It all depends on what you mean by "communism." The word's been so stretched and manipulated, it can literally mean anything from radical anarchism to jackbooted totalitarianism.
In the original formulation of communism devised by Karl Marx, it was predicted that the State would become unnecessary and wither away. I do not think that this is either possible or desirable, at least not without human psychology evolving significantly (right now we're still roughly at where we were psychologically when we were throwing sticks at mammoths). The vast majority of, if not all, humans need to be controlled.
Every form of government in existence is a form of tyranny. Monarchy/dictatorship, obviously, is tyranny - one man rules by virtue of birth/power over others. Aristocracy/oligarchy is tyranny - one group (usually a smaller, more organized one) rules over another by virtue of birth/power over other groups.
And few realize it, but democracy is also tyranny; what is democracy if not rule of the masses over the few? Some would argue that a constitution prevents democracy from becoming a tyranny of the majority - but how is this constitution written? Is it not created by one group of people (ie, the Founding Fathers) telling people what rights they have? How is this different from a dictator or ruling class granting their subjects certain rights out of goodwill? Why is it tyranny for a man to tell another what to do or believe, but not for a piece of paper (written by a man) to do so? More importantly, how is a piece of paper going to guarantee your freedom? It is no difficult matter for a government to violate a constitution or treaty - it simply needs to overpower by force their opposition, aka, tyranny. Ironically, this is made easier by apathy, which sprouts up when people feel that they are immune to politics - that is, they do not fear the growth of tyranny, because they do not believe they exist in a world of tyranny. Growing up in a system that institutionalizes rebellion in the form of elections and makes it menial, they feel like they have a form of control, and in this way, they more readily accept tyranny dictated by this method - who is more likely to rebel against his system, the man living in a democracy, or the man being oppressed by a dictator? In trying to create a system immune from tyranny, we have given tyranny its greatest mechanism ever.
Further, how is it any more rational for a large number of people to create policy than it is for a small number of people or one person to create policy? Is truth determined by popular support?
Therefore, since every form of government is in some way tyranny, and freedoms only exist because the tyrant(s) grant them to us, we should strive not to be free but to be efficient.
Hence, the State must never "wither away," as Marx described.
no...communist countries were financed by west and are a death to the people who live in them.. ive got relos who lived under both nazi and communist russian rule....same difference... yes our current system is controlled by the same families ( they make money under this system to finance opposition) but we are allowed the benefit (under ever increasing pressure as the value of ur dollar is eroded)b to at least work and survive or prosper in some deluded sense.
Communist countries weren't financed by the West... the West and the communist countries hated each other. Communist countries were generally financed by the Soviet Union. (It should be noted that the US actually tried to send money to communist countries, including the Soviet Union, after WW2, but the Soviets didn't like the idea and instead organized the Warsaw Pact to give money to nations under its influence).
