This answer to “why did Communism fail?” was given by Radu Nachita, who had an inside view. He writes about his childhood in communist Romania in an article on FEE.org [emphasis mine]:

Centrally planned and state-owned economies did not collapse in 1989 when the Berlin Wall was finally “torn down.” Actually, the failure of this economic system started in 1961 when the wall was built by the communist regimes to trap their own populations inside the “workers’ paradise.” The failure was already obvious in the eyes of people who endured it—far earlier than was acknowledged by Western academics or public opinion.

The great moral hazard of socialism and similar (involuntary) wealth distribution schemes is that eventually, people who resist taking other people’s wealth view themselves as “suckers”. Nobody wants to be a sucker, a chump.

What stimulated this thought was a post by Ann Althouse regarding the gift billionaire, Robert F. Smith, is making to the graduating class of Morehouse College. Ann’s comment was:

There’s a scene in Amazing Grace — the William Wilberforce biopic — where Wilberforce meets with fellow abolitionist radical Thomas Clarkson. They’ve just had another in a long run of defeats in Parliament on their bills to abolish the slave trade. It’s around 1794 — Clarkson has devoted his life to the abolition of the slave trade. He’s been doing it longer than Wilberforce has, though Wilberforce is the leader of the cause in government. He has finally received a bit of good news: the Revolutionary Government in France has abolished slavery. In England, the public is incensed at France for the revolution — England has been at war with France for over a year. Because of the war — because abolition is now associated with the French Revolution — the cause has stalled out. Explicitly, the Scottish MPs only favor gradual abolition because they fear the spread of the revolution.

“Here we have only defeat. Across the Channel, they bring me nothing but good news. Changes,” he says.

I hate clicking on a title like “Abortion is Morally Good,” especially on my first-born’s birthday. But I thought I should. We won’t sway public opinion unless we’re willing to engage the reasoning on the other side. So I clicked, but as far as reasoning goes, I found this article remarkably weak. It’s so weak that I can’t help feeling a little sorry for its author. She reminds me of “Baghdad Bob,” convincing only those who desperately want and need to be convinced. “We are not afraid at all! We will triumph! Pay no attention to those coalition tanks massing on the horizon.”

It goes without saying that to be persuasive, you have to be in reality. You have to come to grips with facts and counter the arguments and witness of your opponents. If all you’ve got to offer is euphemism and caricature, you may manage to rally your demoralized troops for a little rearguard action, but you won’t prevail.

While doing some research for a snarky remark I wanted to make (yes, I research my snark) I came across a website called “Bingeclock.” It’s sole raison d’être is to tell you how much time you’re about to waste – or have wasted – watching the entire run of a television or film series. (Pro tip: If you only have six weeks to live, don’t try catching up on Gunsmoke.)

Now, we’re all good at wasting time. Some of us make a living at making others waste their time. When you waste time watching me work, I guess there’s some productivity going on, after all, it is putting food on my table. It also means that I can rationalize my own waste. Because I am in the sports television business the three hours I spend watching baseball 200 days out of the year is really, you know, just professional research.