No Form of Government or Lack of Government is Everlasting

Would it be possible for a large communistic community to maintain itself after the proletariat revolution?

Looking back at Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, most communist states were unstable at best, largely due in part to political instability. However, even though these countries were communist states, they were premature and did not achieve the Marxist idea of a pure communist state. Therefore, their failures should not be held in bias to Marx’s argument, but only as references to failed states. I recognize that my opinions on this topic are influenced, my having been raised in a capitalistic society. However, I would nonetheless like to attempt to discuss this topic with minimal bias. Taking this into account, I postulate that fluctuations of political and economic instability make it impossible for a large-scale communist society to sustain itself over an extended period of time.

Before I begin, I would like to be rid of a certain stigma that is associated with communism. In any system of government there are always those that would take advantage of the system and undermine it to a certain degree. These individuals would affect the state to some extent but not significantly, given the fact that these persons are irregularities and therefor do not largely affect the whole. Accordingly, we will dismiss them for the sake of the argument.

If we consider a communist state formed in a time of prosperity, the likelihood of its survival becomes significantly more plausible. I say this because, as we have seen in recent history, when a communistic state is formed out of desperation or poverty it is doomed to fail. The people of the community do not truly and naturally agree with the terms of government, but are coerced through circumstance. This situation can be circumvented by the presence of a strong, central form of government, such as in the case of North Korea; however, that is no longer communism. That is a dictatorship.

However, even if it were formed on the solid foundation of prosperity, the establishment would still fail. The creation of this society would inevitably result in its regression and dissolution. Even if all citizens were to completely comply with every aspect of a purely communistic community, the economy—or lack of economy—would lead to its ruin. Due to the lack of any significant surplus value, the community would earn no profit. There would be no monetary system. There would be no excess. It would be secluded from the global sphere, stifling it not just economically but culturally as well. However, the primary problem is that there would be little to no defense against an economic downturn. When there is an overwhelming amount of poverty and unhappiness amongst the populace, it is inevitable that some great change will occur.

 Thus, everything is cyclical. The ultimate end of a proletariat revolution is not an end, but only another piece in an indeterminate cycle. I say indeterminate, because there is no guarantee that the next form of government will uphold any particular form of government. A state could completely dissolve. It could become a monarchy. It could become a republic. It could become totalitarian. It could even become some form of government that has not yet been contrived. And then at some point it might return to being a communist state. To return to my point, I would maintain that pure communism is not the ultimate end of government. Additionally, I would like to take it one step further to reason that no form of government is permanent.

What is your opinion? Do you think that a communistic form of government could last? Do you think that any form of government could last? Are we moving towards some ultimate form of government or are we simply moving?

Also, thought you guys would think this is funny, even if it is a bit off: