It depends on the interpretation of theocracy. A strict theocracy, maybe? A light or even liberal interpretation, which allows people to live there voluntarily, is ok? Do Islamic and Christian democracies count as theocracies? There are some nations which constitutionally promote a religion, while still being democratic.
It's ironic , communist ideas is that everyone is equal and ha the right to vote and such but the only way resorces can be distributed to these people is by creating dictatorships ( or corrupt democracy ) .
@leonitus2464 That isn't a no true Scotsman. A 'no true Scotsman' only works if something (that is deemed not to be a 'true' something) is by definition a Scotsman. For instance, I can say that someone from England is not a true Scotsman. But I can't say that a Scotsman is not a true Scotsman. In the case of the Soviet Union, it wasn't founded on socialist (it was mostly devised under state capitalist principles), let alone communist principles. So, in this case, it can't be considered an instance of communism. Thus, it isn't a 'no true Scotsman' to say that the Soviet Union wasn't communist.
@PeterSmith Marx wasn't a communist thinker. He was more or less just a critic of capitalism. 95% of his works were over capitalism, the other 5% were vaguely about how to achieve a communist society. Also, can you please point me to where in Marx's works that he assumes that people are perfect? Also, just because Marx said something doesn't mean it disproves communism. So that statement doesn't answer my question.
Chimera: I understand that you are very proud of your beliefs and you will stand by them to the end, which is admirable. However, there is nothing I can do to convince you to change your views so it's pointless to argue.
@PeterSmith It isn't pointless to argue. Nor am I arguing, i'm just having a friendly conversational debate. I'm not a stubborn man who'll simply stay dogmatically loyal to an ideology. It's simply that I hear so much criticism of Marx and of communism, yet I usually only see sub-par arguments, ignorance, and sophistry from the opposition. Besides, the point of conversing over ideology isn't to change people to a certain viewpoint. It's to see why other people support whatever ideology they confine themselves within. Nobody can change another persons viewpoint, that change happens internally. So, I simply asked a question (that being why communism is perceived as impossible) and I was simply looking for an answer. I wasn't looking for something that will magically change my views, but more or less something to ponder about which could (if of high enough quality) persuade me to alter my position at a later time. However, if you don't wish to answer my question, that is fine as well. The choice is entirely up to you.
Pure communism will never happen until people stop wanting stuff. People like stuff, lots and lots of stuff. Stuff won't happen under communism. People are also very stubborn about giving their stuff to other people.
@SocialistAtheistNutjob So, the solution to 'people wanting stuff' (i'm assuming that you mean luxury goods) and being stubborn is to leave them in an environment where 'wanting stuff' and being stubborn is rewards and encourages (capitalism)? I would say that placing people in an environment that encourages and rewards being less stubborn (communism) would solve the problem. Also, luxury goods would be possible within a communist society, since satisfaction and happiness could be considered 'needs'. Though not basic 'needs' like food, water, and shelter.
It would definitely be possible for everybody in a communist society to have a high standard of living. I'm just thinking about the rich people with lots of influence. The super rich would never be willing to give up their wealth. It would have to be taken from them. But the second that a military is formed by a government to take this wealth, communism has broken down. A central authority cannot exist under communism because there cannot be any social classes. I am a proponent of socialism, but I do not believe that communism is feasible.
@SocialistAtheistNutjob Why would the wealth of the rich matter? The only thing that would really be taken from the rich would be the means of production that they own privately in favor of common ownership. A formal military orchestrated and controlled by a government wouldn't be needed to take the means of production. The workers could simply organize into militant democratic labor unions and take control of them. As for the personal possessions of the 'rich', the rest of their possessions have no real value to society. What good would it do to take their personal possessions away from them, when all it would do is make them feel persecuted by society? Society only need the means of production, since they are the things that create the wealth for the rich through the proletariat's labor, that wealth then being pumped up to the top of the capitalist hierarchy. Once the workers control the means of production however, the wealth created can simply be placed in the commons to be divided by all members of the commune based on needs. No centralization of power needed.