Коммунизм возможен

1. What proponents actually claim and why they think communism can be built now

Contemporary proponents outline concrete political and economic strategies to realize communism, arguing that material abundance and organized working-class movements create conditions for success. One recent plan frames a communist revolution in the United States as achievable through a workers’ government, nationalization of key industries, and a planned economy to eliminate hunger, homelessness, and debt, asserting that America’s wealth makes implementation easier than in poorer states ^[1]. Other analyses emphasize historical contingency: revolutions can emerge in unexpected places, and recent episodes of social unrest and economic stress are cited as evidence that the US working class is not uniquely inert. These writings present both normative arguments about justice and instrumental blueprints for party-building, signaling that proponents see organizational strategy and state capacity as central to actualizing communism ^{[2] [3]}.

2. What historical evidence and institutional critiques say about feasibility

Extensive curricular and historical accounts treat communism not as a live blueprint but as a record of repeated authoritarian outcomes, mass repression, and economic failure; these sources argue that implementation historically correlated with severe human costs. The curriculum overview documents forced collectivization, gulags, purges, and cultural revolutions across several communist states, asserting that these patterns reflect structural flaws in how communist regimes concentrated power and suppressed dissent ^[4]. A focused history of the American experience explains how the US Communist Party failed due to incompatibilities with American capitalism, state repression, and subordination to the Soviet Union, concluding that ideological commitments alone could not overcome institutional and political obstacles ^[5]. These accounts frame historical precedent as strong evidence against the practical viability of communism as it has been tried.

3. Reconciling programmatic optimism with historical failure: key tensions

The central tension is that programmatic designs assume political power and institutional capacity that historical experience shows are difficult to secure without authoritarian consolidation. Proponents envision nationalized economies and planners delivering basic needs, but curricular histories show that similar concentrations of power produced brutal repression and economic dysfunction rather than emancipation ^{[1] [4]}. The US-specific advocates argue American material abundance and civil society might avoid those traps, but historical studies of American communism suggest unique systemic obstacles—legal repression, cultural resistance, and the resilience of capitalist institutions—that repeatedly marginalize or co-opt radical movements ^{[5] [2]}. This tension indicates that feasibility hinges less on abstract desirability than on mechanisms of transition and safeguarding rights, a challenge acknowledged but not fully resolved in the contemporary proposals.

4. Timeline and credibility: comparing dates and sourcing to weigh the arguments

The contemporary arguments in the dataset range from 2023 to 2025, with the most recent practical blueprint appearing in 2025 and earlier strategic reflections in 2023; these dates show a renewed, timely interest in feasibility claims ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The historical and curricular critiques lack specific publication dates in some entries but rely on long-documented events spanning the twentieth century and systematic scholarship published through at least 2017, indicating deep archival and analytical grounding ^{[4] [5]}. The temporal pattern suggests activists have updated rhetorical and strategic materials in response to recent political events, while scholars continue to emphasize long-term patterns. This dating highlights that recent optimism is reactive to contemporary crises, whereas cautionary accounts draw on decades of recorded outcomes.

5. Bottom line: what the evidence supports and what remains unresolved

The assembled evidence supports two firm propositions: first, communism is conceptually possible as a planned socio-economic system; second, historical practice repeatedly generated authoritarian outcomes and systemic failures, raising serious doubts about practical realization without safeguards that existing proposals do not fully demonstrate ^{[3] [4]}. Contemporary plans claim workable pathways and point to specific national contexts where implementation might avoid previous pitfalls, but they face unresolved questions about transition mechanisms, protection of rights, and economic incentives that historical records show are decisive. The claim "Коммунизм возможен" therefore stands as contested: it is possible as an idea and as a political project in some analysts’ blueprints, but historical experience and institutional analysis provide strong counterevidence that any attempt to realize it must confront profound and unresolved risks ^{[1] [5]}.