Is communism as bad as people say

No.

Both Stalin and Hitler danced around each other, but neither were going to "stick by" one another. The non-aggression pact of 1939 was cynical baloney and both sides knew it. However, for Germany it severed the entente diplomacy between Russia, Britain and France and for Russia it gave them the much needed time in which to prepare for what many suspected was inevitable.

Russia had already been in a process of revamping its military as they knew that Germany (or more to the point Hitler) was interested in Lebensraum and Lebensraum meant expansion eastwards to the "breadbasket of Europe". None of that particular part of the Hitlerian future world view was lost on the Russian leadership and Hitler's previous, and numerous, verbal expansions on what he wanted in that part of the world.

In all reality, however, there was never a situation whereby Russia or Germany weren't ever going to be at loggerheads at some point. Both Stalin and Hitler were two men who were desirous of national expansion and that eventually would bring the two nations into conflict of some sort.

Well, Churchill was a man that was deeply rooted in the 19th Century, so he was a man of his time and his views often reflected that accordingly. He considered the Empire as the pinnacle and countries outside of it were either "lesser" or were its possessions. This was the common point of view among Britons irrespective of their position.

Churchill is, today, remembered by most for his time as PM during the war. But the bulk of his life is a story told elsewhere. The war merely gave him his time in the sun as it were.

But it would be somewhat unfair to pick out isolated quotes from him given at a certain time in his life and draw fixed conclusions, just as it would be for anyone whether they're in the public eye or not. Churchill's views were subject to change over his years and how he viewed things could differ greatly from time to time.

And that's just in Russia.

Add in the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Mao in China, and yeah that Auld Communism is a real winner...

You havent a clue, what about the guys crossing on boats

The problem with communism was that individual opinion or voicing individual opinions was suppressed and those who didn't agree ended up in some form of labour camp.

Also the idea of ownership didn't really exist and various freedoms like to travel was limited, even within one country. The Covid restrictions of the 5km radius in Ireland should give you some idea. And then communism was a failed economy basic food items and also spare parts for nearly everything were often limited to get or hard to come by, - also there was a strong black market economy going on.

I'd say the only good thing communism had, was affordable housing for everyone, and those who agreed with the communist system and were halfway competent found work, and often free childcare and in mathematic science they weren't bad either, but that's about as good as things would have gotten.

Remember it was communism which shot at people trying to cross the border like over the iron curtain. Or the great famine in the Ukraine caused by Russian communists to impose communism on the farming sector there. The system was anything else but humane and economically it was a total failure.

Well I'll be even ruder and say that history will trump your imagination at every turn.

You can imagine any scenario you wish, but the fact of the matter is that both Hitler and Stalin were very much in opposition by default. Hitler had spent his early political years explaining in very clear terms what his plans were for the east and none of that was lost on the Russians, Joseph Stalin included.

Each side may have played a cagey game with with another, even to a point where they included sharing information about certain things. But neither side were in any kind of kinship, that's for sure. Russia even invited a German military delegation to view some of their own equipment in the late 30's. However it was equipment that was planned to be phased out within the next three years and the actual numbers they had on hand were hidden too. So much so that when the Germans invaded in the Summer of 1941, they were surprised at just how much the Russians could call upon. They also got a kick in the arse when they came up against the likes of the T-34, of which they had no idea about. Hitler, himself, later confided to Mannerheim that Germany had grossly underestimated the Russian inventory. A rare admittance from the Fuhrer that he had, essentially, been fooled.

As for Stalin's "initial disbelief", that's more to do with the timing of Barbarossa, rather than its actuality. BTW, Barbarossa surprised pretty much everyone when it happened, but not because it happened. There was much disbelief in the States and Britain too when it happened. But it was long since understood that, at least, the Ukraine was going to be a bone of contention between the two nations at some point, irrespective of the mutually beneficial non-aggression pact signed in 1939.

As for Stalin opposing Hitler, he very much did. But actually making war on Germany was out of the question for Russia in the period in question. They just weren't in a position to do that, especially on a unilateral level. Plus, Russia had already approached the western allies during the Czech crisis about dealing with Germany and were rebuffed, because Poland wouldn't allow Russia access. So as far as they were concerned, relying on the west should they "have a go", as it were, was dodgy ground. Plus, it was no secret that in both France and Britain there were many people in power that would have had no problem with Germany and Russia knocking the crap out of each other while they stood by and Chamberlain's appeasement only served to reinforce that conception.

However, Hitler the idea of Hitler having to turn west, borne out of the very real expectation of a western European war, was very welcome to the Russians because, again, it bought them the time they needed to be able to deal with Germany should the eventual situation arise. They just didn't reckon on France falling in six weeks subsequent events being dealt with within the year.

Under the Marxist/Leninist ideal, the "state" is to eventually be done away with in a the post Capitalist society and power is to be derived by the people with representatives to administer the mechanisations of that power. Marxism doesn't really "propose" the state because, technically, Marx believed that the state was a means of oppression, he said that the state was "...nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie". His idea was that the state was a tool for the powerful to control the underclasses and it's eventual elimination was essential to the achievement of a classless country.

This is where the like of Soviet Russia, or North Korea, or China fails completely in the "Communist test". None of those countries are what Communists envision because none of those countries were ever Communist in the sense that power was being mandated by the people, which is the ultimate aim of Communists. They were all hijacked by a small group that holds power, which is the complete opposite to what Marx wrote about.

The "state" was bourgeois concept that Marx and Lenin vehemently opposed, because they believed that it was an instrument for oppression of workers. This is why Stalinist Russia is a contradiction to the general understanding of what a Communist situation is supposed to be, at least in theoretical terms.

As to the issue of "all communist countries" becoming "statist dictatorships", again I'll say one must look at who is using Communism as a means of control. Communism can be offered as a sop to the masses by entities that are demonstrably not actually Communist.

It's not a fantasy. It's a theory.

It's also a theory that has never been applied properly. Which gives credence to the argument that Communists put forth when they say that the likes of Soviet Russia wasn't "true Communism" and that "true Communism" hasn't ever really existed.

As to "how does the Marxist state wither away anyway", that (I suppose) comes about by rigorous checks and balances from the people...again, in theory. Marx's idea is that all power is constantly questioned by the people and that's where any Communist regime has failed the test, as it were. Especially in the case of Russia.

Again, I'll say, it's imperative to look at WHO is using Communism. It has always gone against the tenets of Communism itself in any example that can be cited.

As for Engels and Marx, it was Marx (at least early on) who separated the State into distinct bodies where in his ultimate vision was that the state would be eventually dissolved.

Tell that to a scientist. 😉 A fantasy is something where anything at all can happen. A theory is a set of specific circumstances. Communism is something that is possible. Yet, as I have mentioned, end game Communism is an improbability due to its insistence on the elimination of all private property, considering the constraints with which something like that faces. Yet it is not something that is a complete fantasy.

I would be of the opinion that Communism could work on a small scale. However at a larger scale, there are bound to be complications, even if the power brokers are genuine in their pursuits.

That's plain and simply wrong.

In practice so far, any attempt at Communism has failed to reproduce Marxist theory. But that can be argued that that was because of WHO was using Communism as a means to their end and not Communism in and of itself, which is where your assessment falls down. This is the same as saying that Capitalism doesn't have to end up as a boom and bust inevitability with the cronies of certain cabals and outcomes being able to weather the storm , but in the wrong hands it can. The modern implementation of Capitalism regularly gets boiled down to that, but the theoretical musings of Capitalism doesn't suggest that that is the way things are supposed to be.

All of your points above just reinforce the idea of what proponents of Communism put forth when they invoke the "real Communism" argument used in conjunction with the real life examples that can be presented.

i.e. it's failed the test. Ergo, Communism has never really existed in real world terms.

I am Gordon Gekko