It's interesting that failed communist regimes often seem to be succeeded by kleptocracies. I wonder if any political scientists have studied this and can explain why.
I'll cite Conquest's 3rd law: The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.
That's not exactly explanatory, though. Any time a position is powerful or enriching well beyond the extent to which it serves others, the people optimizing to seek out and attain those positions are those who want the power and wealth, rather than those who care about the organization's mission. For those people, the original mission is, at best, a distraction, and at worst actively antithetical to their personal goals.
Communism and socialism concentrate power to a single government/state entity and when it fails there is no industrial competition so the most well connected/wealthy people that are able to take control of the industry are able to pretty much run unabated without any natural market forces you'd find in a system/industry that began in a more free enviroment.
You need an economist to explain it, not a political "scientist".
Communism does not produce globally competitive industries. So the only thing left to do is either to steal and pillage what is left or work in an industry that has local demand like food or energy. Those tend not to be very attractive jobs.
That's not exactly explanatory, though. Any time a position is powerful or enriching well beyond the extent to which it serves others, the people optimizing to seek out and attain those positions are those who want the power and wealth, rather than those who care about the organization's mission. For those people, the original mission is, at best, a distraction, and at worst actively antithetical to their personal goals.