Why communism lost

[John Dibble]

Why Capitalism Won

The article is long, but I suggest you read it in it's entirity.

[J.R. Brown]

I can tell you why communism lost. It's human nature to take charge of their own lives. Economic or whatever. People don't naturally share what they have with others, that has to be taught and it usually doesn't take well.

Along with that, people will naturally try to consolidate power for themselves. Most can't handle being equal with people who they believe to be inferior to them. That's what happened in the Soviet Union and that's why their government collapsed. Communism hasn't worked and will never work because of something as simple as human nature.

[Citizen James]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

To me, it looks like he skimmed Adam Smith and Abraham Maslow, then got drunk on Ann Rand and went on an ideological bender.  He tosses around 'statist' the same way a psudointelectual socialist tosses around 'boiguis'

As with many ideologues, he seems stuck in a polarized worldview - full lazis faire capitalism, or total communism, no real acknoledgement of the many inbetweens and even differing systems.

Further, in a move that seems rather odd for someone who seems to have libertarian leanings, he acts as though the economic axis is the only parameter to politics.  Sadly, capitalism is no guarentor of personal freedom.  From the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet, to the near serfdom of modern China, to countless abuses in numerous third world nations, examples of capitalism without freedom are plentiful.

He does have a few good points, which are hardly huge revilations, and from which he often jumps off into la-la land. 

Don't get me wrong - capitalism is a great system, and tends to encourage hard work and innovation.  But without a certain amount of checks and ballances to weed out excesses, we tend toward a corporate state - which is little more than another type of communism where the companies control the government rather than vice versa.   Monoplolies, colaberation between rival corporations, and other anti-competitive actions tend to undermine and even remove the incentives which otherwise makes the system so effective.

I find his intelectualistic bashing of so called intelectuals almost amusing.  I kept looking the the april fools punchline.

Specialization of labor and reasonable competiton do drive a healthy economy and increase net production.  No arguement there.  The emphasis is on reasonable though.

Life indeed is not a zero sum game, and few things are.  Capitalism at it's best is a series of win/win situations - I get a product I want, and you get the money you want, then go buy the product you want and it feeds the cycle of comerce.   Nothing new here.

Technology indeed is neither good nor evil, just what you choose to develop and what you do with it.    Atomic energy can power entire cities or destroy them, depending on the grade of material and how you use it.   It is important to be aware of the potential misuses if we don't want to get burned.

I think the soviet union colapsed for a couple of different reasons.

1. Communism is inefficent.  There is little incentive to work hard or innovate.   Shortages replaced inflation as the result of supply and demand problems.

2. Widespread coruption.  This has less to do with their economic system, as their political one.  A government which is not accountable to the people will tend to line it's pockets as much as it can.  Power often corrupts, and absolute totalitarian power corupts a lot.

3. Education.  They educated their people.  When you teach people to think, they often start thinking for themselves - and it's often easy to see the gaping flaws in the party line.   From there they either play the game and grab what they can, they bide their time and seek reform, or they act out and most likely get shot (or run over by a tank).

[dazzleman]

I can tell you why communism lost. It's human nature to take charge of their own lives. Economic or whatever. People don't naturally share what they have with others, that has to be taught and it usually doesn't take well.

Along with that, people will naturally try to consolidate power for themselves. Most can't handle being equal with people who they believe to be inferior to them. That's what happened in the Soviet Union and that's why their government collapsed. Communism hasn't worked and will never work because of something as simple as human nature.

Exactly.  Communism denied essential elements of human nature.  It could never work as an economic system, but posed a threat as a system of aggressive militarism.

[opebo]

I think Osama Bin Laden would claim he killed the Soviet Union, and he has some pretty good arguments.  He would also claim he's well on the way to knocking down the remaining 'superpower'.

[John Dibble]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

[phk]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

The GDP is not the central issue for communist socialism. On the contrary, the overcoming of the contradictions between productive forces and the relations of production via the socialist transition (which combines aspects of capitalism and communism) from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production is the goal of Marxist-Leninist socialism.

However, both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China prior to their revisionist periods (the reinstatement of bureaucrat capitalism in the name of communism under Khrushchev in the mid '50s and Deng Xiaoping in the late '70s, respectively) have demonstrated that a planned economy can advance faster and more rationally (though certainly not without incident - this is the real world, and not an economic model, after all) than the anarchy of the market guided by what Adam Smith calls the "blind hand" of Capital, while taking far better care of the needs of the majority of the people. The PRC did this more effectively than the Soviet Union, correcting a number of Stalin's errors (cf. Raymond Lotta, Ed., Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook for a primary Maoist economic text; E. L. Wheelwright and Bruce McFarlane, The Chinese Road to Socialism: Economics of the Cultural Revolution for an excellent analysis of the particularities of Chinese socialism by two Austrailian economists; and also, for Mao's writtings on these issues, Mao Tse-tung, Critique of Soviet Economics, and "On the Ten Major Relationships" - for more on the question of Stalin, cf. Prof. H. Bruce Franklin's intro to The Essential Stalin: Major Theoretical Writings 1905-1952).

History shows us that the crises of the Capitalist business cycle (cf. also this article from the MIA for more on the business cycle) cannot be overcome by either Keynesianism or Monetarism, but can only be put-off by imperialism, in both its neocolonial and military-keynesian variations, and the rise ficticious capital and fiat money, which brings with it new concerns over dollar hegemony.

I would add that the fall of communism in the USSR and the PRC, however, is rooted not in economics, but in the distinct superstructural contradiction between the particularities of the personality cult (which I oppose, due to the historical lessons of this contradiction) and the necessity of the two-line struggle (the struggle between capitalist and communist contradictory forces within both the Party and the masses) during socialism.

What I mean is, the criticism of the "great leader" allows for the overthrow of socialist policies instituted under the auspices of the leader after his death by the bureaucrat capitalists. We see how this contradiction leads to revisionism first in Khrushchev's renunciation of "Stalinism" in his "secret speech" to the 20th Party Congress and then again in Deng Xiaoping's "pragmatist" renunciation of Maoism.

 In both cases, the explicit crticism of the subject of the personality cult contains an implicit criticism of the socialist system, giving grounds for a complete reversal of political, social, and economic policy from within the volatile dynamic of the two-line struggle. The problem is that it is practically impossible to critique the personality cult while the leader in question is alive (without being accused, perhaps correctly, of right-capitulationism), unless you are Lenin, who overturned the personality cult instituted in his name himself. And yet, when the leader is dead such criticism tends historically toward revisionism (and it should be said that while Mao's two-sided, 70-30 assessment of the correct and incorrect in Stalin was meant to combat Khrushchev's revisionism, Deng's use of the same ratio to attack "Maoism" from within the peramiters of "Mao Tse-tung Thought" is a tremendously clear example of how this contradiction functions).

[phk]

I can tell you why communism lost. It's human nature to take charge of their own lives. Economic or whatever. People don't naturally share what they have with others, that has to be taught and it usually doesn't take well.

Along with that, people will naturally try to consolidate power for themselves. Most can't handle being equal with people who they believe to be inferior to them. That's what happened in the Soviet Union and that's why their government collapsed. Communism hasn't worked and will never work because of something as simple as human nature.

Exactly.  Communism denied essential elements of human nature.  It could never work as an economic system, but posed a threat as a system of aggressive militarism.

Did feudalism, and tribalism deny essential elements of human nature? No. Human-nature is variable and is different in the different stages of humanity.

Saying it violates human nature, means you are still working within the capitalist framework.

What the Soviets had was State-Capitalism.

I agree that it is wrong to "pull everyone down to the lowest level" and I can't think of anyone who actually wants to do that (other than perhaps, debatably, the anarcho-primativists - but I don't think that's who you had in mind). I think you are building a straw man again. Either that or you simply don't understand Marxism.

[John Dibble]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

[phk]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

[John Dibble]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

[Jake]

I think Osama Bin Laden would claim he killed the Soviet Union, and he has some pretty good arguments.  He would also claim he's well on the way to knocking down the remaining 'superpower'.

He must be pretty arrogant then. Bin Laden had a very small place, in a very small part of the Soviet Union's defeat and all he's done to America is make us more prepared and harder to defeat. 

[phk]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

The cycle than starts over.

[John Dibble]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

The cycle than starts over.

A crappy cycle that is. No, I think we'll just stick with capitalism so we can stay with the system that actually brings prosperity to the masses.

[phk]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

The cycle than starts over.

A crappy cycle that is. No, I think we'll just stick with capitalism so we can stay with the system that actually brings prosperity to the masses.

No, a clear increase in wealth elsehwere means a clear decrease somewhere else.

[John Dibble]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

The cycle than starts over.

A crappy cycle that is. No, I think we'll just stick with capitalism so we can stay with the system that actually brings prosperity to the masses.

No, a clear increase in wealth elsehwere means a clear decrease somewhere else.

No ot necessarily. Economics isn't a zero sum game. When two people make a trade, it benefits them both, otherwise they wouldn't make the trade, now would they?

[Bono]

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

As opposed to when the state exists.

[opebo]

I definitely have to agree with Dibble on the zero sum game arguement, Marxist.  However it is worth noting that in most cases the vast majority of the benefits from the 'higher pie' created by capitalism will flow to the owner, not the worker.

There may even be a few cases of people who are made utterly destitute by economic change - as in they loose everything in heigtening the pie.

[John Dibble]

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

As opposed to when the state exists.

LOL. Well, a small state always needs to exist in a free society, otherwise you get people coming in wanting to make a big one. Government is a necessary evil unfortunately.

[John Dibble]

I definitely have to agree with Dibble on the zero sum game arguement, Marxist.  However it is worth noting that in most cases the vast majority of the benefits from the 'higher pie' created by capitalism will flow to the owner, not the worker.

Oh, I won't disagree with this. Definitely some people benefit more from a trade than the other party, but still both parties generally benefit. The reason the rich become rich is because they do a lot more trading than most of us - we might trade with a few hundred or even a few thousand people every year, but people like Bill Gates use their resources to trade with millions.

[opebo]

I definitely have to agree with Dibble on the zero sum game arguement, Marxist.  However it is worth noting that in most cases the vast majority of the benefits from the 'higher pie' created by capitalism will flow to the owner, not the worker.

Oh, I won't disagree with this. Definitely some people benefit more from a trade than the other party, but still both parties generally benefit. The reason the rich become rich is because they do a lot more trading than most of us - we might trade with a few hundred or even a few thousand people every year, but people like Bill Gates use their resources to trade with millions.

Well, another way to put this is that the rich benefit more because of their advantageous position in the economic heirarchy.  Pretty easy to bargain with a worker when you can simply replace him.  People at the top of the pyramid are not so plentiful.

[John Dibble]

I definitely have to agree with Dibble on the zero sum game arguement, Marxist.  However it is worth noting that in most cases the vast majority of the benefits from the 'higher pie' created by capitalism will flow to the owner, not the worker.

Oh, I won't disagree with this. Definitely some people benefit more from a trade than the other party, but still both parties generally benefit. The reason the rich become rich is because they do a lot more trading than most of us - we might trade with a few hundred or even a few thousand people every year, but people like Bill Gates use their resources to trade with millions.

Well, another way to put this is that the rich benefit more because of their advantageous position in the economic heirarchy.  Pretty easy to bargain with a worker when you can simply replace him.  People at the top of the pyramid are not so plentiful.

That is somewhat true, as having resources is what makes it easier to trade with more people. Though at least with capitalism someone at the bottom can move up, even to the top, if they have the ability and are willing to put in the necessary amount of work. Bill Gates wasn't exactly on the bottom when he started off, but he wasn't anywhere close to the top either. You can also look at Carnegie, who was the son of a weaver, who later became one of the richest men on the planet in his day. Now, not everyone can get to the top, but still I maintain that overall capitalism will raise the standards of all, not just the bottom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

[Bono]

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

As opposed to when the state exists.

LOL. Well, a small state always needs to exist in a free society, otherwise you get people coming in wanting to make a big one. Government is a necessary evil unfortunately.

Ah, but this is where we disagree. Minarchists are deluded if they think minarchy can last, as proven by the United States. IF you read the anti-federalist papers, you'll see a lot of their predictions were correct. 
I will re-direct you to my post on the "Your opinion of Libertarians", reply #18
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19269.15

[John Dibble]

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

As opposed to when the state exists.

LOL. Well, a small state always needs to exist in a free society, otherwise you get people coming in wanting to make a big one. Government is a necessary evil unfortunately.

Ah, but this is where we disagree. Minarchists are deluded if they think minarchy can last, as proven by the United States. IF you read the anti-federalist papers, you'll see a lot of their predictions were correct. 
I will re-direct you to my post on the "Your opinion of Libertarians", reply #18
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19269.15

A small state is very difficult to maintain, I never argued otherwise. Heck, I'm probably for a bigger state than most big L libertarians are. But still, it is worth trying to maintain it for as long possible as far as I'm concerned. All I am saying is that anarchy will generally lead to worse results than an already established government will. Anarchy will hasten the rise of big government far more than a pre-existing small government will.

[David S]

Did you want honest feedback on our opinions?

Yes, I did. And I'll agree with you on the total all-out laizze faire thing - but I agree with him for the most part, and think we should stick close to that system, with the government only doing a few small things in the economy.

The main reason I posted this was because of an argument I was having with Leninism-Marxism-Maoism(or whatever order he puts it in) over communism and its utter failure to provide freedom.

I don't actually see a fight between capitalism vs communism.

I believe in a natural evolution from..

Tribalism => Feudalism => Lassiez-faire capitalism => Keyensian Capitalism => Socialism => Marxism.

Revolution is only necessary when things get bad.

And them Marxism collapses, pssibly even at the Socialism state, and things get worse. I don't see us evolving beyond capitalism any time soon.

After Marxism, the state is abolished and there is freedom for all.

Anarchy in other words, which doesn't work. As soon as you abolish the state, the protections of the state(i.e. the military and the police) are no longer there. This allows people who crave power to take control by force, as they would be unopposed.

The cycle than starts over.

A crappy cycle that is. No, I think we'll just stick with capitalism so we can stay with the system that actually brings prosperity to the masses.

No, a clear increase in wealth elsehwere means a clear decrease somewhere else.

You apparently believe in the constant pie theory. In other words if one person takes a larger slice of the pie for himself then someone else must get a smaller slice. This ignores the possibility that the pie can be made bigger. Henry Ford and Bill Gates created business' that expanded our economy. They made the pie bigger. Ford made cars that helped put America on wheels. They were useful products that people willingly bought. That's a benefit to society. Ford Motor Company has also provided high paying jobs for millions of people over its histroy. Another benefit to society. Bill Gates did much the same. I'm using Microsoft products right now. Maybe you are too. Those products are also a benefit to society and Microsoft currently provides jobs for over 50,000 people, again another benefit. Without a doubt, Ford and Gates both did what they did out of self interest. I would say they were driven by the profit motive. You might call it greed. Either way they started their buisiness' in the hopes of becomming rich and they succeeded. But in the process they expanded our economy, provided useful products people want to buy, and provided jobs for a huge number of people. So while their motivation was self -interest they made things better for all of us. A win win situation.