NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that the USA is largely to be blamed for the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, they (In addition to some minor countries) were the only ones really against communism. Above that, Moscow was infiltrated by many US spies. I'm not really going to believe that the USSR collapsed because the people wanted it to happen! Many citizens craved for a second communist revolution after Democracy was instituted.

Communism can only work if done to the full extent, which is impossible because humans are inherantly evil and greedy, so that's why I'm a conservative.


-----------------
Kwas out.

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/programming.jpg (http://www.laogaming.com/forums)

However, the idea of the modern and educated man is to suppress those inherently negative forces inside the minds. Greed can be suppressed. In communism, people DON'T have to live in poverty. Countries like the U.S. and Canada have so much money to go around that everybody could live a comfortable, not-too-poor, not-filthy-rich lifestyle. I am sure that 96% of the population would feel the same way. If you ask me, the other 4% should be reeducated (And I DO NOT mean by forcing them to work in labour camps and such, but rather, rehabilitate them).

I wrote a research paper about this (only tried on the first half), I'll find the link real quick...

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/com.html



-----------------
Kwas out.

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/programming.jpg (http://www.laogaming.com/forums)

*Reads paper* Hmm...I'm inclined to disagree with you. Completely true equality can never be achieved. Even if humans try to create and influence governments as close to equality as possible, physical, mental and spiritual differences seperate us all, making some of us superior in a way, and others inferior. Even though we could stop the exploitation of the lower classes, true equality in all forms can never be achieved. This is where your research paper goes awry. Not only can equality not be achieved, it isn't necessary. Even Karl Marx himself stated that each one has his skills and some skills are better than others. The idea of Marxism in the first place is the ending of the exploitation of the lower class, not equality in every possible sense.

yes yes, im not a true marxist, and i also slacked off quite a bit on that paper.


-----------------
Kwas out.

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/programming.jpg (http://www.laogaming.com/forums)

But I do agree with your propaganda theorem. It is true that the U.S. government flamed communism to such an extent that some people hate it (Such as a certain Texan I know)(No offense to Texans tho) so far that they would shoot any 'Reds' that wandered onto their property. But then again this is no new matter. The US has always dealt with propaganda to get people to suit their needs, even before the U.S. was the U.S.

as did the USSR to an extent.


-----------------
Kwas out.

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/programming.jpg (http://www.laogaming.com/forums)

Indeed they did, in the same manner. The U.S. said 'The Soviets are evil!' while the Soviets said 'The Americans are evil!'. Like children fighting...

All nations do this sort of thing, and it is considered a natural thing to do.


-----------------
Kwas out.

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/programming.jpg (http://www.laogaming.com/forums)

As I stated earlier, it is only natural to respond lenienlty to negative feelings. Propaganda is a lie, which is considered to be a sin, which is evil. So propaganda is evil. Sometimes, though, fire has to be fought with fire, so humans consider propaganda to be normal. Utopian governments will never exist as those governments are perfect, and humans are imperfect, and the creation can't be better than the creator, so we simply look for the best way to govern each other. But hell, even the bible says: "Man has dominated man to his own injury." so no matter what we do, governments will always be to our own injury.

Communism works great on paper, but never in practice.

Why? I will reference one of my earlier thoughts on the matter, preserved in the 'Greatest Quotes' thread:

It is a flawed ideology.
No, the implementation is flawed. The USSR's leadership was corrupted by the power and trust given to them by the public, making it into a sham communist state.

One day there may be a socialist or communist government that does actually work, but now? We are still too power hungry a race of beings to not be corrupted.

The problem with the USSR's communist state was that most of the power came to one man: Stalin. We cannot sum up all the power in one man, as corruption will follow if this done. Nevertheless, the discussion here is not really about the USSR, but rather about the ideologies of Marxism and such. And capitalism will fall for sure.

The problem with the USSR's communist state was that most of the power came to one man: Stalin. We cannot sum up all the power in one man, as corruption will follow if this done. Nevertheless, the discussion here is not really about the USSR, but rather about the ideologies of Marxism and such. And capitalism will fall for sure.Not really. Just become overly expensive and forced into immense inflation, only to find itself heading towards socialism to dig itself out of debt...

Wait a second. *looks at the USA**looks at comment**looks back*

Aw, crap...

Russia collapsed when their ecenomy became overextended after a grueling war in Afghanistan and repeated rounds of military budget increases they couldn't afford.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

Russia collapsed when their ecenomy became overextended after a grueling war in Afghanistan and repeated rounds of military budget increases they couldn't afford.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

What he said. That, and the space race with the US put them waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over budget.

Plus organized crime figured out how to use the system... become a member of the communist party and you're safe. The communists did not have a mechanism to root out high level corruption.

BTW I’m not Max.

Russia collapsed when their ecenomy became overextended after a grueling war in Afghanistan and repeated rounds of military budget increases they couldn't afford.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.Absolutely right. Even though I am a die-hard capitalist, I can see the potential of communism. Don't get me wrong, I despise it, but if old Vladimir and Josef and Nikita and Leonid and Yuri had tried the reforms that Gorbachev tried, maybe the USSR could have been saved. Just look at China.

China is not communist. It has child labor! How much less communist can you get?

As for utopian governments, they can't exist because government is inherently based on force and coersion.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

China is not communist. It has child labor! How much less communist can you get?

As for utopian governments, they can't exist because government is inherently based on force and coersion.
China is not communist?? You better let the folks inside the Forbidden City in Beijing know. Also, North Korea and Cuba need to be reminded.

I do agree...utopian governments can't exist...however, the reason for that is simple human nature (i.e., us humans will find a way to mess it up anyway.)

We haven't collapsed!

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=ussr

;)
Yes Russia can't hold Western Capitalism, the people didn't want it. The reasons it fell was because of overspending in the military, food distribution was to inefficient, and the people in the republics that were forced into the Communist Bloc rebelled.

Gorbechev did more to end communism with his reforms than the US did. In the end, it was internal. Once a degree of political freedom was introduced the people wanted more.

The USSR was sick because it could no longer compete with the U.S. in the arms race. It also didn't help that corruption and industrial production was at an all time low. If I remember right, Andropov commissioned a KGB report on how the USSR was doing overall. Things looked bleak and his plan was to institute another series of purges and reforms; he died before he could accomplish his goal. Gorbachev took over and began reforms. In my opinion he was too trusting of Yeltsin who dissolved the USSR when Gorbachev went to his retreat.

And as for people not wanting it gone. You have ZERO idea what you are talking about. I was born in Poland and saw some of the things that happened. Who wanted the collapse of the USSR? Most of the people in the Eastern Bloc. Those people who crave another return to communism are usually those who got used to the old system, were part of the system or had something to gain under it.

Communism ruined people's lives on a scale few people can understand. Stalin and Mao both committed purges of opponents on scales that makes Hitler look like an apprentice. I personnally know people who spent time in work camps for dozens of years and one who spent 16 years in a mine.

In any case, the communist system turned out the way it did because of those peopel who pushed for it. If we believe what Bakunin wrote about Marx, then Soviet communism is what Marx was thinking about.

humans are inherantly evil and greedy, so that's why I'm a conservative.

Just because humans are inherently evil and greedy, doesn't mean you have to endorse it :P

China is not communist?? You better let the folks inside the Forbidden City in Beijing know. Also, North Korea and Cuba need to be reminded.

Then where is the classless society? It's an odd form of communism.

In any case, the communist system turned out the way it did because of those peopel who pushed for it. If we believe what Bakunin wrote about Marx, then Soviet communism is what Marx was thinking about.

You're an anarchist?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

The USSR was sick because it could no longer compete with the U.S. in the arms race. .

Ding!

Reagan's obssession with the Star Wars Defense System, and other military toys helped to bring down the USSR.

As for those in Soviet Bloc nations, people such as the Poles and the Czechs absolutley despised the Soviets.
The USSR fell because communism pure and simple cannot work.
It's a very good idea if everyone works equally, but there are slackers. People begin to realize that they can slack off too, and soon the USSR's economy is imploding because people won't work. That's not to say that everyone didn't work, but there was an inherient problem in the system. It certianly didn't help to have a select few people living the rich lifestyle.

To acheive a truly communist state is to achive utopia, to build that communist state, one must live in utopia. It simply cannont work.

This topic cannot be observed from that one angle....there are countless other reasons for the plight of the USSR - but most of them are economic (stagnation in production and no stimulus for growth) and sociological/psychological. The Soviets were tired of 74 years of dirt, scum, corruption, and general idiocy [you had to live there to fully understand what I mean by 'idiocy'...] - that is, the 'common man' of the USSR was perhaps unhappy by the chaos brought upon by the collapse, yet at the same time was happy to receive the material goods he could not have before. Perestroika opened the union up to the west - a small glimpse through a small crack...and the West came in like a torrent, and the Soviets invited it and they loved it. I think that's the main reason - poverty, ugly clothing, lack of stimulus and excitement to progress...nothing to strive for, and the ever present West glorified in the cinema, all those Finnish business men drinking Remy in the moscow cafes...........the people of the USSR are the ones who built the country, and they themselves willingly destroyed it. It's not about US spies, or the US's desire to crush the union...it was far greater than that.

I think that the USA is largely to be blamed for the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, they (In addition to some minor countries) were the only ones really against communism. Above that, Moscow was infiltrated by many US spies. I'm not really going to believe that the USSR collapsed because the people wanted it to happen! Many citizens craved for a second communist revolution after Democracy was instituted.
Damned right the USA was partly responsible for the collapse. It was longstanding American policy to help them along in economic decline by forcing them to try to beat us militarily. Communism is inherently unstable, we just assisted them in the process of dying. We did our jobs. Long live America!

The inherent problem with authoritarian governments is that a single person/group of people can immensely screw things up. These types of governments naturally attract ruthless individuals who believe only in their own infallibility. Sometimes, these leaders are excellent, but once a really atrocious leader takes power, it's almost certain that the nation which he controls will find itself in a bad spot. Furthermore, the necessity of the use of force to maintain authoritarian government leads to inherent inefficiencies, which are increasibly self-perpetuating in nature as time goes on. Case in point, one must eliminate political opposition, yet, in eliminating opposition, one often also eliminates necessary members of society. This in turn leads to a degradation of aspects of that nation's power, which eventually becomes so bad that these places collapse upon themselves. Mainly, it's just that authoritarian governments can ONLY be maintained through force, which is simply not nearly as efficient as every-man-for-himself capitalism.

The idea that China, North Korea, Cuba, or the USSR are or were communist is really weird. I can only suppose that it was created by western propaganda and swallowed by the sort of people who'll believe [insert name of religious text].

The idea that communism is dead is also weird, as is the idea that the likes of the US will go on forever. Marxism and related or similar theories lashed out far too soon, the Manifesto rushed out to coincide with hopeless socialist revolutions in the mid C19th- who on earth could have believed that such a massive force as global industrialisation under the capitalist system would have rolled over and died after such little time?

As the Communist Manifesto implies, borgeois capitalism was and is just as inevitable as communism, and it has and may still yet contribute a lot to the human condition. Again, as the Manifesto insists, it's still going down, and communism is bound eventually to replace it. It's just that the idea of replacing it on a whim so soon after the first serious alternatives had even been imagined, let alone seriously thought-out, was overly hopefull and keen.

Sadly right does not make might, and whatever forces created the possiblity of life gave little or no consideration to the suffering of individual generations. The USSR was destined to fail because it came too soon and was easily subverted in its infancy (by Stalin), much as were similar tides of feeling and anticipation in other nations touched by so called communist revolution.

See now in NS things are different, and BG is well on the way -after years of isolation and patience- to pure communism. (Damn the sloth of the real world's advancement! Damn you, real-time!)

China is not communist. It has child labor! How much less communist can you get?

As for utopian governments, they can't exist because government is inherently based on force and coersion.
China is not communist?? You better let the folks inside the Forbidden City in Beijing know. Also, North Korea and Cuba need to be reminded.

I do agree...utopian governments can't exist...however, the reason for that is simple human nature (i.e., us humans will find a way to mess it up anyway.)
At least you can rest assured that neither China, North Korea or Cuba are communist.

Next you'll be saying that the US is a kind, inclusive, democratic non oppresive sort of place to live in.
:lol:

I think that the USA is largely to be blamed for the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, they (In addition to some minor countries) were the only ones really against communism. Above that, Moscow was infiltrated by many US spies. I'm not really going to believe that the USSR collapsed because the people wanted it to happen! Many citizens craved for a second communist revolution after Democracy was instituted.

Yes, people wanted it to happen.

In Eastern Europe in 1989 to 1990, it was popular movements that overthrew the local communist regimes. Very few of them were violent, the one major exception being Romania. For the most part, it was international forces that transcend government that did it.

These people wanted to be integrated into the West. This was most true in Germany, where East Germans could easily see that they WERE the have-nots and West Germans were the HAVES.

"They came. They saw. They went shopping."
--Graffiti on the Berlin Wall

So yes, the United States was largely to blame for the collapse of the USSR. The United States whoed the USSR sattelite countries that they were the have-nots. They wanted to be haves. Communism just wasn't the way to go.

At least you can rest assured that neither China, North Korea or Cuba are communist.

Next you'll be saying that the US is a kind, inclusive, democratic non oppresive sort of place to live in.
:lol:

China is a transitional economy. NK and Cuba still have communist economies, even if they aren't nice little communes where everyone is happy politically.

THe United States isn't pure capitalist either. Don't blame "Corporate Power" on capitalism--that's the fault of the government for granting special favors to politically powerful corporations. Under pure capitalism you would have Separation of Business and State.

I must disagree. As George Kennan prophesized in the 1940s, the Soviet Union - afterall, a totalitarian state, suppressing civil liberties (I know, that's redundant) and dominated by a nomenklatura elite class through a 'party of power' (not an ideologically based socialist or communist party but one simply dedicated to maintaining power for itself) - was simply not able to provide for the basic 'quality of life' needs of its citizens over the long term and so collapsed of its own wait. The USSR was in a serious tailspin economically in the 1980s, which is why Gorbachev embraced perestroika and glasnost. His goal was not to reform or democratize the Soviet Union, but rather to introduce enough reform to keep the political and socioeconomic elite, through the continued dominance of the Party, in power. He lost control of that movement. There is not a serious political movement in Russia today to return the country to a Soviet-style state, but there is considerable dissatisfaction with the current regime regarding the halting pace of economic growth and so a desire for the romanticized economic stability of the Soviet era. Hence Putin's increasing support, especially as instability is associated with Chechyan violence. I doubt seriously whether any Russian longs for the days of the KGB, the gulag, censorship, and Orwellian life. The Soviet Union collapsed because its political system failed. To the extent that the United States played a role, it was in the context of the Cold War: by forcing the Soviets to accept a 'new' arms race in the 1980s, the U.S. 'called the question.' Could the Soviets compete equally in providing both 'guns and butter' for the Russian people? The answer was no . . . and Gorbachev knew it.

Further, most of the world has discarded communism, especially the Stalinist brand and, in China, the Maoist variation. China today is hardly a communist country at all, but possesses a socialist mixed economy dominated by private and foreign investors, which the Chinese Communist Party accepts (as sources of technology and expertise) with open arms so long as political liberalization doesn't follow suit. The Chinese CP remains a 'party of power' in this sense. Since 1989 (or 1991), countries throughout the world have abandoned communism (which is not to be equated with the growth of social welfare states). How many truly communist states remain today, and how successful are they? North Korea? Cuba? Albania? Without defending the excesses of capitalism, let's not romanticize Soviet communism, and manifest failure.

I must disagree. As George Kennan prophesized in the 1940s, the Soviet Union - afterall, a totalitarian state, suppressing civil liberties (I know, that's redundant) and dominated by a nomenklatura elite class through a 'party of power' (not an ideologically based socialist or communist party but one simply dedicated to maintaining power for itself) - was simply not able to provide for the basic 'quality of life' needs of its citizens over the long term and so collapsed of its own wait. The USSR was in a serious tailspin economically in the 1980s, which is why Gorbachev embraced perestroika and glasnost. His goal was not to reform or democratize the Soviet Union, but rather to introduce enough reform to keep the political and socioeconomic elite, through the continued dominance of the Party, in power. He lost control of that movement. There is not a serious political movement in Russia today to return the country to a Soviet-style state, but there is considerable dissatisfaction with the current regime regarding the halting pace of economic growth and so a desire for the romanticized economic stability of the Soviet era. Hence Putin's increasing support, especially as instability is associated with Chechyan violence. I doubt seriously whether any Russian longs for the days of the KGB, the gulag, censorship, and Orwellian life. The Soviet Union collapsed because its political system failed. To the extent that the United States played a role, it was in the context of the Cold War: by forcing the Soviets to accept a 'new' arms race in the 1980s, the U.S. 'called the question.' Could the Soviets compete equally in providing both 'guns and butter' for the Russian people? The answer was no . . . and Gorbachev knew it.

Further, most of the world has discarded communism, especially the Stalinist brand and, in China, the Maoist variation. China today is hardly a communist country at all, but possesses a socialist mixed economy dominated by private and foreign investors, which the Chinese Communist Party accepts (as sources of technology and expertise) with open arms so long as political liberalization doesn't follow suit. The Chinese CP remains a 'party of power' in this sense. Since 1989 (or 1991), countries throughout the world have abandoned communism (which is not to be equated with the growth of social welfare states). How many truly communist states remain today, and how successful are they? North Korea? Cuba? Albania? Without defending the excesses of capitalism, let's not romanticize Soviet communism, and nor ignore its manifest failure or rationalize it as the result of some American right-wing Hollywood conspiracy to destroy a utopian state.

I must disagree. As George Kennan prophesized in the 1940s, the Soviet Union - afterall, a totalitarian state, suppressing civil liberties (I know, that's redundant) and dominated by a nomenklatura elite class through a 'party of power' (not an ideologically based socialist or communist party but one simply dedicated to maintaining power for itself) - was simply not able to provide for the basic 'quality of life' needs of its citizens over the long term and so collapsed of its own wait. The USSR was in a serious tailspin economically in the 1980s, which is why Gorbachev embraced perestroika and glasnost. His goal was not to reform or democratize the Soviet Union, but rather to introduce enough reform to keep the political and socioeconomic elite, through the continued dominance of the Party, in power. He lost control of that movement. There is not a serious political movement in Russia today to return the country to a Soviet-style state, but there is considerable dissatisfaction with the current regime regarding the halting pace of economic growth and so a desire for the romanticized economic stability of the Soviet era. Hence Putin's increasing support, especially as instability is associated with Chechyan violence. I doubt seriously whether any Russian longs for the days of the KGB, the gulag, censorship, and Orwellian life. The Soviet Union collapsed because its political system failed. To the extent that the United States played a role, it was in the context of the Cold War: by forcing the Soviets to accept a 'new' arms race in the 1980s, the U.S. 'called the question.' Could the Soviets compete equally in providing both 'guns and butter' for the Russian people? The answer was no . . . and Gorbachev knew it.

Further, most of the world has discarded communism, especially the Stalinist brand and, in China, the Maoist variation. China today is hardly a communist country at all, but possesses a socialist mixed economy dominated by private and foreign investors, which the Chinese Communist Party accepts (as sources of technology and expertise) with open arms so long as political liberalization doesn't follow suit. The Chinese CP remains a 'party of power' in this sense. Since 1989 (or 1991), countries throughout the world have abandoned communism (which is not to be equated with the growth of social welfare states). How many truly communist states remain today, and how successful are they? North Korea? Cuba? Albania? Without defending the excesses of capitalism, let's not romanticize Soviet communism, and so ignore its manifest failure or rationalize it as the result of some American right-wing Hollywood conspiracy to destroy a utopian state.

Some people say that marxism caused alot of suffering but I beg to differ. If communist countries followed marxism then maybe there would be less suffering instead of making up there versions of maxism e.g communism etc

The USSR was sick because it could no longer compete with the U.S. in the arms race.

The Russian Army was still more powerful than the American in 1980.

By 1989, the arms race didn't matter any more. Except for Romania, every Eastern European revolution of 1989-91 was relatively nonviolent.

Russia couild've had the strongest army in the world in 1990, and it would've still collapsed. The military could no longer support the state.

It also didn't help that corruption and industrial production was at an all time low. If I remember right, Andropov commissioned a KGB report on how the USSR was doing overall. Things looked bleak and his plan was to institute another series of purges and reforms; he died before he could accomplish his goal. Gorbachev took over and began reforms. In my opinion he was too trusting of Yeltsin who dissolved the USSR when Gorbachev went to his retreat.

Even if industrial production was high, the fact remains that the USSR would've collapsed.

In 1959, the two countries had exhibitions in each other. The USSR displayed their indsutrial might in steel and factories and such. The USA did it using consumer goods. People wanted consumer goods more.

And as for people not wanting it gone. You have ZERO idea what you are talking about. I was born in Poland and saw some of the things that happened. Who wanted the collapse of the USSR? Most of the people in the Eastern Bloc. Those people who crave another return to communism are usually those who got used to the old system, were part of the system or had something to gain under it.

"They came. They saw. They went shopping."
--Graffiti on the Berlin Wall

By 1989, for perhaps the first time in history, the Have-Nots at least knew that they were have-nots.

Communism ruined people's lives on a scale few people can understand. Stalin and Mao both committed purges of opponents on scales that makes Hitler look like an apprentice. I personnally know people who spent time in work camps for dozens of years and one who spent 16 years in a mine.

In any case, the communist system turned out the way it did because of those peopel who pushed for it. If we believe what Bakunin wrote about Marx, then Soviet communism is what Marx was thinking about.

The Communist system turned out as it is because it didn't have a concept of rights and was too trusting of the government.

If you read the Soviet Constitution, it guarantees that you have free speech by forcing the government to give you a printing press, paper, public buildings, etc. Whereas the US Constitution guarantees free speech negatively--that the governemnt cannot pass ANY laws in that area.

Guess which country had more free speech?

Some people say that marxism caused alot of suffering but I beg to differ. If communist countries followed marxism then maybe there would be less suffering instead of making up there versions of maxism e.g communism etc

If Marx, instead of writing aobut capital, had gone out and made some, we would all have suffered a great deal less.

Some people say that marxism caused alot of suffering but I beg to differ. If communist countries followed marxism then maybe there would be less suffering instead of making up there versions of maxism e.g communism etc


And how did Marx envisage his Communist utopia being achieved? A series of violent, bloody revolutions and the elimination of all people or structures seen as embodying any attribute other than Communist ones. Suffering and death are totally inseparable from a Marxist history.

One of the most common mistakes I've heard is "communism works on paper". Classic liberal type thinkers have for a century and a half repeatedly demonstrated the theoretical fallacies of communism. I don't even understand what "works on paper" means. Does "2+2=5" work on paper?

Communism fails for a variety of reasons. Firstly there is the argument "power corrupts", or rather "power attracts the corrupt". Once you invent a position of such power as a totalitarian dictator it is only a matter of time before it is seized by a Stalin or a Pol Pot. Why? Because in communism those who rise to the top are those most willing and able to use and abuse political power, i.e. the worst get on top. Couple this with the ideology of communism which is committed to a "social revolution" at any cost and you get a recipe for disaster enforce by the guillotine and the firing squad.

Secondly there is the "calculational argument" due to Von Mises and Hayek. The argument goes that without a pricing structure communist economic planners have no rational way to decide what to produce or how (profit/loss on the market does this automatically). For example, should cars be made from aluminium or steel. Ford decide by asking what makes the most profit but how do the USSR do it? Every decision by communist planners is essentially arbitrary or at best a guess and the result is a catastrophic (I really want to emphasise how massive an effect this has, truly huge) drop in efficiency and hence in material wealth for the masses. This is probably the biggest problem for communism.

Then there is the problem of incentives. In a free market if I work harder most of the benefit goes to me so I have an incentive to work hard and efficiently. By contrast, in communism very little benefit goes to me so I don't work very hard or I only pretend to. There is no incentive to invest or to conserve scarce resources. There is no incentive to innovate or invent or research. Commmunist theorists say that this doesn't have much effect but everybody who doesn't live in an "ivory tower" knows this isn't true and studies have repeatedly demonstrated the value of incentives. This is another massive reason for the depravity of communist nations.

Aside from this there are all the same problems we have with bureaucracy but worse. Communist nations are plagued by sprawling bureacracy, inefficient, wasteful and arrogant. And while on the market what is produced is determined by the demands of the consumers in communism what is produced is determined by the demands of bureaucrats and politicians. Thus there is over investment in the military and heavy industry.

The US might have pushed the USSR over the edge but it wouldn't have done very well anyway. Remember the arms race put a strain on the US too but it was the USSR which broke, not the US.

Of course, Russia is still not a free market by a long shot. Neither is the US. Corrupt governments continue to perpetuate misery in both countries, especially Russia. Global Market has it licked, a total seperation of economy and state is the best solution. Seperation of everything else and state would be nice too.....

Secondly there is the "calculational argument" due to Von Mises and Hayek. The argument goes that without a pricing structure communist economic planners have no rational way to decide what to produce or how (profit/loss on the market does this automatically). For example, should cars be made from aluminium or steel. Ford decide by asking what makes the most profit but how do the USSR do it? Every decision by communist planners is essentially arbitrary or at best a guess and the result is a catastrophic (I really want to emphasise how massive an effect this has, truly huge) drop in efficiency and hence in material wealth for the masses. This is probably the biggest problem for communism.

calculation argument; bah. the calculation argument was never a death blow - its not like the socialist side didn't have numerous counter arguments and proposals for transmiting information about both production and consumption. and they weren't proven wrong when the soviet union fell, because it didn't use them.

it is true that the central planners weren't planning rationally. but it isn't because it is theoretically impossible for them to do so. they planned fairly well for the things they cared about (the military, industrialization, and their own privileges - though even then not as well as they could have for reasons discussed below) and terribly for things they didn't (consumer goods, etc). the main reason for this disparity is one of power - the powerful had certain goals and those were the goals to be met. there wasn't a system in place that allowed for real input into the plans from people in general, or even local managers.

additionally, the plans were set without a proper system of feedback. they weren't set as general production targets and then periodically modified based on production and consumption rates (which would be trivially easy to do). they were set as absolute production demands whether or not they made sense or were even possible. and if they weren't met people were punished. which means that whatever feedback was given would be riddled with exaggerations and inaccuracies.

and any possible reform in planning was viewed with a lot of skepticism or outright hostility. the system they had was politically and ideologically entrenched.

what the ussr had was the powerful making all the decisions, punishment when their plans couldn't be met, a lack of input from the non-powerful, a lack of feedback and plan adjustments, and a system that encouraged the spread of false information. taken together that is more than enough to severely harm an economy. it also has no necessary relationship to socialism.

Gorbechev did more to end communism with his reforms than the US did. In the end, it was internal. Once a degree of political freedom was introduced the people wanted more.

of course, the communist party is the main opposition party today.

Being the main opposition party in Russia today dosen't mean much, considering the massive support Putin/his party has.

Being the main opposition party in Russia today dosen't mean much, considering the massive support Putin/his party has.

assuming the elections were fair - there were some serious allegations flying in both the presidential and duma elections, from opposition parties and international observers

then again, putin was part of the kgb and the russian presidency is every bit as authoritarian as the last rulers of the ussr, so maybe it doesn't really matter.

Being the main opposition party in Russia today dosen't mean much, considering the massive support Putin/his party has.

(As a result of his oppressive use of the powers of the state including his media monopoly).

So then being the main opposition party dosen't mean much, does it. :wink:

However, the idea of the modern and educated man is to suppress those inherently negative forces inside the minds. Greed can be suppressed. In communism, people DON'T have to live in poverty. Countries like the U.S. and Canada have so much money to go around that everybody could live a comfortable, not-too-poor, not-filthy-rich lifestyle. I am sure that 96% of the population would feel the same way. If you ask me, the other 4% should be reeducated (And I DO NOT mean by forcing them to work in labour camps and such, but rather, rehabilitate them).

Excuse me..why should I a wage-earner pay for someone to live that is a non-wage earner?..and how would you rehabilitate those of us who do not share your communist attitude..mebbe I want to charge whatever I want for my services..or is that too much freedom for you?

Excuse me..why should I a wage-earner pay for someone to live that is a non-wage earner?

don't know, why do you?

Excuse me..why should I a wage-earner pay for someone to live that is a non-wage earner?

don't know, why do you?

Well..apparently Scandanavian thinks I should...ask him

Excuse me..why should I a wage-earner pay for someone to live that is a non-wage earner?

don't know, why do you?

Well..apparently Scandanavian thinks I should...ask him

no, i mean that you currently are paying for some people to live that aren't wage earners. we call them bosses or owners or capitalists.

Excuse me..why should I a wage-earner pay for someone to live that is a non-wage earner?

don't know, why do you?

Well..apparently Scandanavian thinks I should...ask him

no, i mean that you currently are paying for some people to live that aren't wage earners. we call them bosses or owners or capitalists.

Oh now...my boss works..of that I can assure you...puts in 8 hours a day just like me...and my bosses's boss also works 8 hours a day, and the owner..well the owner is a Pediatric Cardiac Surgeon....and I can ASSURE you he works more the 8 hours a day..depending on the surgeries he has scheduled..

No...I pay for the welfare mother of 3 kids who coiuldn't afford the first one raking in welfare, WIC, Section 8 housing...all for doing nothing, or the drunk on Cuthbert Ave or the methadone clinic that shouldn't be paid for with my taxes...oh there are lots of non wage-earners out there.

no, i mean that you currently are paying for some people to live that aren't wage earners. we call them bosses or owners or capitalists.

Oh now...my boss works..of that I can assure you...puts in 8 hours a day just like me...and my bosses's boss also works 8 hours a day, and the owner..well the owner is a Pediatric Cardiac Surgeon....and I can ASSURE you he works more the 8 hours a day..depending on the surgeries he has scheduled..

and if the owner stopped doing surgery, would he stop making money off of your workplace?

So then being the main opposition party dosen't mean much, does it. :wink:


I wasn't arguing, I just wanted to add that out of dislike for the man.

I think that the USA is largely to be blamed for the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, they (In addition to some minor countries) were the only ones really against communism. Above that, Moscow was infiltrated by many US spies. I'm not really going to believe that the USSR collapsed because the people wanted it to happen! Many citizens craved for a second communist revolution after Democracy was instituted.

That's like saying that the US can be blamed for Germany's fall in WWII. Of course we wanted our enemies to be defeated, and I'm glad that it was us and not them.

And the US had just as many Soviet spies in it as the USSR had Americans.