Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Aah, but then you're not talking about Communism as Marx defined it. Besides... I still don't think that i'd work. And if it was to be put to the test, we'd have to gamble for who'd be within the 5-10% to be allowed to see it. The rest would have to die, or the hunter-gatherer model would irreversibly destroy the land that it occiupied...
Yes but communist Russia was not communism as Marx defined it either. Neither is China, North Korea ect. What I've infered from Skin's is that if communism was put to the test the only way that it would'nt end with pandemic brutality, or ubiquitous oppression, is if the society was small enough to give the greatest amount of people the greatest amount of space, or whatever it is people want in a marxist system. This may in fact turn out to be an very small society indeed: like the size of a clan or any other basic familial unit, and that is a valid form of communism under certaim conditions.
As for the top 5-10% being allowed to see it, that is not a description of a marxist system. A marxist system invites all working peoples to partake in the system, although, eventually after the period of time in which a marxist regime is formed there will be those that lead the party. It seems you assume that communism will always be conducted by rulers capable of the greatest despotism and taste for injustice, but in my mind it all depends on the situational variables which are too numerous to even begin to mention here. Size of society, technological advancement, educational level of average "comrade", intent of the top memebers of the party, are these memebers susceptible to corruptive forces ect.