>Do you think that the life, as envisioned by children, who want to eat only ice cream when they grow up, includes scurvy, diabetes and other effects of such a diet?

Do you think that people are automata, and any attempt to build a system with X attributes necesarrily also has Y attributes, in the automatic way that eating only sugar leads to diabetes?

Just because there was an attempt to build X (socialism for example), under specific circumstances (e.g less technologically and politically advanced countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia), under specific forces (20th century colonialism, WWII, cold war etc), and with specific people at the helm influencing things all around (Stalin and Mao basically), doesn't mean any attempt to build X in different circumstance will end up the same.

Yes they will. The premise is flawed. Socialism (US term) or social-democracy (Euro term) can work in a democratic society but communism is flawed from the start.

Putting everything in one communal basket and expecting people to behave is a recipe for disaster. Don't make a system which works only when people do not make mistakes or are only driven by their purest feelings.

>Yes they will. The premise is flawed.

[Citation needed]

My point is that if you try to create a socialist country, but end up with a dictatorship, then you have a dictatorship, not a socialist government. Let's call things by their real names instead of trying to associate secret police and paranoia with the terms "Socialism" and "Communism."

Dictatorship is a form of government[1]. Socialism is an economic system[2]. One does not exclude another. The history shows, though, they come together alarmingly often.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

So your response is to ban ice-cream forever and eat nothing but salads instead?

Because, you know, that's the analogous response to banning all socialism and social-democracy forever just because the Soviet Union didn't turn out well.