[timmac]

Why Didn't Communism Work in Eastern Europe?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Communism failed in Eastern European countries for the same reason it routinely fails in others — there's no money in it, at least not for the people who need it most. While the economic system known as communism may have worked well on paper, the political form of communism forced on Eastern European countries brought little more than oppression and hardship to the working class citizens it exploited. Many of the Eastern European governments were puppet regimes handpicked by Communist Party leaders working remotely from Russia. Communications between Russia and its Eastern European satellites were rarely two-way streets.
One main reason why communism failed in Eastern Europe was human nature. Under economic communism, control over production is supposed to be given to the workers, ostensibly with the guidance and oversight of a strong central State. Communist farmers who produced corn, for instance, would donate the vast majority of their yearly crops to the government. In exchange, the government would provide each farmer with a supply of corn for personal use, along with a portion of all the other goods produced by other self-controlled communes. Unfortunately, the timely distribution of goods was severely hampered by corruption and mismanagement, a common problem in Communist countries.

[timmac]

Why Communism Failed

Ludwig von Mises saw communism future failure in 1920, this person was well ahead of his time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hree years after the Russian Revolution, an Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, argued that Communism would fail and explained why. Communism, or socialism, couldn’t succeed, Mises wrote in 1920, because it had abolished free markets so that officials had no market prices to guide them in planning production. Mises was relatively unknown when he made his controversial forecast, but he acquired some international renown later as the leading spokesman of the Austrian (free market) school of economics. Since his death in 1973, his theories have gained new adherents, some now even in Eastern Europe.
The Soviet Union was launched with high hopes. Planning was to be done by a central committee, insuring plenty for everyone. The state was to wither away. But things didn’t work out that way. The Soviet state soon became one of the most oppressive in the world. Millions of Russians starved in the 1920s and 1930s.
As Mises pointed out, the raw materials, labor, tools, and machines used in socialist production are outside the market. They are owned by government and controlled by government planners. No one can buy or sell them. No market prices can develop for them because they aren’t exchangeable.

[timmac]

Wow I was not aware that a short spell of communism was tried in America..

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow Communism Already was Tried and Failed in America; Jamestown 1607 to 1611

[americandream]

You are absolutely correct timmac. Well observed. State communism was a disaster from the beginning. With the full globalisation of capital incomplete and the "evidence" of capitalist plenty just across the border in a variety of sophistries, it was only a matter of time for the inner rot set in. To that extent, free trade is to be embraced by all who understand economy.

To quote the great man:

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... t.htm#marx

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('timmac', '[')size=150]Why Didn't Communism Work in Eastern Europe?[/size]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Communism failed in Eastern European countries for the same reason it routinely fails in others — there's no money in it, at least not for the people who need it most. While the economic system known as communism may have worked well on paper, the political form of communism forced on Eastern European countries brought little more than oppression and hardship to the working class citizens it exploited. Many of the Eastern European governments were puppet regimes handpicked by Communist Party leaders working remotely from Russia. Communications between Russia and its Eastern European satellites were rarely two-way streets.
One main reason why communism failed in Eastern Europe was human nature. Under economic communism, control over production is supposed to be given to the workers, ostensibly with the guidance and oversight of a strong central State. Communist farmers who produced corn, for instance, would donate the vast majority of their yearly crops to the government. In exchange, the government would provide each farmer with a supply of corn for personal use, along with a portion of all the other goods produced by other self-controlled communes. Unfortunately, the timely distribution of goods was severely hampered by corruption and mismanagement, a common problem in Communist countries.

[timmac]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')To quote the great man:

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... t.htm#marx

[americandream]

Marxism is based on Hegels notions of dialectics (which would probably appeal to you as it is mystical). What Marx did was discover in material processes (as opposed to Hegel's spirit), a dialectic pattern. In other words, ever action has a reactioon from which arises a synthesis or new action. So to that extent, Marxism is less about when things such as systems will occur but more about the natural tendecies within such things.

Therefore when Marx embraced free trade, he embraced the concept to its finality, whenever that may be. Only capital can dictate that as free trade and the transition requires that capital reach it's point of maximum return. It's peak in other words and we are clearly not there with 5 billion of the world as yet outwith the reach of capitalism (although with China and India, the extension of capitalism moves apace).

Ths probably should give you a clue as to why I day trade the open market.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('timmac', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')To quote the great man:

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... t.htm#marx

[timmac]

AD it might help if you get to know who Marx really was..

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince Karl Marx has been depicted as the creator of the greatest atheist system in world history, we should expect that he did not believe in God at all. Surprise!! Marx was a practicing Satanist, and could not, therefore, be an Atheist. Karl grew up in a Christian family, and earlier in his life, confessed Jesus Christ as Savior. Consider this exerpt from a work Karl wrote as a youth:
"Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ".
What a wonderful expression of love and devotion to Jesus Christ!! None of us could have done better. When Marx graduated from high school, the following comment was written under the heading Religious Knowledge:
"His knowledge of the Christian faith and morals is fairly clear and well grounded..."
Thus, we know that Marx knew Scripture well. However, soon after high school, Karl began an abrupt shift toward the adversary, Satan. Again, this time in a poem, Marx writes, "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above". This statement is quite consistent with a Satanist, who believes in God, Who rules above, but who has made a personal decision to side with Satan against God.
One of the key understanding of Satan is that he hates all mankind, and wishes them dead and in hell with him, simply and only because all human beings are made in the "image of God" (Genesis 1:26). Satan wishes eternal damnation for every human being God has ever created, even those people who serve him. Now listen to Marx:

"...Yet I have power within my youthful arms

To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)

with tempestuous force,

While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

Whispering in your ears 'Descend,

come with me, friend'".

headed for Hell, as his next poem shows so very well:

"Thus Heaven I've forfeited,

I know it full well,

My soul, once true to God,

Is chosen for hell."

"With disdain I will throw my gauntlet

Full in the face of the world,

And see the collapse of this pygmy giant

Whose fall will not stifle my ardour.

Then will I wander godlike and victorious

Through the ruins of the world

And, giving my words an active force,

I will feel equal to the Creator."

[americandream]

Timmac, the devil himself could appear to me and were he to make sense, I would consider his countenance.

I am not inclined to speculate but let's play this game of what if. What if there were demons and gods. What if your bible were in fact demonically inspired. How do you know other than by mere faith. Even inexplicable acts that demonstrated the supernatural nature of your belief system cannot be conclusively verified as being divine other than by blind faith. Unless one applies reason.

For example, to rail against the Royals, nobilities and their travelling rich, knowing as we do with the American Revolution, that America rose up in rejection of the pomp and arrogance of English gentry vis-a-vis the downtrodden low and middle English, with the aid of reason, strikes me as of a divine quality.

In contrast, to rail against the victims of these Royals, your very forebears and all succeeding generations of the oppressed such as the victims of Western wars in poor countries strikes me as demonic.

I am happy in my place. Were there this loving god out there who exuded compassion for the poor and viewed the rich with a bleary eye as your bible tells us (I was once a YFC child), I reckon I'm doing just fine.

Religious speculation off.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('timmac', '
')Post your subject why you feel Communism is wrong for the World..

[timmac]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')I expect some form of agrarian systems (possibly even a form of feudal systems or outright slavery) to return after collapse of capitalism.

[americandream]

That assumes that the globalised man of a totally open market will be amenable to hierarchy which I doubt. That speaks of a being in a more primitive state. Let's not forget that the whole premise of Marxism is based on particular economic conditions which are coming to pass whereas the Russia of the 1917 Revolution was far from those conditions, capitalism being in it's early and nationalist phase.

It is probably fair to say that the Chinese and Soviet leadership recognised these facts in the switfness with which both state entities opened their societies to capital. I am convinced that the globalisation into China was foreshadowed by a deeper understanding of Marxist dynamics, although that would appear to stand the Maoist Revolution on its head.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('timmac', '
')Post your subject why you feel Communism is wrong for the World..

[ian807]

Communism failed. Class warfare, as Goldman Sachs et. al. have so clearly demonstrated, is alive and well. In case you haven't noticed, the wealthy class is winning.

Capitalism, although it works better than communism, is no panacea for the human condition, and shows every sign of behaving like a fatal cancer, consuming all natural resources in its path to sustain itself.

With all due respect to the religious folks on the board, I'm not betting on divine intervention or aliens either.

So what to do? Mixed systems like those in the Scandinavian countries seem quite successful, but I'm skeptical that their stability will last beyond the oil age. Still, regulated capitalism - the system that worked in this country prior to Reagan seemed to work reasonably well.

Other suggestions? Thoughts? How would you make a stable society? Is that even desirable?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ther suggestions? Thoughts? How would you make a stable society? Is that even desirable?

[Cloud9]

The first wrong assumption is the notion that we need a top down plan on how to revitalize the economy. Whether it be a National Recovery Act a War on Poverty or some other five year plan, macro economists have a way of missing what is happening on the street. Goals to increase the production of steel or concrete make no sense if there is not a market for these commodities.

Social Security kept millions from planning for their old age. Subsidized housing through Fanny and Freddie wrecked the real estate market. Cheap money from the FED exploded the banks. National programs have a dismal record of failure.

Our problems are local. Counties and cities need to focus on ways of providing services that the tax base can afford. We need to locally think about ways to prevent a hand full of oligarchs from buying up all the local real estate at tax auctions thereby turning us into a nation of renters. Local governments need to down size. Public employees need to wrap their minds around the idea that if they do not budge on wages and pension plans in a deflationary environment the only outcome is hyper inflation. Hyper inflation will wipe out both their pensions and their savings. Hyper inflation will wipe out what is left of the middle class.

We need to let the bankruptcies occur. Extend and pretend both public and private only extends the pain.

[eastbay]

There will be no use whatsoever for capitalism in the coming era of severe scarcities and declining oil production.

90% of the people on earth exist today solely because of the availability of cheap energy and fossil fuel based soil inputs. When this contracts so will worldwide economies. Capitalism, as everyone knows, requires expanding markets. Those days are over meaning capitalism is about over.

So before we cheer the recent slowdown in communism realize it's the only system we know of that can manage economic affairs in a declining economy meaning be prepared to embrace socialism's re-energization.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'T')here will be no use whatsoever for capitalism in the coming era of severe scarcities and declining oil production.

90% of the people on earth exist today solely because of the availability of cheap energy and fossil fuel based soil inputs. When this contracts so will worldwide economies. Capitalism, as everyone knows, requires expanding markets. Those days are over meaning capitalism is about over.

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'T')here will be no use whatsoever for capitalism in the coming era of severe scarcities and declining oil production.

90% of the people on earth exist today solely because of the availability of cheap energy and fossil fuel based soil inputs. When this contracts so will worldwide economies. Capitalism, as everyone knows, requires expanding markets. Those days are over meaning capitalism is about over.

[mattduke]

Economics goods have always been and will always be scarce. That is what makes them economic goods. Individuals voluntarily agreeing to trade goods freely amongst themselves is the only system that ever has worked and can ever possibly work. Only governments wage wars.

[americandream]

Read and understand social economy. Pure freedom in exchange will ultimately arise, but without the duress of contrived wants and forced advertising creating such wants, nor war to resource such duress. And without the artifice of subsidy, another product of war. Exchange does not necessarily contemplate surplus or the use of money. Barter for example is another from of exchange. Exchange is a function of life. Never has there been a moment when we, as a sentient species, have never engaged in exchange, either free or by duress.

All this frothing and foaming over states when people haven't even bothered to understand communism other than what they are force fed by the propaganda of the enforcing exchangers, is remarkable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'E')conomics goods have always been and will always be scarce. That is what makes them economic goods. Individuals voluntarily agreeing to trade goods freely amongst themselves is the only system that ever has worked and can ever possibly work. Only governments wage wars.

[Oakley]

What I think fails is state control of the economy. When state and corporate interests merge, fascism, free markets are destroyed and wealth is shifted out of the hands of the many into the hands of the few under the myriad of laws and economic interventions that favor the few. When the state itself owns and controls the economy, as in the failed "Communist" USSR production and distribution do not respond to the needs of people, and those in power take for themselves a disproportionate share; remember Gorbachev had to return to Moscow from a vacation at his seaside villa during the collapse; I don't think he was living in a two bedroom apartment with his in-laws like many Soviet citizens.

What has historically worked are free markets, something that do not exist in the USA economy today, and have not for decades. The monetary system is one where banks have been given the privilege of creating money out of thin air and loaning it into existence. Entry into many occupations is limited by law, requiring prior government approval. Many businesses are franchised by government and given monopoly over an exclusive territory. We are forced by state laws to buy auto insurance even if it is not in our own best interest, and now the federal government is implementing the requirement that we buy health insurance. The market in drugs is limited by the FDA, and those using unapproved drugs can be jailed, even if the alternative they choose is more effective than the government drugs. On and on and on.

That freedom in the USA exist is a delusion, fostered by the voting booth where our oppressors gain control of the seats of power. Slavery is an economic concept where individual production is confiscated by masters. So we are allowed to speak freely and attend the Church of our choice, or none at all, but we are not allowed to keep much more of our production than we need to survive and keep producing for our masters. As the collapse continues, our slave condition will become increasing evident as those in power scramble to take more and more of the economic pie, placing the burden of the contraction on the masses; the recent bailout of Wall Street and banks at the expense of the majority is just one example.