The Underlying Flaw of Communism - The answer to the failure

[Michael De Panama]

After the failures of the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and the rest of the so-called "communist" world, the capitalists rejoiced. It is these failures that they use as the strongest force against any sort of communist ideology. It is the failures of these nations that they now so smugly bloat, "Communism just doesn't work. Do you want evidence? Well, look at the Soviet Union!"

Someone on this site, I believe it was a capitalist, proposed that there must be some underlying flaw to communism for every attempted communist system to fail. Rather than going with my gut respounce to dismiss these nations as invalid representations of communism, I have found the answer.

The biggest flaw of communism is what makes it beautiful to begin with. It is in favor of the poor. However, a much bigger flaw exists not in the ideology of communism, but the fact that it was presented during the very birth of industrialization. The genius of Karl Marx and previous lesser known communist philosophers spawned a system that was far ahead of it's time.

The fact that it appeals to the poor is why economically unstable nations were so attracted to it. However, since it was the early stages of capitalism, every single one of these nations, EVERY SINGLE ONE, had not been industrialized during the time of their revolution. Every single one of these nations were communist systems working without a proletariat. Capitalism might be oppressive, but without it there is no way for socialism or communism to successfully operate.

And since none of these nations were industrialized, none of these nations significantly participated in the global economy. The basic principle of communism is that it is a system intended to replace the global economy, not these indivisual post-fuedalist pre-industrialized centralized economies. We all know that this is a major reason why these centralized communist countries didn't work, but why did all of them get like that? Because they had not yet entered the world of a global economy. Communist Russia was just a very advanced version of fuedalism. It could even be looked at as a sort of advanced version of previous capitalist structures. It was just as oppressive as any successfull sweatshop, only blown up to the size of a nation.

But all in all, the underlying flaw of communism is that it is ahead of it's time. Today it is 2002. The world is almost fully globalized. Tomorrow, very very soon, we will see the true demise of capitalism. We will see it in our lifetimes, I promise you. But I'll talk about that some other time.

[Lardlad95]

very true......

Anything that supports the poor be it Socialism, Communsim or anything else wont catch on because no one wants to help the poor

[Michael De Panama]

Either you misunderstood what I said, or I am misunderstanding what you are saying, Lardlad. Please clarrify. You don't think that anything that supports the poor could ever work? Are you a capitalist?

[Lardlad95]

oh no, I'm socialist.

I'm saying the reason they havent worked is because alot of rich capitalist ass holes have no desire to help the poor, they don't want to be equal with them. Its really messed up that people don't want to help their brothers

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:04 am on April 4, 2002
very true......

Anything that supports the poor be it Socialism, Communsim or anything else wont catch on because no one wants to help the poor


Socialist countries can catch on because they participate in the global economy to a certain extent. Communism is quite different, however.

[Lardlad95]

Yes, that is why I believe in Socialism, however people are so greedy these days......

[Blackberry]

I believe that communism should be implemented in all third-world, and not-so-well-off nations.

Socialism should be implemented in advanced and well-off nations.

Communism will help the poorer countries get rid of social problems, and get rid of poverty, so eventually, they can use socialism.

Socialism will help the wealthier countries because then they would be able to participate in the global economy. Poverty should also be rid of as well.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

I think communists systems failed or maybe dont work as it could because the fucking empire is always intervinig in its actions

[PunkRawker677]

actually marx DID say that a country needed to be industrialized before it could under-go a socialist change, but he later said, in the last years of his life that it could also be achieved in backwards countries.. you cant tell me COMMUNISM didnt work in the soviet union.. AUTHORITORIANISM didnt work in the soviet union.. i dont have my book with me ("Towards a Socialist America") but there are stats and im roughly guessing (these are near right) the US annual economic increase was like 6 percent while china was growing to 7 percent, and the soviet union was well over 10 percent (i believe it was 12)..

so - i do believe communism (to some extent, not pure communism) did help and work in the soviet union..

for example.. you can say capitalism sux in america, but that automatically doesnt mean that democracy sux too..

[Michael De Panama]

I can tell you communism didn't work in the Soviet Union. Watch me:

Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union.

Stalin was the only real authoritarian, although his successors didn't really do too good of a job. When communism fell, it didn't happen under Stalin's rule.

To those who are socialist and not communist:
Socialism is simply the transition system between capitalism and communism. It eventually becomes communism.

[Guest]

That's not entirely true. From the moment the Bolsheviki overthrew Kerensky and arrested the members of the provisional government, the communist party began using strong-arm tactics (i.e. "authoritarian") against the peasants and factory workers. The oh-so beloved Lenin took away all political power that he had promised the local soviets; the various soviets (local community councils) who were made up entirely of the poor massess, had been once again duped into believing that they were out of the woods. The Bolsheviki weren't for the people, they were for themselves. In creating a dictatorship they essentially took away all freedoms from the people. Not to mention, Lenin took away the freedom of speech, press, petition, etc. He sent armed goons to hundreds of towns to seize any or all "items useful to the revolution." If that isn't authoritarian, what is? Saying that Stalin was the only crazy totalitarian among the many Soviet leaders is completely false.

[Guest]

Hold on Michael, true Russia was not industralised when the Bolsheviks took power however by the end of Stalin's reign they were and in some respects surpassing the U.S. The 30 or so years after Stalin's death in a industralised USSR saw communism fail. Its economy grew weaker and by the 80s and early 90s practically exploded. Therefore your theory is wrong.
Also the reason why communism has caught on to industralised nations before is that these nations are relatively stable and can support their population. Changing political systems from successful capitalism to untested communism isn't popular amongst the masses. That is why poor countries have adopted communism and capitalist nations who experience relative wealth repudiate it. The fact that no industralised nation has adopted communism in history attests to that. However one can argue that Chile was partly industralised and had what you could call a proletarian base with its copper minds.

[Michael De Panama]

That's why it turned into another capitalistic authoritarian state! Because it had to industrialize under communism! The proletariat was born from industrialization, and communism is supposed to be born from the proletariat. The Soviet Union went in the complete opposite direction, which led them to turn into just a giant nation-sized example of what a corrupt capitalist workplace looks like.

"Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it."
- Fredrick Engels

That is what I am saying. But what I was arguing here were the reasons why communism was so appealing to all these pre-industrialized nations without a proletariat.

[CautheN]

every country almost already had extreme poverty and lack of workers before the transition, they already had too many problems to be fixed


thats why my eyes are on sweden, finland, and norway, those fuckers are growing into socialism but they dotn have the problems the others one did. They'll make it work like a well oiled machine

[Guest]

So do you think that if there was an opportunity for communism to be adopted by a country in Africa that was extremely poor, knowing by your theory that it will ultimatley fail, would you see it as an excellent opportunity and support it?

[Guest]

good points made....i just want to add that the communist nations that we commonly associate with were extremely distorted from Marx's ideals. His goals were to ultimately smash the state, not to trade power...which is what happened. The goal was to get rid of the state entirely.

[Maaja]

Estonia is a former *communist* country and now all the communist parties are illegal here. If someone says that he/she is a socialist then everything will be closed for him/her. It's awful!

[Guest]

fidel looks so stupid in the picture lol

[Guest]

I agree with the statement that the Soviet Union was an Authoritarian government. But that's nothing compared to China. The People's Senate doesn't function! The Secretariat and the Politburo have total control.
Oh, and don't diss Lenin and Marx. They were brilliant philosophers who based the Government on their interpritations of Marxism. THEY WERE NOT PWER-HUNGRY IMPERIALISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Soviet Union would have worked better if Marx lead it, though.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from CautheN on 3:46 am on April 8, 2002
every country almost already had extreme poverty and lack of workers before the transition, they already had too many problems to be fixed


thats why my eyes are on sweden, finland, and norway, those fuckers are growing into socialism but they dotn have the problems the others one did. They'll make it work like a well oiled machine


The peasants and the proletariat are not the same thing.

"There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions."
- Frederick Engels

I agree that steps towards socialism in these countries are working out successfully. This is because these countries were industrialized.

[antitrot]

So what you're saying is that Socialism failed due to lack of industrialization? Uhm... no, not entirely anyway...

It took bourgeois Europe over a century to industrialize, it took the Soviet people a mere decade. Now, albeit some of the Soviet methods drew off what was done in bougeois Europe but regardless, the overall method was Socialist. I'll agree that Socialism wasn't designed to industrialize from scratch, but with proper economic planning, it can be done.

Now as far as China goes, it was just a combination of factors. I don't entirely blame Mao for the disasterous economic planning. It's not easy to take a country directly from Feudalism to Socialism, it probably borders on impossible. Mao, however, did make his fair share of bad decisions.

Don't get the wrong idea, Mao's Critique of Soviet Economics was great. One thing I've learned in my experience with martial arts is that no matter how bad the guy bellow you is, he may still be able to see a fatal error in your movement. This is very true of economics. It's a shame Mao couldn't put it all together.

Cuba... hrmm, I'll have to get to that later...

(Edited by antitrot at 2:50 pm on April 13, 2002)

[IzmSchism]

ironically, the first thing Che tried to implemet in Cuba, when he was appointed Minister of the Economy, was the fact that he tried to industrialize Cuba. This failed for many reasons, but two of the largest factors, were a) the inability to trade with other major industrialized countries, namely due to the embargo set by the US, and B) everything that Russia sent over to Cuba, all the engineering was off, parts weren't compatible with the existing US machinery. I don't know what kind of affect this would have had on Cuba, but it does put to the table the fact that industrialization and technology is a big part in socialism.

[antitrot]

Yikes, from the way you describe it, sounds pretty hopeless. I'm brushing up on my Cuban economics before I reply. Trying to find something that will give me a little more insight into Che's economic methods...

[TheDerminator]

Been busy with other things, so have to give a long post reply on the highlights. Sorry about the length of this!

Michael De Panama

"After the failures of the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and the rest of the so-called "communist" world, the capitalists rejoiced. It is these failures that they use as the strongest force against any sort of communist ideology. It is the failures of these nations that they now so smugly bloat, "Communism just doesn't work. Do you want evidence? Well, look at the Soviet Union!"

Too simplistic, the failure of the socialist experiments are not the reason why the BORGS can be so dismissive of the socialist movement. The main reason is the segmentation of the international socialist movement within the industrialised nations. It is a paralysed movement and if it was a vibrant united movement campaigning for real socialism, it could have with some credibility showed that these were primitive experiments, without any real chance of success. They were doomed to failure, because 1. their form was primitive 2. the global conditions were not ripe, and 3. socialist theory was underdeveloped.

It has been the myth of the left-wing that all their woes are due to the bastardom of the Soviet Union etc. Nope.
They are the greater problem. The greater causation. They have paralysed the whole movement through their sectarianism.

Neutral Nation

"I believe that communism should be implemented in all third-world, and not-so-well-off nations.

Socialism should be implemented in advanced and well-off nations.

Communism will help the poorer countries get rid of social problems, and get rid of poverty, so eventually, they can use socialism."

I guess U are young, because this sounds a bit naive.

I'm afraid U have got it the wrong way around, communism is meant to be the advance upon socialism, and the latter has never occured in advanced nation, so to believe a poor nation can jump straight into communism is a bit unfathomable.

PunkRawker677

"i do believe communism (to some extent, not pure communism) did help and work in the soviet union..

U must be joking! It was never anywhere near communism, it hardly approached socialism! The help such at was, was short-lived and it worked very poorly.

Michael De Panama

Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union.

Communism never existed in the Soviet Union!

Guest 1

"The oh-so beloved Lenin took away all political power that he had promised the local soviets; the various soviets (local community councils) who were made up entirely of the poor massess, had been once again duped into believing that they were out of the woods. The Bolsheviki weren't for the people, they were for themselves. In creating a dictatorship they essentially took away all freedoms from the people."

Extremely simplistic BORG version of the Russian Revolution.

Russia was in chaos. It was involved in WWI until the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, and then there was the White Army sponsored by and to a large extent created by the West. There was counter-revolution within Russia, and ultimately the Bolsheviks put the revolution, before democracy. They saw themselves as working in the interests of the working class, and that only they could guarantee the survival of the revolution.

The survival of the revolution was everything, and everything was sub-ordinated to that task. Lenin made errors, but once the revolution had been established there was no real alternative to Bolshevik leadership of the revolution. Lenin grasped this essential historical truth and for Lenin all ruthlessness was subservient to the guaranteeing the continuation of the revolution, not for the Bolsheviks per se, but for the whole long-term interests of the Russian working class. Stalin did not have the same agenda. His was ruthlessness for the sake of power, and any cost. Everyone was expendable to ensure the authoritarian rule of Stalin.

Stalin was no Lenin, and Lenin was no Stalin, you are merely perpetuating a BORG lie.

Guest 2

"true Russia was not industralised when the Bolsheviks took power however by the end of Stalin's reign they were and in some respects surpassing the U.S."

There's a leap of thought! Spot the achievements of even primitive socialism!

"Changing political systems from successful capitalism to untested communism isn't popular amongst the masses. That is why poor countries have adopted communism and capitalist nations who experience relative wealth repudiate it."

More BORG lies.

Communism isn't popular because of the failures of primitive socialism are portrayed as failures of Communism, by the BORG media, and because the socialist movement in the industrialised nations is utterly paralysed.

Poor countries have never experienced the highest stage of socialism! Industrialised countries repudiate what? Primitive socialism? Sectarian socialism? So fucking what? I repudiate it too! So should all socialists.
We cannot be sentimental about these primitive states. They are not socialist societies, and that goes for Cuba too. Primitive socialism is not socialism. The form of socialism is ultimately determined by conditions rather than by the control of the people over the conditions.

Primitive socialism could never possess control over global conditions and this is the difference. If there is ever to be a socialist movement worthy of the name, eventually its international momentum has the capacity to change circumstances on a global rather than a national level. Ultimately the movement lays the ground for global transformation. Compare this with primitive socialism, even Leninism. It is not the same. We don't need to defend the indefensible.

CautheN

"thats why my eyes are on sweden, finland, and norway, those fuckers are growing into socialism but they dotn have the problems the others one did. They'll make it work like a well oiled machine"

Wishful thinking. It is just another form of reformism. No plans to throw out the power of international capital. Believe Scandanavian "socialism" when U see it. Not coming soon. Don't watch this space!

antitrot

"It's a shame Mao couldn't put it all together."

I'll crack the jokes! Mao wasn't far off a Stalin! Haven't U heard of the "Cultural Revolution". Beam down to the real world! Trying to make a silk purse out of pigs ear!


IzmSchism

"industrialization and technology is a big part in socialism."

Yes and no. Socialism has to be international and can only work if the most advanced nations are affected by the momentum of an internationalist socialist movement, so it that sense U are correct, but there is more to it than that.

Socialism is not just an economic system, it is society built on the ethos of common responsibility and it is not entirely infeasible for a poorer country to organise itself around that ethos.

I wouldn't say that Cuba has this the ethical question worked out 100% to say the least, but I still believe we should give critical support to the Cuban revolution, and realise that the alternative elsewhere in the same region is a poor alternative for the Cuban people.

However, we shouldn't be surprised if primitive socialism in Cuba collapses upon the death of Fidel. The pressures will only grow on Cuba to become part of the "Free Market", and the international socialist movement is no position to help Cuba.

Therein lies the tragedy of sectarianism for the Cuban people. If the revolution falls, don't just blame Castro, or the US, blame the sectarian left too. Blame them big style! They are an insult to the internationalism of Marx and Engels. They are a dreadful caricature of a socialist movement and more than just partially responsible for their own marginalisation and for the ossification of socialism. It is going to be too simplistic to blame the embargo, and to blame the inadequacies of Soviet Aid.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[antitrot]

I'll crack the jokes! Mao wasn't far off a Stalin! Haven't U heard of the "Cultural Revolution". Beam down to the real world! Trying to make a silk purse out of pigs ear!

...Que? Make some sense, man.

[TheDerminator]

antitrot,

As far as I can see, U're the one not making sense.

It is surreal to divorce the economic from the social reality of Mao's China, but even if U just take the economic what part of the economic plan did U like? Just the army sytle regimentation of organisation? Not my idea of socialist organisation. Was it so far different from the bureaucratic centralism of Stalin?

Are U idealising the achievements of the revolution?

I never noticed the democratic peoples republic of China. Must have been studying a different version of history. Don't tell me U swallowed that one!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[IzmSchism]

I am aware of the greater good of communism, the common linkage of responsibility, and all that, I was explaining the justification and failings of the begining steps of the Cuban revolution in its infancy, and their strive and difficulty of getting it off the ground

As for Cuba's future, I am curious what do you think will become of it after the passing of Fidel, is Raul still next in line, will they hold a vote?? I regretably agree with you Derminator from the fact that when Fidel goes alot will change in Cuba, and there will be extreme pressure for it to change.

[TheDerminator]

It's only specuation on my part, but I kinda have the feeling that it will go the same way as Nicuragua, though whether or not some anti-socialist organisation will win the vote the first time around is perhaps not a complete forgone conclusion.

Undoubtedly, the pressure will be on for "free" elections, and then the foreign assistance to the "enlightened oppostion" would flood in. Still, it is just my personal speculation. After the Soviet experience, I tend to be pessismistic. Gramsci came up with the "pessimism of the mind" as opposed the "optimism of the will". I see no need to change that dictum. Hope, I am wrong.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[antitrot]

It is surreal to divorce the economic from the social reality of Mao's China, but even if U just take the economic what part of the economic plan did U like? Just the army sytle regimentation of organisation? Not my idea of socialist organisation. Was it so far different from the bureaucratic centralism of Stalin?

I wasn't splitting the economic from the social. Is english your first language? Which economic plan are you referring to? Army style of organization? :confused:

It sounds more like you're trying to spit as many unfounded claims as possible in one paragraph and form it into an argument. I'll just roll my eyes and move on if this is the case.

By the way, I don't think there was much "bureaucratic centralism" in the USSR. The working class did ultimately control the country. Though most of the working class power in 1930's Russia came from the factory and the trade unions... not the ballot. So mixing bureaucracy and Stalin is like mixing apples and oranges for me.

Hmm, different version of history, huh? Well, it took me a long time to figure out history isn't always what it says in a third grade history textbook. It's a shame so many others are still lagging behind such a realization.

...and by the way, could you stop saying "U" and just spell it out? That really gets to me.

[Guest]

A PROBLEM IS SOMEONES NARCISSISM THATS WHAT I SEE THAT IS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO GET BY

[TheDerminator]

antitrot,

If U see worker's control under Stalin through the unions and the Soviets, U are extremely naive. Stalin was prime mover. [God]

Mao became the prime mover too! Can't help U with Ur history lessons. Ur idealising prime movers.

Ur eating rotten apples.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[antitrot]

Wow, I can't argue with that. "U" did such a superb job of refuting me I'm... I'm... speechless! :o

You are far to conclusive and rational for me!

Resistance IS futile!

*begins crying* :(

[red senator]

The underlying flaw of communism in one country is that that country is at the mercy of the countries they must trade with to survive. Cuba went to shit because they could not trade with the U.S., since the U.S. began trade embargoes in an attempt to starve the cuban people into a counter-revolution. In effect, cuba was basically handed to russia because they needed help so badly that they didnt care where it came from.

If Cuba had been able to trade with U.S. and fix their economic problems, cuba might be a real socialist country today, like finland and the netherlands are becoming.

[red senator]

Also, companies in socialist countries will want to move their operation to a capitalist country so that they can avoid paying taxes and get a bigger profit. I don't remember the name, but there was some succesful internet company that moved from france to the U.K. because they would end up paying less than 1/4 of the taxes they had been paying in france.

[Michael De Panama]

What the fuck is happening on this thread now?

The USSR DID collapse because of it's bureaucracy. They failed to establish a true equality among the nation. There can be no equality with democracy. And there can be no successfull communism without equality. However, what I'm saying is that the reason why the authoritarian establishments came into power in every single attempt at communism is that every single revolution was on pre-industrialized soil.

It IS impossible to have a proletarian revolution without a proletariat. Mao never really studied Marx as much as he studied the Soviet Union. His theory of communism was based on the practice of communism in the Soviet Union. The practice of communism in the Soviet Union was one that, in many cases, compromised way too much with capitalism in order to compensate for the lack of industrialization before the revolt.

It would have been impossible for the bourgeoisie to revolt against fuedalism if there was never a bourgeoisie. In other words, there could never had been a bourgeois rebellion during the ancient anarchistic periods, regardless of whether or not there was a ruling class, because there was never a bourgeoisie. And if, for some reason, the ruling class decided to act like the bourgeoisie and go through with this make-believe industrial revolution, the outcome would not be the same as a real revolution.

This is Mao's flaw. What is the purpose of killing something that hasn't been born yet? China had no proletarian oppression with which to base the revolution on. Capitalism had not yet had any effect on China, so certainly there was never any negative effects. Speaking as a Marxist, what China needed was capitalism and industrialization. No matter how hard it is to swallow, there is some good that can come from capitalism. One of those "That which does not kill me will only make me stronger" type things. Though Capitalism in it's present form is the root of the oppression of so many billions of people on this planet, it is this oppression that inspires the desire for equality. Since capitalism never touched China, neither did equality.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 12:36 am on April 24, 2002)

[Dan Majerle]

I'm pretty sure Mao knew something about communism. Don't badmouth him! :)

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Dan Majerle on 8:35 am on April 24, 2002
I'm pretty sure Mao knew something about communism. Don't badmouth him! :)

If you are trying to put together a professional football team and you use elementary school children, the team will exist but it will not succeed. If you are trying to put together a communist society without a proletariat, and instead simply using peasants, the society will also exist but it will also fail.

Mao knew about HIS form of communism, which is a complete distortion of true communism. Mao was a nationalist who believed that a communist revolution led by peasants, and not the proletariat, would succeed. The foundation of communism lies in the proletariat. The communist state of mind is the same as the proletarian state of mind. Peasants, on the other hand, have a bourgeois mentallity, but lack bougeois power. His theory was based on the Soviet example, not on any original communist doctrines written by Marx and others.

Whenever a socialist or communist revolution takes place without a well developed proletariat, capitalism developes alongside the command economy. In a way, capitalism IS a command economy, commanded by the bourgeoisie. In the case of China, this is a command economy commanded by the totalitarian government. But essentially, this is the same situation with a different name.

[Michael De Panama]

No comments?

[colonel cynicism]

I just wanted to point out something that seems to be neglected. I believe Michael touched on this before.

Socialism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism. The problem with a communist nation, is in a communist society, the reliance is on the direct national community of workers. For communist countries to work it would require a large majority of communist nations. The ideal communism is a world community, which can only be achieved when first everyone becomes socialist.

To the post that said communism should be placed in all 3rd-world countries I have no idea what you mean. That would only work to further place them into economic turmoil. Instead, a strong socialist economy to begin with could essentially bring them out of their problems.

However, socialism can exsist prior to industrialization, take a look at Participatory Economics, the book was a ***** to read, but a good read nonetheless. It is important to note that a new business can be started under socialism so long as the rules stay in tact. However, it is easier from a class of industrial workers.

Finally, to what someone said about democracy. Democracy as we see it is failed, most countries use the parlimentary procedure to government making them in fact, republics or coalitions. Democracy itself, when a Direct Democracy, relies on the education of the people, something which can come from socialism. Like Marx said government and economy are like an organism that can evolve. Sometimes you need certain environments for that evolution to take place.

[Dan Majerle]

Michael though your thread is interesting it is titled wrong. "The underlying flaw of communism" means that in some way the actual theory has mistakes. Your examples of communism popping up in third world countries is the actual practice and its implementation in unfavourable environments that as Marx suggested meant it would not succeed.

[Michael De Panama]

The title is is respounce to another thread with "surely there must be an inherent flaw in communism theory?" as it's title.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=22&topic=177 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=177)

It was a thread that basically inferred that there MUST be some underlying flaw to the system for it to have failed in every country. This thread is responding to that. The only flaw to the communist theory is that it was too ahead of it's time when it was initially proposed.