That's inductive reasoning though, an entirely irrelevant concept in political science.
Your argument taken in full means that in political "science" you know
nothing at all, making the entire discipline useless. Was ______ a bad idea or a good one? Who knows. Will _____ work in this country? Can't tell, sorry!
In real science, we can test, say, E=MC^2... and we do so. And E=MC^2 keeps surviving, so scientists can say "we have high confidence in E=MC^2 because we've thrown everything we've got at it to try and disprove it, and it's still around".
But you're not even
trying to do similar. It's just "oh well it's very complicated, so forget about even trying to apply the scientific method. Just, uh, don't blame communism, for ~reasons~, okay?"
Now personally, I don't think political science is a science
at all, but if you do, then the onus is on you to fit your theories to observed reality. So far, ALL the observations show that communism = A Bad Thing. You've got observations from
dozens of countries, and it's failed horrifically every time.
Any first grader might as well argue that all these countries were poor, non-industrialized (at the time of the revolution) and started out as autocracies.
Funny how it's never the ideology that's at fault, no?
Now, there have been plenty of poor, non-industrialised, autocratic regimes that didn't go to the extremes of the various communist regimes in history.
If communism (as an economic system) was implemented by election and without Soviet or American meddling in for example Scandinavia, a post-industrial society with a century's worth of democratic tradition, governmental transparency and public education things might go very differently.
Scandinavia would be a dictatorship within a few decades, and would collapse... probably within a century, tops. Communism in practice is outright evil, and communism in theory is not suited to human psychology.
The only thing we do know is that people claiming certainty are certainly wrong.
If an idea fails
every single time it's tried, and in fact fails in the most bloody and evil ways in history... it's probably a clue that the idea is a bad one.
If anyone's read the culture series, I'd say that models what people would think of as a space Anarchist/Communist society. Of course, the fact that it's fundamentally managed by machines makes it rather interesting.
Yeah, I've generally liked the books, at least when Iain M Banks wasn't outright preaching (see the end of Hydrogen Sonata etc). It's worth bearing in mind though that the Culture
is run by AIs, and it's not like the ordinary people in it have much of a say in what goes on except if the Minds
allow them to. I suppose you could think of it as extreme libertarianism, but top-down rather than bottom-up (ie the state (insofar as it exists in the Culture)
permits the ordinary people to do XYZ, rather than the ordinary people permitting the state to do stuff on their behalf).
Iain M Banks is also on record as stating that Culture humans are more rational than real ones, to the point where IRL humans may never be able to live in a Culture-like civilisation at all. For example: "Even if you can accept all the above, featuring a humanoid species that seems to exhibit no real greed, paranoia, stupidity, fanaticism or bigotry..."
Can't see
homo sapiens going for Culture-style communism under the circumstances.
Now go watch Start Trek or read a Culture book.
Star Trek can't make up its mind, even just in the Federation. Sometimes Federation credits are mentioned, or transporter rations / credits, etc. I also find it extremely conformist - note how Janeway et al felt they were in bizzaro-world when they went back to late 20th Century California and met all the weirdly-dressed natives, and then compare said 20th Century Californians to most of the civilians we see in the Star Trek future.
So I'm not sure it's really a pleasant society to live in.
I'll just ignore your argument about history and when humans tried it because this isn't either of OT or HoI4 forums, and just point out that this game is SCIENCE FICTION. Arguments about the history of humanity make no sense in that context.
Given that our history informs our present, it is important, actually. Where we came from matters a great deal as to where we end up going. For that matter it can also inform us of what aliens might be like if they think like us, or think like us in certain regards.
.
