Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Sandman]

I don't support communism, but it has, IMO, unquestionably 'worked' in two places.

Cuba is one. Kerala is the other.

Aneeshm will know about Kerala (a state in India), and will probably say 'but their economy sucks'. That's true. But their literacy rate, life expectancy and infant mortality are far better than most of India. And Kerala, until recently, elected communist governments.

[notyoueither]

Cuba?

That is debatable, but still funny.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


See, you speak words but the combination makes next to no sense...

I have to admit that this is very vague.

Who is giving a lift to whom this weekend, PH?

I never would have been able to tell what the hell it meant without a roadmap.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Cuba?

That is debatable, but still funny.

It's a better place than Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Jamaica.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman


It's a better place than Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Jamaica.

The again it started out as a better place then Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or Jamaica so we can't really say Communism did that. In 1957 Cuba had the highest per capita income in Latin America and attracted a great deal of foreign investment. I dare say Cuba is no longer a star performer in the field of economic progress.

[Atahualpa]

communism, capitalism, this is soo passé

Someone should think up something more modern.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In 1957 Cuba had the highest per capita income in Latin America and attracted a great deal of foreign investment. I dare say Cuba is no longer a star performer in the field of economic progress.

Yeah, but those stats are misleading. That's kinda like saying that all that foreign investment in Cancun has made the average Mexican living in the Yucatan well off. Outside the resorts, Cuba was as much of a sh*thole as the other Caribbean islands.

As for what Ansheem wants, I really suggest he first search backwards through th OT and the archives and find some of the cap-com debates first.

[Flubber]

The lure of communism seems simple to me . .

In a world where there is plenty it is unconscionable that there be poverty. Even within wealthy nations, there are the very poor and homeless. So the communist says we should all share. Its a wonderful theory that seems to fail in practice. I have written often against some of the possible manifestations that have been proposed


A capitalist society sees the same problem and also moves to address it, usually through welfare. These systems don't care if you have a medical disability, some unforseen bad fortune or are merely lazy . . . everyone gets a minimum standard of income.

Now I like the fact that my society ( Canada)takes steps to help people. I have no problem being taxed for that purpose. That's why I like a system with a strong social safety net.

Now that net is imperfect. So there is no need to go googling for its failings. I know it doesn't always work as well as it should in practice .

So that's my preferred system . . a minimum standard of living for all. If you want more, it will depend on your own abilities and efforts ( and those of your forbears). I think equality of condition is an unrealistic goal. What I would hope for is an equality of opportunity but the problem I see is that that may never be attained without an unreasonable limitation on personal freedoms.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

Oh what the hell, I got nothin' better to do. And I'm gonna fix his punctuation!

Originally posted by aneeshm
Why? Why has it failed everywhere within a hundred years of inception, and caused a hundred million deaths in the process, both through slavery, and famine.

Someone's reading The Black Book of Communism? Even if one hundred million deaths under 100 years of communism were true, it pales in comparison to 100 million deaths under each decade of capitalism. Anyway, I dispute your oringal premise. Commmunism has not failed everywhere.

By contrast, no capitalist country has faced a famine, anywhere in the world. Ever. In its entire history.

Bu-u-u-u-ulllllllll ****! The capitalist world has been racked with famine since its inception. Even today, somewhere between ten and fifteen million people each year die from famine and easily preventable disease in the capitalist world. Right now, Western Africa is facing famine, and there is famine in Sudan.

Don't give me the claptrap about it never being implemented properly.

You can't demand somone answer a question, and then tell them they can't give you an answer.

Anyway, it's not so much a matter of it not being implimented properly as it being hijacked by alien class forces. In the USSR, the bureacuracy siezed control in the late 1920s. Using their presteige, the Soviet bureuacracy managed to remark the world's Communist parties in its own image, so it ceased to be socialism and a socialist movement and instead became Stalinism and a Stalinist movement.

And don't give me the example of China as successful, it is now a semi-capitalist country, where the state provides businesses slave labour, and then keeps half the profits of the business for itself - thus it's ability to survive.

China was always a capitalist economy, even under Mao. They never made the transition to a non-exchange-value economy. Even if one accepts China as a legitimate socialist country, the current phase of capitalist development is not necessarily a permanent one. It is possible that this is China's NEP, that they are using China's capitalists to build the economy to a point sufficient for the state to once again take control.

India was by no means capitalist at that time. It was a "mixed economy," a euphemish for super-socialist.

In India, goods were produced to be sold. Despite a large state sector, India was a capitalist country from birth, as well as for over a hundred years as a colony of the Brits.

I have a request to make - try no to blame the capitalist nations for the fall of Communism.

Why shouldn't we? When the capitalists invaded the Paris Commune, it was definately the capitalists fault the system failed. When the capitalists invaded the USSR at its birth, then cut it off from trade, then invaded it again, then used terrorism to sabotage the economy, it's hard to claim that the problems of the USSR were entirely of its own making.

Capitalism had to struggle through tremendously hostile times - worse than the communists had to face - and still survived and flourished.

Hardly. Capitalism was vastly superior to the system that came before it, and once in power, it never let go. It never even had to hang on for dear life. Even when defeated politically, the economy remained capitalist. No capitalist economy ever slipped backwards, despite the triumph of the forces of reaction on the battelfield.

Also, is it not a failure on the part of Marx that he could not make correct predictions?

Marx didn't make predictions.

My second question has not yet been answered - why do commies stick to communism if it has failed (and caused much misery in the world in the process)?

Because it's a logical system which explains the world and shows how to build a world based on rationalism.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yeah, but those stats are misleading. That's kinda like saying that all that foreign investment in Cancun has made the average Mexican living in the Yucatan well off. Outside the resorts, Cuba was as much of a sh*thole as the other Caribbean islands.

Also -- Cuba is far far from a communist society. people are selling stuff for prsonal profit all over the place and most of the tourist industry is housed in hotels built by foreign corporations and run for profit.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
A capitalist society sees the same problem and also moves to address it, usually through welfare. These systems don't care if you have a medical disability, some unforseen bad fortune or are merely lazy . . . everyone gets a minimum standard of income.

Well, capitalists didn't exactly move to adress the problem, so much as give up reforms to save their skin from socialist revolution. In any event, if the world could be modeled on the Swedish system, communism would be pointless. At the very least, we serve as a pressure group to ward off the worst excesses of capitalism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Also -- Cuba is far far from a communist society. people are selling stuff for prsonal profit all over the place and most of the tourist industry is housed in hotels built by foreign corporations and run for profit.

Flubber speaks truely. Though Cuba is further down the socialist road than many countries. A significant portion of the Cuban economy is production for use-value, and not exchange, but a socialist island in a capitalist world does need to be able to exchange, and so huge segments of the Cuban economy are oriented towards trade: sugar, nickel, and tourism, to name a few.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I want to know why the failure came about . And I have a request to make - try no to blame the capitalist nations for the fall of Communism . Capitalism had to struggle through tremendously hostile times - worse than the communists had to face - and still survived and flourished .

Sorry Aneeshm, for communism to be successfull we have to defeat our enemies first. The famine in Stalin's USSR was caused more because of the political enemies of the state than Stalin himself, although he has to take the full blame for the political injustices that he caused.

[Sava]

I'd say "Communism" has "failed" only because there hasn't been real "COmmunism" anywhere yet.

However, Social Democratic societies like Canada and some of Europe are quite healthy.

[Flubber]

Re: Re: Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Because it's a logical system which explains the world and shows how to build a world based on rationalism.

Sorry that gets a