English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-19 16:40:44 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

It fell because Communism or socialism ignores a simple fact. People need to be rewarded for their hard work. Here is an article that says it better than I ever could.

Marxists' Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn't Work
November 13, 2002 | Issue 38•42

AMHERST, MA—The filthy, disorganized apartment shared by three members of the Amherst College Marxist Society is a microcosm of why the social and economic utopia described in the writings of Karl Marx will never come to fruition, sources reported Monday.


Enlarge Image

Marxists Kirk Dorff and Josh Foyle.
"The history of society is the inexorable history of class struggle," said sixth-year undergraduate Kirk Dorff, 23, resting his feet on a coffee table cluttered with unpaid bills, crusted cereal bowls, and bongwater-stained socialist pamphlets. "The stage is set for the final struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the true productive class. We're well aware of that here at 514 W. Elm Street, unlike other apartments on this supposedly intellectual campus."

Upon moving in together at the beginning of the fall 2001 semester, Dorff, Josh Foyle, and Tom Eaves sat down and devised an egalitarian system for harmonious living. Each individual roommate would be assigned a task, which he would be required to carry out on a predetermined day of the week. A bulletin board in the kitchen was chosen as the spot for household announcements, and to track reimbursements for common goods like toothpaste and toilet paper.

"We were creating an exciting new model for living," said Dorff, stubbing his cigarette into an ashtray that had not been emptied in six days. "It was like we were dismantling the apparatus of the state right within our own living space."

Despite the roommates' optimism, the system began to break down soon after its establishment. To settle disputes, the roommates held weekly meetings of the "Committee of Three."

"I brought up that I thought it was total bullshit that I'm, like, the only one who ever cooks around here, yet I have to do the dishes, too," said Foyle, unaware of just how much the apartment underscores the infeasibility of scientific socialism as outlined in Das Kapital. "So we decided that if I cook, someone else has to do the dishes. We were going to rotate bathroom-cleaning duty, but then Kirk kept skipping his week, so we had to give him the duty of taking out the garbage instead. But now he has a class on Tuesday nights, so we switched that with the mopping."

After weeks of complaining that he was the only one who knew how to clean "halfway decent," Foyle began scaling back his efforts, mirroring the sort of production problems experienced in the USSR and other Soviet bloc nations.

At an Oct. 7 meeting of the Committee of Three, more duties and a point system were added. Two months later, however, the duty chart is all but forgotten and the shopping list is several pages long.


Enlarge Image

Dishes and seminal Marxist tracts pile up in the kitchen sink.
The roommates have also tried to implement a food-sharing system, with similarly poor results. The dream of equal distribution of shared goods quickly gave way to pilferage, misallocation, and hoarding.

"I bought the peanut butter the first four times, and this Organic Farms **** isn't cheap," Eaves said. "So ever since, I've been keeping it in my dresser drawer. If Kirk wants to make himself a sandwich, he can run to the corner store and buy some Jif."

Another failed experiment involves the cigarettes bought collectively. Disagreements constantly arose over who smoked more than his fair share of the group's supply of American Spirit Blues, and the roommates now hide individually purchased packs from each other—especially late at night when shortages are frequent.

The situation is familiar to Donald Browning, author of Das Kouch: A History Of College Marxism, 1970-1998.

"When workers willfully become less productive, the economy of the household suffers," Browning said. "But in a society where a range of ability naturally exists, someone is bound to object to picking up the slack for others and end up getting all pissy, like Josh does."

According to Browning, the group's lack of productivity pervades their lives, with roommates encouraging each other to skip class or work to sit on the couch smoking pot and talking politics.

"A spirit of free-market competition in the house would likely result in better incomes or better grades," Browning said. "Then, instead of being hated and ostracized by the world at large as socialist countries usually are, they could maintain effective diplomacy with their landlord, their parents, and Kirk's boss who cut back his hours at Shaman Drum Books."

The lack of funds and the resulting scarcity breeds not only discontent but also corruption. Although collectivism only works when all parties contribute to the fullest extent, Foyle hid the existence of a $245 paycheck from roommates so he would not have to pay his back rent, in essence refusing to participate in the forced voluntary taxation that is key to socialism. Even worse, Dorff, who is entrusted with bill collection and payment, recently pocketed $30, a theft he claimed was "for the heating bill" but was put toward buying drinks later that night.

"As is human nature, power tends to corrupt even the noblest of men," Browning said. "The more power the collective has over the lives of the individuals, as is the case in this household, the more he who is in charge of distribution has to gain by being unscrupulous. These Marxists will soon realize they overestimated how much control they would like 514 W. Elm as an entity to have."

2006-07-19 17:39:10 · answer #1 · answered by cashcobra_99 5 · 0 0

The decline of the Soviet Union began with the invasion of Afghanistan and with the disaster of the Nuclear Reactor in Chernobyl (1986). Mr. Gorbachov felt that the political system and the government should be more transparent so he began with the reforms called "perestroika and glasnost". The problem was that the Soviet Union was never a united country with common roots. The Baltic states were against their will in the USSR since the second world war. The Ukrainians felt that they were treated like second class people by the Russians (specially by Moscow). The Asian republics were countries which were invaded by the Russians under the Czar times. This is why many people called the Soviet Union an Empire.
After Gorbachov made this reforms many republics felt that they had they right to choose if the wanted to stay in the Soviet Union or not and they choose not to stay and this why the Soviet Union felt into parts.

2006-07-19 16:57:46 · answer #2 · answered by mark05122003 1 · 0 0

Because most people never get past a few labels in political philosophy. As you point out, real nations never operate on a single theory, but on complex combinations of theories, that are constantly changing. Western Democracies starting out with capitalism have adopted social policies over a period of two centuries that have changed free enterprise beyond recognition. I call the current global political-economic system the Mixed Free Market system and point out that all nations now have a public sector which provides goods and services that the private sector is unwilling or unable to produce, and a private sector which is a partner with government due to its obedience to its regulatory authority and the right of the government to take 35 - 50% of the profits. If ownership of the means of production is socialism and the right to control and taxes profits is an incident of ownership, you could say our system is 50% Socialist. Truly, the fall of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union only stands for the proposition that any nation which does not produce the consumer goods and services that its population wants, cannot stand forever. The Chinese studied this intensively and seem to have come up with a solution involving much less economic micro-management, that is working for them. Cuba is being forced to expand its private sector and North Korea has abandoned Socialism and become an Absolute Monarchy.

2016-03-16 02:11:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed due to economic woes. The system was not right with so many republics comprising the union from Europe to the continent of Asia. The socialist movement was not well executed that people do not want the Central Government at Moscow. Thus, republics rebelled and separated one by one. A vast territory was not controlled by Russia.

2006-07-19 16:58:36 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

The soviet union fell because their communist society made sure everyone was equal. It didnt matter how hard your worked, how smart you were, or how productive you were you made the same amount of money as the turd with a pulse who showed up to work drunk every day and slept on the job.

Without productive citizens a society can not maintain itself.

This is why conservatives in America are against all forms of government handouts. You have got to let the people work to try to get rich. Without that carrot to dangle infront of people you will just end up with a bunch of lazy bums who can't even feed themselves.

2006-07-19 18:33:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The separatist movements were making all sorts of demands on the Union and the Russians got tired of paying benefits to Georgia, Lithuania, and getting stuck with Polands foreign debts. It just pissed them off.So they decided to separate from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union sent their military to supress and arrest the Russian government but the army basicly refused to act, they were defeated by a line of old russian grandmothers with signs saying stop. The tank commanders(mostly eastern soviets from mongolia) got out of the tanks and sat on top of them( the tanks that is)

2006-07-19 16:52:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

None of you got it right..... Yes military spending could kill a country but alas not in the soviet's case. It fell because Cruschef took office the death of Stalin cause it to start falling. No other factors effected it

2006-07-19 16:44:53 · answer #7 · answered by Ward Cleaver 2 · 0 0

Actually, had a lot to do with the Unification of Germany and the fall of the Berlin wall in the 1980's. When Germany reunified Russia lost a major trading partner.

2006-07-19 16:45:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

With the rise of gorbachev, pope john paul ii, and lech walesa, it fell. A wonderful trinity emerged in eastern europe and helped bring down the soviet empire. stay tuned for putin's adventures.

2006-07-19 16:43:47 · answer #9 · answered by cassandra 6 · 0 0

Reagan spent them to death...they couldn't keep up with the arms race. Plus for the first time an American President and the Russian President talked on the same level and tried to make peace with each other.

2006-07-19 16:44:58 · answer #10 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0 0

By investing 60-80% of it's money into the military, and not enough into the other sectors.

2006-07-19 16:42:45 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers