Yes, of course. Communism is always much better than theocracy.
Tell that to the people of North Korea - at least in theocracies there's less starvation. Both are horrible, but theocracy at least allows for a viable economic system in some cases.
Would you rather live in Yugoslavia under Tito, or under the Taliban?
Honestly I don't know enough about the conditions under either to make a judgement. I know that the Taliban, for instance, were oppressive in pretty much the same social sense as most communist nations - say or do anything contrary to the party line, and your ass is dead. However I do not know the economic conditions there. As far as Tito's Yugoslavia, I don't know much at all about the conditions economically or socially. Now, if you asked if I would rather live in Castro's Cuba or under the Taliban, I'd probably say Cuba - there's enough food there to prevent mass starvation because the climate is sufficient to produce enough(and Afghanistan doesn't have a great climate for food production as far as I know), though certainly they'd eat better under capitalism. And, to finish this off, of course there are varying degrees of oppression under both systems from country to country - certain theocracies are better than certain communist countries, and visa versa. I just have a view that, in general, the conditions under communism are worse(especially when it's had time to fester).
What I do know, however, is that communism has a high tendency to lead to food shortages - especially in the cities(people in rural areas can forage even if their crops are taken by the government, which is the case in North Korea right now).
Now, here's a counter question for you - would you rather live in Taliban Afghanistan, or Kim Jong-Il's North Korea?
Poll
