Is Communism a successful ideology? I cannot tell. But, I can quote only what Ramses says in Mummy – It’s a rich man’s idea of how a poor man should live. And surprisingly, this is correct since among those who defined Communism, none except Lenin came from poor families.
The fall of the Nazis partitioned Europe into two blocks, one headed by a safely ensconced America and the other USSR. USSR forced it’s form of governance down the throat of countries it occupied.
Looking at the below table, one can’t be confident in declaring the success of Communism. Except in one or two cases, the more than 80% of the country’s existence is ruled by a single person or a set of people. That long time ruled by a person or a succession is not a big deal. But, what makes it a big deal is are they capable of ruling and who gave them the mandate to rule? By their quixotic ideas of rule, did not they destroy their countries? Though all of them unravelled in the region of 1978-1992, except in the case of Germany, we can assume people wanted a change. But in the case of Germany, the story is that people of Communist Germany adopted the governance model of the other half which simply proves which is the better model of governance. But, is Communism bad or is the version of the warped Communism implemented in those particular countries bad?
Rulers with obscenely long reigns are highlighted.
This is but the European side of story. There are many illustrious names in the same league – Castro in Cuba, the Kims in Korea, Mao and Deng in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and even Jyoti Basu on the democratic front.