Was communism really a failure?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Wasn't the basic problem with the Soviet Union's economy that the central planners couldn't get the supply/demand right? This is as opposed to capitalism, which doesn't have this problem because the pricing system automatically directs supply/demand quickly and accurately.

But really, just because the USSR couldn't get pricing and distribution right, does that really mean that central planning cannot work? I mean, the USA couldn't get a lot of things right during the Great Depression, but that doesn't mean capitalism doesn't work. Through years of struggle, we vastly improved the system.

Isn't it reasonable to think that given more time and effort, planning and distribution could've been vastly improved, especially given the computer technology we have now that they didn't then?

Also, people who argue communism was a failure point not just to the USSR, but North Korea, Cuba, etc. to show that it fails everywhere. But is that really a good argument? Communism fell before it really ever had a chance to pick itself up. I mean, communism was actually working pretty well for a period of time. The USSR, after all, did rival America in power for decades. Then it went into a slump and went away completely.

But what if capitalism were taken over by communism during the Great Depression? Would everyone point to every capitalist country's seeming failure as a universal example of how capitalism failed when it was tried? Was the fall of communism just communism's version of the Great Depression? And actually, when you think about it, there are a whole lot more capitalist shit holes than there are capitalist paradises.

I have no idea whether communism would ever work. It just seems like the so called evidence to show it can't work is a little premature and selective.

[Stylerod]

To answer the thread title. Yes, every time it's tried.

[6SpeedTA95]

The great depression was the great depression because the government was interferring in a manner that was counter to what the capitalist market would dictate. Looking back the mistakes are fairly obvious, blaming the GD on capitalism is a huge mistake.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The great depression was the great depression because the government was interferring in a manner that was counter to what the capitalist market would dictate. Looking back the mistakes are fairly obvious, blaming the GD on capitalism is a huge mistake.

Okay, but could a communist similarly argue that blaming USSR's problems on communism itself would be a huge mistake?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, but could a communist similarly argue that blaming USSR's problems on communism itself would be a huge mistake?

Not really because the nature of communism is centralized control. The problem as indicated by the soviet union and every other example you can think of is that there's far to many variables for a government to effeciently control.

The same has happened in china which is why you see them slowly creeping towards a more capitalist society.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Not really because the nature of communism is centralized control. The problem as indicated by the soviet union and every other example you can think of is that there's far to many variables for a government to effeciently control.

The same has happened in china which is why you see them slowly creeping towards a more capitalist society.

It seems like you're arguing that capitalism was fixed by the government taking its hands off, but is that really true? For example, the run on banks problem wasn't fixed by the government taking its hands off. They fixed it by stepping in.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The problem as indicated by the soviet union and every other example you can think of is that there's far to many variables for a government to effeciently control.

But that's my point-- why do you say it's impossible for a government to efficiently control? Humans have managed to send men to the moon, cure diseases, clone animals and invent nano technology, but we cannot possibly ever figure out how to plan an economy?

It just seems unreasonable to forever rule it out. I don't think it could ever be done 100% efficiently, but could it ever be done to an acceptable degree of efficiency? Why not?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It seems like you're arguing that capitalism was fixed by the government taking its hands off, but is that really true? For example, the run on banks problem wasn't fixed by the government taking its hands off. They fixed it by stepping in.

In the case of the great depression yes thats true. But I do not subscribe to this 100% free market ideology. The government could have better managed the recession of 1929 to avoid the great depression but they did not. They interfered with the market in all the wrong ways which plunged us deeper into the depression and then FDR got elected and basically did the same thing and really got bad in 1936.

The run on banks problem was started by government intervention which led to a panic.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

In the case of the great depression yes thats true. But I do not subscribe to this 100% free market ideology.

Alright, so you agree that for the free market to function optimally, it should be tinkered with a bit. And we've figured that out by going through periods like the Great Depression, where the learning curve was so bad it made it seem like capitalism was a failure.

Why not extend that same courtesy to communism? It probably also requires some tinkering to get it to work, and maybe the "fall of communism" was just a hard lesson like the Great Depression...only fortune never gave it a chance to survive long enough to figure out how to tweak it.

[ballz2wallz]

Greed destroys the very idea of communism. You can never get rid of greed.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Alright, so you agree that for the free market to function optimally, it should be tinkered with a bit. And we've figured that out by going through periods like the Great Depression, where the learning curve was so bad it made it seem like capitalism was a failure.

Why not extend that same courtesy to communism? It probably also requires some tinkering to get it to work, and maybe the "fall of communism" was just a hard lesson like the Great Depression...only fortune never gave it a chance to survive long enough to figure out how to tweak it.

I think thats a valid question but fairly easily answered. Communism goes against human nature, working for me is something I'm ok with, working for another who doesn't want to work is quite another.

edit: the other significant problem with communism is it might work in the short term but it is counterproductive to future economic progress which is why you typically see communist countries that may start out in fairly good shape (soviet union really didn't start going down hill till after WWII) but forward progress is almost always non existent because the incentives that exist even in socialist countries for progress do not in a communist country.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It seems like you're arguing that capitalism was fixed by the government taking its hands off, but is that really true? For example, the run on banks problem wasn't fixed by the government taking its hands off. They fixed it by stepping in.

In that instance. Look at the US Post Office, compare that to FedEx. There's a stark difference in quality. Imagine if the government was in charge of everything right down to the price of milk. When that happens, you have communist Russia and that's why it failed, just like every other example.

Capitalism has its drawbacks, such as what happened during the Great Depression, however, the depression ended and we're a superpower. Capitalism has the ability to rebound that communism just doesn't. Communism from its first day is a slow degradation of government and society. Capitalism has its ups and downs, but ultimately it has more freedom, economically and socially.

Communism is a great concept on paper, until you take into the human nature and humanity variable, then all of a sudden you begin to see it's not such a great idea. Humans are a reward driven species, even if the reward is intrinsic. It is the number one factor for motivation. Communism negates the very foundation of human nature. When you set up a society where the people have no rewards for motivation you end up with a society that is doomed to fail. Hence communism doesn't work.

[Phantom]

Central planning has always had trouble because it is impossible at this point to gather the information required to make efficient decisions.

It's jsut not possible to measure to price/quantity of all possible inputs and compare that to the value every distinct individual places on every possible output of the economy. Until this can be done, central planning will be less efficient in general than a market economy.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Capitalism has its drawbacks, such as what happened during the Great Depression, however, the depression ended and we're a superpower. Capitalism has the ability to rebound that communism just doesn't. Communism from its first day is a slow degradation of government and society. Capitalism has its ups and downs, but ultimately it has more freedom, economically and socially.

Again the great depression wasn't a drawback of capitalism, it was a drawback to government mismanging the economy.

Recessions and business cycles are a drawback to capitalism, the government can do some things to smooth out these cycles...the depression was a recession that was sharp and the government over reacted turning it into a depression.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think thats a valid question but fairly easy answered. Communism goes against human nature, working for me is something I'm ok with, working for another who doesn't want to work is quite another.

I always found the human nature argument weak for several reasons--

Probably a lot of what people consider inherent human nature is actually cultural/social conditioning.

There's actually a lot about capitalism that goes against human nature, which is probably why people didn't like it enough to have world wide communist revolutions.

working for another who doesn't want to work is quite another.

Doesn't this pretty much describe business owners/managers? You're working for someone who doesn't want to work himself? This is actually one of the things that's arguably against human nature in capitalism...a lot of people find working for a CEO who's making 100X their wage viscerally disgusting, especially when it appears they're working harder.

Sure, you can argue about who's really working harder, and what's really disgusting, but that's sort of what I'm arguing...it's all subjective to a certain degree, which is why I find the bumper sticker "against human nature" argument not persuasive.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I always found the human nature argument weak for several reasons--

Probably a lot of what people consider inherent human nature is actually cultural/social conditioning.

There's actually a lot about capitalism that goes against human nature, which is probably why people didn't like it enough to have world wide communist revolutions.

I suggest you read Maslow and Herzberg's major works on motivation. Couple that with research pertaining to motivation and the work force. The works cross international and societal boundaries.

Regardless though, if people of a society are conditioned to be counter-productive to that society, it's still a failure. Human nature and needs (also psychological and can read up on a lot of that from the above names) from their very essence are the same. Society and cultures can influence them, but the underlying human nature is called human nature for a reason and not human nurture.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I always found the human nature argument weak for several reasons--

Probably a lot of what people consider inherent human nature is actually cultural/social conditioning.

There's actually a lot about capitalism that goes against human nature, which is probably why people didn't like it enough to have world wide communist revolutions.



Doesn't this pretty much describe business owners/managers? You're working for someone who doesn't want to work himself? This is actually one of the things that's arguably against human nature in capitalism...a lot of people find working for a CEO who's making 100X their wage viscerally disgusting, especially when it appears they're working harder.

Sure, you can argue about who's really working harder, and what's really disgusting, but that's sort of what I'm arguing...it's all subjective to a certain degree, which is why I find the bumper sticker "against human nature" argument not persuasive.

There's always going to be lazy people in the workforce regardless of whether or not its communism or capitalism. Let me be more specific...

I've got a good job, that job allows me to buy a house and earn a decent wage, it also allows me to save for my future and the future of our potential children.

If I'm busting butt at work and the guy next to me gets double the pay because he has three children then I have no incentive to work ahrder because no matter what I do he will always make more than me.

The very basis of communism is from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. This principle works great on paper but does not work in the real world because people have no incentive.

There's always goin to be lazy people and communism would make the problem worse. Not to mention as I said earlier the government can not effeciently manage the economy and the resources it takes to make it a growing economy.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Again the great depression wasn't a drawback of capitalism, it was a drawback to government mismanging the economy.

Which is a result of a capitalism. It relies on a governing body that can screw it up. The difference though is that capitalism works all on its own with little government interference. Communism is just broken.

[kinggovernor]

yes

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes

Short and to the point. "was" it a failure? I would have to say yes it always "was" because there are no success stories.