Moore 1

Spencer Moore

Dr. Gen

Economics

19 Jul 2019

The Inefficacies and Flaws of Communism

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” as said by George

Santayana. People to this day still desire communism as the economic system for nations

throughout the world. And while most will know that it has not always worked, they do not

know that communism is inherently flawed. This has been shown time and time again

throughout history, and if a nation attempts communism again, it will get the same outcome. This

is literally insanity, doing the same action multiple times expecting different results. Russia, or

rather when it was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is the most clear-cut

example of communism failing. The Soviet Union existed as a communist example for roughly

seven decades, with an inane amount of internal issues. But communism failed simply due to the

numerous economic shortcomings within its system, and because of the psychological and

ruinous assumption of how people think. ​The nature and structure of communism is

fundamentally flawed, as shown through both historical and economic analysis.

Communism was created to address the inequalities of the world, but ultimately failed in the

task of equalizing even one nation. Communism was born from socialism, as discussed in

Economics Principles in Action, ​“Real equality, socialists argue, can only exist when political

equality is coupled with economic equality … communism is a political system that arose out of

the philosophy of socialism” (O’Sullivan and Sheffrin 35). As stated, communism was created in
 Moore 2

hopes of achieving political and economic equality. However this did not fully work, as shown in

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yet as a system born from socialism, communism is

essentially just a more extreme version of socialism, as the polar opposite to capitalism. While

capitalism strives for wealth and innovation, communism strives for equality. But real equality is

a very difficult achievement, and can come with numerous downsides in the quest for it. One

consequence, as discussed in ​Economics Principles in Action, ​“Communist governments are

authoritarian … [exacting] strict obedience from their citizens and do not allow individuals

freedom of judgement and actions” (35). Everything comes with a price. Communism, while it

claimed equality, striped the populace of all freedoms and choices. The point of equality is

diminished when one can not choose their life. It is foolish to lobby for communism, while not

fully understanding what the deal entails. People look at the equality, without seeing the chains.

But some may still claim that this price is worth the equality, but that would only be true if

equality was attained. Communism still has several flaws, one of which is that it assumes people

are morally virtuous. When communism was cast out from Russia, the journal “Corruption,

culture, and communism” discusses the cultural significance, “communism left behind cultural

orientations that generated higher levels of corruption” (Sandholtz and Taagepera 9). This is

referencing the period after communism, where Russia became more market-oriented. But when

they moved closer to communism, many people still had the same style of thinking from

communism. While they desired equality, they did not know how to work for themselves. But

the ones who adapted quickly, took advantage of others, leading to even more inequality, and

corruption. Communism did not work as a system of economics for Russia, and even after it was

gone, communism still polluted the nation. O’Sullivan and Sheffrin also revealed this fallacy in
 Moore 3

Economics Principles in Action,​ “The uneven distribution of income led many to call for

additional change. It also led to extensive corruption and widespread organized crime”

(O’Sullivan and Sheffrin 492). The nation of communism was so riddled with faults that even

years after change, the population of Russia desired further conversion to capitalism. And it is

ironic that in their quest for equality, income was still distributed unfairly, and corruption was

rampant. Communism may have been created to solve equality, but was unable to successfully

accomplish that in even one nation.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not the only nation that experimented with

communism, however it is the best example of why communism is fundamentally flawed in its

nature and structure. ​Economics Principles in Action ​ states this bluntly, but truthfully, “The

former Soviet Union was a communist nation that provides us with a good case study of how a

centrally planned economy works --and doesn’t work” (O’Sullivan and Sheffrin 36). Some parts

of communism did work. Everyone was technically equally poor. But even that is not fully true,

since some people near the top of the chain of power had been corrupt, which ruins the system.

Communism operates on a basis of trust, and it allows the abuse of power to occur far too easily.

But communism had other issues, mainly that it was too systematic and controlled, “Once a

production quota was met, there was no reason to produce more goods. Workers had little

incentive to work harder or to innovate” (37). O’Sullivan and Sheffrin summarized possibly one

of the worst issues with communism, namely that evolution on a national scale is inhibited.

Capitalism enables and rewards innovation and adaptation, while communism allows no freedom

to change. Only those in control of the nation are able to change anything, which cuts off almost

the entire nation. Even if communism had somehow survived in the Union of Soviet Socialist
 Moore 4

Republics, the nation would eventually have been surpassed by other nations in almost every

field. Sure the populace may be equal, but they would be equally poor, in equally terrible living

conditions. But communism did not thrive, and in the last few years of Russian communism, the

populace suffered greatly:

Yeltsin’s elevation followed several years of partial reform under the last Soviet leader,

Mikhail Gorbachev. The previous two years had seen declines in output, worsening

shortages and fears of a complete economic and political collapse. In 1989, the average

citizen spent 40–68 hours a month standing in line. (Shleifer and Treisman 3)

The fears were justified, since the nation did go through a complete economic and political

collapse. Just a short two years before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,

waiting in line for that long would be considered outrageous in America. The long lines were due

to a massive lack of supply, from the inefficiencies of the communist system. Although the

government demanded a production quote be met regularly, they either did not plan for enough

supply, or producers did not meet the quote. And when one does not have the freedom to pursue

their dreams, all they worry about is the next meal. And when a nation focuses on survival,

people may do whatever is necessary to survive, which brings corruption:

“communism may have pulled some countries from self-expression toward survival

concerns. Postcommunist societies do in fact score highly on ‘survival’ as opposed to

‘self-expression’ in the World Values Survey, and the empirical analysis will show that

the survival orientation is associated with higher corruption levels. (Sandholtz and

Taagepera 9)
 Moore 5

Communism naturally pulls from self-expression because of the authoritarian control from the

government. But survival will always remain a motivation, regardless of the economic system.

And as Sandhotlz and Taagepera stated, a focus on survival attracts corruption. This is a

common issue throughout the analysis of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, namely that its

downfall is partially attributed to corruption. Communism enables corruption to run rampant

within those with power, which highlights the inner flaws of communism. But there are other

flaws as well.

The communist nation of Russia had numerous other errors beyond corruption, such as

violence, deceit, and authoritarian restriction. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ruled with

an iron fist over the nation’s people, which arose after a violent revolution. Communism has an

absurd reasoning that violent revolution is necessary for communism to succeed, and Russia did

accomplish that fairly well. But in ​Humanism and Terror: an Essay on the Communist Problem,

which is somewhat of a misnomer since it is a novel, the author discusses how terrible and

misguided this violence is:

Communism cannot be justified simply by showing that violence is a component of

Western humanism as an historical force, since it still has to be known whether

Communist violence is, as Marx thought, ‘progressive.’ Far less does violence provide

communism with that spineless assent which pacificism, whether it means to or not,

historically gives to violent regimes. (Merleau-Ponty 175)

Violence should rarely be sought after, and most certainly is not to be used as an excuse for an

economic system. Merleau-Ponty even describes communism as giving to violent regimes.

Which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was absolutely a violent regime. People were
 Moore 6

imprisoned and killed for voicing even the smallest opinion against the government. Equality is

worth far less without liberty. And not only was the communist nation extraordinarily violent,

deceit was rampant throughout the workers and the culture, “Moreover, much of reported output

under the Soviet system was simply fictitious. To obtain bonuses, managers routinely inflated

their production figures” (Shleifer and Treisman 4). The communist system would have a better

chance of success if everyone fully followed the rules and worked to the best of their ability. But

people are naturally lazy and flawed, which ruins the system. One of the main issues that

communism fails to address, is the ability for people to not obey. In capitalism, if someone does

not work hard or does not obey, then they simply go poor. But in communism, everyone is

already poor, and not obeying leads to an economic collapse. And the Soviet Union also rationed

its resources, land, and capital terribly, since the nation focused too much on international

relations. The nation focused so much on military and global projects, that it failed to care for its

own people, as shown by Shleifer and Treisman, “Much of recorded GDP under the Soviet

Union consisted of military goods, unfinished construction projects, and shoddy consumer

products for which there was no demand. In the early 1990s, military procurement dropped

sharply” (4). While the military is an important aspect of any nation, focusing too much on it can

be ruinous. Two items of notable import within the quote, the fact that many of the consumer

products were not desired, and that military procurement dropped after the collapse of the Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics. Even the areas where the communists tried to innovate and focus

on, they failed. From corruption, to violence, to inefficiencies in production, communism is

deeply flawed. And when the Russian population got a taste of liberty and capitalism after the

collapse of the Soviet Union, they realized equality was not worth the price of chains, “Enjoying
 Moore 7

the new found freedoms … many people called for a complete end to communism and the

domination of the central government … At the end of the year, Gorbachev resigned as leader,

announcing the end of the Soviet Union” (O’Sullivan and Sheffrin 492). Communism was

brought into Russia by a few strong-willed individuals, and was forced out by everyone else. It is

worthy of notice that the people called not only for the end of communism, but also the end of

the authoritarian government. Interestingly, those go hand in hand. When given the free choice

between communism and capitalism, the people spoke and choose capitalism. This only further

highlights the numerous issues and fallacies within communism. But when it did not work, the

outcome was horrific, as described in the book ​Age of Delirium the Decline and Fall of the

Soviet Union:

In the end, the nature of the state's domination was determined by this vulnerability of its

core ideas. The Soviet ideology predicted that the victory of communism would lead to a

perfect democracy, characterized by voluntary unanimity and unprecedented wealth.

When, following the Communist seizure of power, this utopia did not materialize,

intellectual failure threatened to have political consequences, and the authorities

proceeded to remake reality by force. (Satter 4)

That last line has such sinister implications, for such a short statement. For when Satter states the

authorities remake reality by force, it will not be peaceful. The Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics was a dystopia, but was covered up by an absolute control of information. If

propaganda and the threat of death loomed everywhere, no one could voice opinions of dissent.

And thus lies the most abhorrent consequence of communism, not the corruption and lies, but the
 Moore 8

utter lack of any liberty. Equality without liberty was the goal of communism, but without the

attainment of equality, all that was left was chains.

Communism does not work for economic reasons, but the creators also failed to review how

the human mind works. Humanism was an area that communism failed to consider. By

restricting and transgressing, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics designed their downfall,

“To respect one who does not respect others is ultimately to despise them; to abstain from

violence toward the violent is to become their accomplice” (Merleau-Ponty 109). Even though

the Soviet populace respected and obeyed the government, they despised it. Communism made

them work all day for nothing in return, under the name of equality. And by becoming a violent

regime, people were faced with three options. Join the violence and terrorize their neighbors,

friends, and family. Abstain from action, which as Merleau-Ponty points out, is just as bad as

becoming the terrorizers. Or act out against the government, which the Soviets would kill one for

doing so. Communism forced people into terrible and violent lives, under the name of equality,

which they did not even reach. ​Economics Principles in Action a​ lso points out the necessity of

understanding how humans behave and think, “Because people cannot have everything they need

or want, they must consider their options and decide which choice will fill their needs best. To

look at the world economically, we can focus on the decisions that people make” (O’Sullivan

and Sheffrin 3). People truly can not have everything they need or want, but in the Soviet Union

they got no choice as to what fills their needs best. While it can be assumed everyone needs food,

water, and shelter, it is difficult to assume what people need beyond that. In capitalism, people

simply buy or obtain whatever they need and desire, to fill their needs best. But in communism,

since everything is controlled, few people will get everything they need. And additionally, when
 Moore 9

the government focuses on military and international products, there is not enough supply for the

population to have what is necessary. And if there is barely enough for survival, self-expression

is absolutely squandered, “Communism can increase the emphasis on survival over

self-expression” (Sandholtz and Taagepera 19). It is difficult to express oneself when one does

not have any choice over what they do, and what they buy. But the rulers of the Soviet Union did

not fully account for this shift in values, since people will do whatever is necessary to survive.

This lead to extensive corruption, because people had to cheat to get more food on their plate.

And when one person cheats, it worsens the lives of others. Communism is fundamentally

flawed in this aspect. But communism is also flawed because of the removal of any form of

competition. As shown in the centuries-old book, ​Leviathan​, “So that in the nature of man, we

find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition … The first maketh men invade for

gain”(Hobbes 87). To not compete and to not seek gain, goes against the nature of man. The

most basic fallacy of communism, is simply how the system undermines human nature. As stated

by Hobbes, the first move men make is to invade for gain. Not for protection, or survival, or even

self-expression. Men move and live for gain. Hobbes shows the inherently selfish nature of men,

and economic systems rely on how people behave and think. Capitalism uses this selfishness as

an incentive and motivation to work hard and innovate. But communism fails to incorporate this

selfishness, and thus, fails. But people are also unique, and in the name of equality, communists

do not get to pursue their personal passions, or interests, which is another unfulfilled part of

humanity, “though we perceive no great unquietness in one or two men, yet we may be well

assured that their singular passions are parts of the seditious roaring of a troubled nation” (53). It
 Moore 10

is foolish to assume everyone thinks the same, and as such, not everyone can have the same

passion. Communism does not consider human nature, and is doomed because of that failure.

Perhaps a different form of communism could prevail. But in the modern world of liberty and

capitalism, communism has no place. The nature and structure of communism is fundamentally

flawed, as shown in history, human nature, and economics. Equality is not worth the chains, and

people have agreed throughout all of history. And it is doubtful people will ever freely choose

chains, for the sake of a disillusioned equality.