An economy is a method of distribution of scarce resources. I should make it clear that an economic system is basically a Platonic ideal form existing in the realm of pure theory; real-world results will differ. Theories grounded in reality get fairly good results; others will be disastrous. Further, corruption happens in any sort of system and drags it down. If tolerated and extensive, corruption eventually reaches the government and alters the system.
Although no system is perfect, we should strive to improve what we have and reduce corruption. That being said, we’ll explore why Communism failed to fulfill its glowing promises.
Marx’s fairy tales
With socialism, the means of production—factories, farms, and other workplaces—are partially or fully publicly owned. At the most extreme, everyone works for the government. In some varieties, private land doesn’t exist. In some cases, no private property exists; everyone owns everything. Communism is a hardline variety with the goal of worldwide revolution.
As the theory goes, the workers of the world (“have-nots”) would unite and overthrow the aristocrats (“haves”) and bourgeoisie (“have a little, want more” as Saul Alinsky put it). Bourgeois means middle class; for some reason, Marx hated them more, even though they weren’t exploiters running sweat shops. After “spreading the wealth around” (as The Lightworker put it), the formula “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” would settle who works what jobs and who benefits from other people’s labor.
After the dust settles, socialism will—so the theory goes—transform into “true Communism”. Then, everyone would share everything, and whatever you need would be available as easy as breathing. Eventually, the apparatus of the state would wither away, leaving basically a global utopia without a government.
A few problems appear already. Having your material needs fulfilled effortlessly seems like something from a South Pacific cargo cult. Their notorious dictatorial police states certainly didn’t fade away. Further, despite similar end goals, Communists and anarchists didn’t get along so well.
The rejoinder by the True Believers is that “Communism has never been implemented properly”. That’s like saying a pyramid scheme is a great idea but it’s never been done right. It seems rather odd that dozens of Communist regimes across the globe, many lasting decades, never made it work. All of them sucked; it was simply a matter of how much they sucked.
How Communism really works (not)
The economic planners tasked with implementing Marx’s goofy theories faced some problems. They had to devise explanations fitting the theory, such as “We must build more industry before our society will be at the correct stage to start transitioning to true Communism.” Trying to make it all work was trickier yet.
In a capitalist economy, scarcity is moderated by price. The rarer a product is (and the more in demand), the costlier it becomes; those who can’t afford it must find a cheaper substitute or do without. In a socialist economy, scarcity is moderated by rationing. That might sound attractive in theory to some. Those who’ve lived the experience know better. Waiting in a toilet paper ration line for a couple hours (and hopefully supplies don’t run out by the time it’s your turn) is pretty instructive. If you want more than what your ration allows, tough luck. I might add that people spending hours in line to get basic supplies isn’t a productive use of their time. Despite Marx’s wishful thinking, there’s no avoiding scarcity.
Industries had quotas to fulfill, or else. Shoddy Soviet manufacturing standards were legendary, from workers rushing to meet monthly goals. Still, production often didn’t meet quota, so they had to doctor the statistics. When failure was admitted, sabotage and careless low-level management was blamed, but never the system itself. Other than that, if products were inferior, there weren’t many alternatives.
In societies with market economies, we pursue our jobs diligently so that we might one day be rich. In socialist countries, they’re told to pursue their jobs diligently for the good of the country. Guess what will be a better motivator? Pay was low, and finding goods was often difficult from frequent shortages. As the joke went, “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
All told, the command economy was a big mess. Central planning was cumbersome and worked badly, even for small countries. They emphasized full employment for the public, but labor was allocated inefficiently, often make-work situations such as several people assigned to a job easily handled by one. A market economy’s “invisible hand” corrects prices and employment. Even despite some flaws, self-regulation works better than micromanagement.
Science was sluggish in many areas. Capitalism incentivizes technological development, as companies want consumers to keep buying new products. (That’s actually taken a bit too far; for example, people don’t really need to upgrade their cell phones every year and throw away perfectly good ones, even though the manufacturers sure want us to do that.) In Communism, central planning manages research too, coming down to a matter of priorities. The USSR pushed military development and had a top-notch space program. However, their biology program suffered badly because of Lysenko’s theories pushing the politically correct “social construction” line.
Finally, Communist Party members made themselves a privileged class, with better employment and better access to rationed goods. Hedrick Smith estimated that only ten percent of Soviet Communist Party members really believed in it; the rest were in it for the perks. It doesn’t bode well for an ideology when most of the ruling party knows it’s bullshit.
Bloated bureaucracy was one drain on the system, and inventory shrinkage was another. If Communism means that everyone owns everything, why not steal? Here, pilfering office supplies makes for a good Dilbert cartoon, but in the USSR, that sort of thing was normal despite being strictly forbidden. For example, sides of beef from Siberia destined for Moscow would get whittled down at each train station. Padlocking the boxcars didn’t seem to help; the keys got around. Even Brezhnev acknowledged that petty corruption was how people got by.
Their emphasis on hyper-preparedness and exporting revolution turned out to be detrimental. They could have done better without all that. A large chunk of American national debt has been due to wasteful spending on behalf of the military-industrial complex for the arms race and fighting spit-in-your-eye wars. Still, the Soviet economy got it far worse, with a much higher ratio of defense to gross domestic production. The arms race ultimately drove the first nail into the USSR’s coffin.
Grandiose projects became huge boondoggles. The “Virgin Lands” project was a massive effort to cultivate wilderness areas. Unfortunately, the weather didn’t cooperate. Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward” effort promised to turn farming villages into steel mills, though the peasants didn’t have the supplies or experience. Tens of millions starved because they relied on goofy new agricultural ideas to boost farm production, which didn’t work. They could’ve avoided trouble with small test projects to document accurately how well things worked and what problems they might encounter. Later, Khrushchev and Chairman Mao had to admit they were wrong. That’s much more honest than today’s leftists who deny that their social engineering policies failed and then double down on them.
The Ryugyong Hotel’s construction ate up 2% of North Korea’s GDP while the people were dying of starvation. Shoddy cement work made the building unsafe, becoming an uninhabited, half-finished eyesore towering over Pyongyang. An Egyptian company later added windows and antennas; now it’s the world’s most expensive cell phone tower. The concept was half-baked anyway; they expected foreigners to book huge business conferences there, but who the hell would do that in North Korea? Silly Norks!
In practice, compromises sometimes were necessary, such as allowing limited private enterprise. That worked in Yugoslavia, but one guy I know left there because he was sick of paying 90% taxes. Another example is Lenin’s New Economic Policy. It worked better than complete Communism (which caused dreadful food shortages) but was plagued with corruption, considerably worse than what the Communists were complaining about before the Russian Revolution. (Ayn Rand’s We, the Living illustrated how dysfunctional both systems turned out.) Later, the “NEPmen” got thrown under the bus. So it was back to collective farming and grain quotas, but the weather doesn’t always agree, leading to further consequences.
Dissent must be suppressed to prevent a counterrevolution. Thus, Communist countries have a rather lousy human rights record. The usual double standard applies: leftists (even moderates) are notorious for overlooking Communist repression, while magnifying atrocities of rightist regimes. A prime example was useful idiot journalist Walter Duranty’s reporting on the planned starvation in Ukraine, dismissing it as a “big scare story”. The estimated death toll was seven to ten million, but you don’t hear much about them these days.
Heavy-handed propaganda (milieu control) keeps the citizens in line, giving them a skewed view of the rest of the world. It was very difficult to emigrate or just travel abroad. In the USSR, even travel between the regions was controlled, leaving many to believe that lousy conditions were only a local problem. North Korea tells its citizens that they’re the happiest country in the world. They say Americans are starving and survive on snow and pheasants, quite unaware of our obesity problem. North Korea’s only obesity problem is their tin-pot dictator, whose appetite singlehandedly causes food shortages.
Communism metes out draconian penalties for dissent, even for getting caught telling a political joke. Large networks of informers rat out others for bad attitudes, and people don’t know who to trust. Quite remarkably, in East Germany, a third of the population participated in this. When Stasi archives were made public, it created some rather frosty relations; many discovered that one of their “friends” or neighbors had snitched on them, the smallest penalty being denial of job opportunities. Dissent is a good thing; it lets the leaders know when they’re making mistakes.
Can Communism ever work?
The only time that communal ownership of property proved workable is in religious orders and low-tech tribes. In practice, there likely would be consequences for grabbing items from another monk’s cell, or taking away another warrior’s spear. Also, neither monasteries nor primitive tribes had much use for slackers. It’s a proof of concept, but only in very limited circumstances; still far from fulfilling Marx’s hare-brained dreams.
Note that all these were small, very tightly-knit societies. If your job was chipping flint into spearheads, you gladly did so because this contributed to your survival as well as that of your tribe; your extended family. However, if you’re in a factory making toilet paper for everyone from Leningrad to Vladivostok—getting paid shit wages, and you can’t buy shit with it anyway—you might not really give a shit.
In fact, Americans tried it before. There were a couple of experiments in early colonial times, but the hard-working farmers were resentful that they got the same reward as the lazy ones, and so the project was abandoned. The United Order by early Mormon pioneers fizzled out. Hippie communes tended not to last long. If those little communities with shared values couldn’t get it to work, there’s no way it would really produce universal prosperity in a modern country, much less globally.
The end (not)
Gorbachev introduced restructuring and openness, attempting to reform the system. The legislature was no longer a rubber stamp for the Politburo, and the expansive rights guaranteed by the Soviet constitution were finally granted for real. As soon as the citizens could speak their minds and vote themselves out of Communism, they did so. When the dysfunctional narrative collapsed, it wasn’t long before the Lenin statues came down; a hopeful sign for our situation today.
The story isn’t over yet. Just as the USSR was collapsing, cultural Marxism was taking over elsewhere. Political correctness seemed merely petty language policing and silly hypersensitivity. Unchecked, it became much more than that, and “Communism Lite” is now a totalitarian orthodoxy.
The Western world prides itself on freedom, but we’ve fallen backward. The American domestic spying program, enjoying the collusion of many countries abroad, would’ve made Comrade Andropov weep with envy. Today, people are ostracized or harassed for expressing politically incorrect opinions. In many “free” countries, you can be jailed for that, or for discussing forbidden historical narratives. Huge corporations enthusiastically participate in the spying, along with online censorship.
It may well end up worse. The Communists were trying to develop their countries constructively, though stuck within a dysfunctional economic system’s parameters. Cultural Marxism, on the other hand, was intended to wreck society, and it’s doing so. The only good news is that it isn’t as heavy-handed with the repression (yet).
The KGB stopped pushing ideological subversion, but a group of powerful, ultra-wealthy champagne Socialists co-opted the leftist narrative. They manipulate a hive of useful idiots to implement progressive “Communism Lite” policies. They live like sultans, intending the rest of us to be their docile peasants. They want capitalism for themselves (with the utmost results), and want socialism for the rest of us (and not the fairy tale version).
Ultimately, that’s what Marx’s theories led to, empowering the aristocrats he opposed. The moral of the story is, never believe the economic theories of some pseudo-intellectual drunken bum who never worked a day in his life. Communism is for the broadly overlapping categories of rabbit people, those who are ignorant of history, and rebels without a clue.
Read More: It’s Time To Go Beyond The “Capitalism Vs. Socialism” Dichotomy
233 thoughts on “Why Communism Doesn’t Work”
People are organic creatures, we learn, grow, adapt, and experiment. In doing so, we find what is best for us, and enjoy the freedom that we are naturally attracted to. Communism stops all that. No longer do we have the freedom or desire to improve. It is a very negative system.
No worries Jim. There will be some posters coming along to let you know how wrong you are and true communism hasn’t been achieved yet because the right people are not in charge. It’s just another boogie man evil America conjured up.. blah…blah…blah.
Have you seen the film “Dr. Zhivago?” Perfectly illustrates the stupidity of Communism up front.
That was a depressing movie, but indeed worth seeing.
It’s in my DVD library. Great flick.
That movie was banned in the USSR up until the late 90s. I know some Russians who told me that simply cannot sit through it as it hits to close to home.
Well, Dr. Zhivago ought to hit home for them, since it IS about their own country!
Well, it is just one film and it touches a few nerves. If you are ever taken into the confiedence of russians, which takes a long time, you find that there is alot of disagreement between them on the past and where the blame lies.
I would like to recommend a film that was controversial in the USSR when it came out in 1988 called “The Courrier” (Курьер). It was controversial as it basically portrayed the reality that there were classes in the USSR and it couldn’t be denied. Priviledges given to a few where the rest had no access.
America isn’t communist?
No. But it isn’t capitalist either. Corporatist perhaps?
It will be awhile before the days of small, accountable government are back.
The best solution as I see it is the periodic fragmentation of all economic/political systems-a reset button if you will.
Every successful economy eventually turns socialist. America is a rich socialist nation, which means the system can totter along for a long time before it crashes.
A nice crash means a few states can begin again with differing levels of capitalism/socialism to choose from.
The days of small accountable government for the U.S. are never coming back.
Just read The Gulag Archipelago……all you need to know.
Exactly. You cant apply a static system atop a dynamic creature.
But yet, many power hungry despots want to do just that.
communism is a living dynamic evolving system of oppression. The fit is perfect
it doesn’t live! it doesn’t evolve!
It most certainly does. It’s defenders will tell you that it isn’t communism unless it matches marx’s ‘classical’ system. But it’s constantly evolving. Consider Alain Badieu’s communist hypothesis – all these millions of dead and failed states ….just dry runs in the long march to perfecting the system
actually I remember in my youth reading a magazine called ‘living marxism’ …it’s now called spiked online, and most people think it’s a conservative rag dedicated to free speech
It could rename itself any which way, but it boils down to collectivism, which is dead-end materialism, based on the false premise of said ‘material’ occurring naturally or through compulsion.
it’s certainly collectivism, and I would say also statism, notwithstanding the reassurances by marx and others that the state is a temporary state of affairs. It certainly was materialist too, although I think the main sense in which that is the case in the rejection by communism of the abrahamic religions (leaving aside the controversies in that regard). Since communism always saw itself as a rival to traditional religion one might overstate it’s potential to evolve from reductive materialism. There is for example – controversially – an occult link – to communism. The human spirit, was always the target, not just the body
In that respect I agree it did have the capacity to evolve, only in its methodology for attacking the mercurial human spirit.
interestingly (and ironically) the rationale is usually ‘peace’, ‘anti-violence’ etc. Peace can be achieved but individuality must be destroyed….
Social peace is as much of a lie as true love.
I think the clue to the reality of things may lie in the tens if not hundreds of millions of victims of communist regimes
The struggle isn’t just on this mortal plain.
people arrogantly think they have evolved past war and can utopicaly all live together “a brotherhood of man” but it’s got so many flaws it’s going to come crashing down, just a matter of time
Communism is undoubtedly a spiritual system. The very notion of a Utopia of the proletariat is little more than an apocalyptic fantasy with no basis in rational interpretations of politics or economics. It *requires* belief. It has more in common with the New Jerusalem or the Garden of Allah than it does with any kind of human outcome.
How do you bring about the end of the old, fallen world and usher in a Paradise? Kill a lot of people while keeping your faith in Communism true! Don’t worry about how to get from step A to step C. Step B is a holy mystery.
sure, war could be round the corner for all we know, but that’s a separate thing to the attempt to justify tyranny and totalitarianism in the name of preventing war. The irony moreover is that all these tyrannies have tended to involve immense amounts of bloodshed even while they promise peace.
No, the end goal (if you believe the rhetoric) is a state of evolutionary terminus: a utopia. A final manifestation of human social interaction, beyond which lays nothing.
Communism is an evolutionary dead end (although, it’s adherence would call it an evolutionary an “evolutionary end-point).”
I’m of the opinion that there is an occult grounding to communism. Communism aspires to be a totalitarian system, and that requires a spiritual aspect for men have both material and spiritual needs. The much vaunted materialism of the marxist project may as such be in part a red herring. Influential communists like Lunarcharsky were both occultists and communists, with interests in communist ‘god-building’ as an alternative to the abrahamic opiates
Makes perfect sense. I don’t think there is anything that can be considered “authority” that does not have a strong spiritual component.
With that in mind, I would like to learn more about the links between communism and the occult. Can you recommend any sources?
Well with regard to Badieu’s communist hypothesis the analogy he uses is Fermat’s theorem, which mathematicians got wrong for centuries before one mathematician finally got it right. So in that sense you’re right – Badieu thinks there is a correct system or something like that. I’m not sure though how you could demonstrate that all communists consider communism to simply be an ‘end point’. There is a lot of ambiguity in marx as I remember – communism is supposed to set men free, end alienation etc. – it’s an end point in that sense, but he also seems to conceive of communism as a set of pre-conditions for a non-alienated existence – does that mean the de facto end of history (c.f. fukuyama & capitalism). The one sense in which you may be right is that the possible occult and messianic character to communism. But that’s controversial and difficult to argue or demonstrate
Here are some links to the god-building aspect, a religion of humanity. The occult connection is more controversial and speculative perhaps, although there does appear to have been a link between masonry and communism:
Great stuff. Thanks!
Perhaps. It is my strong opinion that the “messianic” elements of communism are the source of it appeal and power. There are zero material or organizational benefits that can be credited to communism. As for the end of Marxian alienation, there is nothing more alienating than slavery to the state. With a 100% failure rate, communism has nothing to offer except pie-in-the-sky for those who believe hard against all earthly evidence.
I’m inclined to think the same, including with regard to the messianism, although that may need to be unpacked – communism is part of a long tradition of messianic and utopian thinking (that may or may not be the same thing).
Re. the state as a an instrument of alienation, it’s worth remember it’s supposed to be a temporary state of affairs, but in reality it has always been the most notable feature with communism
and we all know where a “static system” leads https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9494a6696edc8838da05a7895a4c6442413958b7881b58b6e8a6c044504e273.gif ”
Except robots and brain-washed “sheeps”
very succinct and quite accurate. Nicely done.
Communism TRIES to stop that, but people in those societies simply circumvent it when the opportunities arise.
Oppurtunisms arises from the guise of “equality”. As long as mankind inhabit this planet, true “equality” will never be achieved.
Good. I hate equality.
It is a system without incentives hoping on the sole psychology narrative of everyone has naturally good intentions. While the premise/statement maybe true it is usually not sufficient to answer questions such as the diferrences of interests of an individual versus a group.
We all make a mistake if we treat communism as an intellectually honest system, and attempt to engage on it’s theoretical merits or shortcomings. Its stated goals (a utopia based on equal access to resources) are a deception. It’s authentic goals are in fact what we see – authoritarianism over thought, word, and body, backed up by systematic and institutionalized murder.
That’s what it’s about. That is all that it is about. Read the communist manifesto, sometime. Marx and Engles dumped all of their most violent fantasies into it. It is all about killing people they don’t like. If they were being intellectually honest, a “communist utopia” it’s just a place where all the folks that they don’t care for get hanged.
Excellent article, as always.
And of course, we know who’s behind communism, since its beginnings.
I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘jews’ as the david duke response goes, notwithstanding marx’s background (marx himself was a very anti-jewish atheist jew). If we’re talking about specifics there was certainly funding of the bolshevik revolution by elite bankers, notably jacob schiff (who was jewish but possibly sabbatean….suspicion I don’t think it can be confirmed). I think there is every reason to think that some of the big bankers had a hand in both financing the russian revolution, and possibly influencing it in later years. I’m of the opinion that victor rothschild was the fifth man in the cold war period. It seems unlikely to me the Schiff and Rothschilds would not have been in sympathy with each other, because of the historic links between these families. There is a real danger though in tarring an entire group – jews obviously – with the suspected but not necessarily proven actions of a few puppet-masters who could just throw money at any cause that served their purpose.
(note – I haven’t checked through the linked resource but it looks fairly solid)
Have you read Alexandre Solzhenizn’s account on Jews in Soviet Russia?
I’m not arguing with you, or going to get into another debate on the topic.
But he’s lauded as a revealer of communism’s failure, and had quite a bit to say about Jews after he got his Nobel prize.
I’ve heard a fair bit about it – 200 year together – but I haven’t actually read it, no. I know there are some controversial quotes and that it didn’t make the new york times bestseller list. I’m aware that Schiff is said to have paid for Trotsky and 300 (or 3000) revolutionaries to go to russia – I think the suggestion is that they were jewish but I’m not sure that can be or has been confirmed. Beyond that I’m aware that there’s a lot of controversy about just how ‘jewish’ the bolsheviks were, or how well represented they were within the hierarchy. I think I read that Solzhenitzin believed that bolshevism was pretty jewish but some have claimed he wasn’t himself privy to accurate figures. Personally I think there were a lot of jewish revolutionaries back then and I can’t see why it should be wrong to acknowledge that – it doesn’t mean the whole of communism was jewish, or that it’s nothing more than ethno-centrism (as duke seems to think) but there was clearly an attraction between some of the eastern / russian jews and revolutionary movements, and some bankers, like Schiff at least temporarily exploited that.
I’m aware there is a lot of conspiracy theory involved in these types of allegations, very often highly speculative, and likewise in the other corner complete denialism and a determination that nothing gets spoken of. I think both positions are mistaken, and dangerous, and the task of anybody interested in history and it’s continuing significance should be to try to responsibly look at the facts. To be honest though it is very difficult to evaluate the evidence and the sources as they are not ‘mainstream’. Although these are still obviously very sensitive issues, and communism is far from a distant historical memory (it is very much alive and kicking) we are still talking about something that happened literally a century ago. There needs to be a more candid discussion about these things by both jewish and non-jewish historians etc
Is there a translation in English already?
Heh… Apparently not.
I’ve only read translated excerpts but not the whole thing. Apparently no publishers wanted to translate this, even though he is one of the most important authors of the 20th century.
Well how bauh Dat! Why wouldn’t the (((press))) want to make this nobel prize winner’s work available to the Western public??? Just another coincidence…
Here’s a link to the original book PDF though.
I don’t read Russian. I read the first in German and second is on my bookshelf waiting its turn. But yeah, that’s screwed up and very suspicious….I guess it’s just a coincidence…
The JC (for me it is a certainty) has some good books on it: Read though Kevin McDonald’s the culture of critique it is the last book in a trilogy but alone it suffices.
Yeah culture of ceitique seems like probably the best reference material on the subject. Will be reading that this summer.
You are just trying to convince yourself you are not a racist/Nazi/anti Semitic [sic].
It is clear enough that Communism is a political ideology created and controlled by Jews. The fact that a couple of non Jewish bankers also put some money for the Bolshevist Revolution does not deny 1) the heavy money was put by Jewish bankers, and 2) the almost complete monopoly of Jews over communism everywhere since the 1917 revolution (even here in my country, where Jews are less than 1% of the total population we have Jews involved in Communism through our history, coincidence then?). There are Jews even in the Chinese Communist Party:
You can confirm all the names there in other sites (I did), in case you are afraid to believe some anti semitic [sic] site.
The % of Jews in Communism, since its beginning, is totally disproportionate.
About the article, been there, read that, know the author, he has an agenda: he is showing the trees not the forest because, like you, he is trying to convince himself he is not a racist/Nazi/anti Semitic [sic].
I don’t have to convince myself that I’m not a racist/Nazi/anti Semitic because I am not – at least ideologically – we all have some of traits to the extent that we discriminate between different groups of people and form opinions about them.
You are very absolutist about the issue. I have already said I think that I considered that with bolshevism at least there was a disproportion of numbers. Equally I am I think correctly suspicious of sources which are making a particular case as they tend to be about as reliable as sources making the opposite case (the antifas, hasbara etc). Is there a jewish connection with communism? Sure, but what is that connection? Does it relate to all jews? I’ve even read some jews who seem to have thought as much (Harry Waton for instance) but I’m also aware that there may be a particular pedigree to the revolutionary tradition as far as jews are concerned (and by no means is the revolutionary tradition purely jewish – there have been gentile revolutionaries since the beginning of the french revolution and it isn’t clear that they were junior partners either). The clearest connections seem to me to relate to a handful of financiers, the Schiffs, and probably the Warburgs and Rothschilds, as well more or less professional revolutionaries who were (at the risk of speculating) probably sabbatean in terms of ideology and therefore arguably well removed from the mainstream of jewry – there may well also have been a division here between eastern / russian jews from the former pale of settlement who bore grudges and western more assimilated jews who may have had little if any connexion to such things.
I followed the link you gave me. Sure there seems to have been jews involved in chinese communism – I’ve heard the assertion before – but without getting into that let me give you a reason why I find a lot of these sites highly untrustworthy. Under one picture there’s the caption “Mao with Sidney Rittenberg. Wikipedia claims he “observed” the upper levels of Chinese leadership” That caught my intention as it suggests Rittenberg was the guy pulling the strings. Well he may have been for all I know but what the Wikipedia article actually says is “At Yan’an, Rittenberg observed the comradeship of CCP leaders, but ran afoul of the small city’s strict moral regimen.”
That’s the only ‘observed’ in the page unless it’s been edited. So regardless of whether jewish communists were somehow running the chinese show or whether a few of them were just lending a helping hand you’ve got a source which misleads the very first time I do a fact-check.
I really do think there are questions to be answered, and realities to be faced – and I would like as I said to see both jewish and gentile historians make an attempt in this regard – but so long as you have clearly unreliable websites trying to make their case by misquoting etc, I imagine you’ll just get the usual bifurcation between “nazis” and “antifas” asserting and denying and getting nowhere fast
wow, your state of denial is so amazing that’s suspicious.
I haven’t denied anything. With respect to the assertion that chinese communism was controlled by jews I’ve indicated I can’t form an opinion because the evidence you linked to was unreliable. I demonstrated it was unreliable. I’d be quite interested to know how deep the connection goes but I’m not going to form an opinion on the basis of a site that is prepared to wilfully misquote in order to make its case
Atheist Jew does not necessarily mean anti Jewish. Some of the most fervent Zionists would consider themselves atheist Jews. Like a woman it is prudent to observe their actions rather than their rhetoric. “You shall know them by their fruits”
I suppose its just a coincidence that the bulk of the new elite post revolution were of the tribe. ‘Anti Semitism’ officially outlawed and Orthodox churches demolished whilst Synagogues stood protected and untouched.
So many more coincidences that raise red flags but of course that is just dangerous Anti-Semitic discourse we should avoid right.
“Atheist Jew does not necessarily mean anti Jewish. Some of the most fervent Zionists would consider themselves atheist Jews.”
well marx was anti-jewish insofar as he considered jews to be the arch capitalists, but you’re right that atheist jews aren’t necessarily alienated from the jewish community as a whole – jewry is a broad church…or synagogue. The question though is whether in it’s internal disputes and oppositions it is truly divided. The conspiracist answer is ‘no’: the atheist communist revolutionary jew and the orthodox jew are working towards the same (ethno-centric) interests. I’m not convinced of that, although I do think as a community jews have an extraordinary ability to remain cohesively jewish even while at each others throats although I would ascribe more to the function of anti-semitism than any necessarily shared goals. Also there are some groups like the chabad lubivitchers who appear ‘orthodox’ but seem to be fairly compatible with the big jewish bankers like the rothschilds and may well share a sabbatean messianic line of thinking. Beyond that left wing atheist jews do seem often to be very much at loggerheads with more right wing talmudic / orthodox jews, both with regard to israel, and within the confines of zionism. I wouldn’t say I’m that much clearer on it though.
Returning to communism and bolshevism, yes there does seem to have been a historic and arguably messianic related connection between jews and revolutionary communism. Whether that makes bolshevism jewish is another question. It may be the difference between inspiration / influence and “control”. My problem is with those who are prepared to bend the facts to fit the case they are trying to make. There is a lot of unreliable “literature” / websites out there, and very few people who aren’t either trying to ‘play up’ the jewish factor or play it down. That doesn’t mean bolshevism was or wasn’t jewish to whatever degree but that the issue needs to be handled with greater integrity and better scholarship.
Communism works perfectly.
You just have to remember it’s not what it says on the packet.
And that it’s still evolving
And that as it evolves it disguises itself and goes ever deeper undercover
And that it was never about improving people’s lives
Unless controlling people’s lives is improving them
Which it isn’t
Communism works as much as any pyramid scheme works. Get in early at the top level and you can get rich as royalty… just be sure to get out before they start chopping off heads.
One thing I had in communism that I can’t have in our “evolved” society.
Very strong inter human relations, friends etc.
In the West we have everything, but it’s all fake. So I’m kind of on the fence on this one.
I’m not sure there is as much cause/effect linkage between “strong inter human relations, friends etc.” and communism as you think.
It is. And it’s very simple actually. It was us vs. “them”.
Yeah, the cause there is shared oppression and misery from the authoritarianism, not communism. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Similar regimes can also engender massive distrust in their populations as they force people to turn on one another.
Yeah well, communism was authoritarian and some.
I’m confused – you seem to be pro communism. Are you then also pro authorianism.
Are you perhaps from an ex commie country?
I am not communist. I’m just making an observation.
Communism, at least from a theoretical point of view, isn’t necessary authoritarian. In practical terms, you can’t have a communist political regime that isn’t authoritarian, but the point remains.
…that under communism we would all have better interpersonal relationships?
are you sure?
yeah, the state has to wither, but it can only wither when people are behind the programme and they only get behind the programme, when they are themselves completely programmed i.e. ideologically indoctrinated and cognitively unfree
Why are you asking? I lived it and explained something people in the west are not aware of. Communism was pretty patriarchal too if you’re curious.
The european flavor of communism was not that bad. All you had to do is not talk shit about the gubimint. Other than that they left you alone. Yeah, there was indoctrination but nobody listened to that shit.
well the second part of my question was whether you were from an ex commie country? Unless you’re just referring to be a member of a commie party that might suggest the former?
I can’t really tell whether you’re on the fence about communism or are secretly in favour
THB, I feel there’s more communist indoctrination in the ivy leagues schools here than what the party media was spewing over there.
Yes, i lived in a commie country for the first 27 years of my life.
“All you had to do is not talk shit about the gubimint.”
well that’s pretty unfree as far as I’m concern – even if it doesn’t involve gulags or executions. If you can’t talk truth to power then you’re in some kind of a prison.
To answer your question with another question: Am I any happier? I don’t know. That’s why the “on the fence” part.
I’d venture to say that any benefit to human interaction, be it patriarchy or whatever was more of a side effect of an oppressive system of government, not a goal of it. Sure, a common enemy will bring people together, but that’s not the end all of human relationships.
This is the disconnect: you are using “communism” as a blanket way to refer to the political, cultural and social system that you experienced firsthand in your particular community, and suggesting that “communism” created strong interpersonal relationships.
Many of us are very doubtful that it was the actual, literal communism itself that was the true source of those strong bonds. Again, correlation is not causation.
I can’t argue with that. You were not free.
I’d probably agree. Communism went underground after the fall of the soviet union. The crypto-version is softer to the touch but arguably more dangerous. If you can’t see what is controlling you how can you oppose it
Well, I’ll say this. After the Iron Curtain fell all that went away. They’ve become as hedonistic and vain as we are in the West. Make what you want of this.
the question I suppose is whether we are free over here in the west
It is more dangerous now because it’s grass roots. Very bad….
You said that far better than I did. Bully to you!
That’s really very interesting, very thought provoking. I’m not trying to discount or undermine your experience.
But I believe you can find many communities under different (and far more free) political and social regimes that have strong interpersonal relationships, as well.
i’m not sure those movements are genuinely grass roots most of the time, but I suppose they are to the extent they think they are
I thought about this question a lot. I am. Technically, legally, etc. Do I feel like I am? Not really but that’s my problem.
They are grass roots, and cultural. Try talking things we’re talking about on this forum with your co workers see how that goes.
I went to Russia in ’98. It did seem that they skipped right over “build a better mousetrap” to “greed is good”; that is, right from capitalism to consumerism. Everyone selling, no one creating.
I think some citizens of commie country’s found limited authoritarianism reassuring. That’s probably one reason ex communist leaders still get voted into power, rather than it becoming a major stigma
yeah me too: Great Britain. I jest. I think…..
Well, I really had to think about it. Here is this guy challenging my beliefs with his first-hand human experience. I can’t just say he is wrong and laugh it off. I have to try to understand the point he is making. And I think there is something to his point, I really do. But unfortunately I think it has more to do with the realities of living under a suppressive regime rather than any “peace and love” inherent in communism,
I am not discounting that. But I bet my bottom dollar those communities are patriarchal.
“living under a suppressive regime rather than any “peace and love” inherent in communism”
The strong bonds were just a byproduct of the suppressive environment.
That’s a good point, too. There is a certain reassurance in the security side of the security-versus-freedom spectrum.
Well, we agree there.
The Liberal Elite preaches ‘socialism for YOU, elitism for ME/US’
You have to understand something. When the curtain fell, the first line commies got waked, and the second line took over. They were not really commies at hearth so they were able to switch gears and become capitalists over night. Of course they stole everything in site first.
Point is this: Whoever was fucked before was fucked after. Mind you I never said whoever was on top before got on top after.
This is true with all “revolutions”.
Fucking sad I’m sitting here 30 years after still talking about communism.
anthony sutton has pointed out similar and compatible capitalist and communist structures may be, at least where both tend towards collectivism / statism
A friend of mine once told me that all revolutions are essentially changing out one set of assholes for another set of assholes, and it only benefits you or me if we happen to be one of the new assholes.
Hard thing to shake – especially when you see it popping up all over, after having been “on the inside”.
ok I think I see what you mean. My point was just that a lot of supposedly grass root movements, have either been co-opted or were patronised from the get-go
Absolutely true. The only satisfaction the plebs get is in the public square when the old guard gets guillotined.
Hey, somebody has to keep telling the truth about it when all we hear are so many lies.
yeah, that makes sense. It’s also commentary on how these structures that are supposed to be about human equality actually work as managerial systems that can be exploited by unscrupulous individuals or groups. It would be interesting to test your theory about first / second line commies across the board
No worries. Fools do stupid things no matter where they come from. Avoid that crowd and don’t them drag you down with them.
Thomas Sowell once said, “the last communist on earth will be found in a faculty longue at an Amercan university.”
Mention the name “Yeltsin” to a Russian sometime and watch their reaction. Oy.
I was glad the USSR broke up, but I thought they would do it in increment phases over years, not months. Even Maggie Thatcher remarked that what they were doing would be a shock on the citizens which would be harmful.
In the end, it was a power grab filling an empty vacuum.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Sounds kind of authoritarian.
I don’t see how communism encourages inter-human relations. How can it when it raises State above individual and family?
See my reply below. Besides you HAD to have strong circle of friends / family in order to survive.
Divorce? It was unheard of.
“Divorce? It was unheard of.”
The Party did not approve of divorce and if you were a member and got one, you could kiss any advancement good-bye.
True, but the majority of people were not Party members. Still the divorce rate was extremely low because surprise – Women had to stick to their man in order to survive.
Thats true as well. I was surprised to learn that when a woman in the USSR had +5 kids, she was given a medal, but the parents did not receive any state support. That pretty much guarantees she will stick with her husband.
don’t know where you lived, but in the Soviet Union divorse was very common and widespread. and here’s some stats:
divorce was very common in the Soviet Union – i just posted stats above.
“and 70% breaking up within a decade”
I am not sure that is true. I find it hard to believe. All I can say is all while growing up, families were pretty much intact. I don’t know…
i lived in Moscow and divorce was, like i mentioned, widespread and common thing. it was part of life and people didn’t give a second thought to it. i lived in a stable family, and yet my mother was father’s second wife. one of grandfathers remarried 3 times (notably to sisters of the same family). my girlfriend lived with both parents – but father stopped talking to the mother because he caught her kissing with someone in a metro station. countless similar stories. and i’m talking about circles of “intelligentsia”.
if you go lower to the working class people then it was much worse – as alcoholism was widespread and so is divorce, ruined families, abuse in families etc.
when everyone wears the same pants it creates an unspoken bond.
that’s the game where when you make a line of numbers you yell something out….what is it you yell out again?
fuck if I know.
works for marching bands, right?
No, hey, man, if we’re gonna wear uniforms, man, you know let’s have everybody wear something different.
Cheech and chong?
Whenever a post wall bitch won’t climb off I send her this old RoK gem https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c94951db33ae03033fbe58504c7185afadc3e6c6a6ece5da7ac54ceea2c557b.jpg
cheech and chong?
sorry I did this twice.
Oops you did it ….. never mind
When the wall fell and Stasi (East Germany secret Police) documents were collected, it was revealed that about 25% of the population were informants. Even if they were married or their own children. I heard it was the same in Cuba.
It probably varies the bigger the geography and the further you were from the halls of power.
Communism was defeated (well, looking around I’m not sure about that anymore), not by the West nuclear weapons but by a very simple device: the VCR.
Well, back in ’79-80, the video format in general WAS allegedly responsible for killing the radio star.
Indeed. It killed them both in the minds and in the cars of the public.
There’s a Romanian documentary “Chuck Norris vs Communism” that argues that communism fell because of the illegal importation of American action movies on tapes, so Romanians could see with their own eyes how life was in the capitalist countries…
The nihilism promoted by the Cultural Marxists works against the rest of their agenda. If nothing matters in life, then racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and anti-semitism don’t matter, either.
don’t rest their bullshit in the nihilism camp.
Now THAT’s your calling! “Uncle Lolknee’s Junior Nihilist Summer Camp”!!!
Sign your kids up now!
Piping out Bitches!
Mao didn’t take responsibility, the Chinks blame one of his wives for all their misery.
The most catastrophic political ideology of the 20th Century…Worse the German fascism, in essence German fascism had more similarities to the marxist-leninist states than they would have liked to admit, things were only sanctioned if they served the interest of the state rather than the individual therefore industry was centralized and heavily regulated, sound familiar? and education was also heavily centralized to prevent the criticism of the state…at-least the Germans were competent to an extent but dragging themselves in a war they couldn’t possibly win indicated huge competencies within the NacSoc bureaucrats. Wheras the communists shouts “It is those capitalist pigs that keep you in chains !”, the racial socialists shouts “it is those [insert a race] that are keeping you down !” (e.g. the BLM and WN’s and NacSoc crowd) * I’m a bit lazy to go into detail, but read The problem with socialism by Thomas J. Dilorenzo, one of his chapters deals with the root similarities in Italian/German fascism and international communism…
The soviet bolsheviks have to be considered one of the most inhumane people to ever dirty the face of the Earth. Ruthlessy crushing Christian peasants because farmers saving provisions for their families was deemed anti communist and a crime punishable by death, whole villages were put the sword…
The crimes of the soviet bolsheviks are too innumerable to type in one comment, but Gulag Archichalango is necessary read for all people…When the Germans invaded they struggled to find space in the ground to bury their dead, that pretty much tells you the whole story.
Part of the reason why many African countries are poorer than they were before colonization was the implementation of socialist policies in the newly independent countries therefore bringing about stagnant economic growth, famines and corruption all indicative of countries that adopt hardcore socialist policies, other examples would be Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Britain during the adoption of Fabian socialism after WW2.
The difference, NG had potential. No socialist country ever has.
Because it had an underlying spiritual principle, where the communist ideology was entirely materialistic and economical, the NatSocs posited their race and culture as something worthy of eternal preservation and cultivation. To develop and refine the form, an aesthetic justification for living.
The communists just said “no one should have more money than anyone else!” There was no further path for the individual once everyone was equal.
So you have to wonder why America’s media portray Cuba and North Korea so differently. Both of these regimes have managed to hang around since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last century, and their respective ideologies haven’t changed much because of the continuity in the families running these respective regimes.
Yet our media portray Cuba as a socialist utopia, while they portray North Korea as rogue state run by dangerous and irresponsible men.
Several reasons account for the difference, of course, but I think IQ plays a role that our elites don’t want to acknowledge because it blows up their fantasies of human equality. Koreans have something like 20 more IQ points on average than Cubans, and this gives the North Koreans the ability to build rockets and nukes that could actually threaten other countries, despite their country’s relative poverty. The Cubans, by contrast, couldn’t build these things in a million years.
Also look at this from the elites’ diversity criteria: Cuba offers dullard black and brown Caribbean people who will never amount to much, making them a desirable pool of immigrants to dispossess white Americans, contrasted with the sharper East Asian nerds in the Korean peninsula who could compete and succeed in white societies. North Koreans offer the wrong sort of diversity to suit our elites’ purposes of socially re-engineering Western countries to make them racially mixed and nonwhite.
I think Cuba just spends more money on the right sources of propaganda.
No, it was a pure matter of who looks good on camera. Castro was sexy and looked great on camera. But the Kim family are all creepy laughing stocks. It doesn’t matter that they all think basically the same thing.
Interesting aspect. I have considered to bring in IQ in my article about North Korea and specifically their ability to produce nucelar weapons but I did not do so. It’s true that IQ is an important endogenous factor, but exogenous factors play a huge role too. NK has only ties to China and their economy is in a too bad shape to compete material-wise with wealthy East Asian nations like SK and Japan, and Western countries. Endogenous and exogenous factor interplay: the wrong system creates poverty and less cooperation, which in turn leads to a situation in which it is hard to buy material and compete regionally and globally.
Moreover, Cuba is actually not that bad in some ways, such as tourism-wise. One can travel to NK but not really relax there as in Cuba. Furthermore, due to geographic proximity the U.S. government and diplomats make a sound judgment to be friends rather than enemies with them. It’s not like Cuba is a threat anyway, but if it can lead to fruitful cooperation then it is not bad.
You bring up a solid point about exogenous factors. Germans and Koreans are both very high IQ, high impulse restraint people. When subjected to communism, where IQ mattered little, East Germany and North Korea became 3rd World hell holes. An environment that supports good behavior is almost as important as inherent factors.
But Cuba kept 1950’s-era cars in tip-top shape! Gotta give ’em that.
that is a genius comment, man, the lies we are told, suppression, propoganda. The nice thing about this article and it’s videos is it reminds us that there have been other regimes where what you say has been heavily punished and the times we live in are different but not that historically unique. It’s so messed up. Was just looking at a map a few days ago on a blog with countries of the world shaded in colours according to IQ but such maps are politically incorrect and uncommon.
um….no. Cuba has fantastic biotech and pharmaceutical industry. – cutting edge infectious disease and ob-gyn med.
North Korea gets their high tech from China (backdoor) and Russia too.
pound for pound Cuban’s are smarter and more resourceful. embargoed by big brother 90 miles away etcc….
Mises (Austrian economist in “Socialism”) nailed the problem.
Socialists can’t calculate because there is nothing to base it on.
When something is more expensive, more people produce it driving prices down. Whan something is cheaper, people consume more of it but producers slow causing the price to go up.
How do you know the number and kinds of fruits and vegetables to put in a market? Based on the price people are willing to pay. Too little, and there would be shortages, too much and most just rots. But you can also raise or lower prices under Capitalism.
Yes. Marx ignored the concept of demand and talked about ‘socially necessary labour’, which in reality is about guessing how much certain products/items are needed for day to day survival and then going about making them. Of course this resulted in shortages because without a price mechanism it’s impossible to figure that out.
It’s also a denial of freedom.
Could modern AI and telecommunications solve this?
Track the number of people, develop algorithms to allocate resources to each, monitor public behaviour, etc.
No. Well.. kind of.
With the advances in AI / automation / robotics only probably 10% of the population will be able to hack the jobs of the future. The rest will be totally left behind and put on UBI.
The discrepancy between the workers and the stay-at-home will be huge and nothing in between.
It will come to a point where if the stay-at-home take it to the streets and cause problems, they will just kill them on the spot.
That’s the future, I think.
Scary. But it will likely be tried.
“The discrepancy between the workers and the stay-at-home will be huge and nothing in between.”
I don’t believe there will be any difference, the workers will be taxed down to the same subsistence levels as the non-workers. Can’t you see that already happening now?
For my job I’m helping to build one of these city-monitoring predictive-systems. I just wrote a whole Masters thesis on technologically enhanced “Smart Cities” as they are called.
IBM and other academic partners are working on stuff like computer vision for city cameras, crowd-behaviour predictive modelling, predictive traffic modelling, and various forms of city analytics.
It’s interesting, but the potential for government control once the IT infrastructure is all set up bothers me quite a bit.
The top 10% are still way ahead of the bottom 90% as we speak, even with all the taxes.
None of that justifies theft.
I believe there’ll be no basic income in Russia !
Can you post your thesis? Blot out the personal info, of course.
I agree with you totally but here’s the question. Do you really believe we still have price discovery mechanisms anymore. Do you really think the markets are real?
In what sense? Do prices accurately reflect demand or what people really need or want?
It doesn’t matter how artificial the mechanism. All that matters is whether people are prepared to pay or not.
much less so since 2008 & QE. Property & stocks etc artificially inflated, gold etc artificially depressed (even more than before that is)
I am mostly talking about the Central Banks manipulating the markets to the point that nobody knows what’s real and what’s not as long as the sheeple’s 401Ks are in the stratosphere.
Problem is as long as we adhere to a ‘market’ economy, gravity will always win and it will be hell to pay.
That would have been my second guess. To me speculation is a different ball game to ordinary consumer goods, and Marxist’s certainly can’t account for it (symbolic money is a bullshit way to explain it)
I agree that it is a huge problem that causes distortions in prices.
Prices accurately reflect demand in the current regulatory and political situation. The artificial controls are just a tacked on extra factor that can toss the whole system out of whack when someone decides we need another regulation or (much less likely) we need to cut one. The more regulated an industry, the more likely you will get huge booms and busts.
Communisim does work.
Middle class loses, and disappears.
useful idiots lose.(the believers,fighters).
communist leaders, who are mostly the existing leaders, win.
Communism does not work, but neither does capitalism in the long run. The current state of the U.S. is proof that capitalism is failing. America is a lot like the USSR was in the years before its collapse. Everything looks fine on the outside, but the facade hides a rot and corruption within.
Personally, I think the world will move towards something like democractic socialism. Domocratic socialism is a bottom-up imementation of the socialist “spec.” The purpose of socialism is to decentralize wealth control and ownership, thus giving the average citizen more real freedom. Communism failed because it was a rigid top-down system much like capitalism is.
Capitalism was perhaps necessary in an age when Earth’s respurces were not fully exploited. However, that is no longer the case today. A man can achieve a good standard of living with minimal work through the use of modern technology and resources.
To be honest, I see no point in beating a dead horse. Authentic communism is dead and has been for decades. It is capitalism that now needs to die and join communism in the graveyard of economic ideologies.
The problem is scale. At a certain population level, humans are just ungovernable.
You are correct that population explosion is a problem too. I was speaking only of economic systems since the article is concerned with that.
thats probably a good thing for the plebs. also thats exactly why the elite want to go down to 500 million or so.
Crony capitalism is more like it…a far cry from true capitalism. if you are still touting that the capitalism experiment has failed, you are part of the problem. the CRONY CAPITALIST experiment has failed all but the top .01%.
All the problems you mention with capitalism are due to more and more government encroachment and regulations, ie increasing socialism. Monopolies? They can only sustain themselves when regulations crush new small business competitors. Buying politicians? Only worth doing if you can use them to crush your competition. Democratic socialism just means the poor vote to take stuff from the rich and middle classes and everyone ends up broke.
This argument ignores how exactly corporations got big enough and bad enough to buy out the government in the first place. Libertarians peg government corruption as the root cause when the real root cause is that corporations were allowed to become too powerful in the first place thanks to deregulation. Crony capitalism is simply an effect of deregulation. Libertarian economies are short-term voids waiting to be filled by the biggest and baddest rich guy.
It is now common for Marxists to refer to the horror brought about by their ideas as ’20th century Communism’. Yep, that’s how sick and deluded these cunts are. They honestly believe that as long as we have the ‘right’ person in power who listens to the ‘right people’ (i.e the high priests of Marxism who have the ‘correct’ interpretation) the ideas of Marx will finally be vindicated.
There is also a pathetic movement to harmonize the texts of Marx, which are often contradictory, in the same way that fundamentalist Christians do with holy texts. And they pretend not to be Marxists either, just curious ‘observers’. LOL. e.g Andrew Kliman. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_single-system_interpretation
You couldn’t make this shit up.
I remember learning about this in social studies in about 6th grade in the late 1970s. I don’t think they teach that anymore.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, we needed a new bogeyman. Enter radical Islam.
The new boogeyman became the straight wasp male.
no. The new boogeyman has always been the old boogeyman.
Hello … from ability and to need … It is inherently dysgenic. At least the national socialist were to the Germans, not Somalians.
Communism doesn’t work because America has waged war (secretly or openly) on every country that tried it.
Communism doesn’t work because it has zero concept of natural human behavior….
Communism actually did work where it was tried. It was doing exactly as intended when 7 million Ukrainians starved to death.
Yeah, it was us that made that stupid 10 year old playground philosophy fail.
Get out of here, broad.
Watch the documentary “The Soviet Story” to get the truth about communism.
What about Rojava?
Socialism is selifish, parasitic, immoral, unfair and discriniatory system. It breaks God’s commandments:
Don’t steal. It is immoral to steal from people even if you ‘vote’ to steal from other people.
Don’t covet your neighbours property
Do not make government a god
Want to see ‘socialism in a picture’??
“Shoddy cement work made the building unsafe, becoming an uninhabited, half-finished eyesore towering over Pyongyang.”
The article is good, but since I’m in the business I must make a small correction. The author means shoddy concrete work, not cement. Cement is an ingredient of concrete, along with water, sand, and stone. Cement will still harden if mixed with water, but it will be very brittle and weak. You’d never get a building higher than the first floor before it would collapse upon itself.
A free country that has lost its fear of communism has lost its mooring. If you want proof of communism’s evil, take a quick look at “Communism at ‘Peace’: A List of Non-Military Communist Atrocities” ( communiststats.com ).
Unfortunately, as the population ages and dies off, the lefties will have no history or recollection of communism and people shot as they try to escape the socialist utopia.
And that is why I am against the Trump Wall. I can see the guy after him using it to keep us in.
When my children were little, I read to them every day. Not just kid stories but things like “The First Circle,” “Cancer Ward” and “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell. They loved the stories, not just because they were well written but because they understood that they were learning about the real world. And it gave me the chance to talk to them about what happens in a society in which personal freedom is eliminated.
Our schools don’t teach our children the truth of the Soviet Union and Communism so it’s every parent’s responsibility to make sure their kids learn what happened behind the Iron Curtain.
If you have children, teach them the truth of socialism. They won’t learn it from anyone else.
You’re a good father. Well done!
If you have multiple kids, you can teach them about communism directly with a paid chore list. Put a list on the fridge with a reward for each item. The first month you pay each kid for whatever they do so they get used to the extra pocket money. The next month you tell them that they will each be given an equal share of whatever chores get done. After a week or two, no chores will be done, no cash paid out, and a lesson will be learned when you discuss the results with them.
Oh come on, give us one more try.
The writer of this article is such an anti-semite and a racist.
How dare you criticize the societal construct that brought death to over 60 million Christ Loving Christians by torture, rape, starvation & Gulags.
Communism was not just about economy…when you guys get the time, read about what they did in Pitesti called the Experiment in Pitesti.
They took ordinary Christians and made them eat shit and drink piss while saying ,,this is the Body of Christ”.
They forced the people to swear against God.
They forced the people to forcely deny God.
They still are the demons on the faces of the earth.
SATAN is inside communism.
If in doubt, remember Hungary and 1956!
Hungarians were ready to kill and die, just so that they do not have to live one more minute in Communism, after 12 years of the system!
That we were beaten down is another question.
But the spirit of freedom is alive. Long live Hungary!
Down with Communism, better dead then Red!
Much respect to Hungary.
My family fought the Communist fucks in the old country and luckily won the Civil War-but what they did in murdering my great uncle who was an army lieutenant and in torturing my grandfather has left me with a superhuman hatred for Leftism of any stripe-so that said, I salute the valour of those who fought back against such unmitigated evil.
The respect belongs to my ancestors.
Although I always try my best to follow them, and I took part in the Budapest riots of 2006 against the ex-Communist government.
May I respectfully ask, where the old country of your family was?
My guess is either Greece or Spain, that is the two places I remember from history class as having civil war against Communists. Am I close, or did I miss it altoghether?
You got it-Greece. Ny family were staunchly anti-Communist and I had many in the armed forces and Gendarmerie/Police.
My first educated guess was Greece, I should try to buy a lottery ticket. 🙂
Full respect to the brave Greek patriots of all times!
Doesn’t it break your heart to see the beautiful islands of Greece being overrun by hordes of Islamist migrants?
Greece was always in the frontier of repelling the Turks, the Muslim attack against Christian Europe.
If the Pope had balls, and instead of washing the feet of Muslim prisoners, ordered another Crusade, I would quit my job and sign up on the same day, honest!
Do it-and let’s hope you get a nice big win; lots of Forints. I can’t even tell you how sickening it is to see the islands being swamped by subhuman garbage like that-the amount of times Greece has been sold out over the last 800+ years despite it acting as a bulwark against Islam and Communism makes one want to vomit from rage. The Pope has no balls and the fucker should be swinging from the end of a rope.
Crusade would be fun-cleansing the world of the Mohammedan filth is glorious work.
Communism only works (usually) in one situation: the biological nuclear family, and it requires very powerful instinctive urges to enforce it. This is also why kids and young adults are so easy to catch on to socialism and communism. They’ve lived with it their whole life up to then, mooching off loving parents, and think they can avoid the icky life of hard work if only they can make the world like their childhood home.
Was it wrong for Rand to rely on welfare at the end of her life?
Was she forced to pay taxes and contributitions when she earned? Then no.
Why don’t they all go live in North Korea if they’re so convinced? During the Cold War years I never met anyone on the hard left who moved to Soviet Russia. Even taking in to account our own western propaganda Eastern Block countries were heaving shit pits. This is total and utter cognitive dissonance on the left, that has blossomed to full self delusional fruition from the seeds planted by Karl ‘Idol mind with too much time on his hands’ Marx. .
The USSR (rightfully) only allowed people who could provide a net benefit to immigrate. Lee Harvey Oswald was turned away, for example.
Both communism and capitalism are materialistic concepts, therefore inherently feminine. There isn’t much difference between them as they are both part of the same dialectic. Many people in the West though like to think that the latter is superior because the former collapsed.
Communism did not collapse, it was transferred to the West as the economic system in the East could not maintain it any more. The same fate await the West and the collapse will be even more painful as men are more effeminate.
Roosh talked about Yuri Bezmenov in one of his blog and I highly recommend watching this video if you got 80 minutes to spare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
Communism goes against human nature, plain and simple. That’s in a nutshell why it always fails.
Communism doesn’t work because people want to own stuff.
Nice article. Your basic understanding of capitalism is a bit flawed, however, the role of scarcity is the deciding factor in all economic exchanges.
Shortages in supply and high demand for the same thing are rare or very temporary.
The names people give for the same thing, right? Communism, capitalism, socialism, anarcho-capitalism…..all the same thing. Ownership. No matter what system is chosen someone is the owner, always.
Communism is Nazism with a better PR department. Any country communism has been tried in, there has been persecution, racism and genocide of non majority groups (Hmong, Montagnard, Tatars, Kazakhs, other central Asians, Tibetans, Afro Cubans, etc). The only difference is the left only wants to see the holocaust, the massacre of the Native Americans and Slavery as the only crimes against humanity.
bolsheviks were mostly jewish.
jews like collectivism ….. i wonder why ?
Texts like this makes me laught. And I think a lot of people who actually lived in USSR. It was the best society ever created. Capitalism is a theft.
USSR was the only state where theft was strictly forbidden.
“It was the best society ever created.”
It that were true, it wouldn’t have imploded. n’est pas?
I disagree that Communism or Socialism don’t “work”. You have to define “works for who?” For the tiny class of wealthy connected cronies at the top, they work very well.
Israel tried this with its kibbutz system and even these needed to be bailed out by their government.
That there is no rational economic calculation was proven nearly a century ago in von Mises’ “Socialism”. He, in turn, was merely following up insights from Barone, Parero, and most importantly Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and his 19th century work “Karl Marx and the Close of the his System”. Cultural Marxism, so callled, is a degenerate, vulgar form of Marxism-Leninism, relying heavily on the concept of the ‘vanguard elite’. The ‘vanguard’ is ascribed vision superior to the people it purports to lead and, in the famous phrase, can justify killing the people in the name and interest of the people. The most well kn own version of this today is, of course, Feminism.
Thus, cultural Marxism does not so much to seek to destroy society as to rule it. And, just as classic Communism was the greatest killer of workers and peasants whose interests in ostensibly represented, so too Feminism is the greatest to the women it supposedly represents. The goal of Feminism is not power over men – that is merely an instrument – it desires to control women, the entirety of women, their sexuality in particular. Like Communism, in which there is no rational economic calculation, Feminism has no retaional social calculation. The one has failed, and the other will fail, but not without injuring the lives of millions of women.
To combat Cultural Marxim’s most dangerous permutation, Feminism, it is necessary to focus continually on how this meme hurt Women. Camille Paglio has done some excellent work in this respect, but thus far she and her allies have merely held the line. But to win, we have to attack. We have to attack all the time. It will be a trying time. But there is no alternative.
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their
country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of
man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have
this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more
glorious the triumph..I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear.” – Thomas Paine, The Crisis.
I think the rise of the robot will greatly change the playfield, making socialism, to some degree, the most optimal system. While the human laborer gets discouraged by the indolent sucking on his teat, the robot does not.
An economy is not just a system for distribution of scarce resources, it is a system for CREATION of, broadly, resources, as well.
As A. Whitney Brown once said, it’s ironic communism failed because there’s no money in it.
Communism is a system where liberals get guns and conservatives don’t. Guess who is herded off to Siberia to be properly ‘socialized’.