VIVA the revolution

Communism? Has anyone ever tried to *properly* be a communist state in this game like role played the position not tried to win but be a good communist.

Its something I would love to do, however only mao has state property as his favorite civic. And my friend plays as the other Chinese leader.

These civics I find to be most communist are

Government civic
Representation/police state

Legal civic
Bureaucracy/nationhood* bit stuck on this one

Labor system
Whatever one really. Slavery but I rename it “working for the state”

Economic civic
State property (der)

Religious civic
Free religion (der)

I think I am going to start a game as Chinese with Mao Zedong since he is the only leader whose favorite civic is state property.

This is how I was thinking I would play it .Head towards communism the first great engineer I get save him for the Kremlin the Kremlin is a must have! Once I get the tech for state property unfreeze all my workers build more workers and change the majority of my towns into workshops, watermills and farms so my money will plunge however my industry should go up.

Drop my religion (If I have one)

Try and make everyone else change their civics and spread communism

Enter the space race and beat all the capitalist dogs.

Refuse to take part in the UN because it is a stupid liberal experiment started by Harry S. Truman

Occupy smaller races

Like said above has anyone tried this? I am going to try it this afternoon I will post the hilarious results later.

A state property run empire with workshops instead of cottages is great for endgame or future age games where you don't need research. Great too if you get a tech lead and can whip up massive production, and crank out nothing but troops. HOWEVER if you do build the Kremlin, rush buy costs get so cheap, it's better to keep your cottages and pay for building.

Other 'commie' civics, no comment =p

After what they did to Civ3 Conquests, I have a feeling that Firaxis is really into communism.;) Yes, State Property is really great. I like to run a Demcratic gov with State Property. With the Kremlin, I could easily pay gold to rush everything (except for the Space Ship parts, of course).

To be truly communist you should also:

1) Keep 20 years behind in tech

2) Have empty (~no) supermarkets, markets or grocers - and no luxuries

3) Gift any great people you get to the competition

4) Have no religious buildings

5) Purge your entire military in a fit of paranoia

6) ? Anyone?

Although there is no statereligion, there are most certainly religions in communism. Like the orthodox in Russia.

TEP, The Soviets were the first to send things orbiting in space if I remember correctly, and I'm sure they have some great people, they were obsessed with proving communism was better, hence the results in International games.

While western history articles do not gush with praise for the communist countries, it does not mean that they were what you make them out to be. Granted, they did not treat their people well, and I would not like to be part of that society, but please try to give fair comments

I would say you need to go with Theocracy for Reigious Civic and no state religion. They do not believe in religion and do not want it spreading in their cities.

Although there is no statereligion, there are most certainly religions in communism. Like the orthodox in Russia.

But there really isn't freedom of religion either, so would it be more appropriate to have No state religion and Paganism or Free Religion?

TEP, The Soviets were the first to send things orbiting in space if I remember correctly,

Yes they were strong in science. I think the way to properly role play that would be to centrally plan the science by having your science city consist mostly of science specialists.

In terms or religion, the communist state was against religion (the opiate of the masses) and actively tried to destroy religion. You would need to avoid religion. No state religion, perhaps adopt the civic that stops the spread of religion.

TEP, The Soviets were the first to send things orbiting in space if I remember correctly, and I'm sure they have some great people, they were obsessed with proving communism was better, hence the results in International games.

OK, so they got satellites first - they were still beaten to the Apollo program, and they ended up behind in almost every field - possibly excluding, as you point out, "sports medicine".

The part about great people was a hint to people like Solzhenitsyn who were thrown out or managed to escape to the west.

I can see my post should have had a few ;) thrown in - it was meant to be on a light note. Sorry to any commies who took offence. :mischief:

As a libertarian, I always feel dirty by running state property and building the Kremlin. If only they werent so damned over powered. How does state property have NO maintance? If anything it should be high. Like really high, to balance out how godly that civic is for a big empire. I mean, if the state owns all the land, it has to spend the money for upkeep and development right?

Well actually Free Market is better IF your cities are all well developed (Courthouse, Bank, Marketplace, Grocer, Harbors) since I believe that distance may have something to do with trade route value (so in a large empire even domestic trade routes can be valuable)

And the other bonus for State Property is really only for production oriented strategies.

The issue with State Property is that it gets better on higher difficulty levels (because on lower ones there is a discount for distance maintenance and civic upkeep)

As for building the Kremlin I figure that is not really a 'State Property' thing (after all it benefits Universal Suffrage and Slavery)

Caste system could be a fitting civic too.. From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.

You'd know best who would be better as a scientist instead of a farmer or mill worker!

I run something of a totalitarian state:

State Property+Police State+Slavery+Organized Religion

The totalitarian states of the 20th century did have organized Religion, the religion was the State, the prophet was whatever leader was in charge at the time. There is no way to do this in Civ IV so I just use Confusianism or Taoism or whatever.

I play as Japan and as a warmonger, if the game last long enough to get to this point you will dominate. Banks, grocers, and markets are the true backbone of the empire though so I guess it departs from reality.

TEP, The Soviets were the first to send things orbiting in space if I remember correctly, and I'm sure they have some great people, they were obsessed with proving communism was better, hence the results in International games.

While western history articles do not gush with praise for the communist countries, it does not mean that they were what you make them out to be. Granted, they did not treat their people well, and I would not like to be part of that society, but please try to give fair comments

the russians lost the moon race cause they've lost 100 of their leading space project scientists and engineers in an accident due to lowered safety standards.

but i don't think this has anything to do with the state policy. give a hundred brilliant brains the money, resources and microindustry level needed to realise their ideas and every nation would have "won" the space race.

some of the most brilliant mathematicans and physicist came from poland/russia though.

Although there is no statereligion, there are most certainly religions in communism. Like the orthodox in Russia.
Oh yeah. The present day communists in Russia tend to convert to Orthodox Christianity, after their leader Gennady Ziuganov. He is a devout Orthodox, goes to church and everything, no more talks about "state property" or things like that, but about "closer relationship" between church and state, in clear violation of the church-state separation principle. I won't be surprised if he becomes soon a Great Prophet. :)

As for the communism itself, it does look like a religion. Back to the Soviet times, they were talking about morality, chastity, and things like that. If you were about to choose some leading career, like Chairman or Director or a Head of Department, you had to become Communist first. They even had a sort of theology called "Scientific Communism", I used to study it being a university student. Just replace "Lord's Will" by "Historical Necessity", and you can justify the most wicked acts.

OK, so they got satellites first - they were still beaten to the Apollo program, and they ended up behind in almost every field - possibly excluding, as you point out, "sports medicine".

The part about great people was a hint to people like Solzhenitsyn who were thrown out or managed to escape to the west.

I can see my post should have had a few ;) thrown in - it was meant to be on a light note. Sorry to any commies who took offence. :mischief:



Ok, first, I wasn't talking about sports science, I was talking about Internationa games as International sports and games. The results in the 1988and 1992 olympics, some of the last before the fall of the iron curtain showed great Soviet dominance, with the USSR leading by far and East Germany doing very well.

I am not trying to say that Communism is the way to go. While they have had great results in the Olympics, I don't think that is any consolation to the starving masses who lived in fear every day. I just felt that we have to be fair, and not just make sweeping statements of the ideologies of others.

And to be honest, I'm a liberal, but comments like that will just discredit us as arrogant bigots.

This is slightly OT, but this is my view on the space race

What has always confused me about this game is that the Space race victory is based on the Apollo program. I have always held the belief that the Soviet Union comprehensively won the space race. They had the first sattelite in space(sputnik), the first living creature (a dog called Laika I think) into space, The first human into space (Yuri Gagarin), the first civilian into space, the first woman into space, the first probe on the moon, and many other achievements. The ONLY thing mentionable that they were beaten to was landing on the moon, in my opinion this does not consitute 'winning' the space race, but the USA country playing up its only considerable success in its space race period.
I also believe that Russia would have been the first on the moon too, had their lead designer not died from botched surgery, and a very large number of the leading Russia space program engineers being killed in a tragic instance when they were experimenting with a new highly volatile fuel.

Who is to say what space achievement constitues winning the space race anyway? If it is based on the largest continuing impact is has had on our lives, surely the Soviet Union is the victor, satellites have had a huge impact on our lives, what benefits has landing on the moon given us?

im not sure if you can call stalinism or maoism communism- both were evil dictators who didnt care at all for their people really, esentailly communism cant be communism unless it's popualr amongst the working classes, it is their revolution right?

look to cuba and venesuala (and now peru) for communist states in our time, its interesting how they are incredibly popular in their own lands (peru's commies actually got in democratically last year) yet they are still villfied by the usa and western media because u.s. companies make so much money exloiting latin american workers,much like in pre-castr era cuba

on civ 4, i certainy think that state property is excelent fo the warmonger and potentially any other player too because i think that if you have lots of prouduction ou can have lots of anything else, once swithching to state property you simply have to quickly build all those markets, banks, supermarkets, grocers, libraries, unis etc

As a libertarian, I always feel dirty by running state property and building the Kremlin.

You're associating "state property" with "totalitarianism". Communist states in Civ 4 are extremely idealistic; in reality, the new leader in the communist state would not be the pragmatic, omniscient, 5000 year-old world leader from the future. The leader would be a power-hungry, selfish, cruel and vicious dictator; any other leader would not come to power, because they would be killed or strong-armed out, first.

Er... sorry, assuming this communism was coming up like in the Russian revolution. I have a feeling if Americans, for some reason, generally wanted a switch to communism, the world history for that government type would be much much different and more successful.


Stalinist Communist state
Police State
Beauracracy
Emancipation (necessarily; an escape from serfdom is what led to communism)
State Property
Free Religion

Utopian Socialist State
Universal Suffrage
Free Speech
Emancipation
State Property
Free Religion

Er... sorry, assuming this communism was coming up like in the Russian revolution. I have a feeling if Americans, for some reason, generally wanted a switch to communism, the world history for that government type would be much much different and more successful.


Surely its against the Code of conduct to post racist slander such as this, you are implying that the Russians are inherently evil or something?

Sorry, but I take great offense at this post

The Stalinist Communist state had no emancipation, far from it. In fact, it was even less liberal than its predecessor, zarist regime, and more close to serfdom and even slavery.

What they did was to force peasants and free farmers to "join" their property to form "collective enterprises" (aka kolkhoz). The members of kolkhoz were not free to leave kolkhoz until 60x.

The whole GULAG thing was about to get some labor force for free. The "enemies of the people" were sent to those "labor camps" to forcibly work for minimal food and clothes, just like ancient-time slaves.

The "planned-economy" thing loses competition to highly-developed free-marked countries with well established labor market, but it is still attractive to less-developed third world countries with poor labor market.

You see, when you get the job in the US (or in other developed country, I presume), you get a decent compensation package, like medical insurance, retirement plan etc. If your employer does not offer enough, you just seek another one, which does. In less developed countries all you get is a minimal salary just enough to buy some food and other basic needs. If you refuse and try to seek another employer, you just stay unemployed, since there are no others. And there is no such thing as unemployment compensation.

In contrast, with planned economy you get a guaranteed minimal job with minimal compensation. You won't be unemployed, you won't starve. There is a law that guarantees you a minimal job and a minimal compensation, that's it.

You should not be surprised that so many countries slill like the communism, they have a good reason.

:coffee: I have yet to see a post that is discussing (in any degree really) what Marx actually had in mind. Not Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist 'forms.'

The revolution in Russia was not a communist revolution. Russia was coming out of fuedalism, and had not yet gone through the proper historical progression to reach a stage suited for a revolution of the proletariat.

The revolution in China was not a communist revolution. China was another nation Marx would have considered rather backwards. The Chinese revolution was carried out by farmers, not the proletariat.

All this talk of communism, traits of communism.... The world hasn't really seen communism. And a good deal of us, myself included, are rather undereducated when it comes to real Marxism.

Yep, I think we have been talking about evil dictatorships all this while. Marxism does not seem to have been applied very successfully in the real world. People in power tend to want to exploit it, even in Democracies.

I guess this is why capitalism works best,at least for now. The hidden hand is really powerful, and in the end, it pushes things the way they should go. It is no coincidence that the richest countries in the world have free markets, well at least relatively free.

Marx is dead long ago, you know. One can only guess what he had in mind. :)

And the talks about this or that revolution was not communist is nothing else but there is no true Scotsman.

In fact, Marx was talking about "World Revolution", while Lenin introduced the thesis about the "possibility of revolutionary victory in a single country".

Engels in his letters admitted that Russia was ready for a revolution, even agrarian, since the agrarian sector was going the capitalist way also.

Here is a quote:

Capitalistic production works its own ruin, and you may be sure it will do so in Russia too. It may, and if it lasts long enough, it will surely produce a fundamental agrarian revolution--I mean a revolution in the condition of landed property, which will ruin both the pomeshchik and the muzhik [the landlord and the peasant], and replace them by a new class of large landed proprietors drawn from the kulaki [kulaks] of the villages and the bourgeois speculators of the towns. At all events, I am sure the conservative people who have introduced capitalism into Russia, will be one day terribly astonished at the consequences of their own doings.
Source: Letter from Engels to Nikolai Danielson In St Petersburg, Sep 22, 1892
http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/works/1892/letters/92_09_22.htm

Here is another one, from 1895:
First of all I repeat to you that I am proud to know that there is a party among the youth of Russia which frankly and without ambiguity accepts the great economic and historic theories of Marx and which has decisively broken with all the anarchist and slightly Slavophil traditions of its predecessors. And Marx himself would have been equally proud of this had he lived a little longer. It is an advance which will be of great importance for the revolutionary development of Russia. To me the historic theory of Marx is the fundamental condition of all reasoned and consistent revolutionary tactics; to discover these tactics one has only to apply the theory to the economic and political conditions of the country in question.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_04_23.htm

Marx is dead long ago, you know. One can only guess what he had in mind. :)

Or one could read what Marx actually wrote. One now can gain access to much of Marx's thought, due to the fact that now not only do we have later Marx, but we have much of the young Marx's thoughts/theories as well. Thankfully, many private essays and such have been discuovered and published in numerous languages for all to read.

In fact, Marx was talking about "World Revolution"

I suppose that depends in what light one looks at the issue. Certainly, if all of the world continued its political evolution, then yes, every country would eventually go through a revolution of the proletariat to achieve human (total) emancipation. However, Marx was, arguably, really only concerned with Germany.

Engels in his letters admitted that Russia was ready for a revolution, even agrarian, since the agrarian sector was going the capitalist way also.

Ah, but Engels was not Marx. Marx and Engels, although frequent collaborators, did diverge. Marx was not concerned with Russia. It was a backwards country, still ruled by a Tzar. The revolts have to come in order. First, there had to be a revolution of the bourgeoisie, the partial (political) emancipation. Then, and only then, could the formation of the proletariat take place. Although the transitioning fuedal serfs would in some (perhaps many) ways make up this new class, they were not actually concious of themselves as the proletariat, as the breakers of chains, the emancipating class that would free all classes. There is a critical evolution that must be gone through in order for the revolution Marx was talking about to take place.

All this talk of communism, traits of communism.... The world hasn't really seen communism. And a good deal of us, myself included, are rather undereducated when it comes to real Marxism.

Actually, the world has seen real Marxism many times in the past. It just wasn't called Marxism (since Marx hadn't been born yet).

Marxism is really just a formalization of the system used by many primative hunter-gatherer societies.

And yes, I have read his writings.

Or one could read what Marx actually wrote.
Well, I did. Quite a lot.
I suppose that depends in what light one looks at the issue. Certainly, if all of the world continued its political evolution, then yes, every country would eventually go through a revolution of the proletariat to achieve human (total) emancipation. However, Marx was, arguably, really only concerned with Germany.
Yep. Every country is supposed to go through the dictatorship of the proletariat. If only it has enough proletariat, which is not the case novadays, unlike in the times of Marx.

A proletarian is somebody that has no property, but his own hands to work and get paid. Therefore, in the Communistic Revolution they have nothing to lose but their chains, and they have a world to win. (Manifesto)

Now tell me, did you see a substantial number of proletarians in the contemporary world? The people, besides a job and a salary, tend to have some real estate, shares of stock, social benefits, and many other things. They are not really interested in a Marx-style proletarian revolution, since they'd lose what they have in the process of redistribution of the property.

So, you see, the Marxist theory is not applicable to the contemporary world in its original form, and not because it is false, but because the world is now different. Most countries managed to solve the contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie without a Communistic Revolution, which was supposed to be inevitable according to Marx.

Marxism sure played a big role in this process, and still playing. However, if you try to find "one true Marxist theory", it would be as fruitless as finding "one true Christianity". There are many very different marxist groups, each one claiming that they alone understand Marx correctly, while the rest, incorrectly.

The world is yet to know the One True Marxism? Well, the world is yet to see the Second Coming.

BTW, Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. And the Teaching of Marx is omnipotent, because it is true.

That's what we were taught during the Soviet Era. :)

I wasn't really arguing the applicability of Marx to this epoch, just pointing out that what has been primarily discussed here is not Marx's thought.

Also, I don't think it's impossible to understand Marx. Marxist/Communist groups, well, they're not Marx, and in many cases they're not really even that good at interpreting Marx, or some are more interested in twisting Marx to their own ends. I do feel however, that one can read and understand Marx, and get at a 'truer' Marx, if one is willing to hold back one's biases.

Finding Marx is not has hard as riddling out Christian theology; many so-called prophets and cults amalgamated their beliefs, through discourse and war, into a religion. Marx wrote essays, and not all that long ago either; the record is more accessible in the case of Marx, and more singular if one sticks to Marx and Marx alone; not Engels, or Lenin, or any such folk.

Marxism is really just a formalization of the system used by many primative hunter-gatherer societies.

And yes, I have read his writings.

Then, whatever one might think of the resulting situation of human emancipation or parallel it to, one must admit that at least to be truely Marxist revolution, and thus bring about the resulting social order Marx was specifically speaking about, there must be a necessary evolution of the state, far beyond (beyond, in Marx's evolutionary terms)any system employed by hunter-gatherers.

Just like to point out that the popular conception of the USSR as a communist state is completely false, much like China. They are/were both authoritarian regimes that dictated vaguely socialist ideals. They were not at all an actual communist government, which is not oppressive/totalitarian. In an aside, I have to say this has been a very interesting thread to read, with many good points from all views ;)

Now, if we all already know this, then we can continue on with the jokes and whatnot about the USSR and its failings :D

As to the OP, I believe that the following civics would most accurately depict a communist nation as described by Marx.

Govt: Representation
Legal: Bureaucracy or Free Speech, depending on interpretation
Labor: Emancipation (freeing the workers from the capitalists)
Economy: State Property (duh)
Religion: Free Religion (unless the entire world had achieved a communist state, in which case pacifism)

This is based on actual marxist theory and not on what a few dictators decided to use as a defense of their authoritarian regimes.

Surely its against the Code of conduct to post racist slander such as this, you are implying that the Russians are inherently evil or something?

Sorry, but I take great offense at this post

Let me fix my post so you don't look like a moron.

Er... sorry, assuming this communism was coming up like in the Russian revolution; btw, Russians are evil and I'm a racist pig. I have a feeling if Americans, for some reason, generally wanted a switch to communism, the world history for that government type would be much much different and more successful.

If you knew a little about history, Russia was suffering from instability and unrest, which is what caused the revolution. Unfortunately, it's just this instability which allowed horrible dictators to come to power (i.e. Stalin).

If communism had, somehow, risen in a stable country (like the U.S.) then it would, I feel, have been more successful, since the government would less likely slide into dictatorship.

I had a hard time selecting emancipation for the Stalinist state. It's really only virtual emancipation; the idea is that the entire population is officially on equal footing. I understand that Stalinist CCCP was far from emancipated, but consider the alternatives...

Slavery - While this is the most realistic for gameplay purposes, there were not two "classes" which necessitate slavery (slaves/free men).

Serfdom - This is exactly the system that was abolished in the revolution.

Caste System - All people were supposedly on equal footing, so this could definitely not be a part of the doctrine.

In any case, the lack of freedom of the population, I feel, is effected by the police state civic.

TEP, The Soviets were the first to send things orbiting in space if I remember correctly


Yep, on a copy of a WWII German V2 rocket with the captured Nazi scientists supervising their space program.


You may personally like communism for various reasons, but innovation is not really its best trait.

Finding Marx is not has hard as riddling out Christian theology; many so-called prophets and cults amalgamated their beliefs, through discourse and war, into a religion. Marx wrote essays, and not all that long ago either; the record is more accessible in the case of Marx, and more singular if one sticks to Marx and Marx alone; not Engels, or Lenin, or any such folk.
You see, the ideas of Marx have a lot to do with the Utopian Socialism (which is, btw, one of the three sources for marxism). Marx could only theoretize on how to achive such a society, where everybody works at will (that is, nothing forces them to work but their own consiousness), and gets compensated according to needs (that is, receives whatever he needs). There is no currency, no state, no police, no one of so called "instruments of oppression", you work as much as you can, and receive as much as you need.

Therefore, even if you put aside all the "interpreters" like Engels, Lenin, Mao and so on (the idea is ok with me), you have yet to show how to build such a society. And once you do, you'll become another "interpreter", just like Lenin or Mao. You see what I mean?

I think I do...you are speaking of praxis, yes? Combining theory and practice?

When it comes to application, yes, I would agree that one must interpret to put into action, but just in terms of understanding theory I think reasonable, fairly unbiased conclusions can be reached; conclusions that many could agree on.

I think I do...you are speaking of praxis, yes? Combining theory and practice?
Precisely. Without a "praxis" the whole thing is nothing but a sweet dream, sort of Kingdom of God under a different name.

Stalinist Communist state
...
Emancipation (necessarily; an escape from serfdom is what led to communism)
...


Ironically, communism in turn led to serfdom.

Ok, first, I wasn't talking about sports science, I was talking about Internationa games as International sports and games. The results in the 1988and 1992 olympics, some of the last before the fall of the iron curtain showed great Soviet dominance, with the USSR leading by far and East Germany doing very well.

I think it has been reliably established that a lot of the communist regimes' Olympic results were due to heavy use of doping plus the ability of the athletes to compete as amateurs even though they were in fact doing sports full time as state employees - having other jobs, such as military officer, on paper only.

OK, so they got satellites first - they were still beaten to the Apollo program,
This is wrong.
The russians got the first man in the space, first satellite, first probe to the moon, first landing on the moon, first circling around the moon(maps&fotos), What they didnt do is to waste money on shooting a man to the moon because its nothing more than a useless rock in space. Instead, they build a space station, which provided far more info than any overhyped space rock landing. Ironically, such thing is especially useful for science projects :)

As for today I personally dont see anyone won anything. A new space station is build, mainly based on russian technology. And not a moon colony. And it is also supplied by russians ships, since US space program "Shuttle" proved itself as a little too.. breaky.

Yep, on a copy of a WWII German V2 rocket with the captured Nazi scientists supervising their space program.

This is even more a complete BS. USA captured most of the german scientists (guess who was in lead of NASA programs for many years - a german), while USSR got access to most labs, which, i admit, also had some potential even w/o ppl. The brains were russians tho :nuke:

This is even more a complete BS. USA captured most of the german scientists (guess who was in lead of NASA programs for many years - a german), while USSR got access to most labs, which, i admit, also had some potential even w/o ppl. The brains were russians tho :nuke:


Both countries used captured German scientists, the US just admitted it more. Do you think the US was the only country to capture any scientists? It was a great way to play technology catch-up in fields that we both were behind in. It was an embarassment to the Soviets that few of their own people were in the same league as the scientists from a system they claimed was inferior.

Did you expect them to brag about it? Did you expect honesty from their state-controlled media?

The Soviet space programs German roots (http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/earsiles.htm).

German rocket expert Hermann Groettrup led a team of 234 other German scientists and technicians that were captured and transfered with their families to Gordodomlya on May 22nd, 1947 to work on Soviet rockets and missles.


Russia today even admits this.

This same thing took place in many fields in both countries. Post-war Soviet submarines and aircraft both made huge technology leaps due to aid from captured German scientists.

ye well i agree, ofc both countries tried to get the most out of captured techs, including rebuilding and analysing german rocketry to base the further development on it. Would be illogical if not, thats a ->captured<- tech.

From your link, omitting the bias, it states that "By October 1951 ... work basically stopped. The last member of the group returned to Germany on 22 November 1953" which again only makes sense, where USSR got the tech(rocketry), some help to establish it, and continued to develop it on its own.

I still wonder why there is not even an option to enable tech stealing in Civ4 on base capture, with such obvious historical examples :crazyeye:

ye well i agree, ofc both countries tried to get the most out of captured techs, including rebuilding and analysing german rocketry to base the further development on it. Would be illogical if not, thats a ->captured<- tech.

From your link, omitting the bias, it states that "By October 1951 ... work basically stopped. The last member of the group returned to Germany on 22 November 1953" which again only makes sense, where USSR got the tech(rocketry), some help to establish it, and continued to develop it on its own.

I still wonder why there is not even an option to enable tech stealing in Civ4 on base capture, with such obvious historical examples :crazyeye:


Sorry, that link was the best I could find on the topic on short notice but it did seem fairly detailed. :)

I also believe that when you conquer a city you should have a chance to acquire any tech that civ has that yours doesn't yet. I have had captured cities that contained buildings that I was still unable to build as I didn't have the proper tech to do so. If I can't build a hospital how can I continue to run the one I now captured?

Stealing a tech as you mentioned is again both historically accurate and would be a good game addition as well.

You're associating "state property" with "totalitarianism".

Yes. I do, but I am not confusing the two as you suggest. I am totally against state property as a form of govt, as an ideal, as anything. Communism enevitablly equalls totalitarianism because communism does not work, its not in human nature for it to work, and the only way for it to function at the state scale is through forced means, ie. authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Communism is a failure everywhere it has been tried, Russia, China (no longer really communist), Poland, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba. Someone mentioned Venezuela earlier, this is not communist though. Chavez is slowly turning Venezuela into a socialist dictatorship to be sure, but it is not communist. Communism is immoral, evil.

Im reminded of a quote from Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein He had been droning along about "value," comparing the Marxist theory
with the orthodox "use" theory. Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxian
definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not
turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By
corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can
turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an
inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those
same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart,
with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value --
the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives --
and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in
terms of use."


I also believe that when you conquer a city you should have a chance to acquire any tech that civ has that yours doesn't yet. I have had captured cities that contained buildings that I was still unable to build as I didn't have the proper tech to do so. If I can't build a hospital how can I continue to run the one I now captured?
Couldnt you gain a techonology by capture a more advanced city in one of the Civs? Maybe just the 1st one? I also wonder why when capturing a city, all the buildings (besides the wonders) are gone. Surely some buildings survived the battle, but I always have to build from scratch.

Couldnt you gain a techonology by capture a more advanced city in one of the Civs? Maybe just the 1st one? I also wonder why when capturing a city, all the buildings (besides the wonders) are gone. Surely some buildings survived the battle, but I always have to build from scratch.


When you capture a city you automatically lose all culture producing buildings. The others may be lost too, but sometimes they survive.

In a game called Master of Orion II when you capture an enemy planet every now and then you gain a tech they know but that you didn't yet. I always liked that game feature.

I mentioned the hospital as an example. I did not have the medicine tech and could not build hospitals yet. I captured a city and the hospital in it survived. I now have a hospital that continues to provide +3 health to the city but I can't use that knowledge to build a hospital in a new city? If I don't understand how to build a hospital then how can I keep operating the one I have?

I know, gameplay balance, this isn't real life, etc., etc. but it did strike me as a bit silly. My suggestion would be to allow me to gain the medicine tech by conquest as mentioned, or have the hospital survive but have me be unable to operate it and benefit from it until I researched medicine.

oh ok, I never checked strictly, so I guess some building do survive. The culture buildings make sense, but I think its too hard to get take over a city later in the game because you get suffocated by the other cities' culture and done have any land to work. And I could have sworn you could get a tech by a taking a city in civ 1. But it was a long time ago.

oh ok, I never checked strictly, so I guess some building do survive. The culture buildings make sense, but I think its too hard to get take over a city later in the game because you get suffocated by the other cities' culture and done have any land to work. And I could have sworn you could get a tech by a taking a city in civ 1. But it was a long time ago.


It does become harder, but that's part of the fun! It's a great feeling of accomplishment when you finally capture the last city of what was once a powerful enemy neighbor.

Dealing with the problem of culture from longstanding cities is a whole different issue and requires various other sometimes complicated tactics to achieve.

An easier way is to go after barbarian cities. Try to capture some of those that have been around awhile, perhaps on islands, and you can use that knowledge to help you find ways to capture and hold other civs cities too.

Without getting too off topic may I suggest the strategy articles section as there is some great info to be had there. :)

I mentioned the hospital as an example. I did not have the medicine tech and could not build hospitals yet. I captured a city and the hospital in it survived. I now have a hospital that continues to provide +3 health to the city but I can't use that knowledge to build a hospital in a new city? If I don't understand how to build a hospital then how can I keep operating the one I have?


Well, honestly I don't know how my computer works very well but I can use it perfectly fine. Thats the best answer I can come up with anyway.

Also, does trade transfer technology across borders? Sometimes I have 30 beakers in techs I have not researched yet. If it does not I think it should tho, I mean, how many times does the world need to reinvent the wheel? Maybe we could have beaker transfer by trade?

i registered for this site because i could not believe some of the BS that was comming from few posters in this thread.
Russian technology was highly developed with out the help of german scientists especially 50's to late 80's. just look who won the most nobel prizes...........invented radio... russian "katusha" type rockets put fear in german troops.... i mean i could spend a day here listing things. eduaction level standards were way higher in USSR then they are in USA, i know the from my own experience, i mean grade 3 russian student knows more math then grade 10 student here. the problem was that these "resources" werent managed properly.

it just frustrates me reading some of the posts here... typical american Gi Joe type attitude

It would seem to me that you would also need Scotland Yard to steal everyone elses technology....since that is how the Soviets obtained a lot of their technology.

Yep, on a copy of a WWII German V2 rocket with the captured Nazi scientists supervising their space program.




And the Americans did the EXACT same thing. Was called operation paper clip.

Much of the US's early rocketry knowledge came from the exact same source as the russians, which was, as you say, V2s.

Hell, more V2s were fired at White Sands, NM than probably in the entire ETO during WW2.

So did Russia build on a lot of German knowledge? Sure. But so did the US. If that deligitimizes one (as you seem to imply) then it certainly deligitimizes the other.

"To the victor(s) go the spoils". :king:

And the Americans did the EXACT same thing.

I agree and I already said that right here:

Both countries used captured German scientists, the US just admitted it more.



i registered for this site because i could not believe some of the BS that was comming from few posters in this thread.
Russian technology was highly developed with out the help of german scientists especially 50's to late 80's. just look who won the most nobel prizes...........invented radio... russian "katusha" type rockets put fear in german troops.... i mean i could spend a day here listing things. eduaction level standards were way higher in USSR then they are in USA, i know the from my own experience, i mean grade 3 russian student knows more math then grade 10 student here. the problem was that these "resources" werent managed properly.

it just frustrates me reading some of the posts here... typical american Gi Joe type attitude

You of course have a right to your opinion. Sorry, but I see the communist nations like the old Soviet Union as failures. I could name numerous examples of Soviet copies of Western products from airplanes to computers. When I think of technological advancement and state of the art products I see them as coming from the capitalist nations of the US, Western Europe and Japan.

The thought of having to live with a Soviet washing machine, tv, car, refrigerator, etc. makes me shudder. Now that Russia is at least partly free aren't the people there eagerly buying up huge quantities of western goods? I wonder why? :mischief:

It is fun to look at Soviet consumer products though. Kind of like a bad trip through the 50's.

If you don't buy western items and only keep buying Russian products then good for you. I understand their industries need all the help they can get.

The Soviet Union invented the radio? :confused:

I agree and I already said that right here:






Saw that the first time, but I still dont' understand the context of your statement...I didn't see anyone claiming the Russians DIDN'T utilize German help. That's all. So your comment just didn't make much sense to me.

Your comment was in response to someone detailing the Russian space accomplishments....I never hear anyone complain that the US cribbed Werner Von brauns playbook, or that doing so made the accomplishments any less impressive, as your reply did seem to imply. So it seemed slightly odd.

That's all.

You clearly acknowledged the situation both ways...but that's exactly why i didn't understand the context or use of the comment.

No biggie. :cool:

[QUOTE=GoldenWheels]And the Americans did the EXACT same thing. Was called operation paper clip.[QUOTE]

There were also a rather good deal of vile acts taking place under Paper Clip; some of the Nazis (psychologists and former SS) the U.S. grabbed up led some pretty terrible experiments on U.S. citizenry, but, we've all forgotten the history that was admitted to us. :sad:

To be truly communist you should also:

1) Keep 20 years behind in tech

2) Have empty (~no) supermarkets, markets or grocers - and no luxuries

3) Gift any great people you get to the competition

4) Have no religious buildings

5) Purge your entire military in a fit of paranoia

6) ? Anyone?

That one was great :lol:

Maybe 6) build heavyweight spaceships designed to withstand the ages :-), not to be all negative.

Regards.

to pile on: Communism, in game, would be as such:

Typical-Communist State, based on Soviet model
Police State
Beauracracy
Serfdom
State Property
Theocracy

now to comment on this:


Utopian Socialist State
Universal Suffrage in a utopian Communist state it would most likely be a direct democracy. this is correct, however just to mention IRL, this is near impossible and would collapse inside of a week. neighborhood association meetings should be a testament to that. :D )
Free Speech (heh... unless you talk bad about communism. Bureaucracy.)
Emancipation (not really, you are tied to the state, the only thing that you live for is the state, the betterment of all at the sacrifice of a few. a Caste System is more accurate)
State Property (goes w.o saying :) )
Free Religion (well, a good communist does not believe in God, therefore Atheism is the state "religion" and is what is taught in schools. ask Andrei, i assume he lives in a Soviet region or grew up in one. Theocracy would be the best choice considering Atheism is not an option. how about an Atheistic option in the Expansion or in a Mod? it would complete the true communist state.)

now to comment on the OT stuff

Communism, as practiced and in theory, is SERIOUSLY flawed. the only successful Socialist states are ones that practice Machavellian theories. such as "tell the people what they want to hear and do whatever is best for them anyway"

after reading Ayn Rand, and yes she has flawed theories as well, i get a basic idea on what Communism did to Russians during the early years of it's inception. it basically reduced people's self-worth and relied on guilt to get things accomplished "if you don't work hard for your slovenly brother's needs, you aren't a good person" it turned moral values on it's head. there is no Golden Rule, there is no Kharma, whatever you want to call it. it's non-exsistent. all that is left in it's place is resentment. you start to resent those less fortunate then you because you have to work harder because they won't (or can't, but in resentment it's "won't" ask american racists).

i'm not saying that any sytem, especially our American one, is perfect to be sure. but since this has diverged into a topic of Communism and not Capitalism, i'll throw my thoughts where the conversation lies.

i personally feel that while the American model is not perfect, it is the best the world has seen. the only bad things in the American System are things run by the State, so you can understand American apprehension to Communism.

Public Schools: failing
Public Health Care: going bankrupt and the red tape is terrible
Public Pension (SS): Going bankrupt and no one wants to fix it
Public Parks: Dirtiest property in the country, outside of slums.

you get the idea. there is a John Stossel report (he's one of my idools in the business, i'm a photojournalist) about this. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=448934&page=3

here are a few excerpts:

Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University, points out that private property rarely gets abused or degraded.

And there's an explanation for this. "When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. No one owns it. There's no incentive to take care of it. It gets abused and degraded," Roberts said.

--SNIP--

Compare dirty public toilets to privately run toilets. They're common in Europe, and cleaner, because their owners — selfishly seeking a profit — work at keeping them clean.

--SNIP--
High school teacher Tori Haidinger runs an experiment to show her students that this is just the way people act.

Each group of students gets a covered beaker of candies they must share. She tells the kids, take as many as you want and then pass them on to the next kid. Any left over will reproduce, just like fish, because the teacher will double them. What happens?

The beakers were emptied completely, because nobody shared. Bad news if the candies were fish.

Economists call this the "Tragedy of the Commons."

When Haidinger changed the rules and gave each student, rather than a group of students, his or her own private beaker, things worked out better.

Free Religion (well, a good communist does not believe in God, therefore Atheism is the state "religion" and is what is taught in schools. ask Andrei, i assume he lives in a Soviet region or grew up in one. Theocracy would be the best choice considering Atheism is not an option. how about an Atheistic option in the Expansion or in a Mod? it would complete the true communist state.)
Free religion is indeed compatible with communism, to the same extent as Free Speech: as long as you do not preach against socialism/ communism, you are fine. The former USSR was indeed more like a theocracy (not even truely "atheistic", considering Communism a sort of religion).

That means, religions are allowed, you are free to go to church or chose a religious career, however you are then limited in chosing a secular career.

In the public schools and univercities, they taught "Scientific Atheism", which basically says that all the religions are nothing but superstition, and the people believe in gods just to escape the harsh truth they face in reality. Also, religion is a mean for those evil imperialists to control the working class. A Communist state would not need any religion at all, since the people are happy already, and they need no control, since they have reached a high state of consciousness, so they can control themselves.

However, like I said, one can easily combine Communism with any of the world religions, being "atheistic" is not necessary for being Communist. Marx himself was opposed to religions, but one cannot take Marx's teachings as dogma, you know. :)

i personally feel that while the American model is not perfect, it is the best the world has seen. the only bad things in the American System are things run by the State, so you can understand American apprehension to Communism.


Public Pension (SS): Going bankrupt and no one wants to fix it





Sadly, companies like GM are a disgrace in this respect as well. Capitalism should not have allowed this. Maybe once an organisation, company or state gets big enough, the people in it treat it as "public" property, citizens in corporations and nations seem to have behaved in the same way in this respect at least.

Very disappointing, I was hoping for more from people :sad:

WOWZA I can't believe so many people posted.


I don't mean to insult anyone with this comment but the general level of ignorance among some of the post I have read is just shocking. I didn’t think Socialism and Communism was still Americans greatest enemy, obliviously the propaganda machine is still active across the pond.

My original post funnily enough was almost 4 pages but then I had my friends (metaphorically) in my ear yelling GEEK GEEK as I was going into too much detail about the politicizing of communism the different forms of communism employed around the world and its utopian form, and how this all applied to Civilization 4.

Just so I don’t have to face the Brunt of the mccarthyist who seem to be living in the red scare society of previous decades I am not a "red" I am a total liberal, however a lot of miss conceptions have been posted about Communism and a lot information presented as fact which is indeed fact but incorrect. You should try and actually read the Communist Manifesto before you start slandering the political and philosophical ideology of others it is a serious ideology and it should be taken seriously ya’ dig.

On another note I have tried 4 times to run a communist state and none of my games went good *sigh* the stupid Aztecs keep ruining my game !

I am going to brew another cup of earl grey and I am going to try a 5th time. I am starting to get the felling the Aztecs are out to get me , they seem to seek me out then destroy me every darn game.

I am now dedicated to winning this game as “red” !!!!

after reading Ayn Rand, and yes she has flawed theories as well, i get a basic idea on what Communism did to Russians during the early years of it's inception. it basically reduced people's self-worth and relied on guilt to get things accomplished "if you don't work hard for your slovenly brother's needs, you aren't a good person" it turned moral values on it's head. there is no Golden Rule, there is no Kharma, whatever you want to call it. it's non-exsistent. all that is left in it's place is resentment. you start to resent those less fortunate then you because you have to work harder because they won't

Very good summation. The culture of resentment is a perfect metaphor...I havent read Ayn Rand in 20 years but you are ringing a bell with that.

Its interesting as an American seeing the many widely differing opinions posted on history, what is communism and the relative merit of the Soviet model. CIV IV boards certainly attracts the folks who can at least have constructive well though out arguments :)

My personal experience having working with many ex-Soviet scientists is that their knowledge, attention to detail and general context in hard science skills is outstanding (in particular mathethmatics, physics, chemistry) and is in a great part attributable to their primary school training. Now my understanding of the selection process it was fairly capricious, e.g. the state selecting who gets what knowledge/training but the results were fairly amazing. This picking of winners I suppose gets you...well...winners but it is debateable whether this helps society more in the long run (the winers becoming the resenters and the resenters wanting to move on)

But when you compare this against what the "freemarket" in the US has produced over the last 30 years (where being a lawyer/lobbyist/MBA etc is more highly valued and hard science skills suffer at the primary education system level) well I dont think the argument is as one-sided as some of my countrymen have made out.

I think the true delta between the the soviet/totalitarianism/communism and the west 1950-1980 was mostly in administration and the ability to move knowledge. The actual training and brains were greatly in parity but its incredibly difficult to accomplish things without the ability to share/collaborate freely; this attribute of Soviet/Chinese "communism" is not an artifact of Marx but of a totalitarian regime.

So for the sake of CIV IV arguments I'm not really sure where this fits in; perhaps "police state" is the most apt description of the Soviet/Chinese models.

Last thought, of the people I've known who had left the Soviet model (mostly mid-late 80s) and came to the US the reason I heard most was opportunity. I remember one exchange student my wife and I hosted (as a favor to a colleague) who was utterly amazed at the sheer variety of options we had (the supermarket was the favorite). Nothing enlightening there but it did make me realize in my gut just how alien that society was to our own and what gulfs systems of gov can actually create.

I think the true delta between the the soviet/totalitarianism/communism and the west 1950-1980 was mostly in administration and the ability to move knowledge. The actual training and brains were greatly in parity but its incredibly difficult to accomplish things without the ability to share/collaborate freely;
I agree with that.

Also, even if the scientists come up with something, it is real hard to give it a practical use. An economy oriented in massive production is extremely inflexible in the sense of innovations. Once you set up assembly lines for some sort of goods, it is not so easy to stop them, especially taking into account that you cannot just lay off people, it's against the law, you must offer them an alternative job first.

And you are under a pressure of the "state plan", that means, you must produce XXX items by the end of the 5-year period no matter what. If you play with innovations, you can easily fail the plan. So, you are extremely skeptical about innovations, and keep producing goods that are 20- or 30- years behing the world standards.

The real problem is not science/education, but poor management, bureaucracy, and extreme inflexibility of the economy.

From what I can tell on this thread, theres the open minded people and there are the brainwashed people

Open minded - do not like the system employed in soviet union, but sees the pros just as they see the cons
Brainwashed - Apollo, mostly for nationalistic/space race purpose, and consequently abandoned, somehow becomes the guideline for "space race victory" compared to first satlite/first man in space/first space station, which actually helped mankind in term of space exploration.
Feels "dirty" choosing commust civics, which in principle, much better than capitalist civics. the only only thing that the "libertarians" should feel "dirty" about is "police state", anything else is brainwashing at work.

Successful communism is just as good as successful democracy, communism was not successful because of human nature, and democracy isnt doing so well these days, preticularly in the states. Some americans might argue against this, just as some soviets will argue against there wasnt real equality in the soviet union, but history will have its judgement.
In principle
US: Freedom but no equality
Soviet union: Equality but no freedom.
Soviet failed both, US is struggling with freedom, which is close to being lost.
Both claim they had both, but again history have its judgement.

People dosnt move to the west from soviet states because of this "freedom", they move to the west because of money, its money, rather than the conveniant "they like our civic", that motivates soviet people to move to the west, just as americans today would go to "communist" china, dispite the "lack of freedom", as long as theres more money to be made.

One would think, after playing civilization, people would see how international diplomacy works. The strong survives, the weak perish, America was strong, both military/technology/economy, while soviet union lacked economy and consequently draged behind in military/technology. Civic is just a conveniant propaganda tool, in the end, its the one with the "highest score" that destroys the one with less.

Just a note; It seems that most folks seem to be using the standard American understanding of what a liberal is. No problem with this per se, except for some reason it is exactly the opposite (well, sort of) way the rest of the world and political scientists understand this term.

Both American Democrats and Republicans are Liberals by the world standard.

To be truly communist you should also:

1) Keep 20 years behind in tech

2) Have empty (~no) supermarkets, markets or grocers - and no luxuries

3) Gift any great people you get to the competition

4) Have no religious buildings

5) Purge your entire military in a fit of paranoia

6) ? Anyone?

Love your top 5

I admit mine are all based on the USSR:

6) Periodically destroy city improvements; blame on enemy agents instead of complete lack of training and ridiculous production targets.

7) Pay to import foreign experts to re-build improvements after giving away your own great people.

8) If none available, cull population to complete projects.

9) Export essential food resources in return for strategic resources.

10) Ignore ugly green face next to city; take no steps to fix it.

11) Dig up resources ASAP; sell surplus to the enemy, then buy it back when you run out.

12) Contradict yourself in diplomacy at least once every five turns and in every UN vote.

13) Share military information with belligerent neighbours.

14) Have no troops anywhere near the border to deal with an invasion.

15) Weakened units may not go behind the lines to heal. If they attempt to, they are cowards and must be shot.

15) Weakened units may not go behind the lines to heal. If they attempt to, they are cowards and must be shot.

seems as though someone else has read "Red Storm Rising" ;)

seriously though, the Soviet model is what happens to "liberal" (the american version as one poster aptly pointed out) countries that go extreme left. Nazi germany and much of the middle east is what happens when countries go extreme right.

i don't like the "left" and "right" though. it assumes that if someone leans a little right they are nazis and if someone leans left they are commies. i know everyone here has eiter been called and/or has called someone that in a political debate.


i prefer the libertarian spawned "smallest political quiz" (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html). the Diamond is MUCH more accurate at predicting where one falls, wether it's totalitarian communism, or libertarian (near anarchistic in nature ;) ) conservativism.

it leaves A LOT of room for people to place themselves in the middle.

EDIT: just so you know, i don't neccesarily agree with the obviously biased quiz itself, just the idea that it is 2-dimensional and therefore more accurate if you were to position yourself on the diamond through your own known beliefs.

antoher edit: here's a link to a more in depth political quiz... that is less biased.
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/quiz.php?from=homepage

seriously though, the Soviet model is what happens to "liberal" countries that go extreme left.

How so? The USSR rose out of Fuedalism (Tzars), not a 'liberal' system by any means, and to me at least, it would seem as though it shot 'right' more so than 'left.'

How so? The USSR rose out of Fuedalism (Tzars), not a 'liberal' system by any means, and to me at least, it would seem as though it shot 'right' more so than 'left.'

"liberal", by american standards, and leftist go hand in hand. in the end, no matter how you dress it up, Communism is an economic system that while sounds rosy and nice in theory, in practical application it draws only leftists or totalitarianists and sometimes both. just look at South America as an example to my point. the conservative gov'ts of south america employ crazy militarist death squads to control the equally deadly and insane leftist seperatists. it's a never ending cycle like that. both of the extremes are totalitarian in nature, one is totalitarian in personal freedoms, the other in economic.

leftists are the economic totalitarianists. communism plays right into that. it also plays right into some future dictators hands because he can apply Machiavellian-style beliefs through it. "tell the people what they want to hear, and do what you want anyway". in the end who cares if you're allowed to do whatever you want with whomever you want, the man with the most money is really in control. the question do you give that control freely to a totalitarian gov't or do you risk it in a free market? the free market choice gives you just that. choice.

now if there were some way to combine that with personal freedoms we'd have the perfect form of gov't... oh wait! libertarianism ;) :D seriously, it'll never happen, because just like ppure communism is a piepdream, to expect humans to exercise enough control to be pure libertarians is just nuts.

FWIW, i used to be a libertarian... i was punker in HS and all of those guys are extremist Che Gueverra loving communists... and i'm just not down with human slaughter in the name of any -ism. i was still ticked at the system at the time. in the words of the creators of South Park "we hate republicans, but we REALLY F*&%$%$ hate democrats" that's about how i felt, but i couldn't adhere to the communists because, like i said, pipedream. i went libertarian, read Rand, and then after i had my first kid i realized i was nuts. it's just as much of a pipedream.

To the final bit I might say that something only becomes a "pipedream" when one completely negates possibility. Though I am certainly no idealist, I think negating possibility is what keeps people trapped in systems (political, economic, and what have you). When I 'admit' something cannot happen, then it surely cannot, for I would have already manifested a failing destiny; thus the pipedream. By the way, this is a purely subjective rant; nature of perception and causality if you will. This is not meant as any sort of defense or endorsement of Marxism/Communism; though I must appear a supporter, really I just think Marx had some interesting critiques, a commanding perception of the situation before him, in his own way. I don't necessarily agree with the course of action he laid out, or as Marx saw it, that revolutionary evoltion necessarily had to take place, or that it would at all.
I do feel it is a bit of a shame at least that no real Marxist revolution took place (edit: has yet to take place). At least then the world could see the result of the praxis Marx called for, and judge it based on the grounds of its own tangible results. Maybe it wouldn't 'work' per se, but at least it wouldn't have been the Russian or Chinese 'Communist' farces.

Marxism/Communisim cannot work. Until it can add in the Western Democratic view that 'all men are corrutable' and 'ultimate power corrupts ultimately' it will always leave the masses exposed to the mistakes and failings of the few who end up in power.
This is why in a True Democracy power is spread thin. Ineffiecent in the short term. Efficent in the long term. Democracy is not about the will of the people; it is about limiting the power of the leaders.