It’s not the politically correct thing to say, but Jamaica did attempt to become a communist country in the 70s. There are a number of reasons why we don’t like saying it. First of all, it belittles the Michael Manley legend. This is simply not encouraged anymore. Which is quite ironic because I lived through a time where the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was said to mean “It’s Manley’s Fault”.

I guess because we have all benefited so much from programmes he started, particularly the National Housing Trust, that it seems a bit ungrateful to remember things that soil his larger image.

Secondly, it was such a divided era, particularly because of the communist agenda, that we learnt the habit of ‘shutting our mouths’, a habit that is restricted to discussing Jamaica’s attempt at communism. So we tried it. It didn’t get off the ground because of the stern opposition to it that led to a civil war. But could it have worked, if not for the pushback? Could it work now? Let’s discuss.

We have some elements of that era that replicates communism. However, these elements also exist in non-communist countries. This includes, but is not limited to, free education and free healthcare. For 17 years we even had a Remand Act that is a feature of most communist countries. What we don’t have, didn’t have, and don’t want is collective ownership. This basically means that everything material is owned by the State and we share in it.

Then there is the absence of big business, replaced by State ownership of large enterprises. We don’t want that either. Remember the Spring Plains disaster?

So we have a form of socialism that to some degree is left over from communism in the 70s, but also aspects of it that come from an earlier era.

Don’t confuse socialism with communism. They are different animals. Most socialist countries in the world have the strongest democratic systems. Take a good strong look at the Scandinavian countries. Could we, though, embrace collective ownership? Could we replace large privately owned industry with State ownership? Not a chance!

We are too selfish for collective ownership. We are also too ambitious for that. We want to own our own home, we want to own our own car, we want to own an investment home, and when all that is achieved, we start buying houses to leave for our children.

Does that make us ambitious or selfish? Do we even think that there is a possibility that everyone could own a home if everyone had one? Would we endorse a system where government issues everyone a home? We likely wouldn’t!

Most importantly, would we agree on a one-party system of government? That part, I don’t see Jamaicans ever agreeing to. We love our politics. I don’t even think we love our political parties anymore. That die-hard political mindset has been stamped out. But we sure enjoy getting rid of governments.

In the last election, the Jamaica Labour Party was able to boast that it had reduced crime to the lowest level in 30 years, and had brought unemployment down to the lowest point since World War II, and it barely won the election.

It’s not about issues. It’s always about a desire to “fire”, a strength in knowing that we can kick out a government. This, I think, is the primary reason, along with the desire for personal development versus group development, why communism could not work here.

How then does it work in other countries? What makes us different? Well, very few countries have the old model of communism now. The most successful communist states economically usually have reintroduced big business, China being the most notable. Vietnam is another communist country that has embraced industry over politics. Although both have maintained one-party systems, and those “Remand Acts”, there is a definitive stability with one-party states that is lacking in democratic environments.

Look at the United States and its diplomatic culture from 2008 to what it is now! It is on opposite sides of the continuum. Countries that have suffered from civil war, totalitarianism, and colonialism have a greater likelihood of success at maintaining a one-party state, Vietnam again being a good example.

Then there is Laos, which is still communist. I guess we didn’t suffer enough! By comparison, two million people perished in the Vietnamese civil war in my lifetime.

Russia, the grandfather of communism, is not a typical communist country anymore. It, however, maintains the one-party State and the Remand Act despite what it is saying to the contrary.

I rather like what we do; we pick out the parts we like. For example, free health and education up to a certain point, and throw away the parts we don’t like, such as the one-party system and the totalitarian aspects of it, like the Remand Act, etc. Truth be told, this is the best way to do it.

There are elements in every system that we can draw good stuff from; except fascism. Socialism and social responsibility are important in every country because it is what makes the system fair. Everybody contributes in some way, shape, or form because of consumption taxes. So everyone should benefit.

Large industry is necessary. Government is inefficient at large industry management, so private ownership of this is important.

True democracy, although an incredibly inviting concept, is a fairytale. This is not because of corruption, but rather because of the machination required to run a political campaign and the subsequent cost.

The farce of it is necessary though. We have to believe that power rests with us. So communism in the form that it is intended — and that would have been the system that would have been implemented — would never have worked here.

We built our own system, and it is indeed working. It just needs tweaking now and again.