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

[Giancarlo]

Communism within a capitalist system.. hahahah.. since when was charity a communist idea? That's laughable at best.

[chequita guevara]

Kid, do you hear a gnat buzzing?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's no such thing as a mixed economy. The term mixed economy is used by some because people confuse state ownership of the means of production with socialism. It's not. In a society geared around production for exchange-value, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism, which is still capitalism.

I disagree. With democracy you have the possibility to make reforms to a system that are not consistent with that system or it's principles. Welfare to the needy are those reforms.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kid, do you hear a gnat buzzing?

Not until you said something.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Income support for the needy is communism.

Great-- Then you have succeeded and the revolution is unnecessary

Seriously though-- when I support capitalism, it is not the unadulterated free market that I support-- Instead it is the system that has grown out of capitalistic democracy where there is regulation and taxation and a rule of law which affords some protections to everyone.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Flubber
Seriously though-- when I support capitalism, it is not the unadulterated free market that I support-- Instead it is the system that has grown out of capitalistic democracy where there is regulation and taxation and a rule of law which affords some protections to everyone.

[GePap]

To answer the OT:

It depends on the type of communist. There are various variants of communism, with Marxism being the most famous, with Leninist, Stalinism, Maoism all being new derivatives.

The simplest answer would be the Marxist answer: society has not yet reached the peak of Capitalism which brings about thge revolution. All Communist regimes in the world have been brought about by a party vanguard who took over the leadership of a revolution. They were all Leninists (Bolsheviks).

In essence then the Marxist would say that all attempts at Communism have occured in places in the world not ready to handle communism, which early Marx at least believed could only come into being in advanced industrial societies, and hence it was going on in places not ready for it, ie, pre-industrial or early industrial societies.

[Odin]

As a moderate (non-marxist) socialist, I think a TOTAL command economy is unrealistic because a few industries, mostly entertainment, do not lend well to government control and would work better as co-ops or syndicates. Also, all the sucessful commie revolutions were in poor, undeveloped countries, a BIG no-no; A country needs to be wealthy, have a strong middle class, have a highly educated population, and have lots of natural resources if it wants to transition to socialism.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


With democracy you have the possibility to make reforms to a system that are not consistent with that system or it's principles. Welfare to the needy are those reforms.

Exactly. and if enough people exert enough influence, taxes go up to provide even higher levels of welfare support. People who don't like this result have the freedom to move elsewhere

I'm never sure how I happen to agree with kid on anything

[Sava]

BTW, I'd also like to point out that "Communism" has only existed in countries that were poor to begin with.

But having said that. "Communism" or more specifically, Stalinism, took a peasant nation (Russia) and made it a superpower. One of the major reasons the Soviet Union collapsed is because it was going up against a stronger Superpower in the United States. Had the Soviet Union not had a rival, I suspect it would have been more successful.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Great-- Then you have succeeded and the revolution is unnecessary

I didn't even say that welfare for the poor works good in a capitalist system. I agree with Che that it does not. For one, there is always the threat of it being taken away, and for another thing it is dependent on people being personally reponsible without providing the means for them to do so. For example, some women are force to leave their children home alone and work. Sometimes they get their children taken away when they are just trying to do what they are suppose to. Communism creates jobs and provides for needs like adequate child care and training.

Seriously though-- when I support capitalism, it is not the unadulterated free market that I support-- Instead it is the system that has grown out of capitalistic democracy where there is regulation and taxation and a rule of law which affords some protections to everyone.

You are walking the fence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
BTW, I'd also like to point out that "Communism" has only existed in countries that were poor to begin with.

But having said that. "Communism" or more specifically, Stalinism, took a peasant nation (Russia) and made it a superpower. One of the major reasons the Soviet Union collapsed is because it was going up against a stronger Superpower in the United States. Had the Soviet Union not had a rival, I suspect it would have been more successful.

That's true, but there was a lot of corruption in the USSR. I don't think they would have made it anyway.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's true, but there was a lot of corruption in the USSR. I don't think they would have made it anyways.

Only with a strong dictator like Stalin.

I must admit my own ignorance however... how corrupt was the USSR under Stalin? Did fear work in keeping people in line?

If not, then I'd argue that not having a strong leader with a cult of personality is what lead to the fall of the SU.

But you have to ask yourself, if "Communism" can only "succeed" when you have a strong dictator... is it really that good of a system?

Personally, I oppose Communism because I don't think it's realistic. And it requires almost the entire population's support to work. Maybe that's the reason Communism has never evolved out of a Democracy.

[chequita guevara]

Nah, it never evolved out of a democracy because when they tried to do that, the military overtherw them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nah, it never evolved out of a democracy because when they tried to do that, the military overtherw them.

Do you think it could EVER evolve out of a Democracy?