Why Large Scale Communism is Impossible

For purposes of this discussion, communism a method of of social and economic organization such that all means of production is controlled by the public.  Socialism is quite different, in that some of the means of production is publicly controlled, but some is controlled by individuals or limited groups.  Laissez faire is a form of society where none of the means of production are controlled by the public.   Capitalism is a means of doing trade, and is at least nominally a part of all of these.

Just as there have been no successful large scale societies that have been Laissez faire, there have been none that have been communist.  The nearest are Castro's Cuba and Mao's China.  Provided that the dictator is benevolent, people can have good lives in them, and if the dictator is willing to share most of his or her power, they can even be successful at some level.  But without a strong leader, there are too many people in a large society that lust for power, that benevolence cannot last long.  All successful communist societies, such as the Kibbutzes of Israel or small communes around the world, have been small enough that the lust for power can be overcome...generally by a leader who is both strong enough and benevolent enough to keep it in check.   Just about all communist groups have a dominant leader--whether life in the commune is good or bad depends almost entirely on that person's benevolence and degree of influence.   I am far from the first to make this point. The earliest I know of is Will Durant, writing about 100 years ago about the then brand new Soviet Union, but I'd be surprised if he was the first.

Laissez-faire is even worse: an excess of Lassez-faire quickly leads to corruption and banditry.  Individual groups attempting to create something useful invariably need to put a very large share of their resources into basic security, and there's nobody building basic infrastructure.  It is fair refer to Laissez-fair as equivalent to Anarchy or a Dark Dark age.

What I'm calling socialism is the only compromise that can work for a group of more than a few hundred individuals or the political lifetime of an individual.  All successful societies, ancient and modern, have some central authority providing security, standards of trade, judiciary, etc.    How much of that is optimal varies with history and psychology.  All we really have to figure it out is trial and error.  When there are market failures, we need a little more government intervention.  But when this happens, there are losers, so we want to minimize this intervention, and where possible, realign things so that the old participants play fairly and productively without losing too much.


There are lots of cases where this was successful: the consent decree that allowed AT&T to retain a strongly regulated monopoly, the USRA that rebuilt the railroads and restored them to profitability during WWI, the breakup of Standard Oil, many, many more.