How come Socialism/Communism always fails? (Page 2 of 5)
|
Originally Posted By Maverick854: FPNI This, but I will also add because communism is fucking gay and retarded as well. Nature of man is an easy and complicated answer all at once. Communism will NEVER work as long as man is genetically driven to beat competition and provide for his family. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149841
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. 2. The only way to ensure no one owns private property (the foundational idea of all socialist philosophies) is to have an all-powerful government that represses anyone who tries. It's the only way to make it "work". Purges, secret police, etc. are all inherent features of socialism, not unfortunate byproducts of power and human nature. This. But more simply, it's an impossible economy coupled with an ideology that presents the inevitable failure as betrayal. The need to purge counter-revolutionary impulses is never-ending, and the police state logic is inevitable. I find it amusing how relatively obscure Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" remains, even if it gets occasionally attacked |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
easy.. because there is no feedback loop. markets provide feedback and drive efficiency. socialism/communism will only work with unlimited resources where supply is always ahead of demand. this requires some futuristic robot driven world with some mechanism that can produce raw material in unlimited quantities. ian m banks sf books where his stories are based on 'the culture' is an example of such a civilization. |
 Milton Friedman on Donahue Show: Greed, Markets, and Government |
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Joined:
Apr 2026
Posts:
346
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
| If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. |
|
Originally Posted By macro: Another organic thought....its laughable when the people who own nothing start making decisions about how the people who own a lot ought to do things. I earned what I have. No. You can't have any more than has already been stolen from me. Fixed it for you. |
It never fails, because it's like the undead. Look how popular it is now in some segments of the U.S. population. 
|
"An age of glory passed like a lightning flash. The mandate of heaven passed from you but you didn't see. Times change and power passes. It is the pity of the world."
Song dynasty poet
Song dynasty poet
|
Socialism fails because it relies on force to change a system from profit-incentivized productive efficiency to one of altruistic productivity across an impersonalized large population... and then when the altruistic productivity naturally falls short, force is used motivate correction, which populations resent, and the decisionmakers in the application of that force are naturally inefficient. tldr; people are selfish and stupid in large groups Also, pure capitalism doesn't work either due to monopolization/oligarchies/gov-capture/tragedy-of-comons. Sociopaths need limits from CEOs to Apparatchiks. |
|
The Law of Productive Exit When any institution prioritizes redistribution, entitlement, or extraction over contribution and production, it consumes its productive members faster than it can replace them. As pressure increases, demands on producers rise, which predictably causes productive members to exit—accelerating institutional decline. Clause: The Principle of Selective Credit Retraction When the probability of repayment falls below the threshold of rational expectation, productive actors do not cease participation in the system; they withdraw marginal exposure while preserving core productive relationships. Credit is extended only where future production is credible and voluntarily constrained. Surplus claims on the system are converted into final-settlement assets rather than reinvested into obligations that require coercion, redistribution, or inflation to be fulfilled. This behavior is not pessimism or collapse signaling. It is ledger hygiene—the preservation of past production against future non-performance. Selective credit retraction precedes systemic failure and is the earliest visible indicator that an institution no longer believes the ledger will remain honest. |
Joined:
Sep 2025
Posts:
1467
EE: 0% (0)
NV, USA
|
Because of currency. So, you'd have to get rid of currency. But then, you'd have possessions. So you'd have to get rid of possessions. But then, you'd have hoarders. So you'd have to get rid of the hoarders. But then, you'd need enforcment. So you'd have to designate enforcers. But then, you'd have less workers. So you'd have to work the rest of the people harder. But then, you'd have dissenters. So you'd have to enforce harder. But then, you'd need overseers. So you'd have to promote some of the enforcers. But then, you'd have less enforcers. So you'd have to designate more enforcers. But then, you'd have even less workers. So you'd have the rest of the people work even harder now. But then... ... ... Thus is the lifecycle of socialism into communism into failure. |
|
Originally Posted By 110: Because many don't want what they worked for taken by Government backed pirates. Actual Pirates by comparison are more honest about what they are doing. Originally Posted By 110: Originally Posted By LnWlf: If it’s so great, why does it take a bloody revolution to start it? Because many don't want what they worked for taken by Government backed pirates. Actual Pirates by comparison are more honest about what they are doing. Isn't that what is happening now? |
|
-Collectivism is the default mode of human organization, but it doesn't scale beyond maybe 12 or intimately related people (a family). -Beyond the size of a single family unit parasitic behavior is rewarded more than it's punished, the primary mechanism for this is the person(s) in charge moves further and further from the problems and consequences as the system grows. -When command economy systems reach the size of a large city they erode internally. This is why nations divy up authority in an attempt to keep most decision makers at least in the same zip code(which isn't helpful in high density areas), and there is still the problem of lack of consequences for failure. -Proponents of command economy policies are very good at blaming the market for it's failures, and use their own failures as justification for more command economy policies. *I should note the US does NOT have a free market. Also our command economy policies ostensibly to protect us from "evil capitalists" in fact help corporations. Walmart and Amazon aren't scared of the government, corp lobbyists literally write most of the law our politicians vote on. These laws almost uniformly make market entry of competitors (what large corps actually fear) nearly impossible. Our so-called "free market" is actually a collection of thousands and thousands of virtual monopolies violently enforced by the US government. This system of corrupt corporatism and a disgustingly adulterated central banking system is destroying this nation's economy in a controlled demolition. Every year we have fewer and fewer small businesses forced out of business to favor large corporations that are less efficient and less responsive to their customer's needs. These are all hallmarks of command economy systems, it doesn't really matter how they identify (communist or other) or how they obfuscate the truth. These controls simply don't exist in a free market. IN an actual free market monopolies come into begin regularly and then evaporate as smaller more agile competitors eat away at them until they're out of business or shrink to a competitive size. TLDR: Collectivism sucks, and using government for any task not requiring violence creates a system that structurally rewards failure. Asking these systems to not reward failure is like asking the sun not to shine. |
"Dum spiro spero"
|
It fails because it’s barely a nice thought experiment. It completely falls apart when it meets human nature. Every time. Edit: the old saw always haunts me … “you can vote yourself in to socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.” |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Yup. Hayek won a Noble prize in economics with point 1 being a significant part of his work. Socialism can’t calculate, can’t adapt, can’t incentivize, and can’t go broke gently via profit / loss accounting and resource re-allocation through market liquidation. Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. 2. The only way to ensure no one owns private property (the foundational idea of all socialist philosophies) is to have an all-powerful government that represses anyone who tries. It's the only way to make it "work". Purges, secret police, etc. are all inherent features of socialism, not unfortunate byproducts of power and human nature. Yup. Hayek won a Noble prize in economics with point 1 being a significant part of his work. Socialism can’t calculate, can’t adapt, can’t incentivize, and can’t go broke gently via profit / loss accounting and resource re-allocation through market liquidation. it also kills innovation and efficiencies. Without profits to drive it, innovation suffers. If wages are effectively stagnant, there’s zero incentive to be efficient. |
If you can't take the high road, occupy the high ground.
|
It fails because of ownership. In capitalism, owners have to own their problems. They have to fix the problems that arise in their businesses. In communism, the state owns everything. When that happens, no one owns and then fixes problems. Roads suck, that ain't mine. Food wasn't delivered on time to stores, not my store, not my food. This cycle gets out of control. There used to be a Russian who posted here that had immigrated to the US after the Soviet collapse. He posted his view about why the USSR had collapsed in the Survival forum IIRC. What I said above is the summation of his reasoning as to why communism sucks. I hope he still posts here. |
Capitalism produces, communism reduces.
|
I've never known anyone successful in life who advocated for that fucked up philosophy. A totalitarian economic regime dreamed up by layabout grifters who want a free ride. The memes about shooting the polezhniye duraki who thought socialism meant being able to write shitty poetry instead of laboring in the fields crack me up. |
| The default of communism is destroying what is there. Only after the old is destroyed is it possible for the new to take its place. It's going to be great. |
Live your life as you would wish to have lived, when you come to die. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
|
Originally Posted By TheAmaazingCarl: -Collectivism is the default mode of human organization, but it doesn't scale beyond maybe 12 or intimately related people (a family). -Beyond the size of a single family unit parasitic behavior is rewarded more than it's punished, the primary mechanism for this is the person(s) in charge moves further and further from the problems and consequences as the system grows. -When command economy systems reach the size of a large city they erode internally. This is why nations divy up authority in an attempt to keep most decision makers at least in the same zip code(which isn't helpful in high density areas), and there is still the problem of lack of consequences for failure. -Proponents of command economy policies are very good at blaming the market for it's failures, and use their own failures as justification for more command economy policies. *I should note the US does NOT have a free market. Also our command economy policies ostensibly to protect us from "evil capitalists" in fact help corporations. Walmart and Amazon aren't scared of the government, corp lobbyists literally write most of the law our politicians vote on. These laws almost uniformly make market entry of competitors (what large corps actually fear) nearly impossible. Our so-called "free market" is actually a collection of thousands and thousands of virtual monopolies violently enforced by the US government. This system of corrupt corporatism and a disgustingly adulterated central banking system is destroying this nation's economy in a controlled demolition. Every year we have fewer and fewer small businesses forced out of business to favor large corporations that are less efficient and less responsive to their customer's needs. These are all hallmarks of command economy systems, it doesn't really matter how they identify (communist or other) or how they obfuscate the truth. These controls simply don't exist in a free market. IN an actual free market monopolies come into begin regularly and then evaporate as smaller more agile competitors eat away at them until they're out of business or shrink to a competitive size. TLDR: Collectivism sucks, and using government for any task not requiring violence creates a system that structurally rewards failure. Asking these systems to not reward failure is like asking the sun not to shine. This is why Marxism is anti-family. In a blood-related tiny collective (the family) the goal of “to each according to their need, by each according to their ability” scales and functions on a human, voluntary level (by properly socialized, loving parents). One will sacrifice for their children. The Marxist state seeks to scale that beyond the family where natural bonds & trust no longer are manifest. As well, the Pareto rule for productivity doesn’t scale nicely / equitably for large groups. As an approximation, two thirds of productivity is created by the square root of the group size. In a group of 10, expect 3 to be high achievers. Sharing semi-equally isn’t too much of a stretch. In a group of 100, 10 people create most of the wealth or advances but now have to share with 90 lower achievers. With 900 employees maybe 30-50 stars are burdened by 850 coat tail riders. Incentive dilution scales exponentially. |
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: How come they nearly always start with millions dying? If communism and socialism are so great how come they have to be lied about to come to fruition, how come they have to be enforced through violence and often with millions dying? Because its always some loser idiot that comes up with. No winner is going sit there and complain his life sucks because he is a lazy dumbass. |
Joined:
Dec 2025
Posts:
520
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: How come they nearly always start with millions dying? If communism and socialism are so great how come they have to be lied about to come to fruition, how come they have to be enforced through violence and often with millions dying? Pol Pot tried re-education of children by killing teachers, preachers, mayors and any leaders that had any dealings of freedom to teach children. Brainwashing the children. After all what do you think they want to teach our kids? DEI? Brainwashing them? They should be learning reading, writing, math and unrewritten history. You spend thousands of dollars sending your children to college only to have many of them come back jaded and their favorite book isn't the Bible it's "Rules for Radicals " by Sol Alinsky. Socialism works until you run outta other people's money. |
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. |
|
Originally Posted By TresOsos: Because of the nature of man. Yeah, power can be all corrupting and the corrupt seek power or something like that. The “benevolent” dictator under those failed socialist/communist systems usually was living it up while the proletariat starved. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” |
Joined:
Apr 2026
Posts:
348
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By warlord: The cost is great, study Mao's "The Great Leap Forward," & "the Cultural Revolution," China only admits to a few hundred thousand deaths, but many China experts believe it is in the million of Chinese deaths. Much of the Chinese technology is based on purloined technology from the West. Originally Posted By warlord: Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. None of that changes the fact that it is an alternate model to democracy and free market capitalism and is not failing. It appears to be succeeding and may overtake Western democracies that mostly operate on free market capitalism. |
|
Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. 2. The only way to ensure no one owns private property (the foundational idea of all socialist philosophies) is to have an all-powerful government that represses anyone who tries. It's the only way to make it "work". Purges, secret police, etc. are all inherent features of socialism, not unfortunate byproducts of power and human nature. It's also expensive to maintain that level of security/repression. China spends big on that, sometimes exceeding their military budget. They have a very big state security/police/surveillance footprint in China. |
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: How come they nearly always start with millions dying? If communism and socialism are so great how come they have to be lied about to come to fruition, how come they have to be enforced through violence and often with millions dying? We are tribal creatures wired for small tribes. We have a small circle of other people that we care about, not the overall greater good. This is wired very deeply into us. Tribal creatures like status symbols. We have a wired drive for self improvement. This can be unhealthy but is usually extremely positive. Marxism fails to acknowledge both of these. Additionally, it fails to acknowledge some really basic practicality - e.g. why is someone going to do a worse and harder job when there is no difference in outcome? This is why it starts communal and a few months later it's authoritarian and the "no work, no food" signs start going up. As soon as it goes authoritarian then people are drawn to positions of power as an outlet for the self improvement drive and those positions gather more authority and create more positions. Those who can't get into a position of power turn to crime, grift and corruption. For most this is petty (steal some stuff from work to trade or make better clothes or improve their government assigned apartment) for some it's much grander. Then we get to stage three where people start noticing that it's actually pretty shitty and things aren't really working. E.g. the government is telling farmers to plant seeds but there's still severe frosts happening which would kill the seeds - refuse and you're punished for insubordination, comply and destroy your supply of seeds and you're punished for making the gov look bad. At that point communication with the outside world is shut down, the media becomes a gov mouthpiece, the secret police is formed and so on. Dissenting voices must be crushed. They all go through the same stages and it's inevitable. Marx was a childish loser. |
|
Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. And this assumes you have a government that is competent and not corrupt. Add in the standard idiocy that comes with people who don't keep or lose their jobs based on performance and healthy dose of graft and it's even worse. Then you have all of the lumber mills, steel mills, factories, etc lying about their production efficiency because no work, no food and the gov doesn't even have accurate information to start this process with. The Soviets built a canal across the country to allow warships and trade ships to transit between Atlantic and Pacific. It was built but it was built too shallow because everyone involved lied. The guys felling the trees lied, the lumber mills lied, the people transporting the lumber lied, the people building the canal with slave labor lied, the inspectors lied. They couldn't lie about the length of the canal so they lied about the depth. Everyone lied because they had unrealistic targets based on faulty information and poor decision making so lying was survival. Of course, when everyone reports they met their unrealistic targets then the targets just become even less realistic. It is completely cooked. Total market control is a vital aspect of Marxism and it would require a government of dedicated altruistic geniuses to give it even a chance of success. This, of course, js exactly the kind of person that can't be tolerated in government by the kind of people who are drawn to power in a totalitarian regime. |
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: This. But more simply, it's an impossible economy coupled with an ideology that presents the inevitable failure as betrayal. The need to purge counter-revolutionary impulses is never-ending, and the police state logic is inevitable. I find it amusing how relatively obscure Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" remains, even if it gets occasionally attacked Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. 2. The only way to ensure no one owns private property (the foundational idea of all socialist philosophies) is to have an all-powerful government that represses anyone who tries. It's the only way to make it "work". Purges, secret police, etc. are all inherent features of socialism, not unfortunate byproducts of power and human nature. This. But more simply, it's an impossible economy coupled with an ideology that presents the inevitable failure as betrayal. The need to purge counter-revolutionary impulses is never-ending, and the police state logic is inevitable. I find it amusing how relatively obscure Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" remains, even if it gets occasionally attacked And here is illustrated yet another inevitability. To distract from the problems which are everywhere there must be scapegoats. Blame the ethnic minority that we're supposed to hate this month, blame the educated, blame the engineers, most of all blame the wrong kind of Marxist. The Nazis were smart in having their scapegoat picked out in advance and sticking to it. NK is even smarter, picking a boogieman that they can't get rid of in the form of the US, as long as we do a bit of sabre rattling they can keep the people in line. The Soviets hadn't figured this out and were picking a new scapegoat every month. However it's approached though, Marxism will always require someone to blame for the problems because without this they would have to admit that their whole premise is flawed. |
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. Most of their economy is based on foreign trade which absolutely is a free market. There are also free markers within China. Have you never been there? Most busineses are private, they don't have a command economy, etc. Yes they have a more authoritarian government than most but it is very definitely not Marxism. |
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. The fact that you're so f****** stupid and ignorant to say this is pathetically sad. The success they do have is because of them allowing capitalism cash cow , economic zones , like shanghai , hong kong and macau. |
|
Socialism exists all over the place, and to varying degrees. Even in the USA, plenty of socialist systems that we all use. Communism kind of fails before it even starts, because it's end goal is a system without government, so any government attempting communism has already screwed it up. It could probably be argued that so far in human history, every system has failed. The question is "How long did it last?" followed by "What sort of corruption caused it to fail". Historically, the most consistently stable system is a monarchy with a benevolent ruler, which is unfortunate, because it means that in general humans are too stupid to govern themselves effectively. |
If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it.
|
Originally Posted By TNC: Close. Because they always run out of someone else's money. Originally Posted By TNC: Originally Posted By TresOsos: Because of the nature of man. Close. Because they always run out of someone else's money. Why do they need money?  If human nature was compatible with "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" then there's no need for money. No need to monitor what someone produces and consumes in that paradigm. Thus no need for money or other means of keeping score. I agree with the three bears. |
|
Originally Posted By bayouhazard: Why do they need money? If human nature was compatible with "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" then there's no need for money. No need to monitor what someone produces and consumes in that paradigm. Thus no need for money or other means of keeping score. I agree with the three bears. Originally Posted By bayouhazard: Originally Posted By TNC: Originally Posted By TresOsos: Because of the nature of man. Close. Because they always run out of someone else's money. Why do they need money? If human nature was compatible with "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" then there's no need for money. No need to monitor what someone produces and consumes in that paradigm. Thus no need for money or other means of keeping score. I agree with the three bears. The tribal system worked fine for us for generations. It doesn't scale well at all though, especially after we became agrarian. All systems work fine on paper though, the tricky part is implementation without human nature creeping in. |
If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it.
|
Hard to get the sheeple and lazy to like capitalism where you actually have to work, so they lie. In the end it's to acquire power over everyone else. Money and sex will follow once you're in charge. It's why they don't care about costs until they have the power. I see so many people say they don't understand economics, they do but power comes first over all else. |
|
Originally Posted By LnWlf: If it’s so great, why does it take a bloody revolution to start it? This was always my biggest thing with it. Can’t succeed without violent revolution doesn’t speak highly to the nature of it to begin with. Then again how many here are resigned to the fact that the bugaloo is the only way out of our current government caused mess? The old guard is so entrenched and have control of the mechanisms of power so deeply voting your way out doesn’t seem like a possibility. Maybe it is the nature of man to need revolution to wipe out the ruling class once it gets bad enough. Reality is the concept of complete ownership of the means of production by the state and the resulting command economy is what really dooms it as a workable economic system. Free market systems are the only way the complexity can be handled. |