I’m not sure if this proves anything, since for the most part Communism in Eastern Europe did not arise from a revolution but from being imposed by a conquering power.
Clearly even 40 years was not enough to eradicate the pre-existing culture. I’ve been to the Russian occupation museum in Estonia, and the native Estonians hated the Russians and the Communists and still seem to hate the remaining Russian speakers who were moved into the country during the Occupation.
I suspect things are different a bit in places with home-grown revolutions - though they still often seem to need restrictions on emigration. Not in China, though.
Your premise is wrong. The Vietcong did some rather nasty things while they were fighting. So did the North Korean communists; so did the Shining Path in Peru; and the Khmer Rouge; and the French revolutionaires for that matter; but nobody beat the Soviet communists in sheer vicious murderous barbarity during the civil war.
You forgot China…I’d have to say that the Chinese Communist have at least as much blood on their hands, if not more. The Soviet depredations are just more well known for some reason, and of course they had a bit longer than the Chinese have to murder and terrorize their populations…but what the Chinese have lacked in duration so far they make up with in sheer bloody mindedness. And unlike the Soviets, they continue their blood soaked ways…look up what they have done in Tibet, to their Muslim (and even Christian) populations, as well as to Falun Gong practitioners.
Yes, but I believe Lumpy was talking about before the communist gained power. But perhaps they did some nasty shit also during the Chinese Civil War. Supposedly Mao got carried around on a chair and dined on fine cusine during the Long March. Not so much nasty as corrupt.
There’s also Cuba. Castro executed a bunch of people after he took power.
That said, I don’t think this can be completely defined as an aspect of communism. I see it more as an aspect of a dictatorship taking power and establishing a new ideological system. The first order of business is to kill off the people who supported the old ideological system and might form a core of opposition. So we’ve seen places like France, Spain, Germany, and Iran that have had mass political purges following a new non-communist regime taking over.
I think you took a tangent onto a different topic than the one I was responding to, which was a broad statement about revolutions naturally leaning toward the “fail” mode. He was blaming the results on the revolutions themselves, rather than looking at what was replacing what.
In whose eyes? Hanoi’s Jane? Pete Seeger? Sure, maybe in theirs, but not in anyone’s, who’s got half a brain…
You weren’t on the side that had been occupied by one foreign power or another for decades, and had yet another one trying to impose its will on the country and bombing cities in the part of the country opposed to it. If you were Vietnamese and just wanted your country to be independent and to get rid of the invaders who’d killed hundreds of thousands of your people, Ho Chi Minh might well have seemed like the best option available to you at the time.
I’d say it’s a result of the process of winning an insurgency/Revoluçion. Anarchist, self-determined, pow-wow driven military efforts don’t really work so a successful guerilla will turn authoritarian and vice versa : the more authoritarian brands of insurgents will tend to become more successful, thus more numerous and from there glompf the smaller outfits (ask the POUM).
This was further encouraged in the whole Cold War context, because Kim Jong Un-like ravings about the West trying to covertly subvert the proud values of the People and its institutions were *actually *100% true back then ; and Red governments who could not deal with that kind of constant ratfucking were quickly deposed and replaced by, well, corrupt dictators, hired thugs and their cronies :o.
Which I guess is a roundabout way of saying “He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you” 
Because they were monsters all along. Idealistic? Doesn’t that depend on the nature of your ideals? Does allegiance to any totalitarianism qualify as “idealistic”?
Communism is not necessarily totalitarian and, if you ask some of them, is even its antithesis since True Communism™ involves the abolition of the state. The dictature of the proletariat/state ownership of property is only a necessary stepping stone towards that.
I’m not sure about that. In both Russia and Spain, the red army committed horrible atrocities even before solidifying power. In Spain, of course, they never got power, but they did horrible things while controlling half the country. George Orwell, after all, learned the truth about communism in Spain.
That leads directly to the next question: how long is the dictatorship of the party supposed to last before True Communism is achieved and the state withers away? And being as True Communism was supposed to be inevitable anyway, how long would it have taken if the vanguard hadn’t stepped in to speed thing up? Maybe we’d have been better off just letting things take their natural course and avoided the excesses of people like Stalin and Mao.
As long as is necessary, obviously 
I think you misunderstand marxist theory there. True Communism is inevitable because the lumpenproletariat exploited by the capitalist pigdogs cannot but realize the nature of its misery, rise up and in time organize into a planetary organization of brotherhood and yadda yadda.
But you can’t reach True Communism without first doing away with capitalism altogether, and capitalism naturally is going to fight back (and has all of the guns and money).
The idealist paves the way for the autocrat, like Snowball and Napoleon in Animal Farm.
Communism always devolves into tyranny for the simple reason that if you destroy markets, the only way to get people to do anything is by using force. And also, Communism completely fails as an economic system, so people begin to get desperate and the regime has to become increasingly harsh to maintain its power.
What’s your point?
Nonsense. Doing away with accumulated capital or even private property doesn’t mean the concept of material incentives flies out the window on wings of gold.
Nor is force the only negative pressure that can be applied to antisocial elements - most anarchistic communes rely primarily on social shunning for example. Which is perfectly fine - if you don’t want to go on the foraging expedition when it’s your turn, nobody’s going to force you. Just don’t expect a share of the bounty.