NationStates Jolt Archive

If Communism was so great, why did USSR fail?

Cold war.

Who said communism was great? I didnt (and I'm pretty damn liberal).

the ussr wasn't a true communist country...

Who said communism was great? I didnt (and I'm pretty damn liberal).
I said it.

To engage in oversimplification of almost Reaganic proportions: Because they weren't Communist.

To give a still oversimplified but more realistic answer: because the system in place could only continue via expansion. When they ran out of takable targets, downfall was inevitable.

And if Democracy is so great, why did Rome collapse?

It fell because, instead of practicing communism, it instead instituted an amazingly repressive dictatorship government.

Gorbachev tried to make it into a capitalist nation.

It overburdened itself with it's bloated military - just like the U.S. of A which has a ton of debt that it can never repay, thanks to it's bloated military oppressor/intimidation apparatus.

To engage in oversimplification of almost Reaganic proportions: Because they weren't Communist.

To give a still oversimplified but more realistic answer: because the system in place could only continue via expansion. When they ran out of takable targets, downfall was inevitable.

And if Democracy is so great, why did Rome collapse?

Being that the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics never said their country was communist.......you're really stating the obvious.

I said it.
ok. I'm personally of the belief that a mostly free market is the way to go. Just enough restrictions to prevent monopolies and questionable business practices, but not too much to restrict progress.

Anyhow, the USSR probably failed because it was competing with America.

To engage in oversimplification of almost Reaganic proportions: Because they weren't Communist.

To give a still oversimplified but more realistic answer: because the system in place could only continue via expansion. When they ran out of takable targets, downfall was inevitable.

And if Democracy is so great, why did Rome collapse?

Rome was never a democracy it was a republic. The republic was then overthrown and became an empire. So the Republic failed becuase of a few overzelous people wanted power. The economy wasnt bad or anything.

ok. I'm personally of the belief that a mostly free market is the way to go. Just enough restrictions to prevent monopolies and questionable business practices, but not too much to restrict progress.

Anyhow, the USSR probably failed because it was competing with America.

If not having a free market stops progress......then how did the Soviets progress?

In 1917, the Soviet Union was a weak, agricultural nation. By 1960, it was an incredibly powerful industrial nation.

That strikes me as progress.

If not having a free market stops progress......then how did the Soviets progress?

In 1917, the Soviet Union was a weak, agricultural nation. By 1960, it was an incredibly powerful industrial nation.

That strikes me as progress.
Well life for the average Russian was probably still very shitty.

Gorbachev tried to make it into a capitalist nation.

Not true. Gorbachev was trying to transform it into a Socialist democracy.

The main cause was indeed the Cold War, and the overspending on military and the propaganda offensive from the West that came with it.
However, economic collapse was all but unavoidable from 1980 onwards. The Economy was too far entrenched in its inefficiencies to be pulled out. For decades there had been underinvestment in consumer goods and agriculture. The USSR just couldn't export.

Rome was never a democracy it was a republic. The republic was then overthrown and became an empire. So the Republic failed becuase of a few overzelous people wanted power. The economy wasnt bad or anything.
Actually the economy was god-awful. It was based on a credit system that would make people gasp and die now, a system that wound up creating debt of such stratospheric proportions, few could handle it. Furthermore, the Roman Empire never had a truly unified economy, more along the lines of a confederation without internal taxing, but also without a unified revenue stream. To get more into depth is unnecessary, just know that their economy was junk.

cast system, capatlist, socialist, comunist, Removal of need for government.

Although this may seem a little weird I think this will happen... to all nations to fallow this order of government. The nation before becoming perfect is comunist to basicly set everyone as equal. It would almost regress to a cast system in that you are born into what you do but everyone is equal in that they all reep all rewards. This balancing of all forms of life would make fore a boring stock market but then again there wouldent be one... everyone would own everything and just progress as a whole insted of individualy.

If Communism was so great, why did USSR fail?
Ronald Reagan. :)

Ronald Reagan. :)

All Reagan did was carry on doing what all the Presidents who came before him did. The US could have elected a doughnut as President and the USSR would still have fallen.

Not true. Gorbachev was trying to transform it into a Socialist democracy.

The main cause was indeed the Cold War, and the overspending on military and the propaganda offensive from the West that came with it.
However, economic collapse was all but unavoidable from 1980 onwards. The Economy was too far entrenched in its inefficiencies to be pulled out. For decades there had been underinvestment in consumer goods and agriculture. The USSR just couldn't export.

He tried to put widespread free enterprise into practice. That's capitalism.

The USSR wasn't even close to communism. The workers didn't control the means of production, money was still used, etc. The defining characteristics of communism weren't there at all.

To think of it no nation has realy displayed evin one of the fundimental views of comunism...

If Communism was so great, why did USSR fail?
cause the ussr wasnt communist. it was a dictatorship with a pieces of communist ideas.
and no one knows if communism is great, it has never been tryed out. maybe it doesnt work, who knows.

cause the ussr wasnt communist. it was a dictatorship with a pieces of communist ideas.
and no one knows if communism is great, it has never been tryed out. maybe it doesnt work, who knows.
I think i know it would work... but only on a small scale. Atleast untill humanity becomes more logical, in logical i mean fighting for the common good and also figuring out what common good is...

I wish people would stop bashing the USSR for not being fully communist. DUH! They never SAID the country was truly communist! Thus the reason that they named themselves the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

cause the ussr wasnt communist. it was a dictatorship with a pieces of communist ideas.
and no one knows if communism is great, it has never been tryed out. maybe it doesnt work, who knows.

From what people are saying, true communism has never been attained. Is it becasue people have an inborn self interest so it can never be had? Or did the all the other "communist" countries just screw up or used it as a ploy to rally people to their cause?

He tried to put widespread free enterprise into practice. That's capitalism.

No, he allowed direct worker control of state-owned enterprises, and loosened the Government's grip on them.
He also allowed co-operative private businesses to set up, but these were heavily taxed and regulated. That is not 'free enterprise.'

No, he allowed direct worker control of state-owned enterprises, and loosened the Government's grip on them.
He also allowed co-operative private businesses to set up, but these were heavily taxed and regulated. That is not 'free enterprise.'

He DID allow private enterprise, privatizing parts of the Soviet economy. For example, he gave private land to farmers, reducing government-owned agricultural land.

From what people are saying, true communism has never been attained. Is it becasue people have an inborn self interest so it can never be had? Or did the all the other "communist" countries just screw up or used it as a ploy to rally people to their cause?
True communism has been attained-- in Native America, where the entire tribe was pretty much viewed as equal and the chief was democratically elected and in Old Africa, where, although there was slavery, the slaves were such in name only and were in fact considered official members of the family, and in any case slavery had restrictions and people were allowed into an egalitarian household after they finished service and the slaves were never abused. As these two communities show, communism makes a large-scale military system nearly impossible to attain and true communism actually results in a very advanced agricultural system, two factors which prove that the USSR was never communist.

True communism has been attained-- in Native America, where the entire tribe was pretty much viewed as equal and the chief was democratically elected and in Old Africa, where, although there was slavery, the slaves were such in name only and were in fact considered official members of the family, and in any case slavery had restrictions and people were allowed into an egalitarian household after they finished service and the slaves were never abused. As these two communities show, communism makes a large-scale military system nearly impossible to attain and true communism actually results in a very advanced agricultural system, two factors which prove that the USSR was never communist.

Native Americans? True Communists? Umm......no

Communism advocates equality........and slavery is by no means equality, even if they're treated "okay".

Well life for the average Russian was probably still very shitty.

Not really. The best example I can give on the top of my head is Slaughterhouse five. In the intro, Vonnegut talks about a russian friend he has(or was it east german...I think russian though), and they say a little about life in russia. After the war, it was really hard work and shitty, but by the 60's, life was pretty good, despite what america wanted everyone to believe. It wasn't awesome, but it was better than alot of nations, and it wasn't horrible.

Because America was overwhelmingly behind a popular president who was focused almost solely on their demise. The USSR simply couldn't hold the pace Reagan set in the cold war under his administration. Americans could handle increased spending better than the russians could handle increased hardship. (and that's saying something)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MOTHERLAND!!!!!!!!! Seriously though, the USSR was a mess internally and it was only A matter of time until the people finally would say "I'm sick of this sh*t, let start a REVOLUTION!"

cause the ussr wasnt communist. it was a dictatorship with a pieces of communist ideas.
and no one knows if communism is great, it has never been tryed out. maybe it doesnt work, who knows.

Nor will it ever be tried. People have tried to try it (if that makes any sense) but human nature gets in the way. No matter how good the genral populace is there will be one corrupt person out there with the will, smarts, and charisma to take advantage of the system.

Maybe because communism doesn't work on a large scale (ignoring the fact that the USSR wasn't really communist)? Once you have a large scale, you move away from individual responsibility towards others you know and towards one bureaucratic system or another. Every example of successful communism (some native american tribes, the early christian church groups, other tribes in africa, whichever tribes anywhere else), the biggest commonality for a successful group was that it was small enough that each person was personally connected to a not-insignificant percentage of the rest of the population.

Maybe because communism doesn't work on a large scale (ignoring the fact that the USSR wasn't really communist)? Once you have a large scale, you move away from individual responsibility towards others you know and towards one bureaucratic system or another. Every example of successful communism (some native american tribes, the early christian church groups, other tribes in africa, whichever tribes anywhere else), the biggest commonality for a successful group was that it was small enough that each person was personally connected to a not-insignificant percentage of the rest of the population.
I don't agree. I think communism only work on a global scale. It works with a mass of people, because it uses resourses more efficiently with the mass.
Communism must not be confused with tribalism

If Communism was so great, why did USSR fail?
If free markets are so great why all the countries that left USSR are doing a lot worse than before?
Well Baltic countries aren't but they did have a special status. They had been independent free democracies until 1940´s.
Don't take me wrong. I'm not saying communism is great.

If free markets are so great why all the countries that left USSR are doing a lot worse than before?

quite possibly because russian capitalism has very little to do with a trully free market, kinda like how russian 'communism' had very little to do with communism or even socialism. it's a system run mostly by a bunch of plutocrats and mobsters.

and then there is the fact that after all of the productive assests of the country were stolen from the people and given away in sweetheart deals, russia didn't have a way to fund a welfare state. then they tried to implement direct taxation on people who had no money in the first place. a stupid idea really.

The Socialist state command economy model in the Soviet Union was never really a failure. During the 1930's and in the 1950's and 1960's it produced some of the highest economic growth rates on record to date. However, two anomalous events occured that caused any success or progress to be made worthless;

1. The Second World War, all of the Western USSR was virtually destroyed in terms of agriculture, industry and infrastructure and it would take the Soviet Union decades to recover from its effects.

2. The Reagan Presidency, Reagan unnecessarily (Soviet Union was beginning to reform already under Andropov) heightened the Cold War with a massive boost in arms production particullarly in nuclear weapons, this in turn forced the Russian to come up with a counter by producing more. Their economy could not handle the strain of increased arms production and it began to implode.....

quite possibly because russian capitalism has very little to do with a trully free market, kinda like how russian 'communism' had very little to do with communism or even socialism. it's a system run mostly by a bunch of plutocrats and mobsters.

and then there is the fact that after all of the productive assests of the country were stolen from the people and given away in sweetheart deals, russia didn't have a way to fund a welfare state. then they tried to implement direct taxation on people who had no money in the first place. a stupid idea really.
Yes, I do understand that it was an impossible task for the former USSR nations. I thought the original question was a bit silly, and made an silly argument against it.
But some things were better in USSR. Back then they were able to pay wages (most of the time), provide free electricity and running water etc. Now people have to pay for services, an idea which they haven't used to. There are a lot more unemployment. Corruption (and burocracy) makes all attempts to provide private services practically impossible.
And many of the nations are slowly turning from democracies into dictatorships, like Belarus and Georgia.