Could communism have worked in medieval times?

[SonOfAlexander]

As we all know, Communism arose from theses made by English people, and more publicly, Karl Marx in the 19th century. And the evidence of it's failures have been clear to see in the millions of starving soviet peasants of Stalin's era, right up to the empty shleves of Eastern Bloc countries right up until the fall of the Berlin Wall.

(Well, I know there are some who will deny it and say 'Communism worked great', but this is a thread for people not blinded by Soviet propaganda)

And I have always attributed it to the fact that even though the people were supposed to be equal, the leaders were always corrupt and power-drunk. They took communism too far - kulaks being the best example. You like in Bolshevik Russia? You own more than a handful of grain? You're a greedy, selfish kulak and can be sent to a gulag for it... a deferred death sentence.


The other main problem is modern technology and employment.

In communism everyone is paid the same (except for the dictators, who can steal what they like), but then that means that Joe Bloggski working at the toothpaste factory screwing the lids on the toothpaste tubes gets as much as Mybrainhurtski slogging to produce a new antibiotic or plane. So why work hard and be a scientist - in capitalism, there are excellent reasons for this, due to varied pay and 'greed/aspirational culture' - when you can pull levers down at Mercedeski all day for a living?

But in the middle ages, most people were low paid and as a result poor. They were subsistence farmers or merchants or maybe even craftsmen at best. There were of course a smattering of lords, but the idea of equality, I think, would have been much easier to implement.

[Razor]

No, because in the Middle Ages people weren't equal... The whole society was based on the peasant vs. lordship relationship.

[CobraStallone]

Well it could have worked based on the fact that countries had very independent economies, and only luxury items had to be imported in most cases. But then again dividing the king and lords' lands and wealth between all the serfs would have resulted in a very small share, that couldn't have sustained a strong nation.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Well, the feudal system was much more communal, yet at the same time there was a very stark division between the commoners and nobles. So it might have worked a little better, but not much. I think the end result would still be about the same. People are just bad at heart and communism works on the premise that they are good.

[Salem1]

Well, the feudal system was much more communal, yet at the same time there was a very stark division between the commoners and nobles. So it might have worked a little better, but not much. I think the end result would still be about the same. People are just bad at heart and communism works on the premise that they are good.

This.
Humanity is so far too crappy for communism - although it has never actually been implemented in a country like France or Britain, where it could possibly succeed. This because the state wouldn't be headed by someone like Stalin. I think it's quite sad that communism gets tagged as the thief - ask yourself if it was communism's or stalin's perverted version of it and subsequent rule using that version, that gives the USSR a bad image. Especially the idea that communism is the nemesis of ''democracy'', when in truth, communism was more or less supposed to be total democracy at all levels. I think that when/if communism gets implemented properly, people will ask themselves ''why didn't we do this earlier?'', ''how could they live without this system when it was at their doorstep?'' and so on.

This will probably sound like an excuse, which I don't intend it to be. But no state has ever really achieved communism - they have tried and failed in one way or another.

In my opinion, communism works something like this. Two guys are about to be put into prison and they have three options:

- Blame the other guy. If he doesn't blame you too, then you get to walk free and he doesn't. But if he blames you as well you both get increased sentences.
- Don't blame the other guy. Your sentences will then be heavily shortened.

Humanity however is still stuck trying to figure out why collectively picking #1 isn't a good idea.

[JustShoveJayOhBe]

I've been told communism was actually pretty successful in Spain before Nazis decided to it up

[Atterdag]

What on earth are you talking about?

[gaius valerius]

What on earth are you talking about?

About the leftist succes in the 1930's that was brutally crushed by fascists/nazis/nationalists. Though this has little to do with the OP and it wasn't true communism it were reformists.

[Barbarian Nobility]

I've been told communism was actually pretty successful in Spain before Nazis decided to it up

What on earth are you talking about?

You know, when the bad king Hitler of the Holy Roman Empire invaded the Peoples socialist republic of Aragon in 1356? What, haven't you seen the pictures before?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[dogukan]

There are two cases I know regarding this issue.

One in Germany and one in Anatolia........
The one in Germany is called "something of peasents"...I forgot it but basically a priest(!) supports the equal right of peasent and some civil war start for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant_War

The one in anatolia is sheikh bedrettin.
details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Bedreddin
Sheikh Bedrettin (1359-1420) was a revolutionary theologian and charismatic preacher who led a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire in 1416.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Communism would probably never work at any period, at least after the 80 or so odd years.

[Phier]

Communism wouldn't have worked in the middle ages for the same reason it won't work now and won't work for any foreseeable future until such a time where work is no longer needed to produce.

The problem with communism is its fundamental conflict with human genetic nature.

Also you underestimate the middle ages economy.

[dogukan]

the thing is, a socialist society in medieval ages would be doomed....invaded for not being really "united" under an organisation. And for being "heretics".....

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

since communism requires an industrialised state, by what stretch of your wacky immagination is any medieval state, 'industrialised', none of them even have a proletariat.

[Razor]

since communism requires an industrialised state, by what stretch of your wacky immagination is any medieval state, 'industrialised', none of them even have a proletariat.

Not industrialised as we think of it now. There was some home industry on a small scale.
Btw, ever read Utopia written by Thomas More (dated 1516)? What he was describing as the perfect state was pretty much a socialist/communist state. However he also seems to indicate that this Utopia is an Outopia (no place/nowhere). What he is describing is a society totally the opposite of his own. And so I think it couldn't have worked indeed for the same reasons it failed in the 20th century. It would result in oppression by the rich, fat and mighty...

[ivan_the_terrible]

Yes:

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Yes:

Sir that is an anarcho-collectivist commune, very diffrent from the worker's paradise immagined by Marx.

Furthermore, communes exist in the current very not communist environment.

[Ima Farmathar]

i think it was tried once at leas in the dark ages, ever herd of prophet mazdak?

it didnt work.

[Claudius Gothicus]

You mean societies the size of a regular medieval kingdom? Yeah it could work the main problem with communism is large populations that have very separate standards of living, the clergy and nobility where very small and the bourgeois almost didn't existed, so yeah it could work.
IIRC medieval Iceland was a clear example of anarco-capitalistic society.

[Ima Farmathar]

but then again, medieval island was isolated....