Communism: history, theory, and global impact

Communism

Soviet Union

The simplest explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union is that the system was not sufficiently stable to withhold both its own needs and the demands of an arms race. The very ideal of communism is that a nation will be freed from the demands of over-production and over-consumption which are the predicted bane of capitalism. Ideally, freed from the requirements of making a profit for the capitalist class, a communist nation will only produce what it needs for the survival of its people - the Soviet Union on the other hand, found itself attempting to produce at a very high level in order to compete with America's military output. The demands of the Cold War itself, it could be said, destroyed the Soviet Union.

Of course, it may appear that the fall of the Communist ideal was due in large part to a change in the nature of counter-culture and communication. In the pre-Revolutionary days, intellectuals and the discontented who sought change, sought it in communism. After the revolution, change did not come quickly enough - because the nation was immediately plunged into war (which requires overproduction!) and international turmoil. When the next generation of intellectuals and the discontented was made manifest, it opposed communism - because intellectuals generally are capable of seeing the flaws in a system, and no total system appreciates having its flaws pointed out. Communication technology made such a difference in the fall of the Soviet Union because it allowed those who were discontented to express that and work together. (Ease of communication and printing had been used by the first revolutionaries against the Tzar, as well) Communication technology always tends to favor the intellectuals and the discontented minority - because it makes their voice more potent.... until the media has been properly inculcated into the state.

New media, therefore, is more likely to be anti-establishment than old media, because it has not yet been subsumed by the state.

So in my view the most important reason for decline was that the state could not satisfy its inhabitants due to the high cost of war - and yet this failure would not in itself have led to regime change without the workings of communication technology. This affects more current repressive governments, and also less repressive ones as well. America under Bush, for example, might want to consider that the war it is fighting is leading to a degradation of life-quality on the home front. The current media is still very regime-friendly, but the new rising media (online) tends very strongly towards regime change. Other less democratic nations which may be building in an attempt to compete with America either militarily or economically should also consider whether this so discomfits their people that they desire change.