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

Plz explain in depth if u want

2007-03-19 04:35:22 · 5 answers · asked by fuller 1 in Social Science Economics

5 answers

Communism (a.k.a Socialism) rewards mediocrity. Unless you have a nation of upstanding citizens and all 100% of them put forth maximum effort into their work, communism can never be as successful as capitalism. If you even have 1 out of 100 people who choose not to work as hard, yet receive the same benefits as the other 99, this will breed contempt amongst the other people. The next day, 2 more will join that 1 and now 97 people bear the brunt of the workload. The next day, 6 more say “Why should I work any harder than they?” It is a domino effect.

2007-03-19 04:50:28 · answer #1 · answered by Eric R 6 · 3 0

It really depends on how the economy was structured prior to communism's entrance. Those nations that (in theory, at least) go on to communism would have already existed in some form of heavy central planning, and so communism would be a further entrenchment of command-and-control, with a focus on individual welfare-maximizing mechanisms (as opposed to egalitarianism; ie, instead of all persons being equal, all get what they need).

On the other hand, the transition from a market or planned market economy (as has been the general experience) to communism or its precursor socialism, has generally been catastrophic. Consider the Maoist Cambodian regime, Khmer Rouge, or Mao's Great Leap Forward, or even the early Soviet system (that's what it was called - the Soviet, a collective farming apparatus).

What you have in such an event is a total dismantlement of the market mechanisms which conveyed price signaling (directing consumers and producers as to what to purchase and produce), relative scarcity, relative demand - all the elements of distribution. They are then replaced by a central distribution system which lacks the information it had before (because markets signal information via prices), leading to a profound loss of efficiency. Incentives are no longer effectively conveyed, and so shortages generally result.

Consider if production inputs are no longer valued differentially by productivity - ie all laborers make the same wage - then there is no incentive to increase productivity, nor indeed to really work at all. Such shortages were epidemic under the Soviet system (consider the number of Ukranians who starved to death in the 1920s and 1930s, despite that they were the center of the agricultural system of the USSR!), and exacerbated by the perceived need of the central planners to balance out the differential advantages given to different areas. Thus, whereas say vaccine production would have been most beneficial to maintain near Kiev (due to the presence of the university and proximity to train lines), the Soviet planners decided to stagger production. Vials would be procured in Novosibarisk, vaccine cultured in Novaya Semlya, packaging done in Smyrna, and distribution decisions made in Moscow. This system prevented any sort of efficiencies from being realized, which in a market system translates to higher prices, but in a communist/socialist system translates to lower output.

The result : in a "modern" society, people still die of diseases easily prevented by modern vaccines. I say "modern" because the decay of science during the Soviet era was incredible - at one point, immunology as a whole was sent back 1500 years to the old theory that it was not germs that cause disease, but dirty places. Hence, many Russian hospitals during the 1990s lacked adequate pharmaceuticals but were cleaned constantly by hospital staff.

Thus, communism, when introduced into a market economy, has profound and devastating implications.

2007-03-19 11:51:20 · answer #2 · answered by Veritatum17 6 · 1 0

Interview (ask) someone who lived under communism in Europe and Asia. I only know from reading. Reader's Digest had an article about it a few years back. Check in the archives at the library. From reading, communism has a very bad affect on economy.

2007-03-19 11:53:04 · answer #3 · answered by 4LifenGood 1 · 0 0

Is this a philosophy question? or is this homework?? It seems more like homework to me.

The economy of a country is purely at the disposal of those in control of the country. Whether they be elected officials or they are leaders by descent. It is the wisdom and the enthusiasm each leader has to succeed, which influences a country's economy. And, in doing so, it is sales and marketing. You have to be able to sell yourself to others (ie. sell your ideas of communism to other countries in the world) in order to be a fiscal success.

2007-03-19 11:41:16 · answer #4 · answered by thelaundryfairy 3 · 0 0

Communism is an economic system. An economic system determines the economy of the country it is in.

If the lazy bum working next to you gets paid as much as you do when you work hard, how hard are you going to work?

2007-03-19 11:41:49 · answer #5 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers