At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Communism didn't "flourish" in Eastern Europe, it was imposed on Eastern Europe by armed force -- by the USSR following the Second World War. It was in fact bitterly resisted, and thousands of people died protesting or fleeing it, see, e.g. Hungary 1956, Prague 1968, the Berlin Wall, Solidarity in Polandi n the 1980s. Technically a big chunk of the USSR is in Europe, so you can say communism was voluntarily adopted by the easternmost bit of Eastern Europe, and of course by a big chunk of Asia -- China. (Of course, communism was strongly resisted by other big chunks of Asia, for example India.) Why? Well, that's a very difficult question to answer. Fat books have been written about it. My first hypothesis would be that both areas were unhappily aware of being far behind the rest of the world at the relevant time (1910s for Russia, 1930s for China), despite a long and honorable tradition of civilization. In each case, the people blamed their aristocratic and traditional ruling class, which is pretty common (and quite reasonable). However, what was unusual is that in each case the people decided the problem lay not with WHO was in the ruling class, but the very fact that there WAS a ruling class at all. They imagined that it was possible to solve the age-old problem of picking good leaders by simply abolishing the concept of "leader" entirely. We'll just let The People rule! Of course, the problem is how to figure out what The People want, since all you have are the opinions of individual people. Unfortunately, the effort to solve this by some other means than the usual sordid and unsatisfying process of having elections and bickering about policies never succeeded even a tenth part as well, and the result in both the USSR and China -- not to mention every other place this has been tried -- was that unscrupulous con-artists took the opportunity to seize power, promising (falsely) that they had some special insight into what The People wanted, and the sad result was decades of brutal dictatorship. You might ask why Western Europe did not fall prey to this delusion. Well, in the first place, it certainly has, at other times. That's where we got fascism and Hitler, and before that the French Terror and Napoleon. Only the English, and countries they spawned -- Canada, the US, Australia, India -- have been strongly resistant to dictatorships of all kinds, from the left and the right. It's a good question why. One possible answer is that in systems derived from English common law (which itself derives largely from Norse war-party traditions), there have always been fairly effective means to replace leaders you don't like. So in English-speaking nations, when we become dissatisfied with our leaders, we can relatively easily heave them out and find new ones, and so we tend to focus on finding the right leaders, rather than wandering off into the dangerous fantasy-land that it is possible to just eliminate leadership entirely.
Thank you so much - you are correct flourish was the incorrect word, but the policy was supported more so in the east than the west of europe/asia , eg the bolsheviks. but thank you again