I'm going try to avoid a political debate here. (Okay, I'm not.)
The Only time Communism could ever work would be when we have perfect people. So, Communism should be moved into the Transhuman Era, IMO, as that would be the only time one could re-engineer people to never complain, never be greedy. Of course the downside is stagnation. If no one is greedy, no one innovates.
I believe this whole thornbush is why Zappara has really avoided taking a side on Communism.
Of course, we could just decide that Communism is not feasible, remove it from the civic choices, and accept that Soviet Russia wasn't so much communist as it was Fascist.
And on the subject of our esteemed* congressmen (and women. This comment is for those of us in the USA.), let's just say that power corrupts. She isn't a communist. No one is really communist.
*<Sarcasm/>
I don't really want to wade into some crazy political debate.
Nonetheless, given that I've been reading Lenin and Marx for the past couple of weeks, I figured I could put my two cents in. Communism is not necessarily the same as Socialism. At some points in time the terms were interchangeable, and sadly I don't know enough about the historical circumstances to comment knowledgeably about this, but it seems to me that they may not be the same thing. Stalin's vision of Communism was of a totalitarian brand, while Lenin's brand of democratic socialism was either democratic, or at least in favor of limited anarchism. The main point for Lenin, and it seems to me Marx as well, was to have the control of the means of production in the hands of the workers. For Lenin, in many of his 1917 writings, he suggests an number of possibilities for an ideal socialism. Primary among these is some sort of community based election process. Another primary element he suggested was that all workers of either gender be trained to bear arms so that they would not be beholden to the interests of capital-based professional armies. Thirdly, he was against WWI as he saw it as the rich (well, not the rich, but the bourgeoisie capitalists) of every country on both sides fighting over colonial territories. So he was avowedly anti-imperialist. Indeed, he argued that the independence of Finland was an ideal model and applauded their democratic socialist undertakings. Here we can see how Lenin's Marxist inspired politics is quite different from Stalin's or Mao's.
Regardless, it seems to me that ideal socialism necessitates a certain amount of infrastructure. Marx seemed to be saying that nothing produces like Capitalism. But once that work is done socialism, for Marx, is the next logical step in the liberative politics of the enlightenment. Most countries in Europe, even with the shift to the right since the 80s, are heavily influenced by the democratic socialist and labour movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Russian revolution, and Lenin, were inspired by movements happening all over Europe to restructure the movement of capital and the means of production into a more egalitarian regime. The Paris Commune, though ultimately unsuccessful, inspired the Russian revolution (much like the French Revolution inspired all subsequent democratic revolutions--see Statue of Liberty).
Anyway, in game terms, I don't know how to think about this except in shorthand. Communism like Stalin and Mao is more totalitarian, Social Democracy can be only partial, like in Europe today, or far more radical, like in the early days of the revolution. But these differences could be accounted for by different threads of the civics screen. I've not really yet come to a firm understanding of how choices are made for the civics tree. Some make sense to me, and with others I am still trying to figure it out. Then, we also get into the problem of different ideas about what the crux of Communism or Marxism is, or their effects. Take for example, Aijaz Ahmad, who in his In Theory argues that the poor showing of Communism since WWII in competition with Capitalism was partly because of that competition and the direct efforts of Western capitalist countries to make sure communism didn't work. That competition effected the Communist bloc by making it shift away from its principles in order to stay afloat. *shrug* His argument is convincing, but I'm not sure. I do think that Marx's ideas being a failure is wrong, however much we may tend towards thinking that Communism itself is a failure. I just wonder how much our own political tendencies cloud the way we think about Marx and those inspired by him.
Anyway... this is all just really rambly. I just thought I'd throw it out there and see what people think. I don't really have any ideas myself about this in relation to civ... sooo... um. take it however one wants. Sorry if it is off topic.
]
Which reminds me to do the same for RoM...)
