Greensizing Part 1

Communism Revisited

People speak of it as fact--Communism failed--assuming the evidence is so strong it doesn't need defense. Evolution may be a "belief" to some, but the failure of Communism is a fact.

For my part, I've always been dubious about the claim. There was little alike between the Marxist vision and the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Democratic Russia resembles the Soviet Union resembles Czarist Russia more than any resemble the US. All are ruled by a despotic central government that puts down dissent brutally. The same may be said of China, although their official democracy was brief.

I concur that the Soviet economy did not grow as fast as the Capitalist economy, and that the GDP in China has grown enormously since it allowed limited Capitalism. Notice, however, I avoid the use of the word "poor." Whether the Soviet Union or the US had greater poverty depends on your definition of poverty. If it is the amount of consumer goods the average citizen could acquire, then the USA is the obvious winner. But if poverty means the number of people who were unsure whether they would have dinner every night, the unquestioned winner was the USSR. Hunger is a more serious problem in the US than people like to admit.

Former Soviet Bloc countries have discovered the trouble with Capitalism one after the other. People accustomed to a government that ensured they had enough to survive if, say, a bad winter killed half their camel herd wound up in tragedies when no capitalists took over this job. All across the globe, poor people are becoming more poor. Indeed, even in the US, the middle class has been losing wealth, as wages have stagnated while the price of food, fuel, and healthcare have risen dramatically.

I'm in no way advocating for a wholesale Communist conversion. I'm making a case that some measure of a Command economy be admissible at the table if our current approach fails us.

I'll be back after the holidays for part 2, a closer look at Wealth in America.