A Thought Experiment About the Viability of Communism

[VetLegion]

Soviet Union fell apart in a sequence of events in which falling oil prices, food shortage and reluctance of the leadership to use force all played a role.

It is today thought that this breakup is the definitive proof of unsustainibility of communist economies in the long run.

But is it? Would SU have been replaced by a capitalist economy if examples of successful capitalist economies weren't around?

What if Europe and the US (+Canada) had been depopulated because of some plague and in 1990 the only alternatives to hardcore communism of the SU were softcore communism of Latin America, Chinese state capitalism, Arab monarchies and a bunch of nominally capitalist failed states in Africa and Asia?

If we take the West out of the equation Russia was more advanced than any other country in the world.

In such hypothetical situation would crises-induced reforms take the SU towards capitalism or not?

Utlimately, did SU fall apart because its economy couldn't weather the last crisis and resume growth or because the political class lost faith in the system because there actually existed a better alternative?

[Ecthy]

Communism

Marxism

[Saras]

Ecthy, elaborate the differences please.

[C0ckney]

Re: A Thought Experiment About the Viability of Communism

Originally posted by VetLegion
Utlimately, did SU fall apart because its economy couldn't weather the last crisis and resume growth or because the political class lost faith in the system because there actually existed a better alternative?

a little from column a and a little from column b.

[Fake Boris]

Well, had they used force to sustain the regime during the recession, they would be in a good position today, with rising energy prices.

Communist economies are sustainable - the SU enjoyed many years of growth after WWII.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Saras
Ecthy, elaborate the differences please.

If you don't see the difference between Marx' writings and the actual Soviet regime, you're hopeless.

[Zkribbler]

I think a better hypo would be if capitalism had never been invented, i.e. if humanity were ignorant of the economy's ability to harness the ingenuity of the individual.

Then, IMHO, Communism would have been a viable system. It benefitted more people that the ancient system of aristocratic overlords and/or mechantile cartels.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


If you don't see the difference between Marx' writings and the actual Soviet regime, you're hopeless.

I thought filosofers are required to comprehend written texts. Ecthy's post didn't have Soviet Communism.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Communist economies are sustainable - the SU enjoyed many years of growth after WWII.

Not sure if that's a good argument, post war growth even for a longer time was not surprising given the situation of vast losses in material and infrastructure that needed to be replaced/rebuilt and also that Sov was already in the process of deeper industrialization pre-war and still had lots of untouched space and resources to continue to expand in some way for a while.

But I'll happily admit that I'm not the best guy for economic discussions.

[Riesstiu IV]

What about the Viagrability of Commujism?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I think a better hypo would be if capitalism had never been invented, i.e. if humanity were ignorant of the economy's ability to harness the ingenuity of the individual.

The truth is that our economic achievements were made possible by improved scientific technique. When technology was such that 80-90% of the population had to work in the fields, there was little room for research.

You attribute scientific progress to capitalism, but it's the other way around - a slow scientific progress eventually made capitalism possible.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Saras


I thought filosofers are required to comprehend written texts. Ecthy's post didn't have Soviet Communism.

We can wait for Ecthy to tell us what he really meant, but the term "communism" is usually associated to the positive doctrines of the Soviets. It had a different signification in Marx' writings.

[Saras]

No ****, Sherlock. I lived there, remember?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Saras
No ****, Sherlock. I lived there, remember?

That's great, but that doesn't illustrate the terminology of those who have lived outside of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marx would argue that Communism would not have existed in those circumstances at all.

Communism doesn't arise in a vacuum.