The Pareto Principle and Communism

The Pareto distribution is an exponential curve where the top 20% do better than the lower 80% and being exponential, this repeats fractally within the top 20%.

And it’s everywhere:

The tallest trees in the forest will get most of the light and grow disproportionately taller

The heaviest stars will have the greatest gravity and attract most of the other stars, thereby getting bigger

The biggest celebrities' will attract most of the fans and make most of the money

80% of revenue comes from just 20% of customers.

80% of the property was owned by just 20% of the property owners.

So inequality doesn't seem like a flaw in humans or human system. It seems to be baked into reality. So even if access to the means of production and their products were distributed equally, the Pareto Principle seems to indicate that there will eventually be inequality.

And if the supposed answer is the most productive 20% will just continue to have their productively distributed to the 80% then it's human nature that those 20% will simply stop being that productive, Which may seem like you've reached the goal of equality but if this happens in food production then there will be much less food and people starve. In health care, fewer people have access. Fewer goods are transported. And so on.

So, can things ever be equal? Probably not. Unless one counts "everyone is poor, miserable, and starving" as being equal which seems to be the only way communism ever "works"

The Communist Conundrum

 The Communist Manifesto was written 170+ years ago with the idea that creating one class of people would end the problem of continuous class struggles and cycles of revolution between the bourgeois and proletariat classes.

If one asks any communist where has this idea been played out and worked, the common answer is that it has not - there has never been a "true" communist state.

If one cites China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam as current communist countries it would be easy to point out the economic and social problems that these states have and have failed to produce what communists say it communism will.

None of the past communist countries are immune to the above criticisms either.

Some will cite the [Mondragon](https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/ as a business run on communistic principles, but Noam Chomsky has criticized it by noting that while it’s worker-owned, it’s not worker managed, and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole. If you’re in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.

There can be many examples of the failed attempts at communism which has lead to massive starvations, mass murder, rule by a few via authoritarian or totalitarian methods, suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes (i.e. "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivization and use of forced labor.

Ho Chi Minh promised the Vietnamese people a utopian communist future of rule by the people and a communal country. What they got was a nation ruled by corrupt Party officials, with no rights or civil liberty. It seems the theory of communism peddled by Ho Chi Minh was far removed from the practice of Communism. This is one of many other examples of how Communism has failed the very people it was supposed to help.

Communists say that Capitalism is bad in that it ignores peoples' needs and results in wealth inequality, but communism - in its practice - in almost every instance does the exact same thing but more often in a much more brutal manner.

So the conundrum is: why do communists think communism will work when 1) they cannot point to a single instance of it doing so in more than 170 years and 2) failures to attempt communism fail at an epic/brutal manner?

Edit

Possible pushbacks:

1) We need an alternative to capitalism because capitalism is inherently unstable

But this doesn't show that communism is stable or better [doing more good than harm] than capitalism.

2) It has worked up to point, you're not recognizing that success can be partial.

Almost anything can work for a short time, just look at ponzi schemes they are a success for a while.

3) Only failed due to foreign influence.

This objection seems to ignore that every country has to deal with foreign influence. Nor does it define what that influence is - was the influence proving food for the starving, helping those who are fleeing persecution,

4) Communist learn from our mistakes and never commit them again.

But this isn't true. Time and again communist's have come to power and the party leaders refuse to give up their power and use it to imprison/persecute any who dare call in question their position.

5) Communism has existed before, i.e. Primitive Communism

That was the traditional hunters and gatherers communities. There was no private ownership of property such as clothing and such similar items because they produced just enough to survive and there is almost no surplus. This may be doable on a short scale for a short time, but everybody was dirt poor. And this is why some say that yes communism will make everyone equal - equally poor, starving, and miserable.

6) Sure communism has always failed but these are like experiments on a massive scale in the field of society, polity and economy simultaneously but that doesn't render the Ideology or system meritless.

Well, what would show that communism cannot work? Is the only answer that we must try worldwide communism? And at what point is it said that it has failed? Who makes that decision? Who has the power to make that change?

Given the history of communism, the party elites would enforce communist ideology with brutal force, starvation, forced labor, and murders notwithstanding. They would never give up power.

7) failure is a very subjective term

Well, what would show that communism is a failure/succuss?

8) Multiple studies it has been shown that Socialism gives a better quality of life on equal levels of economic development because multiple dimensions of standard of living like literacy rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, calorie consumption etc.

That's Socialism; where are the studies that say the same for communism?

9) One of the most detailed papers one this subject has been discussed in this video and this video and while you're at it trythis one too Also the argument about deaths of millions and multiple other anti Communist arguments are debunked here and this one

There are arguments on the other side as well for instance Socialism: An Economic And Sociological Analysis

"Socialist" Scandinavian countries love capitalism as much as Americans, and have, for decades, been cutting back on the things Bernie loves the most. see here

Are most things free/fair under Socialism or will unelected state bureaucrats decide who gets what? See here

Also the Naked communist is a great read.

1) Also the argument about deaths of millions and multiple other anti Communist arguments are debunked

Not so see here