Can Communism work? Well, before I give my opinion on that, I'm going to lay down some assumptions about what we're arguing:

-A "working" government will be assumed as a progressive one that meets the needs of its people. I'm talking about measurable gains such as GDP, Life Expectancy, Infant Mortality, etc.

-I want to talk about the way Communism is supposed to be, I will completely ignore the inherent deficiencies of large-scale centralization as well as a totalitarian or corrupt state

-The fundamental goal of Communism is to mobilize all available resources under the state equally among its citizens. To help achieve this classless society, a Communism is both secular and anti-individualistic. Idleness is shunned as there is always work to be done (and theoretically no non-state programs to entertain oneself with)

End of Assumptions.

I do not consider Communism as a workable government or an alternative to democratic capitalism. A communist state could only ever last until it provided its population with the equal necessities it promises-- there after it would inevitably stagnate into modified Agrarianism.

At its birth, a Communism mobilizes to provide the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter to its people. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao and tried to reorganize the means of production in such a manner. The ideal communist state would achieve this by efficiently organizing the labor force to gather enough resources to produce food, clothing, and shelter for everyone. This would be the entire occupation of the state until the entire population had identical meals and lodgings. Until that is achieved, no one in the population would acquire or produce anything not available to the masses.
Now fast forward to a time when the "market" for these goods becomes saturated. As we're assuming an efficient central government, everyone in the populace would have a home, food, and clothing. Where does this aimless workforce turn itself next? I can see only 3 possibilities:

1. The 'market' for necessities never saturates;

2. The workforce commits itself to the creation of weaponry;

3. The workforce attempts to move into the production of consumer goods;

Number 1 is not a workable alternative to democratic capitalism. In order to keep the workforce producing (refer to the last assumption), one of two things must happen. The workforce must slow the speed of production so as to not out-pace population growth or population growth must occur at a greater speed than production of houses etc. In the former, the state would be purposefully wasting resources rather than deploying them to the private sector and the latter creates a bacteria-like society with no purpose other than expanding the population to meet the needs of the expanding population.

Number 2 is quickly nullified when the question is raised as to the purpose of these weapons. If there is an external threat to the nation, then communism indeed becomes a theoretical equal to capitalism during warfare. However, that cannot be the eternal occupation of the workforce unless the state finds an endless source of warfare. As the purpose of a communist state is not to wage war until there are no wars left to wage, this is not a workable form of communism as it has passed into the realm of Fascism which requires the state to designate a threat.

The overbearing flaws in the previous two options to the aimless workforce is that production is either wasted or directed at a cause other than the equal production for its citizens (both generate an aggressively expansionist society). So now why can't 3 work? Why can't the workforce simply move into creating "consumer" goods for the masses?

This is an impossibility because there is no way for the state to determine which goods it should produce. Widgets and gadgets are worthless because there is no sport or artwork or leisure to apply them to. The state cannot beautify the necessities as then they become objects of wealth rather than function. They personify something outside of the state such as culture, nature, or religion. What art would the state endorse? The only ideologically sound painting would be of the system: effectively an endless supply of communist paintings of painting communists. Thus, the creation of consumer goods is impossible because there is no way for a true communist state to direct the creation of consumer goods in the absence of a non-labor culture.

The only path available is modified Agrarianism. The lack of endorsable culture would leave the aimless workforce with nothing to do but produce food, clothing, shelter, and medicine (if it were possible to manufacture for the entire population). There is no need for trade, culture, synthesis, or life outside of the soil. To me, this is the exact image of tribal men or feudal peasants except without religion or entertainment to occupy them once the harvest is got. In short, Communism is not a workable alternative to Capitalism as in order to progress it much defy its very principles against individualism or militarism.

__________________
Educating the world, one blogger at a time.