Pro communist people, how would you make communism work?

Jun 2017
I'm not pro Communist but the paradox with Communism has been needing an industrial capitalist society(or means of production for workers to seize). Every country that has went Communist has been agrarian and has been missing this step because at the end of the day no revolutionary is going to say "you know I'm going to abandon my rebellion and get killed because I don't think a book says this situation is ideal", no instead the solution has been to improvise. This improvisation has been what has led to the most deaths attributed to Communism, central planning trying to induce industrialization. Problem is people in industrial capitalist society's have never engaged in a successful Marxist rebellion and this is the grounds on which I don't think Communism is possible in addition to the normal "people need to be different" sort of argument. But if Communism is possible, industrialization is necessary beforehand and this has been the main thing missing.

The best I'd say Communism had ever worked prior to the modern PRC and Vietnam(neither of which are Communist in much more than name) was in the early USSR under Lenin ("the NEP") and early PRC pre collectivization, but again that really isn't Communism.

Another aspect of Communism missing from all but Lenin's USSR was the idea of a borderless world, with successful Marxists trying to support rebellions overseas. This was one of the two main reasons modern day Socialists broke from Marxists along with reformism(Socialists just don't want a Marxist revolution), when non Italian Socialists supported their country's in WWI. Lenin heavily subscribed to this and part of why he took such a terrible deal with Germany is he expected to overthrow all the governments of Europe and was not a Russian nationalist. Stalin abandoned this concept for "Socialism in one country"(which combined with collectivization is Stalinism) where Communists basically acted as the government of the state they were running and looked after that countries interests first and only. After Lenin, the concept of Marxist states trying to induce world wide revolution was not really true in practice so much as the USSR trying to spread it's influence. Stalin tried to expand Communism around the world but it was more in the conventional imperialist approach, the Iron Curtain was a buffer for the USSR which was Marxist mostly because of the Soviet WWII campaign, they were not cases of Marxist workers overthrowing their government but rather conventional political intrigue. So I guess abandoning the concept of nationalism and trying to succeed on a world wide scale would be necessary for Communism to be successful but since Stalin this angle has been abandoned entirely and every "Communist" government has acted as the government of the state they rule, Lenin was the only one who was trying to oversee a worldwide revolution(Leninism).

So there you have it the stumbling blocks to Communism and what it would need to work and why it hasn't!

2)Abandoning the concept of borders and nations while promoting worldwide revolutions

An important note of agreement that I'm sad we can't reach is that Marx was a great historian. In history, traditional history is named for him as opposed to Foucaltian revisionism, we mostly share Marx's historical philosophy of people with power driving events, Marx just thought the end result of history would be everyone driving events. Based on the insane mid 19th century world he lived in, his predictions were quite reasonable, the year the Mantifesto was written 1848 was one of the most insane years in history and from a 1848 perspective, feudalism, capitalism, communism seemed like a logical progression of events. The century between the Communist Mantifesto and 1848 though was BY FAR the most difficult century to predict in history with so many drastic changes and a lot of things happened that we can have reasonably expected Marx to account for. Marx was wrong that capitalists wouldn't be able to reign in their worst impulses and keep the masses satisfied enough to not revolt because all Marx saw was monarchs just ignoring the will of the people. Marx couldn't have accounted for so many other things as well. Marx made a wrong prediction but it wasn't a bad prediction and the failure of Marxism/Marxism being negative doesn't mean Capitalism isn't bad and that remedy's shouldn't be sought just that we shouldn't keep trying a remedy that was designed to deal with the world of the mid 19th century. Marxism should exist as it does, a traditional state religion for the handful of states that have his philosophy feature prominently in their history but it is a failed ideology.
Last edited:
Jun 2016
The biggest mistake is the belief that Communism must be made. The Communists gather and decide: "People, let us make something good, for example Communism" - this is think the most of people think about Communism. In reality there happens a crisis from time to time. The capitalists try to solve it by usual capitalist way - through bloodshed. As alternative there come socialist parties, socialist and communist leader and solve or try to solve the problem through socialist methods: people's democracy and state regulated economy. Nobody wants the war and bloodshed, but usually capitalists don't like the same idea of socialism and attack the socialist country as they can. USSR was attacked by dozens of countries. Today's socialist countries may consider themselves happy, only weakest of them are attacked directly. But all of them must stand putches .
Jul 2010
There has never been a true Marxist state. Communism does not work because it has always been perverted by a corrupt dictatorship. The true ideals of Marx have never been followed. Most people who try for explaining communism as Marxism use some kind of straw man for the obvious problems of Bolshevism without accounting for the fact that its Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism and this has exactly nothing to do with the theories of Marx. The only way Marx's theories have been used in any sense are for a poor excuse to create an uprising which almost always inherently ends in a traditional dictatorship.

All of the above has absolutely nothing to do with Marx. It has everything to do with fascist dictatorships though. Marx spent a significant amount of his time actually studying capitalism. Very little of his time was actually spent on understanding the material workngs of socialism, or any other form of ism. He spent two and a half volumes detailing the functions of and problems that occur in Capitalism. Karl Marx spent precious little space actually explaining how ANY form of Socialism was supposed to work, he spent even less time explaining anything to do with Communism.

Marx is nothing more than a scapegoat used to explain brutal Bolshevik dictatorships. Karl Marx's actual plan is for an uprising and then for the proletariat to take over the furnishings of capitalism in a more just way for the people. That is the basis point of all forms of socialism, but Marx never fully expanded on how the socialized state should function and most of Europe, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc have been left to furnish in all the missing parts of socialized states.
Last edited:
Jul 2010
The answer to your case is while the book of Marx has been made infamous (mostly due to the Bolshevik scare) "Marxism" in that sense has never existed. In practice there is almost nothing in that book that will help a person build a state, the concept is a populist uprising which is easily entertaining for people who have suffered through the failings of capitalism.

The more popular answer that has now pervaded the vast majority of the world is socialism and socialized services which already works in practice. The only reason anyone here would think otherwise is that this forum is American centric. So, this site deals with all the natural state biases of the United States towards anything with the word Social in it because of our favourite senator Joseph McCarthy.
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions