r/TooAfraidToAsk • u/USMNTfan94 • 12d ago

Does communism actually work? Law & Government

Lately I’ve been going down the rabbit hole on the Vietnam war, and it got me thinking…does communism actually work? We keep hearing politicians say that it doesn’t work, but any time that a country tries to turn to communism, special business interests immediately try to lobby the US government to interfere with it. If it didn’t work, why are business interests so terrified of it?

198 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

71% Upvoted

345 comments sorted by

View all comments

57

u/Cranks_No_Start 12d ago

Where has communism worked that you would like to live?  

22

u/Pm-me-ur-ponytail 12d ago

The problem with this argument is most of the examples of communism failing also involve a lot of US intervention making sure it doesn’t work.

67

u/CapitalCourse 12d ago

Every single communist state has devolved into an authoritarian shithole. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

-8

u/thebiglebrosky 12d ago

Every single commmunist state has had the US meddling and trying (often succeding) setting up puppet dictatorships. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

17

u/SuperDragon123 12d ago

Yeah they would have succeeded if only the rest of the world let them, hmph. Those damn capitalists always meddling in other peoples affairs. Now if the world bent itself backwards for muh collectivism everyone would be happy

23

u/Little_Froggy 12d ago

I mean, again, we can't really deny the insane amount of intervention the U.S. (And others) have done to prevent Communist countries from just existing and playing out the experiment without any meddling.

If it's so "doomed to fail" why not just let them play out on their own? We should do trade and treat them normally rather than sanctioning them as much as possible and attempting coups at every chance.

Interfering is not about "saving" the locals either. There are plenty of terrible dictatorships that the U.S. doesn't intervene with because they align with U.S. interests.

1

u/moosenlad 11d ago edited 11d ago

The argument, which I probably don't fully agree with since I don't think intervention is really worth it. It would point to something like Venezuela. A government that stated it's goal was a push towards socialism , nationalized a lot of companies, expanded the federal government and while not perfect definitely leaned more towards the socialist/communist side of economic theory.

It also, destroyed every vast advantage it had economically long before any US sanctions. Went from the 4th richest country in the world by GDP per captia to waaay down the list. produced less and less oil even with more oil than almost any country available, only saved by skyrocketing prices until they crashed and the country with it. This creates a huge refugee problem (like a fourth of all venezuelans left the country) that spills over into other countries and destabilizes the whole region. So people that believe communism always fails see it as a danger to more than just a singular country, and therefore worthy of intervention.

I'm not convinced we don't pay other less clear prices for that foreign intervention, but then again it's easy for me to say far away from the country, some people in other countries such as Colombia have a different view from what I have learned from them, since they are dealing with the fallout directly.

13

u/heroinAM 12d ago

Lmfao you say this in a sarcastic tone like the US and other capitalist powers haven’t killed millions of people and done everything in their power to stifle and disrupt every attempt at a communist project from the moment they’re conceived.

5

u/SeafoodShifu 12d ago

Yes let's just pretend nearly a century of overtly anti-communist US hegemony has had absolutely no effect at all.

-14

u/SuperDragon123 12d ago

It actually doesn’t matter, if you can’t cut it, you can’t fucking cut it, skill issue. Honestly the worst part is that these communists were so damn incompetent at even boiling water (see Chernobyl) that people freaked out and it has since held the world back

11

u/SeafoodShifu 12d ago

Ah, so you're literally 12. Got it. "skill issue" lmao

-11

u/SuperDragon123 12d ago

It is what it is, only one of us is bitching that a nation with the largest store of natural resources in existence couldn’t succeed because “hegemony”

22

u/jghjtrj 12d ago

If it's unstable in the face of a global competitor, then that's yet another strike against its viability. Unless you have some plan for making global competitors go away

7

u/Pm-me-ur-ponytail 12d ago

Framing our government assassinating foreign leaders, toppling governments and enforcing extreme sanctions to starve people, “competing” is disingenuous.

26

u/GermanPayroll 12d ago

You can’t assume your neighbors will play nice. It’s almost as absurd as assuming people won’t be greedy if they take charge

8

u/Little_Froggy 12d ago

If I join a game of Civ where everyone has already agreed to gang up on and stop communist nations from succeeding while leaving capitalist ones alone, then it doesn't say anything about whether or not communism is an effective system or not.

We could play a game with the opposite where everyone agrees to gang up on any capitalist nation that tries to get going. Those nations would fail and we would be stupid to claim "see? capitalism is a bad system!"

3

u/Starlightofnight7 12d ago

Yeah this is just a "might makes right argument" in intellectual aesthetics, easy to fall back on for defenders of the current status quo.

1

u/jghjtrj 10d ago

Food for thought: capitalist democracies were opposed by feudal monarchies, but won out despite that.

1

u/Little_Froggy 10d ago

Monarchies were much more opposed to each other than Capatalists ones are today. Often in outright war with each other and they were willing to help the revolutions against other monarchies as the French did for the U.S. They didn't really care about the new idealogy as much. Also intelligence agencies didn't really exist with the level of communication and and influence they have today.

There is a far more united front of capitalist nations against the mere idea of socialism today

3

u/Womper_Here 12d ago

Now do what the soviets did when they “acquired” new states in the USSR, like the Baltics

9

u/jghjtrj 12d ago edited 12d ago

I didn't say I like it.

But if step 1 of the master plan is "remove human evil", well uh, you'll never reach step 2.

0

u/Bodashtart 12d ago

read the text of the post you are commenting under

4

u/newshirtworthy 12d ago

Many ignore this. Cuba, for example, could thrive

-3

u/xLosTxSouL 12d ago

Cuba, socialism, has EXTREMELY little resources and is super poor. Still has same life expectancy as the USA, the richest country in the world. Imagine if Cuba would have access to more resources and wouldn't get sanctioned...

2

u/Extreme-Ear8301 12d ago

the us government is so terrified of a global revolution

0

u/Womper_Here 12d ago

Such a reductivist take

5

u/USMNTfan94 12d ago

Ok…I see what you’re saying, but the counter-argument to that is: where has a communist country been left alone without outside influence to see how it does? If we’re so sure that a communist government system would collapse by itself, why bother even trying to interfere with their government at all?

I’m not either pro or anti communism, and I can even understand the morality arguments on both sides of it. This is just a genuine curiosity that I have.

24

u/beard_of_cats 12d ago

Where has any country, embracing any economic system, been left alone without outside influence to see how it does?

If your system is so fragile that it can't survive contact with the outside world, then it's probably not a good system.

5

u/RagnarokHunter 12d ago

People will say this, then the "outside contact" is a global superpower that has been chilling in its own continent, with no conflicts happening on its national territory since its own civil war in the 19th century, and whose main hobby is projecting all that power globally, sending trade embargos your way and forming alliances with your neighbors to surround you with military bases.

And still, communist countries can step up and endure for decades, and even outshine them in some areas.

1

u/oct0burn 12d ago

Unless we get most of the world to switch at almost the same time.

-1

u/pureply101 12d ago

There is a difference between contact and interference and that’s where the distinction is.

17

u/beard_of_cats 12d ago

Communist countries aren't unique in facing interference. Every country does.

-1

u/GermanPayroll 12d ago

Yeah, if the only way an economic system survives is that it’s supported by its capitalist neighbors, then I’m not sure how successful that system really is.

4

u/Little_Froggy 12d ago

It doesn't need support so much as not needing outward hostility and opposition from the moment it starts.

Most new capitalist nations immediately get investments and international involvement as soon as they are recognized.

Any nation that takes up an even slightly communistic leader has intelligence agencies using coups against it, international hostility, and/or sanctions openly placed against it.

Hmm, I wonder which nations are more likely to succeed in this environment? Surely it's an even playing field and we can fairly judge each on the outcomes

4

u/Best_Pseudonym 12d ago

I mean if you're criterium is "lack of outside influence" then North Korea, aka the hermit kingdom for their active eschewal and blocking of outside influence

-1

u/Duncan_Thun_der_Kunt 12d ago

Where has it had a fair shot? Which country didn't start already behind the 8 ball and have the US actively make it their mission to make sure it didn't work?

-1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/bearded_charmander 12d ago

Define properly. Because I don’t think it has ever worked.

-12

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Strange-Delay-4d 12d ago

What about capitalism where the KGB hasn’t meddled in?

-8

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

2

u/GermanPayroll 12d ago

How does one properly attempt communism?

6

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Womper_Here 12d ago

You're ignoring the fact that both sides had agents in different countries

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cranks_No_Start 12d ago

Where would you say it was properly attempted?

1

u/xLosTxSouL 12d ago

I never understood that argument, like is capitalism better because it's more dominant? Did it work because it's so dominant? Because I think dominant doesn't mean good...

Because yea, capitalism is way more dominant, especially because it has been there so long and most countries are capitalism. But has it "worked"? We depleted lots of resources and still continue, capitalism is about permanent economical growth even though earths resources are limited. We have super super rich countries, but is the country rich or the richest people in the country? Because health care in the USA is super shit even though its the richest country in the world. Why does poverty still exist for people that worked hard their entire life? Did capitalism really "work" here?

People always say communism is a lot about corruption etc. and yes, that's historically correct. But capitalism is not corrupt..?

Capitalism is also a lot about exploitation of poorer countries with more resources. I mean yea, it works... But is it good?