Since they didn't succeed in making the transition, they weren't really communist, thus you can't consider it a communist failure.
Yeah but you DO insist that if you're going to call a system capitalist it have at least certain basic features like say...markets, right?
Not as flaws in the philosophy, but as modern society exists as modern society. Mao's and others attempted realization at those ideals producedanoutcome as society exists today, and not a good one. That has no bearing on it as an idea, or that idea being realized at some point in history.
No Christian actually lives a Christ like life so Christianity doesn't exist.
In a way you're presenting it then it truly can be achieved only in some Star Trek utopia where energy is unlimited and so are resources. Where no one wants for anything. Homes are powered by free energy, household items, food and dildoes are created by Replicator andc division of labor is unnecessary. People pursue whatever they fucking feel like, which is anything but work because I honestly never heard anyone say - hey I'm gonna go do a bunch of repetitive bullshit for 8 hours.
I don't know the answer to your question. Maybe it requires infinite or near infinite resources. Maybe it just requires a society that isn't completely insane? I can't answer you with regards to what it takes to work. I just can tell you what's been done so far, good intentions or otherwise, is not close in terms of the idea.
Why is our society insane, but the Aztecs lopping out hearts to get the Sun to rise isn't?
Their results didn't match their intentions. Thats a pretty big flaw with your theory. Like if I set up an experiment, and I have my null hypothesis set to "Remove capital create perfect utopian society: and I remove capital, and end up with 200 million dead people, you know, I might just have to conclude that my null hypothesis was rejected by the experimental results.
There's a lot of options to deal with this. For one thing, a lot of the "work" under capitalism is just flat out waste. It just doesn't need to be done at all. For work that does need to be done but is undesirable, there's a lot of motivation to be gained from putting control over the means of that work directly in the hands of the people doing it (since then they're at least laboring for themselves). Additionally, it would be pretty easy to re-balance a lot of firms in such a way that jobs which involve exclusively menial work are spread out rather than having some people who exclusively do that kind of work and others who do nothing but executive (or whatever your notion of empowering work is) type of work.
I would say yes, depending on the general level of prosperity in Perfect Communism Land.
Oh they were, but for different reasons.
I should remind you to remember well the dangers of positivism, especially in social theory.
Ok, so I have a boat. But I live in a country the size of US with 310,000,000 people. Does that mean there are 310,000,000 boats available for pick up for everyone?
