Why Communism failed. - New systems take time to be perfecte

[komsomol]

People seem to thing that Communism can never work because of the past (and present) failures of Communism to reach its goal. They seem to call upon the evidence of China, Stalins Russia and even Pol Pots Cambodia. They were really all experiments. Sure a lot of people died from hunger and such but you seem to forget that Capitalism has existed for centuries, it wasn't long ago that people were starving under the fuedalist Capitalism, capitalism took time to develop, just a Socialism needs to develop.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from MOLOCH on 6:30 pm on July 19, 2002
People seem to thing that Communism can never work because of the past (and present) failures of Communism to reach its goal. They seem to call upon the evidence of China, Stalins Russia and even Pol Pots Cambodia. They were really all experiments. Sure a lot of people died from hunger and such but you seem to forget that Capitalism has existed for centuries, it wasn't long ago that people were starving under the fuedalist Capitalism, capitalism took time to develop, just a Socialism needs to develop.

I think those systems were more than experiments, they were legitimate evolved communist states that simply could compete with capitalism.


And I think socialist based systems have existed just as long as capitalist-based systems (assumiong fuedalism is like capitalism, which is really not true as in feudalism, class boundaries were not crossable).

I would say that ancient monarchies are more socialist:

1 ruling party elite

1 oppressed poletariate

no opportunity for individual advancement or acheivement outside of the part elite

[Hattori Hanzo]

"I think those systems were more than experiments, they were legitimate evolved communist states that simply could compete with capitalism. "

they were neither legitimate, evolved, and certaily not communist

"And I think socialist based systems have existed just as long as capitalist-based systems (assumiong fuedalism is like capitalism, which is really not true as in feudalism, class boundaries were not crossable)."

socially speaking, yes. economically/politically, no.

"I would say that ancient monarchies are more socialist:

1 ruling party elite

1 oppressed poletariate

no opportunity for individual advancement or acheivement outside of the part elite"

these conditions have existed under former "socialist" systems. these conditions will not exist under socialism. stop using the USSR and the PROC as exuses

[Nateddi]

"The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly. "
- William Blum, Killing Hope

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Nateddi on 7:19 pm on July 19, 2002
"The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly. "
- William Blum, Killing Hope

cool quote

[komsomol]

Quote: from Nateddi on 7:19 pm on July 19, 2002
"The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly. "
- William Blum, Killing Hope


That quote was bloody amazing, it has so much relavence. Nattedi, you increase my appettite to read, knowledge is power.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Nateddi on 7:19 pm on July 19, 2002
"The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly. "
- William Blum, Killing Hope


Great quote!

He's correct. Capitalists fail to see how the US have done everything in their power to disrupt these developing Communist economies. Outspending the Russians during the Cold War, making every attempt to strangle trade with Cuba, etc, doesn't do anything to prove any of capitalist America's points.

If anything, these practices show the true imperialist nature of America's agenda.

We can only sit by and listen to capitalists say, "See! Communism failed! It doesn't work!" before some of us start asking, "Yeah, and you had nothing to do with that eh?"

[Mazdak]

And saying that hundreds of thousands of people died in communist coutnries is stupid. They didnt have slaves doing their labor for hundreds of years and had to start basically from scratch. And it should be noted that a few of the "utopian" expirements actually succeeded.

[Guest]

It was a cold war. The USSR was trying to disrupt capitalist countries just as much as the US the communist ones. The USSR is in great part responsible for the development of guerrillas in Latin American countries. Stop blaming the failure of communism on the US, you just don't know anything else to do but put always all the blame for everything on the US.

[peaccenicked]

Communism will always be a failure till every last one of us is free.

[Stormin Norman]

*If you claim that this is a new idea that never had a chance to make it, how then do you explain the relative success of the system used in the United States? Was it not a new system? Why did it work for the only time that it has been applied?

*There is a difference between experimentation and application. When conducting research, for the most part, it remains unimportant if you get the expected results. The point is to investigate and probe for new ideas. When applying the science it becomes important. The lab can not produce results that are sketchy and then apply them to new technology. The results have to be tried and tested by a reproducible protocal. This is why so much time goes in to planning a space launch. Billions of dollars have been invested and people's lives might be at stake. You would not want any less care to go into formulating a system of government would you? Many more lives are at stake and the propensity for error is great. Do you really think that we should give any credibilty to a system that has produced such poor results, time and time again?

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Americas intervention and support of blatantly non -democractic countries merely to stop "Evil left wing governments" is incredibly hypocritical. The US basicly forced left wing governments to turn to the Soviet Union (ie Cuba) for help.

A couple of decades ago America was financing terrorist organizations and now they proclaim to be the worlds hero against them?

(Edited by Mac OS Revolutionary at 1:56 pm on July 20, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

That entire quote suggests that the struggle betweed free-market capitalism and communist regimes was a one way street, with the US as the aggressor. That notion is laughable.

What about soviet imerialism and expansion in korea and vietnam?

And the Hungarian uprising?

What about poland?

And afghanistan?

What about communist interdiction in south america? And the chinese regime and tienimen square?

It is funny how the losers of a struggle paint themselves as helpless victims, while during the struggle itself they saw themselves as a benevolent empire with total sovereignty and power able to stand up to anything (ever see the soviet may-day parade?)

That article is merely sour grapes

It was a two way street of spying, spending, militarilization, interdictions, coups, and proxy wars, and communism lost.

The USSR would been happy to expand throughout the world and drape the earth in an iron curtain if they could have, so please don't describe the soviets and their commie ilk as hopeless victims.

They are merely the losers in a struggle that they were all to willing to participate in.

[marxistdisciple]

Of course it is true that US does not want any system of government to succeed, other than their own. If people actually saw a system that was working, that showed you could have good living conditions without exploitation, god forsake, they might actually like it.

The US butted their nose in every socialist system, like the ever present cynics, ever denouncing everyone elses systems, but never addressing their own. It's a good way to draw attention away from it too.

Every socialist state becomes americas enemy, the facts are made up to fit the situation. And yes, the USSR did counter spying, but it was the Americans who created the hysteria regarding the cold war. All those ever present, missles on cuba that no one ever saw. I suppose that was national security.

The USSR was greatly flawed, cuba however has potential to become a really sucessful socialist nation. the US has trade embargoed it to make sure that doesn't happen. What other reason is there for it? It can't possibly be human rights abuses can it? America is the world's biggest human rights abuser! Oh, I forgot the other one is about harming the US economic interests right? what bullshit. What other reason is there. Oh, the other, little tiny reason. They are socialist. Need any other reasons? Is there a word which means a "racism" on other types of political system? If so the US have it in droves. What should we call it?

[FearSoisialach1888]

theres little evidence to say capitalism works in a world where 2.8 billion people have to survive on less than $2 a day.

[Stormin Norman]

I have known people who lived in South America earning $0.17 per hour. He said that his subsistence level was equal to his living conditions inside the US. Simply because they are earning what we consider little does not mean they live poorly. In other parts of the world the greenback will go a lot further than it will here. You must first put it into perspective and consider the weight of the US dollar before making such claims.

[Goldfinger]

You're absolutely right; people in poor countries live in just the same luxury as us people of the north west.
They all get clean water, lots of food, DVD players, fast computers with ADSL, and all of them live in nice suburbian houses........

Yeah, that's right. Live in your cappie naivism, Norman.

(Edited by Apocalypse When at 9:41 pm on July 25, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

I don't believe naivism is a word.

[James]

okay, intresting debate.

Firstly may i first say that its way beyond a simple thread, on a simple online community to discover why communism has failed.

Now for my "argument"

America is very proud of the fact that they are the "land of the free" and the homeland of "democracy"

America is not the first place to pioneer democracy, and to make it work "first time".

Democracy can be compared to evolution in my opinion - its developed over time. It first appeared in Greece, mainly the city/state of athens. It didn't just appear though, it developed;

some intresting sites...

http://jnl-journeys.com/democrac.html

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ATHENS.HTM

And go on this one;

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/638...1/history2.html (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6381/history2.html)

The main thing on this site that i picked out at a glance;

The word democracy was created in this era, translating as "rule of the people".

So Democracy can only be, when the people rule themselves. I'd say that the athens were closer to this than the US is today (sorry, but thats my opinion). In fact, if you are a REAL believer in democracy, in theory you should support ANARCHISM. Or at least some other form of libertarian left wing ideology.

Read the pages, and you will see that democracy evoloved from a dictatorship etc etc. Ran out of time now. Damn!!! I'll finish this later...

[Anonymous]

Actually, thats probably a good pro-capitalism arguament, 'the evolution of the human social group is the capitalist system' Communism seems to be more of an active creation whilst Capitalism is society taking its natural course.


Damn, that doesnt sound so good, perhaps it is up us to ensure Humanity's prosperity by taking an active role in society and forming communism. Capitalism is for the lazy!

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:43 pm on July 25, 2002
I don't believe naivism is a word.
Yes, yes that rebutts his argument completely

[Stormin Norman]

What argument? That the US has it better than the rest of the world. I think that is true and the reasons for this are obvious.

Am I suppose to take a person seriously when they use words that don't exist in the English language? That one was too easy. I couldn't let it go unnoticed.

[vox]

Nativism is a perfectly valid word. SN really need to use www.dictionary.com at some point, or even (gasp!) spend money on an actual dictionary.

Here are the definitions (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=nativism).

vox

[Stormin Norman]

The word he used was naivism. Seriously (gasp), buy some glasses. I don't make two mistakes in one day. You should only be so lucky. However, I learned my lesson from the other post, which was inspired by this post. I will let things like this slide in the future for fear of making an ass of myself.

[vox]

My bad.

[Lunchbox]

If people weren't greedy communism would work, but it never will... if communism worked it never would have existed, we would just live in a state of social anarchy. or something.

[boadicea88]

If people wern't greedy, capitalism would work. Maybe.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from boadicea88 on 11:16 pm on Aug. 13, 2002
If people wern't greedy, capitalism would work. Maybe.

That's actually true. What Margaret Thatcher forgot was that people actually are greedy and don't think about anyone else, so getting rid of social security won't work because few people would donate to charities to help the unfortunate.

On the other end of the scale you just get massive beauracracies where people who make decisions don't truely understand the situation, where as the little guy probably does and is probably more capable of making the decision because of it.

What you need is a balance, or aspects of both.

[Tkinter1]

"And saying that hundreds of thousands of people died in communist coutnries is stupid."

Even though its true

"They didn't have slaves doing their labor for hundreds of years...."

Slavery was abolsihed by the US itself, and is therefore irrelavent

"And it should be noted that a few of the "utopian" expirements actually succeeded."

You failed to list them

[Ymir]

Even if you are not called a slave does not mean you are not one.

[jon doe]

G'day

This debate like every other debate of this nature ends up having everybody (who has half a brain) being correct and even agreeing with each other, just not realising it. The major problem is different people mean different things when they use abstarct terms like capitialism, socialism, etc.

in the aim of fixing this problem for the advancement of this discussion i suggest these definitions (if you disagree, by all means say so)

communism: Marx was the one who came up with the word so it seems sensible to use his definition. Communism is the form Marx believed that socialism would decay (i know decay isnt quite the right word) into. In communism the socialist state would be desolved, and a system which is more or less anarchism would take the states place. The CCCP, PROC, cuba, etc. have never (to my knowledge) claimed to be communist. Marx said that to become communist a country had to first reach a high enough living standard, and technological ability (which he said would come about via a socialist revolution (peaceful or violent) in an advanced capitalist country (which the CCCP etc. certainly weren't)

socialism: This is an absolutley huge term, since it refers to basicly anything left of centre (have i ever told you how stupid the left vs. right political model is, it is so inadequete and lumps anarchism and stalinism next to each other). The word socialism comes from before Marx's time and the ideas of it from even earlier. The only thing which holds all the different forms of socialism together (in theory at least) is the idea of equality (and perhaps solidarity). Common forms of socialism are anarchism, autonimism, primitivism, collectivism, situationalism, communalism, communism, marxism, lenninism, trotism, stalinism, maoism, aswell as the various forms of "democratic socialism" and "social democracy". Socialism and capitalism are not diametrically opposed, in that in some forms of socialism (social democracy and lenninism among others) capitalism and socialism co-exist. The CCCP and PROC both claim(ed) to be socialist (if one can call the CCCP and PROC socialist when the class devide is so marked is a matter for debate). Under the broad heading of socialism, western and northern europe post WWII, could be included.


Now if we use these terms and apply them to the current debate.

The CCCP and its satalite governments fell and the PROC has openly embraced capitalism therefor communism dsoesnt work

lets rewrite this

two countrys called the CCCP and PROC were never communist and are now not communist therefor communism doesnt work

the augument doesnt carry as much wieght anymore. but wait maybe this isnt about communism and is actually about marxism.

Two countries which claimed to be Marxist and possibly once were are no longer Marxist therefor Marsism doesnt work

certainly better than the previous augument. but it still isnt very water tight since Germany before WWI was capitalist and it fell apart, does that mean that capitalism doesn't work?


how about we see if we can move this debate into less shallow waters. There are good reasons why Marxism is the ultimate system of government, and there are good reason why free-market capitalism is the ultimate system of government, and there are good reasons why social democratic capitalism is the ultiamate system of government, and there are good reasons why facism is the ultimate system of government, and there are good reasons why anarchism is the best system of (insert appropriate word to use in the place of government here)

all of the above systems have been shown to work (although anarchism is standing on more shaky ground than the others, spain being the only example of government, though anarchistic organising methods have been shown to work often enough in NGO's) the real question is what is the best system (how does one measure what "best" is)

all the systems have been shown to fail at times and suceed at others.




and on another entirely seperate note..... DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SNYONYM FOR CAPITALISM. (depending on ones definition of democracy) capitalism can be democratic, but then again so can EVERY other political system