The issue came in because the US wanted to break up the soviet bloc so the World Bank went to town and made sure that happened.
We will never know what would have happened if Tito and Ceausescu would not have been squeezed by debt and foreign interference.
Maybe the reason you don't see a good example of Communism besides maybe China/Viet Nam is because the west is actively engaged in making sure that doesn't happen.
I would argue that China and Viet Nam aren't good examples either.
In the US only 50% of the population votes. The church doesn't pay taxes but lobbies the gov via proxies. Rich people definitely have more rights than the others. Just because they fight in court doesn't mean it's not called violence. Rich people are the authority in the US. They decide what you watch, what you buy and where you can spend your money. Just because they work for corporations doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchy. Rich people own America and they behavior of it's citizens, because they shape the contexts in which you live. They also own the rest of the world via Hollywood.
> perhaps humans have been conditioned to operate within a power hierarchy
Yes, exactly! No human, nor animal, wants to be perpetually in violence, as it is very risky to living. So, if they wish to avoid violence whenever a dispute arises, they naturally subject themselves and cede to the other as the superior authority in the matter, letting them get their way. However, if a human/animal ever thinks the reward for winning a fight outweighs the risks of violence, they will indeed risk the fight. Repeated disputes where one continues to be the victor, conditions those in the matter who is superior and inferior, and a power hierarchy is naturally established.
The only way communism can ever work, is if there is never any disputes. That is not a practical scenario outside a power hierarchy, and hence why it does not work in practice. And for those that don't see how "communism == anarchy", just look at how "public == many", and "private == few".
That said can you give me an example of the communism you described as
"Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority"
The best example i can think of is a 'proto' communist fraction in Spanish civil war as Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.
Also that quote really does not describe either the ideal of communism nor does it describe the historical regimes under the communism brand. In fact, I think none of the 4 categories Rury described are truly correct.
1. "Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority" is wrong simply because no one ever rules alone. Monarchy is just oligarchy with extra steps. Most historical communism is here.
2. "Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority", equating these two is wrong because the second is supposed to have time limits a accountability. Oligarchs are aristocrats, senators are not aristocrats.
3. "Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority", democracy is much more diverse than that.
4. "Communism/Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority" this is anarchy not communism. And anarchy is indeed inherently unstable. There were branches of communist thought that were anarchist but by being anarchist they were doomed to failure.
In practice we have only ever had variations of oligarchy that were more or less disguised and variations on democracy that were more or less direct.
What has not been tried and is unlikely to be tried is a democratic communism.
To see why, you can categorize the forms of government as so:
In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more you equally distribute power amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes.In particular, notice all the forms of government (except for communism) has a way to settle disputes without resorting to violence. For example, in Democracy, you settle disputes by voting, where the majority wins, and the rest don't get their way. This ability to settle disputes without violence, is what makes us civil and what makes society a society. Without it (such as with communism), you are in complete anarchy, where raw might/ability (eg successful violence/persuasion) is the only thing there is left to settle disputes. Thus, those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority", and is why over time, communism/anarchy will naturally change into one of the other forms of government.