Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How many times has communism succeeded
Executive summary
Historians and commentators disagree sharply on whether "communism" has ever "succeeded." Some commentators argue communist movements took and held state power in many countries in the 20th century and achieved major social changes (examples and claims of victory appear in pro‑communist essays) [1]; academic and mainstream accounts note that communist parties did build industrial states and rule large populations but also failed electorally in many places and produced stagnation and repression in others (one estimate: by 1985 roughly one‑third of the world lived under Marxist–Leninist systems) [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a single agreed metric for "success" and disagree about whether any society has ever reached the classless, stateless "communism" envisaged by Marx (not found in current reporting).
1. What people mean when they ask “Has communism succeeded?”
The question mixes different meanings: some callers mean “have communist parties governed states?”—an empirical question well supported by histories showing many 20th‑century communist governments—while others mean “has the Marxist goal of a classless, stateless society been achieved?” Sources stress that these are distinct claims; Wikipedia notes communist states and the Marxist idea that the socialist state is a transition to stateless communism, implying the end‑state is different from 20th‑century regimes [4] [3].
2. Instances often pointed to as “successes” — state power and social programs
Pro‑communist commentators argue that communist movements took state power in many countries and enacted transformative policies, and even claim successes in improving mass living conditions and defeating fascism during WWII [1]. Historical surveys and encyclopedic accounts acknowledge that Marxist–Leninist parties led many states (by the mid‑1980s, about one‑third of the world’s population lived under such systems) and that these regimes built industrial economies and welfare institutions in several places [3] [4].
3. The counterargument: failures in electoral politics, economic transformation and human costs
Scholarly critiques and mainstream histories emphasize limits and failures: communist parties often failed electorally in interwar Europe and were sometimes crushed by authoritarian rivals [2]. Analysts point to economic weaknesses—stagnation under late Soviet leadership, failures to create consumer societies or diversified service sectors—and to political repression seen in archival revelations [2] [3]. These accounts treat “success” as at best partial and often deeply compromised by human rights violations [3].
4. The theoretical objection: true “communism” never implemented
Several sources draw a sharp line between so‑called “communist states” and Marx’s end‑goal. Forum commentary and Q&A exchanges conclude that full communism as Marx envisioned—a classless, stateless, moneyless society—has never been realized; what existed were socialist or Marxist–Leninist states with one‑party rule [5] [6]. Thus, some writers argue the empirical record cannot show success because the target was never actually attempted in full [6].
5. The polemics: starkly opposed narratives
Online essays represent highly contrasting interpretations: one Medium author insists “every single time it has been implemented it has been a success,” crediting communism with wide social gains [1]; other commentators and religiously‑oriented essays portray communism as a collectivist worship that harms individuals and communities [7]. These polemical pieces reveal strong political stakes and suggest media ecosystems and ideological commitments shape claims of success [1] [7].
6. Measurement matters — define success before answering
Available sources show no agreed, empirically standardized measure of success (economic growth, equality, political freedom, longevity of institutions, or realization of Marx’s final stage). Academic histories evaluate different dimensions—industrialization, welfare provision, repression, electoral performance—and therefore arrive at different verdicts [2] [3]. The disagreement is as much about values and metrics as about raw facts.
7. Bottom line for readers seeking a concise answer
If “success” means that communist parties gained and held state power and enacted large social transformations, then yes—20th‑century communist states existed and ruled large populations [3]. If “success” means achieving Marx’s classless, stateless communism, available reporting and historical analysis indicate that has not been achieved [6]. If “success” is judged by democratic legitimacy, economic dynamism comparable to Western market economies, or absence of repression, mainstream scholarly sources argue the record is at best mixed and often negative [2] [3].
Limitations: sources here include opinion pieces, forums and encyclopedia entries that present competing perspectives; they do not settle the normative question of which metric should determine “success.”