Is communism as bad as people say

tbf, advocates of communism are forever saying that this country or that one wasn't real communism.

And I'd agree to a certain extent, but if real communism is something that has never existed, or maybe even, can never exist beyond theory, that's a fundamental weakness right there.

And the reasons why it has never extended beyond theory need to be explored. Maybe it's wrong for a heart surgeon to feel that the years of training and importance of their job entitles them to greater earning power than say a street sweeper, but they feel that way nonetheless.

Take it up with the op.

I've yet to meet anyone from Eastern Europe who thinks Communism was anything but a disaster for them. That alone should tell you everything you know about communism and hardline socialism. Several have told me they think Irish people are absolutely insane to be seriously contemplating putting a coalition of the likes of Sinn Fein and PBP, Rise etc into power.

One lad I worked with told me he'll leave Ireland of that ever happens because he explained the thing about socialism/communism is it is like a religion. They firmly believe they have the answer to all lifes problems and know what is best for the people even when the people disagree. So once they get into power it is almost impossible to get them out because they don't believe that the people know what is best.

So Marxism/Communism while claiming to represent the people actually has at its core a very dim view of the intellectual ability of the people. Add to that an inherent paranoia also at the heart of the philosophy that all powerful evil capitalists are out to oppress and brainwash the people and cannot be trusted. That means socialism looks for traitors and enemies of the people everywhere. They use that as the excuse when democracy throws up a result at the next election that should vote them out of power. The core principles of the socialism/communism faith say that can only happen when capitalist agents have fooled the people into voting against what is best for the people. So to protect the childlike people the only answer is to remove democracy and to institute a police state to root out the enemies of the people who turned them against the true socialist faith.

So to answer your question. Communism is not as bad as many Irish people say. It is far far worse. If you ever want proof listen to what most east Europeans who grew up under communism/socialism say.

Communism, in the theoretical sense, sounds fine for the most part. Which is why it appealed to a large amount of people, especially the underprivileged and the "underclasses", in the early part of the 20th Century. It's no wonder that in the 20's and 30's, there were vast swathes of people around the world that believed it to be the way forward and embraced it wholeheartedly. On the back of the previous century and the events of the first 20 odd years of the 20th Century, a "fairer" system than anything that had come before sounded fantastic to the average person in the street.

It's also no wonder that the powerful and wealthy with Europe and elsewhere feared it so much as they had the most to lose.

However, it's not necessarily the theory that's the problem. It's who it's been practised by throughout history that's led to Communism being such a dirty word among some. Any political theory can be seized upon by nefarious entities and used to garner support and it's true that the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot used Communism (or at least their version of it) as a means to gain and retain power, which is all that they were truly interested in in the first place. And I think that it's fair to say that had, say Russia, not fallen under a Stalinst rule that it would have been a vastly different country during the 20th Century. Stalin being Stalin, of course, tended to eliminate any opposition or even perceived opposition and was pursuant to a dictatorship, using Communism as a means to appeal to the masses.

In any case, I think most people would rather marry a mix of Socialism (as opposed to Communism) with some regulated Capitalism as a preferred method of governance/economy. It's clear that unfettered Capitalism is generally a bad thing for the majority and more and more people are coming to that realisation every day. People who are ok with Capitalism, so long as they're alright Jack, when suddenly find themselves priced out of a market, start to reassess their belief in it and then develop an interest in other ways.

But I would reckon that most people would be broadly in favour of a national health service and also in favour of some sort of state welfare for citizens. I would say the most people would rather that essential services remain out of the hands of privatisation as much as possible. However, I also think that most people would like the ability to run a private business without too much state interference as well.

The issue is is that far too many people have had their ideas shaped by cheap American politics. Politics for 5 year olds that deals in binary terms. A reductionist and simplistic approach that terminates any kind of nuance or understanding and one that has a penchant for imparting information through the use of buzzwords and simple phrases. It's a Cold War 1950's "Communism" with "Reds under the bed" and "Yellow Peril" that a lot of people think of when they hear the word. Or even when they hear the word socialism.

In the end though, I don't believe that Communism, if practised to the fullest extent, could truly work, as one of the tenets of it is the abolishment of all private property, which is something that differentiates it to Socialism, that would naturally have a much broader appeal. Even to many, many, on the left of politics, the word "Communism" has them bristling with unease as they would see it as really a step too far.

I will make a simple point.

When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, which way or direction did the people flow?

Was there a rush to move into east Germany?

No, there was not.

Net outbound migration = 1.74 million people, 10% of population

There you go, the people voted, they reject communism.

Too simplistic.

I knew a number of East Germans who, while the were happy that came down and their country was unified, lamented the fact that everything that they once had cheap or for free was now prohibitively expensive, such as a university education. It's not so full on as you'd like to portray. In fact, in 2009 Der Spiegel found that a large amount of East Germans said that life under Communism was "better".

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html

However, when discussing eastern European Communism it's important to remember that none of those countries chose Communism in the first place. It was Stalinism imposed upon them after the war. The "Communism" as practised in the likes of Poland, Lithuania or East Germany for example wasn't a home grown thing. It was the result of being over run by a dictatorship who's seat of power was in Moscow.

What you've just described is Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy and it's hard to imagine too many people being completely against such a thing, although you will obviously find a few. But then, I've talked to people who believe that a national health service is one of the "worst" things they ever heard of.

As for the HSE, remember that this monster was Mary Harney's baby. Hardly the product of any kind of socialism.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

That is exactly why things like communism are fascinating for some people in the west. Mainly those who did not live a minute of their life in such system.

In fact it may be appealing to majority of the people, who would argue with notion of cheap or free housing, healthcare, education, plentiful jobs...

It also apply for the other side of the argument, majority of people on the socialist side of the fence were drawn to the west and spoils and opportunities it offered.

I would argue that it is actually hard to make a mixed model to work simply because we are unable to balance opposite extremes to function together without them trying to sway things in their favor first chance they get.

It is absolutely dishonest to claim that true communism or socialism can work and previous attempts didn't work and should be dismissed because it was not "true communism". What we had in the likes of USSR and whole eastern bloc plus some allied african regimes was absolute push to try to implement communism no matter the cost. And it failed every time precisely because this is a theory which can never function and will never work. Is our system ideal? Not even close but still better than communist alternative.

The most simple explanation is that everybody is different and what may constitute as desired or enough for one may be undesired and not enough or even oppressive to another person.

I know socialism. I grew up in pathetic attempt of equality and workers rights. It was maintained by terror, oppression and fear. And even these tragic attempts were doomed to fail simply because even in the socialist or communist system there is an elite or top 1% they just tend to hide a little more but they will be there since it is in human nature - that wanting to have more more (be it wealth, education, experience...). That is the real push forward.

Any fool who thinks they know how to make it work can go ahead and move to any of the few remaining socialist paradise country and help them to implement the "true communism" (whatever that means).

I am by no means a political expert, but I have been round a while and have given this a fair bit of thought over the years, so here's is my two cents

There's no way America could be described as a social democracy, where you can inherit millions tax free and where you must have health insurance to basically avoid being left to die!

I am not sure this is the case any longer. It certainly may have been in the days of Karl Marx, but not owning a means of production is no longer a barrier to getting rich. Many have done it with just a laptop. There is much more now than in those days. You can get yourself educated in something niche and in high demand and command a very high salary while coming from a working class background and never owning the means of production.

This brings me on to another point:

I think the main issue here is that humans are not equal. We say we are, but we are not. Some are simply better than others. This may be because they are smarter, or because they are better educated, or maybe because they simply make better decisions.

If you took €1000 and gave it to 100 random people, some of them would invest it, some of them would buy something which they could then use to make more money, some people would stick it in the bank, some people would stick it on a horse, some people would drink it the same day and go back to being poor.

Even giving everyone the same starting point, hierarchies would immediately emerge. Some people are really hard workers and some people are not. Some have a great instinct how to be entrepreneurial - those are the ones that succeed in business in capitalist societies.

If you want equity in a society of unequal people you must do it with force - you would have to crush the entrepreneurial spirit of would-be businesspeople and the work ethic of those who work hard. The hard workers would become disillusioned, the lazy would thrive.

I think myself the best system is one which gives people a good chance at improving their lot, regardless of their background, and one which ensures there's a floor of existence which might be meagre but it tolerable and has a clear route out - Scandinavian democracy is probably as close as we'll get to it.

The problem here is that Swedish people like rules, obedience and they feel a strong social obligation. Just try brining that system in in Italy and see what happens.

People are not innately selfish but they do like to live their own lives, and make decisions for themselves, make of their life what they can.

Basic human dignity, basic human rights, basic quality of life consistently fall of a cliff in Societies trying to achieve Communism.

The mentality of those who advocate for it is akin to religious fanatics. When they see their vision is failing they look for heretics.

It would but on a larger level it quickly becomes a clunkier and more brutal version of its younger brother fascism.

You can't be against one and for the other.

Most self declared Communists are middle or upper middle class, they see themselves as the potential party hierarchy, never the one equal on the factory floor but the one equal in the factory office.

But that top 1% did not get there through being idle either.

Most of the people that own the means of production own them through their own hard work, that's what separates them from the people who do not work as hard.

Sure there is nepotism, and companies are handed down through generations, but those that inherit from the previous generation are well aware of the work required to keep that company strong and grow it.

They learn and understand the work ethic required.

And those that are not will to work at it usually lose control or the companies eventually fail.

Nah. Not at all. Theres a few centre left American politicians who are very definitely not communists.

Thats not communism 🤣

Of course it's corruptible

It easy to see why

Because the system mandates that we are all the same and in reality we are not, we become corrupt to eek that extra bit out of life.

From the top party official to the mechanic they take bribes.

A Polish colleague of mine was telling me about the communist era.

He said with ever transaction a bribe was involved, if you went to the mechanic (if you were lucky to have a car) you brought a bottle of whiskey, you brought flower or chocolates to the doctors office etc etc

Listen to the Eastern Border podcast, he has a litany of great examples of how corruption and bribery were all common place in the old USSR

The greatest example of working communism in the world is the National Football League.

It's were the players (millionaires) and the owners (billionaires) share the spoils of their wealth.

Every few years they agree the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which agrees what salary caps should be, how much of the revenue the players get and how things like health and wellbeing are catered for.

There are things like minimum salaries for players given the amount of years they are in the league etc etc

Then at the owners level there is the way the revenue is shared.

The revenue generated by tickets, merchandise, etc etc from each team is pooled and distributed.

The low profile Jacksonville Jaguars get a cut of the revenue from the high profile LA Rams.

Plus the TV deals are collective also.

But it's easy for them to do all that, because they are millionaires and billionaires, just like your "one equal in the factor office" example.