]

the argument about "rights" in those countries is moot. It doesnt really matter to this argument as, neither were socialist societies, and that is what we are trying to overcome, the mistaken belief that they were

[Crest]

Well, the essential problem with most previous communist country in history (which pretty much all turned into despotic totalitarian fascist states) is that they were created under a faulty (that isn't even a true Marxian ideology, but in fact a self-cult) system, Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism or a derivation thereof.

[Q]

Well, the essential problem with most previous communist country in history (which pretty much all turned into despotic totalitarian fascist states) is that they were created under a faulty (that isn't even a true Marxian ideology, but in fact a self-cult) system, Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism or a derivation thereof.
Nice digging...

Anyway, you just state something, please elaborate your statement.
To help you a bit in formulating an answer, I'll ask some specific questions:
1. How were the Stalinist countries fascist? What is your definition of fascism? How does this compare with the regimes of, for example, Mussolini or Hitler?
2. How is the "system" responsible for the creation of these totalitarian dictatorships, in your opinion?
3. If the system was faulty from the beginning, how was it at all possible then that the majority of the population supported it in the Russian Revolution?
4. You talk about communist countries, what is "communism" then in your opinion?
5. What is, in your opinion, a "true" Marxist ideology?

I'll leave it at that for now.

[BIG BROTHER]

Nice digging...

Anyway, you just state something, please elaborate your statement.
To help you a bit in formulating an answer, I'll ask some specific questions:
1. How were the Stalinist countries fascist? What is your definition of fascism? How does this compare with the regimes of, for example, Mussolini or Hitler?
2. How is the "system" responsible for the creation of these totalitarian dictatorships, in your opinion?
3. If the system was faulty from the beginning, how was it at all possible then that the majority of the population supported it in the Russian Revolution?
4. You talk about communist countries, what is "communism" then in your opinion?
5. What is, in your opinion, a "true" Marxist ideology?

I'll leave it at that for now.

I ain't that guy but I'll just answer that certain people consider Stalin's rule as a facist one because of the cult like personality, belive or not there was also quite a lot of nationalism, the economy was military, and trotskys were the scape goat to the USSR problem's.

That's not necesarily my opinion, but that's why some people consider stalin a facist.

[bobroberts]

Any country that attempts communism, socialism, or in some instances even just implementing minor democratic socialist reforms, will find themselves under constant threat of war, assassination, coup-de-tat's, terrorism and other forms subterfuge from capitalist and other counter-revolutionary forces. This has meant that only those countries with extremely tight internal security have survived very long, and in these cases it is easy for a group of politicians to seize power intended for self defense and use those powers against their political opponents to consolidate their rule. This doesn't just happen in supposedly communist countries, but in any country where the populace perceives some internal or external threat, real or imaginary.

So you end up with what we have seen, the revolutions that have tended toward anti-authoritarianism are crushed, and it has nothing to do with flaws in their economic theory. Those that survived long enough to count as what is commonly referred to as communism end up adopting an authoritarian government for self defense purposes, and run the risk of having their leaders become corrupt and consolidating their rule at the expense of the people.

There has to be a way to maintain security from counter-revolutionary threats, without devolving into authoritarianism and corruption.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Please Comrades, assure me that my fears are faulty and illogical.Only you can conquer personal fears.


We have seen throughout history examples of countries trying to make Communism work, and it has ended in disaster. We see countries now that call themselves Communists but indeed are tyranical fascist dictators. What exactly has gone wrong? What can we do to ensure a future of communism?Most Leftists subscribe to Marxist historical analysis. If we accept historical materialism as true, attempts at communism previously failed because they were implemented in regions of the world barely (if at all) born into capitalism. Likewise, these states were constantly afraid of external interference by the developed capitalist nations. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, and the more dubious examples like Cambodia and North Korea all knew Western interference.

I would also question the validity of the words "dictator" and "fascist." As far as I'm aware most self-proclaimed socialist states were oligarchies and did not subscribe to outright corporatism on the same level as Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.


I guess the question is, will those conditions ever come. The French liberals once asked the very same question.


There has to be a way to maintain security from counter-revolutionary threats, without devolving into authoritarianism and corruption.

Which is arguably why the "revolution" must first occur in developed regions of the world, to counter any threat from external forces while maintaining a democratic institution.

[davidbrooke]

From what I gather anyways, most people just aren't interested in anything political unless its something like getting the county to fill in pot-holes, or get the school board to build a school theatre. Okay, so maybe people are interested in politics to a degree as in the war in Iraq-- though they don't believe voting will make much a difference, both parties are pratically the same, and theres the electoral college. The point I'm getting at is that most people just see politics as pointless, and politicians as distant. So they just don't bother with anything political, they don't look past todays society-- they don't want to look into the future, maybe it scares them or maybe they think nothing will change. So all they are concerned about is the here and now.


This is a terrible attitude from a communist, socialist or whatever label you want. Yes, apathy is strong amongst the working class, so to is it here in Britain, so we get similiar concerns. But these concerns are important to further class consciousness, if someone is telling you that the pot-holes in the road need to be, you patiently explain to them why the councillors (or American equivalent) won't give it to them. You should inform them that the interests lie within the ruling class.

Politics is pointless to a large degree. Especially capitalist one's, so that's why people aren't interested. These are sociological issues, that we must address to further class consciousness. We're not going to get anywhere reading out Marx's Das Kapital, or historical records, the proletariat is self-interested just like any other class. This is why Marx defined it as the revolutionary class, because we are in the majority and most exploited.

Anyway to the OP, just continue reading and learning. Once you gain a better understanding you'd be able to respond to the propaganda with a solid ideaological understanding. And when exlpaining to people, explain how it'd be a benefit to them.

On the question of historical propaganda, patiently explain that the workers didn't have control over the means of production, nor do they have it today in North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela. They also lacked democratic measures, a fundamental aspect to a socialist society.

[Dr Mindbender]

i become more disheartened when i listen to family, friends and colleagues than when i listen to the media. This is because i know they're a microcosm of the ordinary joe who the revolution is dependent on, while the media is simply an extension of the beourgioise machine.


The best thing you can do is try to convince those around you than getting depressing watching Fox news or whoever the propaganda merchants are in your country.

[Digitalism]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=usaeUUAAnLM