Communism Is Not a Good Idea, Not Even on Paper

When one hears someone say “communism is a great concept, a wonderful idea on paper, etc,” you know right away one is dealing with a political novice. For someone to make such a ludicrous statement in light of insurmountable evidence is either ignorant or is willing to suspend reality to entertain their own thinking, which is in essence, liberalism.

Communism runs counter to everything we know about human nature. Humans cannot reach their fulfillment while existing under arbitrary restraints. Communism is indeed a concept; a concept of shared misery. Liberals only fluff up the language and call it shared sacrifice. Either way, it brings man down to a lowly state of existence by force of a badly flawed human idea and, if removed, humans will do what comes naturally. That is produce, trade, think freely, and continuously challenge their environment where innovation and abundance comes naturally.

To say communism is a great idea on paper is like an engineer who designed a bridge except once the bridge was constructed it collapsed under its own weight. The engineer would certainly not say his design was right on paper. He would have to concede that his idea was flawed from the start, both on paper and in application.

The great flaw of communism was identified in the earliest days of the communists heyday. Back in 1920, Ludwig von Mises, argued that communism calls for the abolishment of free markets and because of this, central planners would effectively be flying blind during planning production. “Every step that takes us away from private ownership of the means of production and from the use of money also takes us away from rational economics.”

Despite the accolades from liberal intellectuals, there was no abundance for all to share. Under the Soviet system, millions starved to death under communism. Planning something as multifaceted as a national economy from a central committee leaves out relative value in the factors of production. There is no guideline by which to follow because there is no consumer. Without consumer control, there can be no market. Without both, there can be no way to judge urgent needs,and, ultimately, no degree of satisfaction; only constant want is left over as a product. Therefore, the concept of availability for all is scrapped in favor of shared sacrifice, which is nothing more than to say misery for all.

Communism was a failure the moment it was hatched. It became a great misery for those forced under its sphere the moment it was put into practice.