Google
 

View Full Version : Why Communism Failed


Criminal
02-07-2002, 05:33 PM
In Prague Czechoslovakia, November 1989 an unprecidented event took place. The citie's residents, young and old took to the streets. At first it was a small group of students who gathered in Wencles Plac, the main business district of the city. They were quickly dispursed by police. Then the following day the crowd grew larger and police in riot gear attacked the demonstration and one young man was killed (Some people believe this single casualty to be a hoax, the exact truth remains unknown). In the days that followed the more people gathered every day until the crowd was at a strength of 300,000 people. On a cilly November afternoon, the people stood and heard as political dissadents spoke and anounced the formation of a new government.

The Velvet Revolution, as is became known as, perhaps the most dramatic event of 1988, was typical of the upheval which shook the communist world that year. Similar events took place in East Germany, Hungry, Poland, Bulgaria and eventually the Soviet Union itself. This leaves a great many questions on how such a great and powerful force as Soviet Communism experienced a downfall.

First of all, what is Communism? Modern Communism, in the conventional sense, referrs to a political movement based on the the theories of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in the 19th centrury. Marx envisioned the enevitable fall of industrial capitalism through the force of a powerful proletariate. Marx believed in the natural evolution of society through several stages. All societies begin as agracultural societies and then evolve into industrial societies. This is coupled with the overthrow of a landed aristocracy and the empowerment of the urban bourgois class (that is the middle classes). It at this stage that bourgois democracy would take hold. Marx believed the the great revolutions of the 18th century in France and the Americas were middle class revolutions.

The establishment of middle class domination in the political order would be marked by the developement of an exploited urban proletariat. Eventually, with the help of "professional revolutionaires", the working classes would seize power and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariate".

In the 19th centruy, as working class movements emerged throughout Europe, America and Australia, Marxist Socialists competed with Anarchists for the hearts and minds of working people. Mostly, these movements were active in Industrialized nations. In pre industrial nations there was little attention to such movements. Strong working class movements only occurred in places where there was public education of all social classes.

In Russia, a nation with long traditions of dissent against the autocratic regeims of the Czars, the original leadership of working class movement were members of the lesser aristocracy. In Russia, the middle class was a historically weak entity. Many members of this group, such as the old merchant classes of Moscovy were in fact more conservative than the landed gentry. In the early years this group gravitated more towards Anarchism, rather than socialism. Marx himself had little hope for any sort of class movement in Russia believing the country to be hopelessly backward. Marx believed that when the struggle of the worker was to take place, it would be Germany or Britian which would be its stage.

World War 1 and the eventual fall of the Czarist regeim in Russia made it possible for Lenin to arrive in Russia with German support and seize power. Lenin took advantage of power vacuum left by the destruction of the imperial regeim and the weakness of the Provisional Government as well as the increasing unpopularity of the war. He seized power in November of 1917.

It should be remember that prior to their seizure of power, Lenin's Bolshiviks were never a powerful group. Even among Socialists parties they were a small minority. Their name "Bolshviks" which means majority is rooted in a congress of the Social Democrat party in which they were the largest group represented, which ironically was never the case during any election.

During the 20's and early 30's Bolshivik Russia was an isolated nation. Though it made great strides at modernizing its own economy, it was a painful process. Early on, Lenin recognized that he could not build an economy purely on a centralized model. That is why he instituted the New Economic Policy. This was a semi- capitalistic economy which allowed free markets, though on a limited scale.

After Lenin's death Stalin took over. Stalin immediately overturned all forms of freemarkets. He forced farmers, who had independence under Lenin into collectives. The forceful collectivization of agraculture was done with great loss of life and led to a terrible famine. Though it was recognized by modern historians as a collosal failure, Stalin did not see it that way.

Stalin's many crimes are already too well known to mention here. What was significant, however, was the fact that he then exported the soviet revolution to half of europe by force.

Thus the nations of the Baltics; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungry and all the nations of the Balkins did have their "workers revolutions", but it is important to remember that these "revolutions" were imposed by force.

What is interesting still, the successful communist revolutions which swept China, Vietnam, Cuba and Cambodia all took place in pre industrial nations. They were fought by a largely illiterate working class. In most cases the leadership of these revolutions were from the landed aristocracy. (note that Fidel Castro was the son of a wealthy landowner) In the case of Cambodia, the end result of the revolution was the exact opposite of what Marx desired, as all major cities were emptied and all people were put to work in rural communes.

The events which led to the fall of Communism began in the 50's and 60'd. In Hungary in 1956, the Hungarian working class rose in revolt against the Soviets. Promised support by the west, their hopes were dashed as Soviet tanks crushed their revolt with much loss of life. The Czechs and Slovaks, in 1968 instituted "Prague Spring" and "Socialism with a Human Face". Though the nation remained in the hands of communists, the Soviets feared the Czechoslovaks would withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. They also feared that the liberalization of Czechoslovak society would spread to other nations. In the end, it was Brezhnev who had the final say.

In the 1980's The Solidarity movement swept Poland. Because of the immense size of Poland and because Poland was a nation with historic dislike for Russian authority, the Kremlin afforded the Poles more freedom then other states. None the less, Poland suffered from desperate economic problems. Poland was also unique because the Polish working class never accepted Communism. Finally Poland remained a Catholic nation. In the end, the Polish Millitary Seized power, under authority of the Russians.

It has often been though that Afghanistan is what killed the Soviet Union. Others believe that during Regan's presidency in the US, the cost of the arm's race made it impossible for the Soviets to compete. What ever the case may be it is known that it was Gorbychov who let the genie out of the bottle.

Was Gorbychov a misunderstood liberal or a weak and ineffective leader who led to his country's downfall? That all depends on ones outlook.

What is known now is that aftershocks of world communism are still being felt today. It is true that communist parties still rule in many nations today: China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam etc. We also know that the dissolution of communism did not lead to a peace and prosparity in all situations. We see this in Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, in Chechnia and so on.

If this writer is to speculate on what the moral shortcummings were that caused the fall of this system of government the answer would be simply because Soviet Communism became something Marx would never want it to become. Communism became a religion. It had its own Dogma, its own Creed, its own pahtheon of Gods, Saints and its own devils and heritics. Is it any accident that after his death Lenin was encased in a glass tomb? People lined up to see him as they would a holy sight. The A visit to the Kremlin was like a visit to Lourdes. Communists read Marx like the Bible. They refuted arguments with chapter and verse.

Marx was a scientist. He loved science and hated dogma. He would have hated Soviet Communism.

Powerboss
02-07-2002, 11:47 PM
Thats well done.

The only thing I would add is that communism has only survived by force. Take Russia away, the people that live under communsim today have no say, they cant speak out, the cant offer alternatives, if they do, they end up dead or in prison the rest of their lives.
Eventually, it will die out. Its just a bad idea as the results of 80-100 million dead under commuist rule in the 20th century are the proof of it.

Gorby made a miscalculation...You cant let the genie halfway out of the lamp.

Criminal
02-08-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Powerboss
Thats well done.

The only thing I would add is that communism has only survived by force. Take Russia away, the people that live under communsim today have no say, they cant speak out, the cant offer alternatives, if they do, they end up dead or in prison the rest of their lives.
Eventually, it will die out. Its just a bad idea as the results of 80-100 million dead under commuist rule in the 20th century are the proof of it.

Gorby made a miscalculation...You cant let the genie halfway out of the lamp.
Gorby was very naive to assume that he could allow so many reforms and still keep all the power for himself. Yes, Soviet communism was evil. What is worse, nations under such regiems stagnate, both culturally and economically. It is little wonder that modern Russia is so beset with corruption. This is a nation which had not known any form of morality other than the bogus codes of morality installed by the Communists. Communism was a system where the strong prospered and the weak parished. Though Communists spoke of empowering all people, their society was one of exclusion. It created a bloated bureauacracy composed of a party elite. To gain admission to this elite one had to prove their worthyness. Like other totalitarian regeims, the communists depended on their forces of bully boys. They spyed on their neighbors, operated prisons and jails, beat and killed those who disagreed with them. Those who were outside the party circles were really outside. Remember that like the Nazis, the Communists had no tolerance for the weak. I remember seeing how in Romania, mentally retarded children were kept hungry and naked in horrible prison like conditions. This was in fact common throughout the communist world.

IFF
02-08-2002, 02:50 PM
nice topic

but communism has never failed as for communism to be attempted in the true sense of communism, adeguate agricututre and manufacturing shou;ld be in place. soviet union did not have this thus did not do vcommunism properly

no country has actually done communism properly

Powerboss
02-08-2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by IFF
nice topic

but communism has never failed as for communism to be attempted in the true sense of communism, adeguate agricututre and manufacturing shou;ld be in place. soviet union did not have this thus did not do vcommunism properly

no country has actually done communism properly

And whats "properly"?
Not at the barrel of a gun?

Why hasnt it been done "properly" if its sooooo great?

I dont know how much evidence is needed to prove to some people that its a flawed system, and a failure.
It seems you and the Red Chinese agree.

Criminal
02-09-2002, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by IFF
nice topic

but communism has never failed as for communism to be attempted in the true sense of communism, adeguate agricututre and manufacturing shou;ld be in place. soviet union did not have this thus did not do vcommunism properly

no country has actually done communism properly
True Marxism never existed in any nation. Trotsky did envision a society based on Marxist principals but he never had an oportunity to instill it. I don't know if a true Marxist state is possible. Whenever anyone tries to create Utopia the end result is chaos. Do you know a Czech writer by the name of Milan Kundera? He wrote a breathtaking book called "The book of laughter and forgetfullness". In it he talks about how the Communists created a great "party" or dance, and invited their friends to join in. One by one people become disillusioned and want to leave the party. The party leaders are engaged in a dance and want to keep their dance going. Those who quit the dance are punished severly but for those who are still part of the the dance it remains a good thing. Soon only a few are left and find themself hated and dispised by those they cast out. That sums up the falseness of this type of Utopia.

IFF
02-09-2002, 02:08 PM
@criminal: thats sound slightly familar that book

Powerboss: wjhat do me and red china agree on

Powerboss
02-09-2002, 07:59 PM
no country has actually done communism properly

That is, except for them, in thier minds but thats what they all say.

"Its just that the right people havent been in charge".

ChaoticThoughts
02-10-2002, 01:03 AM
Communism is a decent idea, but has been corrupted in past use. The same could be same about democracy.

IFF
02-10-2002, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by ChaoticThoughts
Communism is a decent idea, but has been corrupted in past use. The same could be same about democracy.

what corrupeted democratoic politicians. i did not know that. i though the democratic politicians were perfect in every way and never bad.

this is sarc asum for anyone noit knowing that

@powerboss: china always thinks there right, they shoot people who disagree witht hem nor run them over in their tanks

dhaas1315
02-12-2002, 11:18 AM
That's my biggest problem with "true communism" if when practiced it morphs (for lack of a better word) into a system that isolates and opresses it's people can we consider it a viable "system". I like that one poster likened it to a utopia. That's it's exactly what it would have to be in order for it to work. People would all have to share the same mind set and same goals. I think it could work in small groups, like the native americans had, but on a large scale it's doomed by basic human nature, to want more and to strive. I think you would also have to isolate the system from outside influence. Look at the native americans when the english settlers came into the piture. I think that a system that essentially promotes equal payment for all jobs stifles a person's will to strive and succeed.

If a person can goto medical school and work hard to earn the same wage as the person sweeping the floors what motivation do they have to strive?

IFF
02-12-2002, 03:52 PM
very good point dhaas1315

Criminal
02-13-2002, 07:58 PM
I would add another poing to this discussion: The times Karl Marx live in are far different to this day and age. In 21st century United States or Europe, we do not hear much talk about class struggle or the "proletariate" or "burgoise". We live in a post industral society. I know many "working class" people who make more money than college graduates. The old iron and steel factories are fading fast. Not many people toil in mines anymore. This is not to say that there are not oppressed minorities. There are many poor folks, especially among immigrant groups who cant make ends meet but its not like the late 19th century.

dhaas1315
02-14-2002, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Criminal
I would add another poing to this discussion: The times Karl Marx live in are far different to this day and age. In 21st century United States or Europe, we do not hear much talk about class struggle or the "proletariate" or "burgoise". We live in a post industral society. I know many "working class" people who make more money than college graduates. The old iron and steel factories are fading fast. Not many people toil in mines anymore. This is not to say that there are not oppressed minorities. There are many poor folks, especially among immigrant groups who cant make ends meet but its not like the late 19th century.

Very true. I think that hurts what a "communist revolution" is based on. I think people today aren't as concerned about "equality for all" as much as "I want what they have".

You are right on point with your comment about the laborers making more then college grads. I have friends in Philly that work for the plumbers union that are making about 60k a year with OT. Where two of my friends with college degrees one from U of P can't find work.

eanax
02-20-2002, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Criminal
Gorby was very naive to assume that he could allow so many reforms and still keep all the power for himself.


I agree – somewhat.

There were several missteps taken when Russia began reform, but the BIGGEST misstep was Gorby believing that the political system had to be changed BEFORE the economic system was re-tooled. It should have been the reverse – re-tool Russia’s economic system before implementing changes to its political system.

Google