Is it inevitable that, within a socialist economy, the government will ultimately be doomed to become a totalitarian state due to corruption? Or is it possible for a citizen-run government like a democracy or republic to flourish?

[I edited my title to be accurate. Forgive my misuse of 'communism,' please.]

Second one. Remember, the USSR was basically a dictatorship from the start, and nearly every other Communist country was basically created by the USSR to serve the USSR. People need to get the idea out of their heads that Capitalism = Democracy and Communism = Dictatorship. Communism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. I do not see a reason there needs must be more corruption in a democratic government under communism than under capitalism.

The only real problem I see with communism is the inability to advance one's self. People are driven by little, normally meaningless, achievements. If one can get the same benefits for not doing anything as they can for working hard, why should they? Even those who would work, why should they push themselves as hard as they can, if the end result is that they're still ini the same place they were previously in the end?

But if everyone pushes themselves to do better, society as a whole will advance. If somebody develops a new technology, not only do they get to use it, but everyone else does too. The affects aren't as great on any individual person as they are in a capitalist society, but there is still incentive to do lots of high quality work.

If there were still lots of incentive for communists to work hard we'd all be speaking Russian by now.

I don't think communism requires a dictatorship, but capitalism does require democracy. One cannot own and control the means of production in an economy without the freedom that democracy affords. Communism does naturally lend itself to a dictatorship since people naturally seek to control their own destiny and the only way to do so is under some form of representative government which a dictatorship is not. Hopefully the world will never know if communism can work under a democracy.

I think it would be better if the world did know, one way or the other. I think we ought to explore all possibilities. If we just assume what we have is best, we cut off any way to improve ourselves.

I think we can safely say that capitalism can work under dictatorship. Just look at the US meddlings in South America (Guatemala before they had democracy and after the USA took it away, Cuba before the revolution...I'm sure there are plenty more). The USA have installed and supported facism across the globe. All in the name of profits and holding back "the red menace".

And what do you have against finding out if communism can work with democracy?

Also, communism, as defined by Karl Marx, would be more democratic than capitalism. Capitalism offers power to the wealthy. That power can be used to influence politicians, as can be seen in US politics. Marxism, on the other hand seeks to place the means of production within the hands of the workers. This does not mean, as some people believe, that everyone is poor, but that everyone is wealthy and equal, thus giving everyone equal power and producing a real democracy.

I feel obligated to point out that dictatorships can operate under a democracy also--'President for Life' is a term for a reason.

I feel that a truly free and democratic communism is unlikely to work longterm for the reason that people overall tend to be selfish. A successful communism requires a certain level of selflessness among its members. This is not the case under a democracy with capitalism because each member has incentive to take care of himself or herself, which contributes to the overall productivity of the country. The only way I see communism (in the sense it was originally intended) working is if the people are sufficiently close in terms of identity, so that everyone is willing to pull their weight for the good of their fellow citizens.

This is the problem with all types of government. No true type of government by definition exists in its purist form because people are involved. And this means on some level there is at least one corrupt individual or group that removes it from its truest form. If you actually pulled a group together that were completely in agreement in a way to run things it would be a utopia which can/could exist on a very small scale, but is not currently or any time in the foreseeable future something that is obtainable.

Agreed. And im not trying to get off-topic here, but some may argue that the current state of the U.S. is a dictatorship, or at least an oligarchy.

That would be hard to back up.

Hard? More like impossible. A dictatorship implies all the power lies in one person. There are a multitude of lobbyists.

A dictatorship by definition is communistical. Communism, economically, is state ownership and control of the means of production. Since a dictator owns and controls all property in a dictatorship and the dictator is the state, any economy under a dictatorship is communistical. Marx no doubt had something less diabolical in mind, but history speaks for itself. Communism has been a spectacular failure every time which is why I personally have no interest in seeing it repeated in a democracy or any other form of government.

Marxism is statist, but not by the current definition. Marx clearly describes a "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is not a dictatorship such as the USSR, China or North Korea, but a truly democratic society. Dictatorship of the Proletariat basically means the workers are in charge, as opposed to the capitalist owners. While the state does wield absolute power, the state is everybody, therefore nobody wields power over anybody else, unlike the current system where the rich and the "representatives" of the people control the laws.

As to your other point, communism has not been a failure because communism has never been implemented. Anywhere.

The Soviet Union failed as a result of trying to compete with a much larger economy militarily. While the US was large enough that it could produce enough military goods to be secure and still produce sufficient consumer goods, the Soviet Union couldn't produce nearly enough consumer goods if it wanted to compete with the US militarily. The Leaders chose the military over people, and the Soviet Union failed.

What do you call the Soviet economy if not communism?

I would probably call it faux-communism. While the government did control the means of production, everything they did was for the leader's ends, not the people's.

I feel some major corrections need to be made to this information.
Communism is a political ideology that focuses on revolution, the underclass, less government and more social advancement until the eventual "withering away of the state", contradiction-free politics, and a slur of other properties.

Socialism, a completely different topic, is an economic theory that assumes government should take a strong stance in the economy to fight against monopolies, create a social safety net, encourage major reforms in a short time, and twist international trades to the benefit of the state.

These often come in the same package but are not glued to the hip. China, for example, has free market sectors where many take advantage of the opportunity. Sweden is a democratic nation that has an arguably socialist economy with a 60% tax rate or something close.

Your description of communism sounds more akin to anarchy. I think this is a better definition:

"A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs"

(Taken from Google Dictionary)

One of the problems with communism is that there is more than one definition.

For the record I'm restricting my comments to the economic definition of communism which is state ownership and control of the means of production. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Fascism is state control of the means of production. (The difference historically is almost nothing) Free enterprise is private ownership and control of the means of production.

Communism can never work because there are always people that are not willing to work for the greater good, and there will always be people seeking a higher social class or more power. Thus, there is always a slight or major tip of the balance depending on how many of these people there are. Because of this, the main group in control of the communist state has to try to put everything back in order or as close as possible. However, because the idea of communism among human beings is inconceivable due to human nature, the ruling party ends up just being powerful people in the middle of a largely suppressed group of people.

I don't believe in human nature. I have yet to see any evidence to support it other than "it's just common sense".