For the same reasons I gave above: dealing with the rest of the world which isn't communist, and has a more efficient system for valuation of limited resources.

People tend to think that capitalism is a natural system, it isn't, its a model of system based on surplus and demand for that surplus. Communisms tendency towards collectivisation and production specialisation, contravenes this - producing specific products for exchange in which areas specialise in their production (meaning they only have one or two export goods, but need to import all other products from elsewhere based on exchange).

If you only have one thing to sell, and need to import everything else, it tends to put you on the poor side of supply and demand, as those people trading with you, get to name their price as they can get the same elsewhere (your supply is higher than your demand) - plus you're demand for their products is much higher than their supply (meaning you'll pay more).

Basically, communism creates a sellers market for importers and a buyers market for its own products (which is bad news when you have to do business with foreign countries, even other communist ones).

That's why the Chinese and Vietnamese utilise capitalist economic systems. They need them in order to effectively trade with countries on an more or less even basis. Communism as a system can only work in a 'one nation' ie ideal world - in which the scarcity of resources and the dependency of surplus sale are not factors.

Even Communist countries, when trading with other communist countries tend to look to the best deal they can get (much like Capitalist ones). Its especially problematic for communist countries during the cold war - as capitalist countries could afford to not trade with them, as they had a much greater world market share.

Doesn't matter how many people you have in your country - realistically in a modern age, you have to trade with the outside world for something.

Notably within China, the capacity for capitalism within the country as a means of influence, is much lower than seen in the US (Corporations influence of politics is much lower - whether that's a good or bad thing is another matter - arguably both the Chinese and US political systems represent opposite extremes of corruption in terms of the 'voice of the people').

Nah, they didn't. They lived under regimes who had lots of guns that told the people it was now communist but their actions, lack of, dictated - literally and figuratively - that real, honest communist philosophy was never properly enacted.

There was the The Free Territory or Makhnovia which came mighty close but they were undone by those pesky soviets.

Mmmm....The national socialists weren't proper fascists...because they weren't in Mussolini's party....but nobody ever seems to have a problem with calling them fascists do they.

I think to be fair if something is a variant of the same basic thing then you call a spade a spade.....while recognising that informed people know the nuances.

Communism can't work in large societies pretty much for the reasons previously stated.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Oct 2017 3.49pm)

Well in that case I give you the state of Kerala and its governing Communist Party from the 1950's onward as being pretty much successful relatively speaking. Highest literacy rates in the whole of India, etc.

When are you leaving for Kerala?

You won't be. Instead you're live in a capitalistic democracy and waffle on about communism.

You want to slag off the hand that feeds you, cool.

They did govern Kerala and had great influence as part of a Leftist Coalition back in the late 50's, 60's onward, parts of which (the coalition) were offshoots from another communist party.