Could Soviet-style Communism have worked if the West had not seen it as such a threat?

Question

Without the Cold War and the Arms race, could Soviet Communism have worked, if it did not need to concentrate so much resources on countering the West? Also, without such a threat, could Marxism have been applied without being distorted by strong dictators like Stalin?

Answer 1

Coomunism is good in theory but tends to end up very uneven and unfair.

To quote from George Orwells Animal Farm

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Answer 2

Communism fails everywhere it has been tried. Currently it is in it's death throes even in China. The problem with Communism is twofold. The first is that it denies human nature. Communism is the bastardization of socialist theory. The idea of socialism is that it strives too make all people equal. The simple fact is that people are not equal, some are willing to work harder to achieve more in life, while others are content with less. By attempting to equally redistribute everything among all you take away the incentive to achieve. In short it ignores the basic human failing of greed. The second problem is that it is impossible for all people to be represented equally from a government standpoint and what ends up happening is that certain groups usurp power for themselves. Thus you are left with a proletariat party structure which imposes it's will on the masses. The masses are not properly represented because they do not choose these leaders and are left will little control over the direction of their own lives. Those who oppose this oppressive rule are eliminated or jailed as political dissidents who represent a threat to the control of the state. This in effect denies another another basic element of the human condition. The desire to hold and express ideas freely.

Answer 3

It never had a chance. Marx's economic ideas were nonsense, and communist countries had to very quickly give them up. An example is his labour theory of value, the value of a product represents only the amount of labour put into it, completely rejecting supply and demand ie. a diamond's value is only the cost of the labour to dig it up and polish it.
His social ideas were equally erroneous. To split the whole population into two groups, proletariat (good) and bourgeois (evil) is an oversimplification to the point of stupidity. His notion that the proletariat are a revolutionary class is also mistaken. He was a bourgeois intellectual and Lenin was a minor aristocrat they just projected their own wishes on the working class, who given decent wages and working conditions are mostly content with the capitalist system. To change Marx's quote, you could say that revolution is the opium of the intellectual.
Soviet-style communism was totalitarian at heart and collapsed as much from its own internal contradictions as it did from pressure from the west. I you are really interested to understand why Marxism failed read 'Marxism an autopsy' by Henry Bamford Parkes. According to this book the income difference between a manual worker and his senior administrator in the soviet union was about the same as the difference between the manual worker and chief executive of an American corporation, showing that the 'Socialist revolution' did not distribute wealth differently, it just changed who the bosses were.
In the case of China, for 40/50 years it was one of the most fiercely communist countries in the world. Millions of its citizens starved to death while Mao and his cronies lived in Imperial luxury. And now you have a communist party administrating a capitalist economic system

Answer 4

Like many things communism/socialism , looks good on paper ,but doesn't fly in the long run .
Every worth while human wants to get ahead , be the best and works to get there .
Under collective systems the mediocer , the lazy , the incompetent get an unearned share of everybody's wealth . This leads to indifference of the workers , why bust butt , you can't keep it .
The only winners under such political systems are those at the top of the system , everything belongs to them , including the people .
In the Soviet Union , the bakers wife stood in the bread line to get bread , if it was available .

Answer 5

Soviet type Communism is a higher danger to the u . s . a . than Islamic Jihadism, for the reason that in the u . s . a . actually about a million-2% of the inhabitants is Muslim, and many in the Left are closet Communists (consisting of the President). although in Europe, Islamic Jihad is a higher danger for the reason that they have this manner of large inhabitants of indignant, unassimilated Muslims. I want that President Obambi and his minions would supply up mendacity about Islam being a "faith of peace." no longer some thing will be more desirable from the truth.

Answer 6

How irritating that so many of your answerers say that communism is good in principle.Yes I heard the ridiculous old cliche too but I dont repeat it.
Its not good in theory or practise.it is regressive and causes a society to cease advancing.Therefore after a revolution and the novelty wears off the people no longer want it.So guess what ,the state enforces it and the ppl become unwilling participants.

Communism has failed in all countries.The ppl of china dont want it and are readily murdered if they oppose the regime.Same in north korea. cuba the most mellow of all the communist states ,simply because its in the shadow of the united states is also doomed.When castro dies shortly ,I will bet my bottom dollar that communism will cease there too.

Answer 7

Sure it could - in principle Communism is basically sound. But, so far as Western Capitalism (the USA) is concerned, that's really its big problem.

America just couldn't permit it to succeed... how could it...??? Instead, it constantly demonized, threatened and harrassed the Soviet Union or forced it into crippling expenses all it could...

But the fact is that if Stalin (a weak, self-centred man) had not taken over and Lennin had survived to implement Karl Marx's philosophies - they might have been universally adopted and posed quite a threat to The American Way that would have been serious...

Answer 8

No, because it oppresses human nature. It grinds down the human spirit because there is no hope of improving yourself. It is top down state control, where your first duty is to the state and not your family or your fellow citizens. It does not tolerate religion or dissention from the state view. To be honest, I am amazed how many people still think that the Communist model can work, despite the fact that it always fails.

Answer 9

The only thing wrong with any seemingly "great theory" is that once you actually involve people it tends to degenerate to it's lowest common denominator. Russian Communism is a shining example of that aspect of any government..If Communism could not work in a country that controlled virtually everything controllable how in the name of anything you care to name could it work where virtually Nothing is controlled? EVEN if all your caveats(and you have plenty) are taken into consideration the answer is obviously still a big: NO...

Answer 10

Of course it could have Communism is a great system if it is administered properly, this is the great downfall, in Russia and China, but look at Vietnam and Cuba communist countries who are thriving, despite western(American)sanctions against them.
For large countries like China and Russia, it offers a way for everyone to get a piece of the pie rather than just the few, the problem is that would work in American society just as well, look at there society a few are incredibley rich the rest struggle to get by, the theory is magnificent but it takes a strong leader who is not swayed by power to implement it, the only person I can think of who has really done this magnificently is Fidel Castro and may he get well soon and continue to be a thorn in Americas side