Does Communism work?

[Jared]

I think it is too hasty to draw any of those conclusions that communism "does not work", as "does not work" is unknown within an economic/political ideology structured upon common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, as one can easily argue the same thing about capitalism and liberalism. I would like to object to the claim that communism is not compatible and conflicts with our human nature; on the contrary, it conflicts with our current power systems and interests of the elite. Our nature is so complex that no scientific research that has been conducted and will be conducted, will not arrive at an answer. There will only be speculations, and this question has been tackled by philosophers ever since Plato's days. It is hard enough by cognitive scientists to investigate an insect and how it functions, etc, whether we have an innate biological nature or if we are products of external factors.

The reason liberalness has gained so much ground and seems to be beyond criticism is precisely because of its inherent protectionism and the prevailing propaganda; a filter of anti-communism, anti-socialism that permeates the media and educational system. There has existed and still exists socialist societies built up from grassroots levels with a democratic participation, involving both collectivization and communization, some which got a foothold in the history but were unfortunately dismantled by the U.S. and the West, particularly in South America and Asia, Vietnam par excellency. Another example is Catalonia, Spain, in the 1930s which had a decentralized anchor-syndicalism/communism. A society in which factories were run by the workers themselves and working councils, all which came to an end due to Francois Fascism. Another model, very similar to anarchism with socialist roots, significant for both federalists and anti-federalists in the old US, were the native Americans who created highly sophisticated and democratic federations for self-governing units. In contrast to our system, the native Americans had the ability to remove corrupt people, and even women had a significant role in decision making. They were often small units sometimes extending to 40-45.000 people operating on mutual respect derived from experience. Equality was important, they were exceedingly collaborative but also individual, elders were honored but everybody had their say. It was largely a participatory society, if you had a large number of people they would be in a federation, each village would decide for itself, but they elected one from each village to represent the village. When the representatives would meet, they had the consensus from the common people of their village. By and large, you had a much more functioning democracy. These people who are and were ironically refereed to as primitive and savage, had created a far more democratic system of self governance than any "civilized" nation of history.

I am not much in favor of Trotsky school of thought, but his analysis of the bureaucratic affairs in the CCCP, which blossomed into Stalinist and which a few "communist" states later adopted thereafter, is very readable. The collectivization in these pseudo-communist societies happened violently which was forced upon proletarians in undemocratic manners by a class which had adopted bourgeoisie mentality, a system more commonly known as Bolshevism. The final end cannot be reached by new classes of governance substituting themselves for the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, it can only be realized by the proletarians and workers themselves controlling the production, which is not unthinkable at all if we take a look at the history.

 

[Macemore]

Russia

 

[Jared]

Russia

Communism failed in Russia because communism and socialism are fatally flawed, both in theory and practice. Imagine the market as an infinite number of transactions. In socialism/communism, most of the transactions result from the forcible redistribution of wealth, from producer to consumer. In other words, the government takes some form of wealth from one party and gives it to another party. This has four very harmful effects on the transaction, and collectively, on the economy:

(1) only one party benefits, while the other party is harmed. There is a winner and a loser in every transaction;

(2) typically, the party that benefits simply consumes the benefit instead of turning it into production;

(3) the government must insert itself as a middleman in the transaction (the hammer that forces the redistribution), and this must also be financed, usually by taking their cut; and

(4) eventually, no one wants to be a producer, when producers are what the economy (and the society) needs the most.

In capitalism, transactions are mutually beneficial. If I value your loaf of bread more than I value the dollar in my pocket, and you value the dollar in my pocket more than you value your loaf of bread, then we trade. Both of us benefit! There is no "winner" or "loser" in the transaction. Further, I can add value by selling individual pieces of toast to other customers, for example, at 20 cents per piece, and turn that loaf into a $2.00 profit for me, while still getting to eat some of it. And, in a capitalist society, the government pretty much keeps its hands out of the deal (except for a relatively nominal sales tax). There is no need for the government to "force" the deal, because it is voluntary and it is good for the economy and society.

Now imagine the cumulative effect of this dynamic: if you have an economy that institutionalizes the plunder of the producers for the benefit of the consumers, then you compound all the inherent flaws infinitely, while you deny society the opportunity for the mutually beneficial interaction. On a personal level, this makes your neighbor your enemy instead of your potential partner, because there is only so much the government can plunder on your behalf.

This was the tragedy of the Soviet Union. It did not collapse because of U.S. intervention. That is an utter fallacy. It would have collapsed long ago had it NOT been for U.S. aid bailing it out of its self-created famines during the Stalin years.

China is in a different situation. Communism there did not fail spectacularly and dramatically like the Soviet Union, because it is gradually adapting capitalist policies and allowing greater freedoms. As one answer pointed out, approximately 1/3 of its economy is now private. This is a huge step forward for them, and has allowed millions to bring themselves up out of the poverty that years of communism had forced on them.