Would any of ye have liked to live in a communist country?

josip

Herb Powell wrote: »

венн ду дас лезен каннст, бист ду кеин думмер весси

Izvinite, bolje na engleskom.

LenaClaire

I grew up in a commune, it was... interesting. The idea of escalating that and living in a communist country makes me twitch.

I value making decisions for myself way too much to ever go back to something like that.

Giacomo McGubbin

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Even today you can spot the former East German in the wider German society. It's especially true if they have made some money. A propensity towards vulgar looking Swiss watches set with diamonds and gold, low end Italian supercars, a second home in the French riviera.

Sounds very similar to Paddy, except he prefers vulgar low end german cars and crappy 'resorts' in spain.

Ireland can't do capitalism without the deadly combination of incompetence mixed with corruption, never mind communism.

Decent Skin

failinis wrote: »

"Some of it didn't work out."

Can anyone give a solid example of a large enough country that it did work fine with no detriment to the majority of the population?

Capitalism didn't exactly work out "with no detriment to the majority of the population" either.

That said, that's the version that we are stuck with; a pure version with no corruption may actually work; but that's my point, as a non-corrupt version of socialism or communism may have been better than the version we got of that too.

BuilderPlumber

A true communist country did not ever exist. Those calling themselves communist countries were ones lead by greedy and tyrannical despots for the most part who had much more in common with extreme capitalism and even monarchy. Let's take 10 examples:

Stalin (USSR): The Red Tsar. His control of the USSR was absolute and his personality cult was massive. He fought off his enemy Hitler and conquered half of Europe. Communist? No. More monarchist/imperialist. He also supported his pals and looked after those who followed him while he brutally suppressed others. On the postive, he made USSR a superpower. USSR was probably a passable place to live in its later years and was no better or no worse than anywhere in Europe early on especially with the wars.

Mao (China): Mao's early years leader the PRC was all about suppression and setting up a Stalin like cult. He fell out with the USSR and then set China on a kind of friendship with the US in later years. He also initiated China's massive capitalist industry. Communist? More the founder of Chinese capitalism. China is generally an ok place to live now but one has to accept it is a one party state that does not tolerate deviation from it.

Ceaucescu (Romania): Stalin and Mao had their good legacies but this man has not had any at least by the end of his tenure. He came to power replacing his boring and drab predecessor. Arguably he started off good and was moderate but then changed and started banning what people did in their private lives. He even crowned himself! Horrible place by the 1980s.

The Kims (North Korea): greedy, monarch-like dynasty who mix old-school Japanese emperor god worship with Stalinism. Poor, drab and unequal outside of Pyongyang which is the elitist place. Unless you are a Kim or a close ally, not a nice place.

Ali Khamenei (Iran): The Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted so-called Islamic Socialism. The 1980s were hell with war and instability everywhere. The 1990s to date have shown signs of improvements and a battle between 'Islamic socialism' and 'Islamic capitalism' develop. Its repressive statuses have changed over the years and though its leader prides himself as a friend of the poor, the rich in Iran continue to live lives much like we do and get away with not observing the more repressive rules while the poor do not. If you are from the Middle East at present, a very nice place to be.

Vietnam: Has gone through hell and back. Today, it remain poor but peaceful and is an ok place to live relatively speaking.

Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge destroyed this country in a way only ISIS and Taliban did later on to other places. Their legacy was the worst ever in terms of communism and were to that what ISIS are to Islam. Definitely not a nice place to be.

Castros (Cuba): Cuba has a lot of good points and though poor and not perfect, reports indicate it is much better than a lot of its neighbours who are officially capitalist.

Tito (Yugoslavia): now, here is one's poster pin up for communism. When Yugoslavia was communist, it was lead by Tito a tough but moderate and progressive veteran of the war against the Nazis. He kept racial tensions under control and opened up his country to tourism. Unfortunately, Milosevic and co would destroy all he achieved.

Maguined

Decent Skin wrote: »

Capitalism didn't exactly work out "with no detriment to the majority of the population" either.

That said, that's the version that we are stuck with; a pure version with no corruption may actually work; but that's my point, as a non-corrupt version of socialism or communism may have been better than the version we got of that too.

Is an uncorrupted version of either not an unrealistic dream though? Humans like every animal has flaws are we are not perfect angels so any system will have certain levels of corruption. If true communism can only exist when humanity is perfect and uncorruptable would such a perfect and uncorruptable humanity even need communism then?

The real questions is taking corruption as a given which is more likely to help/hurt the average citizen of a country? Even the corrupted capitalism we have seems to provide a better life for it's citizens than corrupt communism ever has. Capitalism at it's core provides more opportunity and freedom than communism does which makes it far superior in my humble opinion.

Decent Skin

Maguined wrote: »

Is an uncorrupted version of either not an unrealistic dream though? Humans like every animal has flaws are we are not perfect angels so any system will have certain levels of corruption. If true communism can only exist when humanity is perfect and uncorruptable would such a perfect and uncorruptable humanity even need communism then?

The real questions is taking corruption as a given which is more likely to help/hurt the average citizen of a country? Even the corrupted capitalism we have seems to provide a better life for it's citizens than corrupt communism ever has. Capitalism at it's core provides more opportunity and freedom than communism does which makes it far superior in my humble opinion.

Corruption shouldn't be a given. I know that's idealistic but it's a belief of mine reinforced by the fact that the establishment condones and rewards it.

More was achieved working together than individually, and if the focus on everything wasn't money we'd be far better off.

josip

To me Jugoslavia seems to have been a communist party applying a more socialist than communist system.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

In primitive communism, there were no markets, everyone hunted and gathered. They didn't trade much because everything was collectivized. It's not that trade must be the way we allocate resources, its just that it's efficient compared to primitive communism because there was no good way of planning, no technology, and no specialization during that time due to low developed means of production, and everyone had to get food all day otherwise people would starve.

Dunno how I missed this, though have read similar before. Sadly it's almost entirely incorrect.

1) Long term planning. Humans have being planning ahead for a very very long time even before we came along. A species doesn't survive successive ice ages for hundreds of thousands of years by leaving things to chance.

2) The idea of "No technology" is just too silly to even debate TBH. Neandertals were manufacturing complex glues in anaerobic furnaces 80,000 years ago

3) No specialisation. One of the "killer apps" of modern humans was specialisation(inc along gender lines). For example carving mammoth ivory into religious figurines, spear throwers etc takes a gargantuan amount of man hours using flint tools. There were clearly specialists who were tasked with this work. Ditto for painters(most of the large scale cave painting galleries show only a few hands at work). Production of tools seems to have undergone a revolution in specialisation too.

4) Working all day for food. Nope. Hunter gatherers actually spend fewer hours working to source food than the farmers that followed them, or indeed the office worker of today.

5) Trade among early modern pre farming humans was massive. Goods and materials can be found many hundreds even thousands of miles away from source because of trade. By the time of the neolithic Europe had a trading network running from the West of Ireland to the Baltic and beyond.

Maguined

Decent Skin wrote: »

Corruption shouldn't be a given. I know that's idealistic but it's a belief of mine reinforced by the fact that the establishment condones and rewards it.

More was achieved working together than individually, and if the focus on everything wasn't money we'd be far better off.

Capitalism encourages people to work together. Two people wanting to trade have to agree to a deal that both sides are content with. Communism you don't get a say in that deal, you take what they offer you or you leave the country. There is more altruism in two people agreeing a deal together in trade than in communism taking what you produce and giving you what the state believes is fair not what you think is fair.

Decent Skin

Maguined wrote: »

Capitalism encourages people to work together. Two people wanting to trade have to agree to a deal that both sides are content with. Communism you don't get a say in that deal, you take what they offer you or you leave the country. There is more altruism in two people agreeing a deal together in trade than in communism taking what you produce and giving you what the state believes is fair not what you think is fair.

If that's what capitalism is, then what would you describe what we have at present ? Between people profiteering to the point where they couldn't care less about society or ethics, society bailing out banks and gamblers, and people who have had multiple bankrupt companies running for US President, declaring themselves "successful businessmen" ?

Ronald Wilson Reagan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA

Maguined

Decent Skin wrote: »

If that's what capitalism is, then what would you describe what we have at present ? Between people profiteering to the point where they couldn't care less about society or ethics, society bailing out banks and gamblers, and people who have had multiple bankrupt companies running for US President, declaring themselves "successful businessmen" ?

I would describe it as the corruption of capitalism causing less suffering than the corruption of communism has caused.

I cannot think of a single country that I would want to live in that does not operate under capitalism.

Dyr

dresden8 wrote: »

I visited the DDR museum in Berlin.

The typical communist apartment was larger than free market Dublin c. 1947 to c. 2016.

I wanted to visit it but the queues were out the doorand up the street plus it was pissing rain

Maybe that was part of the experience

I imagined if you got in half the displays would be empty

Dyr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So communism has it's good points is what you're saying?

Giacomo McGubbin

Bambi wrote: »

So communism has it's good points is what you're saying?

I think what he means is pretending to be a Oligarc on social media (while spending the day on line in your council house wearing a tracksuit) will get you carted away more quickly than actually being one.

BalcombeSt4

You also have to remember that places like Indochina, Russia, Cuba etc...were dirt poor countries before their revolutions turning them into Marxist-Leninist states and wealth & power was concentrated in the hands of a small few, (Tsar in Russia, French in Vietnam, Batista in Cuba) and the majority of the population had no rights or freedoms anyway, so a steady & healthy lifestyle with guarnteed work, without the need to worry too much was a huge step up for the vast majority of people in these countries and communism was seen as a morale and progressive force.
If Marx was around in the 1700's France probably would have created the first "communist" state.

Wigglepuppy

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You also have to remember that places like Indochina, Russia, Cuba etc...were dirt poor countries before their revolutions turning them into Marxist-Leninist states and wealth & power was concentrated in the hands of a small few, (Tsar in Russia, French in Vietnam, Batista in Cuba) and the majority of the population had no rights or freedoms anyway, so a steady & healthy lifestyle with guarnteed work, without the need to worry too much was a huge step up for the vast majority of people in these countries and communism was seen as a morale and progressive force.
If Marx was around in the 1700's France probably would have created the first "communist" state.

Easily malleable also, no problem making them hate the evil bourgeoisie.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

It's a behaviour that has been with since hunter gatherer times. There's plenty of evidence that early humans trading extensively, it's likely why two groups of humans could meet and get along when two groups of neanderthals would start killing each other on sight. A human might be able to meet his needs with what he can find but through trade he can trade what he has for high quality supplies and have access to resources throughout a vast area. We trade everything from items, to technology, to culture, always have and always will. It's part of our nature.

It's likely how domestic animals like cattle and sheep ended up in Ireland 8000 years ago when they're in fact native to the middle east, along with crops like wheat. They had to get here somehow and there's no evidence that Irish people went on a conquest across Europe and took all these things home. It's not enough to say they stole them either, there would have had to have been some education involved which shows cultural ties.

In primitive communism (hunter gatherer times), there was little trade within each society because the way resources were allocated was collective. Between tribes, there could be trade since they were not part of the same society, and the other tribes would have things they could not produce themselves. There was a lot of trade considering the length of this period of history.

In a developed global communist society, there is no need to trade in the traditional sense between regions. There is a need to allocate resources from region to region. What you're describing is the past when we obviously traded, trade is more efficient than planning (or the way Robin Cox described) WITHOUT technology. However, humans only really traded in primitive communism because there wasn't 1 society, but many which could produce a few different things. They did not need to trade most things within the society, just as we wouldn't either, since resources are allocated differently. Again, people can trade personal items, most resources would be allocated by the system I described long ago.

Humans do not need to trade, they need to allocate resources, trade is just much easier when there is little technology. Collectivized allocations only work in either low tech small groups, or on a larger scale with mass amounts of technology. We have the technology. I'm not saying no one is going to trade certain items, which IS PERFECTLY FINE within a communist society, but most peoples needs are met by the way resources are allocated. People throughout history TRADE TO MEET THEIR (personal and societal) NEEDS, not to trade stuff they can already get/have. Just as with primitive communism, people will trade items that their society can't produce, the difference is that the whole world will be the society and all resources are allocated in that global society, so the trading will happen at a personal level with personal and rare items, rather than societal/market trading.

Aongus Von Bismarck

During my time in Trinity I got to know a few self-identifying communists and far-left socialists. Most of them were well-meaning, if slightly naïve sorts. There were a number of attributes that seemed to be common amongst them all.

1) Terrible dress sense – lots of wool jumpers, Che Guevara t-shirts, runners about to fall apart.

2) A love of smoking weed, talking about weed, discussing the legalisation of weed.

3) Wouldn’t be in danger of troubling the examination board when it came to deciding if a first should be awarded.

4) Loved a good split or feud – the trots hated the socialist party, who hated the communist party. They all hated the anarchists, but the anarchists didn’t care.

It’s something I presume they grew out of as they secured regular employment of some sort. Even though I did see one of them had run as a candidate for the AAA-PBP alliance in the last election. Didn’t get elected of course, but still had the wool jumper, Lenin style wool jumper, tired rhetoric, and that angry look in his small beady eyes.

BalcombeSt4

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

A true communist country did not ever exist. Those calling themselves communist countries were ones lead by greedy and tyrannical despots for the most part who had much more in common with extreme capitalism and even monarchy. Let's take 10 examples:

Stalin (USSR): The Red Tsar. His control of the USSR was absolute and his personality cult was massive. He fought off his enemy Hitler and conquered half of Europe. Communist? No. More monarchist/imperialist. He also supported his pals and looked after those who followed him while he brutally suppressed others. On the postive, he made USSR a superpower. USSR was probably a passable place to live in its later years and was no better or no worse than anywhere in Europe early on especially with the wars.

Mao (China): Mao's early years leader the PRC was all about suppression and setting up a Stalin like cult. He fell out with the USSR and then set China on a kind of friendship with the US in later years. He also initiated China's massive capitalist industry. Communist? More the founder of Chinese capitalism. China is generally an ok place to live now but one has to accept it is a one party state that does not tolerate deviation from it.

Ceaucescu (Romania): Stalin and Mao had their good legacies but this man has not had any at least by the end of his tenure. He came to power replacing his boring and drab predecessor. Arguably he started off good and was moderate but then changed and started banning what people did in their private lives. He even crowned himself! Horrible place by the 1980s.

The Kims (North Korea): greedy, monarch-like dynasty who mix old-school Japanese emperor god worship with Stalinism. Poor, drab and unequal outside of Pyongyang which is the elitist place. Unless you are a Kim or a close ally, not a nice place.

Ali Khamenei (Iran): The Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted so-called Islamic Socialism. The 1980s were hell with war and instability everywhere. The 1990s to date have shown signs of improvements and a battle between 'Islamic socialism' and 'Islamic capitalism' develop. Its repressive statuses have changed over the years and though its leader prides himself as a friend of the poor, the rich in Iran continue to live lives much like we do and get away with not observing the more repressive rules while the poor do not. If you are from the Middle East at present, a very nice place to be.

Vietnam: Has gone through hell and back. Today, it remain poor but peaceful and is an ok place to live relatively speaking.

Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge destroyed this country in a way only ISIS and Taliban did later on to other places. Their legacy was the worst ever in terms of communism and were to that what ISIS are to Islam. Definitely not a nice place to be.

Castros (Cuba): Cuba has a lot of good points and though poor and not perfect, reports indicate it is much better than a lot of its neighbours who are officially capitalist.

Tito (Yugoslavia): now, here is one's poster pin up for communism. When Yugoslavia was communist, it was lead by Tito a tough but moderate and progressive veteran of the war against the Nazis. He kept racial tensions under control and opened up his country to tourism. Unfortunately, Milosevic and co would destroy all he achieved.

Might add Allende's Chile to thhe list of more successful states, I'm not sure if they actually described themselves as socialist but they without doubt sympathised with the working & poorer classes.
Republican Spain I felt could have been something special if it wasn't for the beast Franco and his or brute generals.

Zxclnic

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

During my time in Trinity I got to know a few self-identifying communists and far-left socialists. Most of them were well-meaning, if slightly naïve sorts. There were a number of attributes that seemed to be common amongst them all.

1) Terrible dress sense – lots of wool jumpers, Che Guevara t-shirts, runners about to fall apart.

2) A love of smoking weed, talking about weed, discussing the legalisation of weed.

3) Wouldn’t be in danger of troubling the examination board when it came to deciding if a first should be awarded.

4) Loved a good split or feud – the trots hated the socialist party, who hated the communist party. They all hated the anarchists, but the anarchists didn’t care.

It’s something I presume they grew out of as they secured regular employment of some sort. Even though I did see one of them had run as a candidate for the AAA-PBP alliance in the last election. Didn’t get elected of course, but still had the wool jumper, Lenin style wool jumper, tired rhetoric, and that angry look in his small beady eyes.

I've never met a 'trot' who hated the Socialist Party.
Are you sure you're not making this up.... either that or you're just regurgitating a few half-remembered student comedy sketches heavily influenced by Monty Python, but lacking, what's the word I'm looking for... humour.
Perhaps you weren't a complete stranger to the weed yourself.....
.....just guessing.;)

I am not volunteering to live in a communist country but it is FAR too simplistic to simply say "it doesn't work".

If you look at data such as life expectancy, it appears that socialism (or nominal socialism at least) does a rather good job at keeping people alive and healthy. Cuba STILL has health metrics comparable to the US and compares well to the rest of the Caribbean despite years of blockade. Russian life expectancy is only now - 30 years later - increasing above levels from the mid 1980s. Post revolutionary China witnessed an absolutely extraordinary period of population and life expectancy growth.

So when it comes to enabling citizens to life longer and healthier lives, maybe it (whatever 'it' is) wasn't all bad.

BTW it's worth noting that a lot of the benefits that we associate with 'social democracy' were directly influenced by the need to 'compete' with socialist governments and demonstrate that capitalism benefitted all. As socialism dies, those benefits are coming under attack. To go back to the original point, if you are giving me a choice between 1920s Cuba and 1960s Cuba I'll take the latter.

beach_walker

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not volunteering to live in a communist country but it is FAR too simplistic to simply say "it doesn't work".

I think it's a perfectly fair thing to say tbh. A century of various forms of it being applied/tried, the backing and resources of so much capital ( :pac: ) behind these movements for decades, numerous different schools and theories of it pumped out continually. And yet it has always led to disaster and/or the people overthrowing it.

Sometimes we just need to take a step back and accept that something is wrong and doesn't work. The working classes of both sides didn't merge and overthrow the rulers in WW1, the Soviet Union did not consign the West to the dustbin of history, capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than could ever have been dreamed about by Marx, the revolution is not coming. There's a fatal misunderstanding of humanity as the heart of the theory of communism, its supporters are far too deep into naval gazing/infighting and experimentally it's been shown again and again to be an utter failure.

I'm amazed at the persistence of it though. I think it's insanity for someone in modern day Ireland to be harking to this ideology.

To go back to the original point, if you are giving me a choice between 1920s Cuba and 1960s Cuba I'll take the latter.

I don't know of any country which I'd take a 1920s version of over a more modern one (wars etc excluded).

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

In primitive communism (hunter gatherer times), there was little trade within each society because the way resources were allocated was collective. Between tribes, there could be trade since they were not part of the same society, and the other tribes would have things they could not produce themselves. There was a lot of trade considering the length of this period of history.

I would be surprised that we could say there was no trade within a social group. There could have been trade on simple things like job allocation.

Tom: You go get the water and I'll go get the firewood,
Jerry: but it's your turn to get the water, i hate getting the water.
Tom: Fine if you get the water this time I'll give you this necklace. I know you like this necklace, it's the only one with blue in it for miles.

In a developed global communist society, there is no need to trade in the traditional sense between regions.

But my point is need has little to do with it. People will want to trade, their default reaction to so many things will be to trade, even politics is often at it's heart just trade negotiations. Why fight that urge? As long as we can have fair trade and make the bottom rung of society one that provides the basics of modern society I don't see why we shouldn't allow some form of trade. The problems with capitalism are often at the extreme ends, absolute poverty and obscene wealth. The other problem is seeing capitalism as anything more than a basic rule that requires the likes of socialism to make the actual rules of a capitalist market. Capitalism is crude and basic, it's as generic a word as "weather".

They did not need to trade most things within the society, just as we wouldn't either, since resources are allocated differently. Again, people can trade personal items, most resources would be allocated by the system I described long ago.

Farming brought in specialisation. So we had artists, priests, clothes makers, etc..This made trade even more likely than before. A craftsman needs a patron, someone needs to take care of them while they work. This is instantly a trade off, I'll sit here making statues, you go make me diner. any ancient culture that created currency (which was many) did so to trade amongst themselves, their coins were worthless outside their own community. Until empires came along.

Humans do not need to trade, they need to allocate resources, trade is just much easier when there is little technology.

That just doesn't make sense to me. Technology often encourages trade, because you've just invented something that other people want.


I think capitalism's biggest threat will come once humanity moves into space. Capitalism has always been preferable when resources are rare, but in space everything is abundant. Mining one asteroid could potentially double the available gold for example, devaluing that element to the point it's not worth mining. Future manufacturing techniques could allow technology to be created automatically and almost instantly, meaning most small communities can manufacture whatever they need, without investing in large scale production facilities.

We're not there yet though, we still need capitalism. I think companies can see they're walking straight towards their own oblivion and are in no rush to get there, but the technology is making it inevitable.

animaal

I think the push to be be seen as more successful than one's neighbours is inate in humans - although it's exhibited differenly between the "top 1%" and the "most vulnerable". It's not necessarily everyone, but enough to see the pattern. The fact that something is scarce/expensive is enough in itself to make it desirable to many people. Why else would there be a market for diamond jewellery? Or premium cars? or <insert chav-tastic brand here>-branded sportswear?

As long as people are people, they won't be satisfied with "from each according to his ability. To each according to his needs". Although there would be something to be said for both ends of society being reminded that entitlements come with responsibilities.

And I'm sure it's already been said somewhere in this thread, but the talk of "real" communism never having been tried before sounds very like an informal fallacy.

BalcombeSt4

animaal wrote: »

I think the push to be be seen as more successful than one's neighbours is inate in humans - although it's exhibited differenly between the "top 1%" and the "most vulnerable". It's not necessarily everyone, but enough to see the pattern. The fact that something is scarce/expensive is enough in itself to make it desirable to many people. Why else would there be a market for diamond jewellery? Or premium cars? or <insert chav-tastic brand here>-branded sportswear?

As long as people are people, they won't be satisfied with "from each according to his ability. To each according to his needs". Although there would be something to be said for both ends of society being reminded that entitlements come with responsibilities.

And I'm sure it's already been said somewhere in this thread, but the talk of "real" communism never having been tried before sounds very like an informal fallacy.

Maybe not with people who can afford expensive products but I think poorer classes would be happy with it.

I'm sure the working classes in Irelland during the famine in the hardest hit places would have been much happier with a socialist system knowing they would get a meal & a roof over their heads instead of working in a unregulated market system earning just enough to have a half decent coffin to bury their starving kids in and sometimes not even enough.

This why poor people in Venezuela & Bolivia loved Chavez & Morales and why the rich hated them.

ScumLord

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Maybe not with people who can afford expensive products but I think poorer classes would be happy with it.

It seems poor people would rather run the risk of being eternally poor if it means there's the slightest possibility tohey could be rich.

I'm sure the working classes in Irelland during the famine in the hardest hit places would have been much happier with a socialist system knowing they would get a meal & a roof over their heads instead of working in a unregulated market system earning just enough to have a half decent coffin to bury their starving kids in and sometimes not even enough.

There's no guarantee in communism that's you'll get either a roof over your head or a meal. At best they can guarantee you'll get what the next guy gets which could end up being nothing.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I would be surprised that we could say there was no trade within a social group. There could have been trade on simple things like job allocation.

Tom: You go get the water and I'll go get the firewood,
Jerry: but it's your turn to get the water, i hate getting the water.
Tom: Fine if you get the water this time I'll give you this necklace. I know you like this necklace, it's the only one with blue in it for miles.

Where did you take lessons on communism? The Economist?

Assuming that you're implying that communism repudiates diversity and diverse abilities, I have to say, that's not a feature of any communist philosophy I've encountered.

Orthodox Marxism, if we can aim to define that and use it as an alias for 'mainstream communism' is entirely compatible with the theory that human beings are naturally suited to different vocational roles. That basic realisation underpins production in every society, communist or otherwise.

uck51js9zml2yt

My wife and her family lived in a communist country.
You don't want to have lived in one!