[Ahovking]

Why is it that country's that adopt communism, have a life expectancy of around 80 years before collapsing?

[The Immortal Goon]

The same reason that bourgeois institutions had a life expectancy of around 6 years before collapsing.

[Ahovking]

The same reason that bourgeois institutions had a life expectancy of around 6 years before collapsing.

And that is?, and some bourgeois institutions are hundreds of years old, others don't lose very long. However today we have 'bourgeois institutions' hundreds of years old, while communism 'institutions' struggle to survive 70 years before collapsing.

[The Immortal Goon]

There isn't a sufficiently strong material to maintain a superstructure at that point in time.

The fact that, "some bourgeois institutions are hundreds of years old" today does nothing to diminish the fact that monarchists and people clinging to feudalism happily celebrated their repeated demise and took comfort in the idea that it would never catch on due to its constant failure rate. In retrospect we can see that, even at the late date of 1848, feudalism and its base was sufficiently smashed beyond all repair and effectively dead. Yet bits of the superstructure clung deeply in, claiming that bourgeois interests and capitalism could never win.

Is it too much to consider that things will change some day in the future? Or are you sure that capitalism is an end of history that will now lest forever?

If capitalism will not last until eternity, is it too much to suggest that contradictions within itself as a system will help along whatever replaces it?

And if this is not too much to ask, is it too far to suggest that the majority of people, seeking material and theoretical equality, will strive for a system based on the material and technology around them that will equalize both these things?

I say it is not too much to consider. It certainly would have been far more to ask an isolated baron of 1848 in his crumbling estate to consider that the unruly rabble in the streets during the European Spring may one day have a parliament and country of their own based upon common nationalism instead of feudal fealty. And yet that too came to pass.

[Ahovking]

Anyone who says capitalism is the end history, should really be laugh at. Something better will always come along. But seeing how middle class has been better off financially and mentally (higher wages, better health, higher education, etc) in nations like the United States when compared to other 'systems' like communism, it leads me to think that communism is not the next big thing, although its great on paper every time its tested it fails.

[The Immortal Goon]

Certainly, even if the system itself collapsed, in their heart of hearts the Russians probably are helpful that they had their Renaissance, their Industrial Revolution, and their Reformation. There is no going back to Czardom. Similarly, were we to imagine that China lets go of Tibet, the Mongolian God-King won't come back to rule as a divine monarch again. The revolution (or invasion if you want to see it that way) did clear out the old sins. Capitalism did not as, at a world level, the industrial powers needed paupers and peasants for cheap grain and cheap labor.

An admittedly small stride in the big scheme of things, but it did what capitalism had failed to do in these countries. Further, there is no guarantee that the middle class will last. The smart money, at least in the United States, is that it was a passing fad. Though the sparks are unlikely to go in the US, it's failed expectations that tend to fuel revolutions more than cold hard comparisons with other countries.

[Andrea_Chenier]

But seeing how middle class has been better off financially and mentally (higher wages, better health, higher education, etc) in nations like the United States when compared to other 'systems' like communism, it leads me to think that communism is not the next big thing, although its great on paper every time its tested it fails.

The middle class is actually one of the biggest losers in capitalism, at least when it comes to taxes. Middle class pays by far the highest proportional amount because lower earning classes obviously can not pay and the big bourgeoisie - protected by its lackey state - doesn't want to pay what is due.

[Ahovking]

The middle class is actually one of the biggest losers in capitalism, at least when it comes to taxes. Middle class pays by far the highest proportional amount because lower earning classes obviously can not pay and the big bourgeoisie - protected by its lackey state - doesn't want to pay what is due.

Despite paying higher tax's, the middle class is far more wealthier and has had far more Disposable Income in a bourgeoisie country, than the middle class in states like the USSR.

[Heisenberg]

Well, for one thing, the USSR arose out of a feudal society, not a developed capitalist society like the USA. If the USA were to become socialist tomorrow, it's very unlikely it would suddenly become like the USSR in the 1930s. So, it is fairer to judge the success of the USSR by the relative change in living standards when compared with Tsarist Russia. These, undoubtedly, increased: the USSR became an industrialised country and a world superpower in only a couple of decades and infant mortality rates decreased steadily, for example. Also don't forget that the USA escaped the devastation of the Second World War, which allowed its population a head start in terms of living standards throughout the Cold War.

[Ahovking]

Well, for one thing, the USSR arose out of a feudal society, not a developed capitalist society like the USA. If the USA were to become socialist tomorrow, it's very unlikely it would suddenly become like the USSR in the 1930s. So, it is fairer to judge the success of the USSR by the relative change in living standards when compared with Tsarist Russia. These, undoubtedly, increased: the USSR became an industrialised country and a world superpower in only a couple of decades and infant mortality rates decreased steadily, for example. Also don't forget that the USA escaped the devastation of the Second World War, which allowed its population a head start in terms of living standards throughout the Cold War.

Great answer, thank you