The soviet experience of communism, such as it was, was no more an 'experiment' than our 'experiment' in democracy, such as it is. Which is to say, they were both altogether in earnest.

People have busily tabulated the flaws of both the Soviet Union and the United States (and numerous other countries) so I don't need to do that. You all have your own preferred list; so do I.

with central managers being coal workers or shoe salesmen, then it wouldn't seem hard to conclude that the whole endeavor would have failed. — Shawn

They had shoe salesmen in the Soviet Union? Why was I not informed?

Look, there's nothing about shoe salesmen or coal workers which prohibits them from being good managers, but various revolutionary sources assign workers managerial tasks only as they become educated and experienced enough to be effective managers. Motivated shoe and coal workers can acquire managerial skills on the job and in classrooms. I know American workers who, though lacking BAs and MBAs, have the talent and experience to be great managers. The higher in the organization one goes, the more that is expected. We all know professional managers, with Harvard MBAs to boot, who should or will or did get the boot.

Corpse counting is tricky, so there is that. Just off the cuff, I'll grant that communistic and authoritarian regimes have an outstanding record of killing people who got in the way. Perhaps capitalistic, democratic-ish nations and empires have have crappier figures for millions of dead victims, but I am pretty certain that the figures are high enough so that we will not be too embarrassed.

One could even say that great enterprises like revolution, colonialism, imperialism, communism, capitalism, and so on generally entail breaking trainloads of eggs on the way to the grand soufflé.

One could even say that great enterprises like revolution, colonialism, imperialism, communism, capitalism, and so on generally entail breaking trainloads of eggs on the way to the grand soufflé. — BC

And fascism. That was quite a few eggs.

Yes it was. Fascism is certainly among the highest scorers in any corpse counting contest.

Your friend says they ate at one or two bad sushi restaurants, so they hate sushi. They won't eat it, and turn down every offer. You can even show them a piece of the best-of-the-best and their idea will prevent them from considering it good enough.

Capitalism made and deployed the small pox vaccine, so that saved 530 million people so far.

Capitalism made and deployed the small pox vaccine, — frank

No it didn't! Medical scientists did. They would have worked in exactly the same way if their education had been free and the result of the research were available to everyone on the planet, regardless of means.

Jenner himself worked tirelessly to see the scourge of smallpox eradicated. Although awarded many honours, he never became a rich man. He devoted so much time to vaccination that his business as a country doctor suffered. He would often vaccinate poor people free of charge.

Developing inoculation and a vaccine for a major infectious disease killer was a very good thing. Also very good were public health strategies which deployed the vaccine in the most effective and efficient manner, so that smallpox was eradicated in 1977. The approach was vaccinating the circle of contacts surrounding each new case of smallpox. As the years passed, there were fewer and fewer cases, till finally, the last one.

I was vaccinated for smallpox I'm 1964 -- still a somewhat routine thing then.

Note: The US and Russia both hold samples of the variola virus that causes smallpox. Will the virus ever escape its deep-frozen storage vials?

Will the virus ever escape its deep-frozen storage vials? — BC

I was told that after 911 they were thinking about the possibility of starting small pox vaccines again. I guess biological warfare was a concern.

I was just kidding.

Look, there's nothing about shoe salesmen or coal workers which prohibits them from being good managers, but various revolutionary sources assign workers managerial tasks only as they become educated and experienced enough to be effective managers. Motivated shoe and coal workers can acquire managerial skills on the job and in classrooms. I know American workers who, though lacking BAs and MBAs, have the talent and experience to be great managers. The higher in the organization one goes, the more that is expected. We all know professional managers, with Harvard MBAs to boot, who should or will or did get the boot. — BC

Seemingly, as you are the only person who addressed the OP's sentiments about Soviet styled central managers, then I just wanted to say, that the importance of well qualified managers in any society has been something that has concerned the elite of any nation for a long time.

It can be argued that the only reason the Soviet Union failed was due to the clumsiness of the central managers governing economics of Soviet Russia, and ALL the satellite states, which is dumbfounding that they got so little wrong apart from the stark differences with capitalist societies.

Given that you're willing to acknowledge that even democracies are experiments, as such, then I suppose this should appreciate in your mind, the concern of having a well operating socio-economic system. I remember, whilst living in a foreign country, a saying, that if I lay on the ground or if I stand, always 2000 (units of money) are due to me. This goes into the old topic, about how communism was vastly less efficient and productive than other capitalist societies, which is a separate topic, which I think is also true, given the lack of focus on having a good managerial class.

Corpse counting is tricky — BC

Agreed, but it's more than 7, more than 70, more than 700, more than 7,000, more than 70,000, more than 700,000, more than 7,000,000, and maybe more than 70,000,000.

Marx was always a republican, and therein lies the framework in which communism sees a way through its failure, that is, in the republic.

But it turns out to be less a way through than it is a dead end. The Soviet Republic, the People’s Republic of China, The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Cuba, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela—the framework is by now the coffin of the communist dream, and perhaps its final resting place. The result is the same as all republics: oligarchy and state capitalism. In that sense the socialist state is little different than the Roman one, with its bureaucrats no more than a praetorian guard. The state never withered away like Marx and Engels foretold, but it got larger, centralized, and more totalitarian in its reach. So much for historical materialism.

There's a song about that!

It seems plausible to me that any large Communist regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. Again, that's my "seems to me" opinion, not a solid claimi. — T Clark

It seems plausible to me that any large regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. Again, that's my "seems to me" opinion, not a solid claim.

Revolutions usually happen when the 'government' The Tzar, king, despot, oligarch, and his coterie become completely careless of the ordinary folk. 'Communism' is simply a label adopted by, or imposed upon, recent populist uprisings. 'Democracy' is a label adopted by governments that want to prevent revolutions.

Russia before the revolution was a medieval society of nobles and serfs. The same is true of China. Such a system is destabilised by the industrial revolution, just as the system of slavery became destabilised in America.

The common mistake is to suppose that anything very much is different between one system and another - exceptionalism. There are better and worse governments to suffer under, and generally wealthy governments are more generous to their people, and when there is little growth, they become meaner and meaner. The reality is that no one is going to make America great again for ordinary people.

They had shoe salesmen in the Soviet Union? Why was I not informed? — BC

More likely, “shoe delivery commisars”, in all likelihood very inefficient at their job.

I have a favourite Soviet-era joke. You have to imagine it in the correct accent.

One day, after a very long time waiting, Ivan’s telephone is delivered and installed to his Moscow apartment. It’s not very active, and hardly ever rings, but at least he has it. One day it rings.

“Hello”, answers Ivan.

The voice at the other end is impassive. “We have information about the car you have ordered. It is due for delivery in 8 months, on Thursday, 8th September, in the morning.”

“Thank you, Comrade”, answers Ivan. “But I need to check something.”

He goes away. When he comes back, he says:

“Very good, but I ask a favour please. Could I pick it up in the afternoon? I have a plumber coming in the morning.”

The industrialisation of the Soviet Union, and later of Communist China, were staggering achievements. And the USSR's contribution to the defeat of Germany in 1944-45 was heroic. Russian art, music, dance and literature are all stunning. None of these things were 'failures'.

But sadly Shostakovich, for instance, produced his greatest work while sleeping with a suitcase ever-packed, ready to flee.

Sadly it wasn't the foulness of Stalinist tyranny that caused the Soviet Union eventually to 'fail', either, but a gradual post-Stalin collapse in economic and social management, as the social democracies of Europe, N America and elsewhere began to vastly outperform the USSR.

I travelled to Uzbekistan in the 2000's. (Samarkand! What glorious sights!) The differences between Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, on the one hand, and Uzbekistan / Kyrgyzstan on the other, were and are profound - the Communist legacy includes a much higher level of literacy and women's equality, and suppression of radical Islam.

The legacy also, alas, involved former commissars becoming dictators of each -istan: these countries lack a grounding of any kind of democracy except the (former) weak intra-Party democracy of the Communist era. Their precarious governments, like Putin's Russia, seem to me a good deal more experimental than Communism, though of course in 1921 Lenin and his mates were indeed making it up as they went along.

This goes into the old topic, about how communism was vastly less efficient and productive than other capitalist societies, which is a separate topic, which I think is also true, given the lack of focus on having a good managerial class. — Shawn

I wouldn't really say that this is a separate topic, it's a subtopic, and a very relevant one at that. The issue is the motivation to work, to be productive, and the question of the need for production. This points to what @BC said about the industrial revolution. If basic human needs for all human beings in a given society can be fulfilled from very little human work, the work being taken over by machines, then what drives the need for further work from those human beings? Now we have the goal of economic growth, but what supports this goal, giving it true value? "Failure" is judged in relation to a specific goal, but there is still a need to judge the merit of the goal.

There was, indeed, plenty of corruption, nepotism, incompetence, infighting, etc. - as there always is in vertical organizations. There was worker discontent, lack of co-ordination and mismanagement. There was also a good deal of obstruction from the west. Also, far too many resources were poured into military competition - something the booming US could better afford than a nation struggling to rebuild after a devastating war.

People keep comparing communism with democracy, but that's a false comparison. Communism and capitalism are economic models, not political ones. The USSR was nominally democratic in its political structure after its aristocracy had been replaced by a different set of feudal lords.

While the Iron Curtain countries had nationalized industry and agriculture, they still continued to use money as a medium of exchange. More seriously, they had to trade with the west for some commodities. Unless a country is completely self-sufficient in raw materials, infrastructure and technical knowledge, it can't sustain an economic system completely separate from the rest of the world. The US probably could have, but never tried. Russia could not, even with the annexed territories - not even by draining the satellites. And Cuba, which might otherwise have been a valid experiment in communism, never stood a snowball's chance in hell under US embargo.

If basic human needs for all human beings in a given society can be fulfilled from very little human work, the work being taken over by machines, then what drives the need for further work from those human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

Personal goals - like the gentleman scientists of the Renaissance and financially independent inventors of the 19th century. A sense of achievement. Contribution to the community. Respect of peers.
The labourers of 'communist' countries had none of those motivations, because they had no real stake in the enterprises that employed them, no voice in management and no share in the income. In spite of that, in spite of the resentment most middle-class people felt, many of them did a conscientious job - even when the new job was a demotion from their previous position (In the early days, the class of one's birth could be a serious handicap to work opportunities. I knew a former history professor who worked on a collective farm and took great pride in his straight furrows. )

It seems plausible to me that any large regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. — unenlightened

Not sure about that. I guess it also depends on how you define "large."

The reality is that no one is going to make America great again for ordinary people. — unenlightened

Not sure about that. I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about the US ever being great.

In spite of that, in spite of the resentment most middle-class people felt, many of them did a conscientious job - even when the new job was a demotion from their previous position (In the early days, the class of one's birth could be a serious handicap to work opportunities. I knew a former history professor who worked on a collective farm and took great pride in his straight furrows. ) — Vera Mont

Having pride in one's work is a feeling which is difficult to qualify. It's what provides one with a sense of belonging, and it really doesn't matter what that work is.

Having pride in one's work is a feeling which is difficult to qualify. It's what provides one with a sense of belonging, and it really doesn't matter what that work is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Better to have a choice, all the same.
One good thing they did, though: a high quality education for young people with the brains and application. Quite a few made good careers in the west, where they could not have afforded university, all the while ranting against the system that made it possible.
Nothing is pure and simple, is it?

If basic human needs for all human beings in a given society can be fulfilled from very little human work, the work being taken over by machines, then what drives the need for further work from those human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

An excellent question!

We haven't reached the point yet where machines perform all of the labor necessary to meet human needs. We have, however, passed the point where machines (powered machines, automation, even robots and computer-operated machines) and human labor can produce a substantial surplus of what we need. We could significantly reduce human labor (but not eliminate it at this point). I do not have a figure in mind. For discussion purposes, let's say we could reduce human labor by at least 20%.

There is no end to what human beings want; let's stick to needs.

At this point, human beings continue to seek paid work because of the general rule those who do not work do not eat. Or at least, they don't eat very well.

The simplified way of looking at an economy is that workers are hired by capitalists to produce goods and receive a paycheck. The paycheck is used to buy what the worker and his family need to survive. (Consumption is something close to 3/4 of the American economy.) If workers are not needed to produce, then there is no paycheck for workers to buy food, clothing, and shelter.

In this simplified view, the unnecessary worker and his unnecessary family are totally screwed. However, so is the capitalist. If there are no consumers, to whom does he sell what the machines now produce?

One solution is for the state to provide an income that is not tied to previous labor--maybe $10,000 a year for a couple (seems low to me; pick your own figure). With this payment, the couple buy what they need. The producers receive an income to operate their factories. The "compulsion" or irrational drive to work for one's needs might still be present. Perhaps workers will find jobs producing for infinite wants but not needs. IMHO, that is an untenable basis for operating society -- it's not sustainable within the search to halt or slow global warming, and our infinite wants are already an environmental death trap.

Some authors have speculated that, given complete automation, a large share of workers will become obsolete / redundant / unemployed / unnecessary / a nuisance. Then what?

Seemingly, as you are the only person who addressed the OP's sentiments about Soviet styled central managers, then I just wanted to say, that the importance of well qualified managers in any society has been something that has concerned the elite of any nation for a long time. — Shawn

The State of Minnesota, which prides itself on efficient and effective administration, was defrauded of nearly $250,000,000 (a quarter billion) by a group of Somali mafioso operators who recognized weaknesses in a state agency (Education) charged with managing a large pot of Covid 19 money. A lot of the money was intended to provide food for children and families.

By setting up fake programs, fake budgets, fake food purchases, and fake beneficiaries, the group walked off with truck loads of cash. The cash ended up in the hands of various luxury goods sellers and real estate agents. During a recent trial of several of the 100+ defendants, the defense misused the names and addresses of the otherwise anonymous jury members, and a bag of $100,000 in cash was offered to a juror for a "not guilty" vote. That added crime is under FBI investigation. To Minnesota's credit, the juror called 911 to report the attempted bribe.

Where were the presumably competent state accountants and State agency managers who let a big hunk of cash run through their fingers like shit through a tin pipe?

The trials are returning a lot of guilty verdicts to date, but as far as I know, no heads have rolled at the Minnesota Department of Education, yet.

Very good! There's a chronic shortage of good soviet jokes.

Ivan and Fyodor are standing on street corner. A Lada goes by. Then a Trabant. A Skoda. Then a Lincoln. Fyodor asks, "Which of those cars would you like to drive?" Ivan thinks a minute, then replies, "The Lada, of course." Fyodor says, "I guess you don't know cars." "I know cars," answers Ivan, "I don't know you."

I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about the US ever being great. — T Clark

You guys should make like Britain and just incorporate greatness into the name just as you incorporated the unity — "The United States of Great America". It's that easy!

Some authors have speculated that, given complete automation, a large share of workers will become obsolete / redundant / unemployed / unnecessary / a nuisance. Then what? — BC

We hang out and do philosophy. As need is the mother of invention, leisure is the mother of philosophy.

If I understand it correctly, "Great Britain" refers to the main island, not the country. Did you hear that Trump called the UK "a terrible country, worse than Milwaukee?"

Worse than Milwaukee? Lord. Though the UK is having problems for sure, thanks to Brexit. According to a 50+ year old National Lampoon thought piece, Deteriorate.

Take heart in the deepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.

Donald Trump stepped out of the pages of the National Lampoon, not knowing he was a bad joke.