SymbiantXenos
Member
The biggest threat to mankind has and always will be itself.
Young Russians yearn for the glory days of the USSR despite not experiencing it
- Thread starter TacticalFox88
- Start date
- Status
zero shift
Banned
Communism fails because just the concept of it is too complex. The argument for Communism is that Capitalism encourages capital to be concentrated toward the top. Due to this the power of production and wealth distribution lopsides toward the rich. If capital and production is controlled by the general public this won't happen.
The problem with this is simple...that is a very very difficult thing to do. How exactly should capital and production be controlled by the public? Should we appoint representatives to each segment of the economy? What defines as a "segment"? Should direct democracy be involved? If so how much? This is the same problem democracy had. How much power should the general public have? A complete direct democracy? Should they just vote for representatives? What would keep the representatives in check of not just being dictators? Think of how complicated figuring out how the public should control the creation of legislation, and now you want to move onto production and capital? This is why Communist states just went with the "single party and head leader" route because not only did the USSR encourage them to but it was also due to the fact that it is far simpler to take that route than to try to organize a complex democratic framework, especially just after finishing a civil war (a common theme for these countries). I'm not saying Communism is impossible, but to imagine a system with sole public control working without a hitch is pretty dubious to me. Then again people did say the same thing about democracy 300 years ago.
Not all of it. The transfer from Capitalism to Communism was much more rough in Russia than it should have been, thanks to leaders taking American and European advice of "shock therapy". There is little doubt that due to this many Russians have a distaste of forming strong ties with America and the European Union.
The problem with this is simple...that is a very very difficult thing to do. How exactly should capital and production be controlled by the public? Should we appoint representatives to each segment of the economy? What defines as a "segment"? Should direct democracy be involved? If so how much? This is the same problem democracy had. How much power should the general public have? A complete direct democracy? Should they just vote for representatives? What would keep the representatives in check of not just being dictators? Think of how complicated figuring out how the public should control the creation of legislation, and now you want to move onto production and capital? This is why Communist states just went with the "single party and head leader" route because not only did the USSR encourage them to but it was also due to the fact that it is far simpler to take that route than to try to organize a complex democratic framework, especially just after finishing a civil war (a common theme for these countries). I'm not saying Communism is impossible, but to imagine a system with sole public control working without a hitch is pretty dubious to me. Then again people did say the same thing about democracy 300 years ago.
Not all of it. The transfer from Capitalism to Communism was much more rough in Russia than it should have been, thanks to leaders taking American and European advice of "shock therapy". There is little doubt that due to this many Russians have a distaste of forming strong ties with America and the European Union.
benjipwns
Banned
Scarcity exists in more than goods.
- Status