Communism didn't fail the people, the people failed it

So MIT Press publishes a "Communism for Kids" book,

... written by a German author who specializes in political theory and "queer politics," was released last month. The thesis of the children's book is that communism is "not that hard," but has not been implemented in the right way.

Ah, yes, the oldest apologetic for communism there is: Communism has not been found difficult and lacking, it just has never been tried correctly.

When someone posted a question on Quora, "Why is communism a failed ideology?" it garnered a number of responses, including one that laboriously explained,

Communism is not a failed ideology, people failed to live up to communism. 

However, the writer did go on to call the whole communist ideology "quixotic" and unrealistic. Although he did not say so, communism is in fact a religion based on the ideology of the perfectibility of human beings through controlled economies. As I quoted a conversation between two Soviet army officers in "Why planned economies cannot succeed,"

"And who, in your view, will carry the sewage under communism?"

The question [wrote Suvorov] was so simple and it was put in such a mocking tone, it was like being pole-axed. . . . Before, everything had been absolutely clear: everyone works as he wants and as much as he wants, according to his ability, and he receives whatever he wants and as much as he wants, i.e., according to his needs. . . .

You want to be a teacher? Right then, every kind of work is honored in our society. You want to be a wheat farmer? What work can be more honourable than to provide the people with bread? You want to be a diplomat - the way is open!

But who will be busy in the sewers? Is it possible that there will be anybody who will say, ‘Yes, this is my vocation, this is my place, I am not fit for anything better?’ 

Finally, Suvorov hit upon the answer: "Everyone will clean up after himself!" The other man responded, "Take Kiev, for instance, and see how much of its one and a half million inhabitants arranges his own sewerage system, in his free time, and cleans it and maintains it in good order." He continued,

"Who, under communism, will bury the corpses? Will it be self-service or will amateurs carry out the work in their spare time? There is plenty of dirty work in a society and not everyone is a general or a diplomat. Who will carve up the pig carcasses? And who will sweep the streets and cart off the rubbish? . . . Will there be any waiters under communism? . . .

"And finally, for someone who at present has not the slightest idea about how to set about sewage-cleaning, like Comrade Yakubovskiy himself for instance, has he any personal interest at all in the arrival of that day, when he will have to clean up his own crap all by himself? . . .

"What, exactly, does an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Secretary of the District Party Committee stand to gain from this communism? Eh? Plenty of caviar? But he’s got so much caviar already that he can even eat it through his [rear end] if he wishes. A car? But he has two personal Volga cars and a private one as well. Medical care? Food, women, a country house? But he already has all these things. So our dear Secretary of the most Godforsaken District Party Committee stands to gain bugger-all from communism!  

"And what will he lose? He will lose everything . . . . He will lose his country house, his personal physicians, his hirelings and his guards. [So for party officials] communism has long since ceased to be of any interest to them at all." 

And that is precisely why planned economies -- meaning communism and its precursor, socialism -- cannot work: when the people of the society are serfs to be told what to do (and they have to be, otherwise the economy cannot be "planned") the directors always keep hold of their power. There is no reason to give it up.

In Marxism-Leninism, the directors were called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The term was Marx's, but the implementation was Lenin's. Not long after Marx's death there arose debates among his disciples on what to do about elections once the worker had driven the bourgeoisie from power. Marx had insisted that bourgeoisie elections were completely rigged so that no matter who "won," the economics and power structure of the country would not change. Elections were a sham designed to do one thing only: deceive the proles that they actually had a real say in the governance of the country.

What to do about this? On the one hand, one Marxist faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the generators of the economy), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and spoil the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be held and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

The competing view, held by the Russian Bolsheviks, was that they were the "vanguard of the revolution" and that therefore Marx's instruction of the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat -- meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

In Marxism-Leninism, true communism was a state in which material production was so great that all human needs were met without shortage. Greed would therefore disappear and the inherent but capitalist-suppressed natural nobility of men and women would emerge. They would be transformed into true communists -- altruists who worked each day for the good of the people, not for crass, selfish profit.

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

So Soviet elections -- and those of every other socialist country ever -- were wholly fake and were supposed to be wholly fake. The education and political training of the general proletariat was not quite complete and if they had a real say in matters, they would only enchain themselves once again. So for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fourth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution.

The people did not fail communism. Communists failed communism. But then, communism was never about the welfare of the people, but the personal enrichment and aggrandizement of the communists.

This is your hospital on communism:

This is your daily commute on communism.

Or maybe this.

This is your first-class apartment home on communism:

These are typical apartment exteriors in North Korea's capital, Pyongyang. Only
the well-connected are allowed to live in the capital. These are the apartments
of the country's elites.

However:

This is your politicians' commute on communism:

Kim Jong Un rides in his personal Mercedes limousine.

This is your politicians' homes on communism:

Former retreat villa of Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist
party of the USSR, 1964-1982. Now part of a hotel complex, it is located in Lithuania. 

Any questions?