COMMUNISM IS DANGEROUS

Introduction

What I express here is based on historical events, documented facts, and my own experiences from ten years within the Soviet Union. I am not attempting to define what is morally right or wrong, but rather to describe how societies and people can change direction after many years of centralized rule.

What we in the West consider self-evident truths may be perceived very differently elsewhere in the world.

The Legacy of Communist Rule

The communist doctrine, summarized in slogans such as “one country, one people, one language,” left deep marks on the behavior and mindset of millions, even decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The ideology has also influenced politicians in other countries. Communist systems have demonstrated a consistent ability to manipulate narratives, downplay failures, and justify policy outcomes. Although formal communist regimes have collapsed in many places, political movements inspired by similar ideas remain active in several countries, including Norway.

Ideology and Theory

Communism and socialism are often associated with collective ownership. Broadly defined, they encompass theories aimed at partially or completely abolishing private property and replacing democratic market systems with centralized control.

The goal has traditionally been to redistribute land and resources equally, abolish inheritance rights, implement progressive taxation, centralize production under the state, and in some interpretations, eliminate the monetary system altogether.

Such systems require a strong centralized authority to function. Historically, however, many communist states developed powerful ruling elites and concentrated economic control at the top.

Marx, Engels, and Lenin

Modern communism is rooted in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Their 1848 Communist Manifesto argued that the working class must seize control of the state and the means of production.

Marx proposed measures including expropriation of property, heavy progressive taxation, abolition of inheritance rights, confiscation of foreign capital, compulsory labor for all, merging agriculture and industry, and centralized state control of production.

Vladimir Lenin later adapted these ideas to Russian conditions. In The State and Revolution, he described the path toward what became known as the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” After the Russian Revolution, communist parties emerged across Europe, including in Norway, Bulgaria, Germany, France, and Italy.

Norway and Political Influence

Throughout the 20th century, socialist and communist ideas influenced political debate in Norway and other European countries. Some policies reflected elements of centralized planning and strong state control.

Whether these developments strengthened or weakened democracy is a matter of political interpretation. What is certain is that ideological influence crossed borders during the Cold War period.

Personal Experience from the Soviet Union

In 1988, I organized and led a group of seventeen officials from Minsk visiting Norway. It was their first time outside the USSR. All held high-ranking positions.

After several days in Norway, they struggled to interpret what they saw. The abundance of goods in shops and the absence of queues were explained, within their own framework, as evidence that Norwegians must lack money rather than evidence of economic difference.

That same year, I traveled with Norwegian journalists to Tallinn, Estonia. A Russian interpreter described the USSR as the best country in the world, emphasizing free healthcare, free housing, and social guarantees.

These experiences illustrated how ideology shapes perception. Pride, conviction, and loyalty to a system can make critical reassessment difficult.

Conclusion

History demonstrates that concentrated political power carries risks. Systems that centralize authority over property, production, and speech require strong control mechanisms. Whether labeled communism or otherwise, any ideology that suppresses pluralism and concentrates power can become destructive.

My conclusion remains clear: political systems that eliminate individual ownership and centralize authority must be approached with caution.

I welcome discussion.