Why a Communist Might Defend the Communist System: An Exploration of Its Appearances and Realities

One of the primary reasons why a communist might defend the communist system is its appearance of fairness and lack of incentive-driven work culture. In communist systems, there is an excuse to turn bludging into a career path. Imagine working in a state-owned factory, where showing up daily with your peer Viktor to meet a monthly quota is enough to avoid any scrutiny or performance indicators (KPIs). This contrasts sharply with the capitalist system, where growth and innovation are highly prized, often leading to pressure and competition.

The Lack of Incentive and Equality

Without KPIs, there is a reduced pressure to excel or innovate. Each worker is motivated by survival rather than personal advancement. This absence of growth and competition can make working conditions less stressful and less likely to agitate. Additionally, the communist system often eradicates the feeling of inequality. Friday nights at the pub might find everyone in the same 'leaky boat'—a phrase that implies shared hardships and no pronounced differences in status.

Cradle to Grave Care and Community

Communism often promises a 'cradle to grave' social security net, providing care and support to citizens. This includes housing in public apartments, where the government promises a standardized living space—akin to a 3x4 shoe box in a large grey block of flats. There may even be a sense of community within these blocks of flats, where people share common spaces and support one another. This shared responsibility for one's fellow citizens can cultivate a sense of togetherness and mutual support.

The Price of Compliance and Lack of Freedom

However, while this system provides a safety net, it often comes at the cost of freedom and individual expression. Any hint of dissent against the ruling elite can lead to severe repercussions. This compliance-driven system can suppress individual opinions and inquisitions, leading to a lack of innovation and technological advancement. In a communist system, maintaining strict control over resources is crucial to continue the cycle of production and distribution. This often results in the government taking a heavy-handed role to enforce compliance and production.

Implementation Failures and Human Nature

One of the most significant issues with communism is its lack of successful implementation. The idea of eliminating power structures and creating a society without government and where resources are shared seems idealistic in theory. However, in practice, it faces numerous challenges. Imagine a scenario where medical workers and producers work tirelessly, while others benefit without contributing. While this might sound like an equitable arrangement, it is unlikely that those who produce would be content with this arrangement for long.

Government Intervention and Enforcement

Thus, even in the most ostensibly communist systems, governments often intervene to ensure production and compliance. This requires a significant level of enforcement and control, making it difficult for the system to function without some form of authoritarian control. The government becomes the fence that is too tall for anyone to see over, and dissent is met with punishment. Ultimately, the reality of communism often involves a blend of human nature, compulsion, and state intervention.

Altruism and Reality

Altruism is a noble virtue, but humans are also driven by self-interest. In the absence of a capitalist system's rewards and punishments, maintaining the necessary levels of production and distribution can be challenging. This is why most communist systems rely on some form of state intervention and enforcement. Therefore, while the promise of a fairer system is appealing, its practical implementation often falls short due to the complexities of human nature and the need for some form of governance and control.

The communist system can offer a sense of security and community, but it also comes with the cost of reduced innovation and individual freedom. The idea is appealing, but its real-world application remains a subject of debate and criticism.