As an historian, specialized in Communist, Cold War, Soviet Union and Second World War history, I've always been extremely interested in the war of Capitalism vs. Communism.
One of the arguments used by many anti-communists, is that communist countries, and the individuals in it, are never able to achieve any form of wealth, due to a planned economy. As a young boy, I believed this to be true.
Lately, I've started to doubt this assumption, though.
My question therefore is, if, providing that communism is carried out correctly(everyone is equal economically and by law), instead of the abomination that is called the Soviet Union(and China, Cuba, East-Germany, Vietnam etc.), will it be able to aquire the same wealth as a Western country? Also, will the individuals in this communist country achieve a decent form of wealth(equally divided) compared to, for example, the middle-class of a Western country?
The Communist country has to carry out communism correctly. Meaning that EVERYONE is equal by law and economy(preferebly not working with money within the country, only internationally)
I ask you this, because, even though being an historian, my economic skills are extremely poor. The jargon used by Marx and other notable communists tend to be too complicated for someone who fails to preform even simple forms of mathematics.
Thank you in advance,
Michael
P.S. When giving any form of economic explanation, please rememder that I know very little of economics, so don't use a lot of jargon and explain the terms you are using.
Thank you for answering!
I didn't know that collective work in an economy worked better that individuels working towards seperate goals. I figured that because so many people would work on so many diferent goals that a country would thrive because of versitility. But it makes sense that, when perfectly organised, one can achieve more. I made this mistake mainly because I've used the wrong historic examples. When societies hundreds of years ago were to organised, they tended to destroy itself by a lack of personal motivation. But societies have changed and what I used as an example doesn't apply in a modern society any more(at least not as much). So I've got to give you that.
What do you mean exactly by 'it's against human nature?' Though I can take a few guesses looking at the Soviet Union(though not the best example considering it's complete failure), it would be nice if you could be more specific. In what way would it be impossible for humans to live in?