@ApproachingDarknessFish I did mean ideologically and when I say stable, I mean from revolts and internal conflicts

I suspect you're looking for something closer to socialism; I believe the essential idea is along the lines of "each person contributes what they can and takes what they need". If you want possible examples of how this might be done, look at the 1871 Paris Commune (before it was crushed by the military) or perhaps the Anarchists of the 1936 Spanish Civil War (before that was crushed by various forces); for details on the latter, look for George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia in which he describes his experiences in considerable detail.

@what maybe that millions upon millions of people aren't starving to death every years in AMerica, or perhaps the fact that in the Us you have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

@TrEs-2b There are many, many varieties of Communism. Not all are as militant as the Soviet Union's breed of Marxism-Leninism and later Stalinism. There are also anarcho-communists (although I think the more authoritarian varieties of leftism are far more likely to actually succeed, as answers below have hinted at). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

@TrEs-2b - Are you suggesting there have not been riots in capitalist systems or other internal conflicts when you say "[stable] from revolts and internal conflicts"? In your US-centric view, what about the Civil War?

I would also posit that totalitarian communist governments are move stable than capitalistic ones, in that they are better able to repress dissent and revolt, they rarely have freedom of speech and are better able to imprison or kill dissenters. But capitalistic governments create less dissent (people are more content) and they are built to change not hold power so they adapt better.

@GrinningX The US did have one major civil war in its 250 year history, but it survived, the USSR fell in 70 years. "Communist" china has lasted what 80 years, though it has major capitalistic elements so I don't know how to count it. The point we don't have a major communist government that has lasted

@sdrawkcabdear - Still waiting for you to name a communist country :). In some fairness, we have never tried pure capitalism just as we have never tried pure communism (outside of small scales for both) - but we went a lot further with capitalism than we ever did with communism. Regardless of communism though, we have not shown Capitalism to be long-term stable either... alternative methods of rule have lasted much longer.

@what Are you all arguing that there have been no communist countries? Russia China Cuba and Vietnam all thought they were communist and were trumpeted at the time as communist, but I guess they could all be wrong. This raises an interesting question, can a communist country exist?? Is the ideal so unstable and so unachievable it has never existed? Is the ideal evolving changing to cut out each failed "communist" government?

@GrinningX Fair point we probably have not seen pure communism, but we have seen majority communism, can't we draw conclusions from it? Democracy in its modern form is fairly new, capitalism is really old and fairly universal. The romans bough and sold and paid wages in ancient times. The ancient Egyptians and the civilizations of the Yangzi and Indus river valleys had currency.

@sdrawkcabdear It's even in the name. "United Soviet Socialist Republics".

Would a post-scarcity civilisation help you? Their economy would be static and resources could be equally distributed.

@what, excuse the pun, but what are you smoking? Census data from 1989 says poverty rate in USA was 14% (it was at 14% last year as well). Articles I can find from 1989 say 20% of Soviet citizens fell under poverty line, unless you go by "official" line for needs... which was calculated in the 1960's! And even the more acknowledged line of just 124$ a month per person in a family of 4 was just half! of what was determined as the poverty line in the USA. So if the poverty line were drawn equally in both countries the disparity would of been even greater!

@what, What does unemployment have to do with it? The 14% includes both those too young to work and those too old to work, as well as those that can't work, and those that refuse to work. The 5% unemployment is strictly a calculation of percent of population that wants to work but can't find jobs currently.