Since we don't have a history forum(I think) I'll post this question here. I understand all the aspects of communism and everything, and it was a good idea and seems to have worked well in the beginning. But what I don't understand is what was what was the factor that resulted in the downfall of the Soviet Union? Why didn't she flourish? It seems to me a pretty good idea?

We have two history forums ( one is in the Homework Help Section???), but I will tell you part of what I believe caused this collapse.

Ever hear of Star Wars? Not the movie, the satellite weapons planned under the Reagan Administration.

The soviets spent so much money trying to keep up with us in the arms race that they starved their people beyond the tolerable threshold.

Funny thing is, everyone called President Reagan, "Ronny Ray-Gun" because he called his plan Star Wars, but he was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet political system.

There were of course many other factors involved, but the effort to compete with us on a world wide scale was primary.

As KK states, the direct cause of the collapse was the arms race. But why could the USA outspend the USSR? To be a bit cynical about it, a lot of it has to do with greed. For good or bad, capitalist societies provide motivation to make money. If you can't really get ahead by working harder, how hard will you work? If the only suit you can buy is the same grey suit as everyone else and your size is only made every couple of years, are you going to work hard to be able to afford it? True story; the suits may have been blue (I've forgotten the specifics) but the idea was to be more efficient by only offering one style and only sellign certain sizes certain years. The problem was nobody wanted to buy a new suit if it was the same as everyone else's. And then of course there was the religious persecution. My ex-girlfriend grew up in the USSR and had to hide her religion (Jewish) up until the point when she and her parents fled the country.
Communism does seem like a good theory, but it seems to be even more easily corruptible than capitalism and democracy, and it doesn't seem to sufficiently motivate a society.

I should have mentioned that the prime motivator in communism is 'the good of the community.' This is a great goal. Unfortunately, if your neighbors are spying on you and your government is locking up people with different views, you tend to stop caring about the good of the community.

I'll try to make a long story short, bear with me cause I'll have to skip details and make it somewhat simplistic. The downfall of the Soviet Union actually started just before the death of Lenin in 1924.

The revolution brought to an end what was essentially a completely backward feudalist society, for at the time Tzarist Russia was one of the most backward countries in Europe. The Bolsheviks who brought Communism to Russia had a great many difficult tasks to face: World War I, a civil war at home, famine brought on by the war, and aggression from many western powers (including our modern deadly duo: U.S. and Great Britain).

Upon the triumph of Communism, the Bolsheviks instituted a great many reforms, including; Freedom of worship, freedom of assembly, universal suffrage (the right of all people, including minorities and women, to vote), free medical care, free and compulsory education, shelter (housing) as a right and not as a privilege, end to racism, etc. But all the years of hard battles, many of them armed, against the tzarist forces, against capitalist governments and against other political parties, left the Bolsheviks worn out. Eventually, the opportunists which are bound to arise out of every revolution, crept up through the ranks, and through maneuvering managed to get their man Stalin in a good position. He eventually kept Lenin isolated until his death, and kept Lenin's will from being published. Eventually he took control of the government, and little by little consolidated his power.

In the end he managed to murder every single one of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution, except for Trotsky (Lenin's right-hand man and founder of the Red Army), who was forced into exile. Eventually Trotsky himself was murdered in Mexico by a Stalinist agent.

The Stalinists, which included every Soviet leader after Lenin, sought to preserve Communism only to the extent that it would benefit them personally, not out of conviction for the revolution.
Stalin's need to undo the gains of the revolution for personal gain necessitated a repressive state apparatus, which though denounced after his death, was maintained by his successors. Among the gains of the revolution that Stalin destroyed: An attempt to re-establish "family values", i.e., the woman belongs in the kitchen not in the factory, university, or office. The re-establishment of persecution of Jews and other religions and the establishment of an official state religion. The establishment of "socialism in one state", a policy which led the Soviet Union to betray many revolutions throughout the globe. Ultimately, as Trotsky had predicted, the Stalinists sold out what little remained of the revolution to the highest bidder. They milked "communism" until they could milk it no more, and now those former "commies" and their children are the new capitalists.

-QwertyMac

The Soviet Union collapsed for economic reasons. In that it is no different from any other economy or any corporation, come to that.It was like any company that is inefficient, unwieldy to manage and spending beyond its means. As to communism, well, it may be unfair to take this one example as absolute proof that it cannot ever work in any circumstances ( any more than the collapse of a major corporation disproves the theory of capitalism). However it is interesting to read those who still believe in communism as they distance themselves from even the modern post -Stalin USSR and seek to explain to us how even the most recent leaders under communism there could not save it. It seems to me that where communism fails it is because it depends on individuals being selfless and capitalism succeeds because it depends on individuals being selfish . Sadly the latter trait is more obvious among humans than the former. The price and the variety of goods and foods available to us is testimony to this drive; if someone sees that they can be rich through selling anything, food included, cheaper than another they'll go for it Mr Woolworth and Mr Walton were proof enough.Having the state run it, with no effective competition between producers or suppliers can never produce those results,and telling the people it's better because they all own the factories and the shops hardly makes it so (they, selfishly, would like better for themselves, at least !). And of course the system breeds inefficiency. There is little or no 'unemployment' because there is a natural over employment to ensure everyone has some form of a job The potential problem with our system is simply that the producers on their way to wealth cannot be allowed to run unchecked. That is why we have controls on monopolies, on price-fixing and why we have trade unions and all the other controls.But it is much easier for the people to create and enforce laws to control a potentially beneficial human drive than it is to try to suppress or ignore it altogether.Naturally when reformers in communist countries ( the old Soviet Union for example) try to introduce some capitalist practices and ideas, they are condemned by idealists ( including, naturally, Western believers in pure socialist ideals as set out in the beginnings of communism )