Why did Communism fail in Soviet Russia?

The Soviet Union collapsed because of a dubious senator? called Charlie Wilson, see the movie Charlie wil sons war, tom hanks
The US armed the muja hadien and bled the Soviet Military to death financially
Great movie

a reply to: Raggedyman

History gleaned from a movie is often wrong history.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why did it fail Russia in 1917?

Luthier’s earlier post gave the reason as proposed by numerous Marxist historians. Other historians have cited the particularly deep divisions between the rulers and the ruled in pre-Revolutionary Russia, which created a post-revolutionary situation that could only be dealt with through the emergence of a strong, centralized, authoritarian State. For still others, it was the lack of development of Western-style public institutions, particularly in the provinces, that might have bred the necessary civic consciousness and cooperation between the regions and the centre. Numerous other explanations have been offered, some more convincing than others. Take your pick.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Raggedyman

History gleaned from a movie is often wrong history.

Hmmmmmm
Wise words
Better check my opinion, doffs the hat

a reply to: Astyanax

Sounds fairly abstract, which I gather is the going rate for Marxist historians. It's fairly easy to say communism never happened, but that is also true of about any abstract ideal or political philosophy. I would be weary of any philosophy that begs for a second chance by saying it had never happened in the first place.

There are concrete events and flesh and blood human beings that lead to the failure of communism in Russia. Gorbachev probably had more to do with it than any lack of western-style institutions or post-revolutionary situations.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It seems to me that communism didnt fail since it is still practiced.

Where is Communism still practised?

I want to say China, but this sounds like a trick question.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Maoist China was arranged in a more-or-less Communist way, although there was never any question who was boss. However, China has not been in any sense Communist since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. See here for a brief digest.

a reply to: Astyanax

Mao was a little bit of a tyrant, ever so slightly that is and is rumoured to have had bus load's of young virgin's brought in for his personal "treatment"
at the advice of his traditional Chinese doctor, he was suffering from syphilis apparently as well and these young lady's had no say in the matter.

It could be propaganda of course as I have only read about it but then again like Stalin's reforms Million's died under Mao's cultural revolution and neither of these men was really a communist in the Marxist sense of the word but rather they merely replaced the older establishment with a new one, the basic premise of communism is shared burden and shared reward but all you had to be in either of these society's was a party member and of course the higher the party status the bigger the reward and smaller the burden just like in any capitalist system.

Social injustice is unfortunately ingrained into the human nature and the only workable commune systems were the small kibutze of isreal and the early small church community's of early Christendom back when the church was more it's people than it's clergy when shared ownership and distribution based on need was a fundamental of those early churches before Constantine abolished them and replaced them after making a new religion based on a reinterpretion of the Christian faith and a newly established clergy of administrators intended to tie his empire together using the faith as a tool.

Communism always works at first but so far never in the long run as the corruption of human nature tend's to pervert it into something that is not communal at all in the end and the bigger it is the faster this corruption decays the communal system just like in Russia and China (though I would argue China was not really communist and indeed neither was Russia especially after Lennin died).

a reply to: LABTECH767

And the easiest answer to distill from you is that communism, like socialism, can work on the smallest, most local scales especially when it is voluntary so that everyone knows everyone else can walk away if the system gets oppressive.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds like everything else under the sun.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It seems to me that communism didnt fail since it is still practiced.

Where is Communism still practised?

Andalusia. Did you read the article I linked in my first post?

Doesn't look failed to me, people seem to be very happy with their little communist island.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

A village of 2,700 people? Led by a mayor who has been in power since 1979?

If that’s the best example anyone can point to, it just proves what all sensible people know: Communism doesn’t work.

originally posted by: Astyanax
If that’s the best example anyone can point to, it just proves what all sensible people know: Communism doesn’t work.

I don't know, I think most sensible people think that communism can work with a small population so, maybe it is a good example of it working at some level.

a reply to: daskakik

Granted; but we are not talking about small communities. Anything can be made to work in a small community — achieving consensus is relatively easy, and if that fails, exerting control from above is also pretty easy. But we are talking about a political philosophy, and politics is the business of states, not small communities.

a reply to: Astyanax

I don't know the OP said "Imagine a small city with 5000 people." I'm guessing that they wanted to talk about what could be done to make it work and going small might be the answer.

Is it a workable answer for an entire nation? That is another topic.

a reply to: Astyanax

Led by a Führer? And only insensible people would dare to hold up other opinions? Sure. Not.

Your offended by some debate or is this ad hominem sophistry your way of life? Ridiculous.

we are not talking about small communities.

Talking about you, yourself and a snake? Yeah. Bite me!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Led by a Führer? And only insensible people would dare to hold up other opinions? Sure. Not.

No, I didn’t say — or imply — any of that. Those were actual statistics concerning Marinaleda, the Andalusian community to which you earlier referred, that I quoted. I had to look them up; I don’t pretend I had them at my fingertips.

Your offended by some debate or is this ad hominem sophistry your way of life? Ridiculous.

I think there may have been some misunderstanding. Let it go.

Look, I’m not saying Communism can’t ever work. If you have a small enough group of people who are also related closely enough — by blood, by language, by culture, by a cause — and who are willing to bear the necessary personal sacrifices to make it work, Communism will work. It doesn’t have to be the Marxist variety. It has worked, here and there, usually not for very long. I think rural peoples in most parts of the world practise a kind of Communism, at least until the city politicians get hold of them. But in the long run people always start breaking the rules, and the social contract is abandoned. What inevitably follows is authoritarianism of some kind, often with a democratic façade hung over it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Communism didn't fail Russia in 1992. It failed in 1917.

In 1917 Russia was a failed feudal backwater that had just lost a war. 40 years later it was one of the most advanced technological nations on earth, won a world war and was one of the only 2 Superpowers.
There was many things wrong with the soviet union but it is a bit glib to say it failed.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: optimisitcplanet

Friedrich August von Hayek. He's someone you won't learn about in any liberal arts university, but his brilliant ideas and arguments are what brought communism to its end. He should be required reading, but rarely anyone has heard of him.

Heard some pretty bold claims for Hayek in my time but that he is responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is a new one on me.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There was many things wrong with the soviet union but it is a bit glib to say it failed.

The Soviet Union certainly did not fail in 1917. That took another 75 years or so.

I was talking about the failure of Communism as a political system. Following the October Revolution and the Civil War bloodbath, Lenin simply reimposed an autocracy as total as the Tsarist one the people overthrew. There was never anything genuinely Communist about the Soviet Union.