Why communism doesn't work.

[Eamonnca1]

Someone asked me why communism tends towards dictatorship so I'll do my best to answer.

The commie system started off well intentioned, with technocratic government elected by a hierarchy of small committees. The problem with technocratic government is that someone still has to decide who's qualified to be leader. So in the beginning everything might be fine and dandy as everyone sets about building the socialist order. But over time, without the checks and balances of universal suffrage, committees gradually get filled with people who rise to the top on the strength of their personal connections and ability to bribe rather than on the strength of their qualifications.

With democracy, a larger number of people are involved in the decision-making process, hence the chances of making an error are smaller. The chances aren't eliminated of course (cough cough, George W Bush, cough) but incompetent people usually rise to the top of democratic systems because of failures in the electoral process. In the case of George W "shit for brains" Bush it was the electoral college and his brother in Florida that got him into office. In the case of the lunatic asylum of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives it's down to a combination of Democrat apathy in the mid-term elections, and blatant gerrymandering that would have made the unionists in 1960s Derry jealous. In the case of Tony Abbott in Australia it's down to the vagueries of parliamentary systems that can throw up some odd choices of Prime Minister from time to time (cough cough John Bruton cough). But in a parliamentary system it's a lot easier to get rid of a bad leader since you can have confidence votes.

The bottom line is all systems are prone to a certain amount of corruption, it's just that democracy is better equipped to cope with it, whereas a technocratic system is a dictator's paradise since it's very hard to dislodge bad people once they get in.

That's my theory anyway. I have a lot of theories...

[Jeepers Creepers]

Sounds good on paper but not in practice as someone in the higher enchelons will always have a wee bit more money than their minnions

[Ulick]

Someone asked me why communism tends towards dictatorship so I'll do my best to answer.

The commie system started off well intentioned, with technocratic government elected by a hierarchy of small committees. The problem with technocratic government is that someone still has to decide who's qualified to be leader. So in the beginning everything might be fine and dandy as everyone sets about building the socialist order. But over time, without the checks and balances of universal suffrage, committees gradually get filled with people who rise to the top on the strength of their personal connections and ability to bribe rather than on the strength of their qualifications.

With democracy, a larger number of people are involved in the decision-making process, hence the chances of making an error are smaller. The chances aren't eliminated of course (cough cough, George W Bush, cough) but incompetent people usually rise to the top of democratic systems because of failures in the electoral process. In the case of George W "shit for brains" Bush it was the electoral college and his brother in Florida that got him into office. In the case of the lunatic asylum of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives it's down to a combination of Democrat apathy in the mid-term elections, and blatant gerrymandering that would have made the unionists in 1960s Derry jealous. In the case of Tony Abbott in Australia it's down to the vagueries of parliamentary systems that can throw up some odd choices of Prime Minister from time to time (cough cough John Bruton cough). But in a parliamentary system it's a lot easier to get rid of a bad leader since you can have confidence votes.

The bottom line is all systems are prone to a certain amount of corruption, it's just that democracy is better equipped to cope with it, whereas a technocratic system is a dictator's paradise since it's very hard to dislodge bad people once they get in.

That's my theory anyway. I have a lot of theories...

No offense Eamonnca1 but your theory proves nothing more than an extreme ignorance of a understanding concept of communism and ends up comparing apples and elephants.

The first thing that stands out is your preposition that "commie systems" have actually been tried when in fact a communist system of society was always a desired endpoint to be achieved. None of the "former Communist" states ever reached that endpoint or to my knowledge ever claimed to have reached it.

Your bit about the system being clogged up with self-promoting careerists however is valid. Socialist theorists, particularly those in the 50s & 60s who were critical of the Soviet Union called them the "new bourgeoisie" and "nomenklatura". However such bureaucrats are common in all walks of life and socioeconomic systems including capitalist systems.

Rather than going on to compare Communism with another socioeconomic system you draw contrast with a catch-all term for a many different systems of government i.e. democracy. You do this without highlighting the fact there are as many forms and variations of 'democracy' as there are strands and variational of socialism and/or communism. Indeed not only are there many forms of democracy, but democracy and how it is implemented is a core part of all communist systems. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

You attempted to answer the question of "why communism tends towards dictatorship" without considering whether the preposition of the question is true or whether other systems also tend towards dictatorship. Off the top of my head I can think of many 'liberal democratic' western-style governments which have produced dictators, Hitler, Mussolini and Lincoln being just a few. Even the US Constitution (Article II, section 3, clause 3) allows for the transformation of the US President to become a dictator. So are dictators the preserve of socialists - I don't think so.

In short your post reeks of arrogant uniformed Yankee bullshit. The kind of shite we all sigh at hearing when coming across a loudmouthed Yank spouting off in a Kerry pub. It usually falls apart though on any kind of cursory examination leaving us wondering why we even bothered.

[Mike Sheehy]

Someone asked me why communism tends towards dictatorship so I'll do my best to answer.

The commie system started off well intentioned, with technocratic government elected by a hierarchy of small committees. The problem with technocratic government is that someone still has to decide who's qualified to be leader. So in the beginning everything might be fine and dandy as everyone sets about building the socialist order. But over time, without the checks and balances of universal suffrage, committees gradually get filled with people who rise to the top on the strength of their personal connections and ability to bribe rather than on the strength of their qualifications.

With democracy, a larger number of people are involved in the decision-making process, hence the chances of making an error are smaller. The chances aren't eliminated of course (cough cough, George W Bush, cough) but incompetent people usually rise to the top of democratic systems because of failures in the electoral process. In the case of George W "shit for brains" Bush it was the electoral college and his brother in Florida that got him into office. In the case of the lunatic asylum of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives it's down to a combination of Democrat apathy in the mid-term elections, and blatant gerrymandering that would have made the unionists in 1960s Derry jealous. In the case of Tony Abbott in Australia it's down to the vagueries of parliamentary systems that can throw up some odd choices of Prime Minister from time to time (cough cough John Bruton cough). But in a parliamentary system it's a lot easier to get rid of a bad leader since you can have confidence votes.

The bottom line is all systems are prone to a certain amount of corruption, it's just that democracy is better equipped to cope with it, whereas a technocratic system is a dictator's paradise since it's very hard to dislodge bad people once they get in.

That's my theory anyway. I have a lot of theories...

No offense Eamonnca1 but your theory proves nothing more than an extreme ignorance of a understanding concept of communism and ends up comparing apples and elephants.

The first thing that stands out is your preposition that "commie systems" have actually been tried when in fact a communist system of society was always a desired endpoint to be achieved. None of the "former Communist" states ever reached that endpoint or to my knowledge ever claimed to have reached it.

Your bit about the system being clogged up with self-promoting careerists however is valid. Socialist theorists, particularly those in the 50s & 60s who were critical of the Soviet Union called them the "new bourgeoisie" and "nomenklatura". However such bureaucrats are common in all walks of life and socioeconomic systems including capitalist systems.

Rather than going on to compare Communism with another socioeconomic system you draw contrast with a catch-all term for a many different systems of government i.e. democracy. You do this without highlighting the fact there are as many forms and variations of 'democracy' as there are strands and variational of socialism and/or communism. Indeed not only are there many forms of democracy, but democracy and how it is implemented is a core part of all communist systems. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

You attempted to answer the question of "why communism tends towards dictatorship" without considering whether the preposition of the question is true or whether other systems also tend towards dictatorship. Off the top of my head I can think of many 'liberal democratic' western-style governments which have produced dictators, Hitler, Mussolini and Lincoln being just a few. Even the US Constitution (Article II, section 3, clause 3) allows for the transformation of the US President to become a dictator. So are dictators the preserve of socialists - I don't think so.

In short your post reeks of arrogant uniformed Yankee bullshit. The kind of shite we all sigh at hearing when coming across a loudmouthed Yank spouting off in a Kerry pub. It usually falls apart though on any kind of cursory examination leaving us wondering why we even bothered.

Pick any form of communism you want and convince us why it is a good socioeconomic system.

Lets assume that democracy is fatally, irreparably flawed and we are all searching for a better way.

[seafoid]

if capitalism fucks up the planet, and it probably will, it won't be seen to have worked either.

[Ulick]

Pick any form of communism you want and convince us why it is a good socioeconomic system.

Lets assume that democracy is fatally, irreparably flawed and we are all searching for a better way.

Looks like it was over your head as well Mike. Let me repeat the key phrase, communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Many communists as also democrats. For example, I referred to in my reply who key to developing the socialist critique of the Soviet system and bureaucracy such as Milovan  Đilas identified themselves as 'democratic socialists' though his interpretation of democracy is probably very different from yours and most likely a more 'democratic' interpretation.

[Mike Sheehy]

What are the actual changes to day to day life that I would expect to see under your idea of a correctly implemented democratic-communism/democratic socialist system ? In what way would my economic situation improve? What social improvements would accrue ?

[dec]

The first thing that stands out is your preposition that "commie systems" have actually been tried when in fact a communist system of society was always a desired endpoint to be achieved. None of the "former Communist" states ever reached that endpoint or to my knowledge ever claimed to have reached it.

Which is probably the strongest argument against communism. No-one has ever been able to make it work and most attempts to try and make it work have caused misery.

[Ulick]

What are the actual changes to day to day life that I would expect to see under your idea of a correctly implemented democratic-communism/democratic socialist system ? In what way would my economic situation improve? What social improvements would accrue ?

Where exactly did I claim ownership over anything? My post was simply to point out the false prepositions at the core of the discussion. I didn't say anywhere that I had a preference of one form over another.

[Mike Sheehy]

What are the actual changes to day to day life that I would expect to see under your idea of a correctly implemented democratic-communism/democratic socialist system ? In what way would my economic situation improve? What social improvements would accrue ?

Where exactly did I claim ownership over anything? My post was simply to point out the false prepositions at the core of the discussion. I didn't say anywhere that I had a preference of one form over another.

hmm......your response to EamonCA clearly implied a preference ..

I'll just ask you straight out so, do you think that communism (in any form you choose) is a good socioeconomic system ? Just your own opionion. I'm not claiming you represent anybody or anything.

[Mike Sheehy]

What are the actual changes to day to day life that I would expect to see under your idea of a correctly implemented democratic-communism/democratic socialist system ? In what way would my economic situation improve? What social improvements would accrue ?

Where exactly did I claim ownership over anything? My post was simply to point out the false prepositions at the core of the discussion. I didn't say anywhere that I had a preference of one form over another.

hmm......your response to EamonCA clearly implied a preference ..

I'll just ask you straight out so, do you think that communism (in any form you choose) is a good socioeconomic system ? Just your own opionion. I'm not claiming you represent anybody or anything.

LOL Mikey
You've been in the states too long..... you've lost the knack of cornering a man

Given that capitalism is going to mess up the planet you would expect lads to be lining up with alternatives.

[muppet]

Communism is a bit like Homeopathy. It promises what the weak want to hear and many of them pile in, but it never delivers.

[armaghniac]

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, Communism is the reverse.

[Mike Sheehy]

So it appears you were right Eamonca1 despite your post ,according to some, reeking of "arrogant uninformed Yankee bullshit"

Communism doesn't work and nobody is prepared to defend it.

you managed to win the argument in one page. Well done that man !

[Eamonnca1]

That's a spectacular bit of point-missing you've got there, Ulick. Did you read my post in full? It doesn't seem that way because I DID discuss different democratic systems (did you miss the bit where I talked about parliamentary systems v presidential systems?), I DID say that democracy is far from perfect. And the point that sailed over your head, but is there in big letters nonetheless, is that all systems are prone to corruption, it's just that democracy is better at avoiding it than the alternatives.

By your own admission, not one single communist state reached the desired utopia. Not one. Every single one degenerated into dictatorship. Can't say that about democratic countries, can you? Congratulations on managing to conjure up a couple of exceptions and one hypothetical one, but Hitler and Musolini are hardly typical of leaders who came to power through the democratic process now, are they?

If you're going to tell someone that they're posting "arrogant uniformed (sic) Yankee bullshit. The kind of shite we all sigh at hearing when coming across a loudmouthed Yank spouting off in a Kerry pub. It usually falls apart though on any kind of cursory examination leaving us wondering why we even bothered," you might want to think about reading it first to make sure it fits that description.