Why did communism fail

[the]

And as such it has done more to promote racial integration and economic socialization than any other organization, just look at the accomplishments of the Army Corp of Engineers

I definitely don't disagree with that, I've seen and experienced it first hand.

 

[Stu]

ok, NOLA did flood.

 

[Y0u]

It failed because of greed (it's result corruption), power hunger (it's result abuse), as well as international pressures. Additionally, top-down for more than any short period of time will have diminishing returns.

 

[Night Owl]

Socialism and Communism are not the same, although best buddies. This article [Source: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp] addresses socialism, but the notion of equal distribution addressed in regards to socialism applies to communism. Whether genuine or fictional the account makes a valid point:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ...

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

 

[the]

Why did your mom fail?

 

[the]

Socialism and Communism are not the same, although best buddies. This article [Source: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp] addresses socialism, but the notion of equal distribution addressed in regards to socialism applies to communism. Whether genuine or fictional the account makes a valid point:

I don't think this point is valid, considering that taking a test and having a good life are two different things. Also I find the lack of ingenuity in the students troubling if they are college students. Like, maybe the smart ones should help, or at least bully the others, so that they can pass and graduate on time. That example is one of those grandma-facebook-chain-letters.

 

[Night Owl]

I don't think this point is valid, considering that taking a test and having a good life are two different things. Also I find the lack of ingenuity in the students troubling if they are college students. Like, maybe the smart ones should help, or at least bully the others, so that they can pass and graduate on time. That example is one of those grandma-facebook-chain-letters.

From my view I see the underlying principle being the same - that having a system of reward/payment (be it grades or money) that is based not on performance, qualification, or ability, but solely on the fact of participation, takes away from a human sense of motivation to do well and to want to do their best, since regardless they'll be taken care of, or will get something out of it. Hence although I agree this 'experiment', likely fictional, is a bit trite and grandma-facebook-chain-lettery (that made me lol! so true), I see it as a fairly apt microcosm of macro socialist policy in society - if pay was equally distributed to all the average person would not exert themselves or desire others to, since few operate on wholly idealistic and altruistic motives, but want something tangible to reflect their output. Without this, most wouldn't bother - if at the end of the day, their tangible (financial) reward is the same. But yes, the example itself sounds artificial, but as a hypothetical it is certainly a plausible, even likely situation. Would people bother to bully others to do well in such an instance? Some might, most people would probably take it for granted that everyone else will try hard enough, and so expect a free ride.

Edit: I should add, I don't know enough about Obama's alleged socialist policies, but was quoting this article as addressing the pit falls of a policy which would equally distribute pay.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Because 'Merrika

 

[the]

From my view I see the underlying principle being the same - that having a system of reward/payment (be it grades or money) that is based not on performance, qualification, or ability, but solely on the fact of participation, takes away from a human sense of motivation to do well and to want to do their best, since regardless they'll be taken care of, or will get something out of it. Hence although I agree this 'experiment', likely fictional, is a bit trite and grandma-facebook-chain-lettery (that made me lol! so true), I see it as a fairly apt microcosm of macro socialist policy in society - if pay was equally distributed to all the average person would not exert themselves or desire others to, since few operate on wholly idealistic and altruistic motives, but want something tangible to reflect their output. Without this, most wouldn't bother - if at the end of the day, their tangible (financial) reward is the same. But yes, the example itself sounds artificial, but as a hypothetical it is certainly a plausible, even likely situation. Would people bother to bully others to do well in such an instance? Some might, most people would probably take it for granted that everyone else will try hard enough, and so expect a free ride.

Edit: I should add, I don't know enough about Obama's alleged socialist policies, but was quoting this article as addressing the pit falls of a policy which would equally distribute pay.

No one got a free ride. They all failed. These people lack forethought and judgement. At the very least they would chicken out and go back to the way it was. Is money your only motivator? I don't believe the average person is as idiotic as you seem to believe.

 

[Night Owl]

No one got a free ride. They all failed. These people lack forethought and judgement. At the very least they would chicken out and go back to the way it was. Is money your only motivator? I don't believe the average person is as idiotic as you seem to believe.

Nope, you're right, no one got a free ride - but in this 'real' or 'fake' example they expected a free ride thus put no effort in, since they expected to get a decent grade from the average; and indeed they lacked forethought and judgement. At least in this example they had a greater motive to do better, since by doing as such they would have pushed up the mean grade, and thus received a higher score. So in reality, as you say, eventually they would likely chicken out and go back to what it was, but maybe only when they did fail, maybe sooner, either way one can take this scenario as hypothetically demonstrating a plausible outcome. In a society where income is the same no matter what, there even lacks this little motivator, since unlike the students who could increase the mean grade by working harder, in such a society even by working harder or having a higher qualification, the income would remain the same, it wouldn't increase the mean income. But of course in most jobs, once someone has that job, and is getting paid, they'll work at varying degrees of quality based on their various motives - [money alone doesn't determine work output, but it can affect it].

"Is money your only motivator?" Money is on the bottom of the list of my personal motivators; it's mere necessity and a motivator in the sense of needing money to function in the society in which I live. The level of pay I get never effects the quality of my work as personal standards and interpersonal goals are my prime incentives. For a lot of people money is a more important motivator (sometimes out of need, sometimes greed), and if they were going to get the same pay regardless of what they did, in regards to doing harder jobs with greater health risks, or work load, without a greater income offered, such harder work would be less desired than if there were a financial incentive. I don't think people are idiotic, just that income plays a role in motive and incentive on some level, for most people - that seems fairly reasonable. My father would carry out jobs that involved a greater health risk, since it offered more money, and thus made it easier to provide for his family. Without this incentive, he wouldn't do such jobs.

This is my view, a view which I'm fine with if you disagree.

 

[brightmoon]

From my view I see the underlying principle being the same - that having a system of reward/payment (be it grades or money) that is based not on performance, qualification, or ability, but solely on the fact of participation, takes away from a human sense of motivation to do well and to want to do their best, since regardless they'll be taken care of, or will get something out of it

Is this why Communism failed? I remain unconvinced that its this simple. One has to remember that Communist societies as they functioned were never without a system of reward/payment. There was always a black market economy where people were making money to get ahead, underground capitalism but still capitalism. Then there was the competition within the party itself, to prove you were the best Communist, the most orthodox, the closest to Stalin, certain material rewards came your way. So to say it was a society that lived up to its ideals, its not entirely accurate. I thinks its more accurate to say that Communist societies did not lack competition, they lacked ways to generate wealth in a meaningful way. Also they degenerated into oligarchy and as time went on, deviated more and more from their ideals. Why? Lack of transparency and lack of accountability which inevitability lead to corruption. Democracy (not necessarily capitalism, and you can have one without the other) has checks and balances on power. Look at North Korea and contrast it to South Korea. Now the elite of North Korea (if they ever had any ideals) has completely abandoned them in favour of the elite's self interest.

Edit: I should add, I don't know enough about Obama's alleged socialist policies, but was quoting this article as addressing the pit falls of a policy which would equally distribute pay.

You don't know about Obama's socialist policies because they don't exist