Geoschmo, I never said there was a way 'to have a "theoretical communist" government.'
Just as there is no way to have a "theoretical capitalist" government.
A much purer form of capitalism flourished a couple of centuries ago. Because of the abuses, the government had to step in and we have a...what would you call it? Socialized capitalism?
I am using a different term because our so-called "capitalism" of today is very different from the capitalism of two centuries ago. And calling them by the same name blurs the issues.
IMO, the inherent difficulty with communism (small c) is in its conflict to treat people the same and inability to effectively reward initiative. Fundamentally it has a problem of determining the mechanism by which the person is to be rewarded.
We use the market mechanism to reward people. And basically it is self-regulating. Create something people want and you will be rewarded. Create something people do not want, and not only will you not be rewarded, a lot of money will have been lost in the process.
IMO, Communism tried to avoid it because they perceived the market mechanism to be a characteristic of capitalism.
Our societies were flexible enough to move from pure capitalism towards communism, only we called it socialism.
Heaven forbid that we cannot admit that our society is a hybrid of capitalism and communism (small c). So, we invent the word socialism. That makes us feel more comfortable.
Now, just so you do not jump all over me, I am not implying the U.S. government is a socialist government. But the U.S. does have socialist programs, a lot of them.
Communism (large C) could have moved towards capitalism and we could have ended up having similiar societies. Maybe if they invented a word which would allow them to move towards capitalism without openly admitting it, they could have done so.
But I doubt it would have happened because Soviet Communism was a totalitarian regime and as power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.