There hasn't been a communist society because communism is the absence of scarcity, government, and class society. There have, however, been brief glimpses of socialist societies throughout the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Socialism was rolled back in Russia precisely because of the failure of the other socialist revolutionary movements that were ongoing from 1917-23. Lenin recognized this and wrote of the growing danger of the bureaucracy in his latter years; unfortunately, the whole revolution ended up being undone in about a ten year period precisely because of bureaucratic mission creep and the destruction of the organs for workers' control and management of production throughout the course of the Russian Civil War.
I would classify Russia between 1917 and 1918 as a socialist society, before the organs of workers' control were destroyed and much of the working class dying on the frontlines of the Civil War. From 1918 to 1921 you had still had some degree of workers' input in production and control but not complete mastery, and by 1921, you had the ban on factions within the Communist Party and, ultimately, the takeover of the factories by state organs rather than by organs of workers' power. Even with that in mind though, Russia limped along as a democratic society (although one with severe defects) until the defeat of the Left Opposition and the seizure of power by Stalin in the late 1920s. I would also classify the Paris Commune of 1871 as a socialist society, areas of Germany under revolutionary control during 1918-1919 as socialist, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War as socialist (although again, with severe defects, given the inability of the anarchists to really control the territory they claimed), Hungary in the course of the 1956 Revolution, and the anti-Stalinist revolutions of the late 1960s and early 1970s as revolutions which gave us a glimmer of what a socialist society would ultimately look like.
I don't think that the failure of these revolutions negates the prospect of socialism being built in the near future. A person looking from the vantage point of 1814 might claim that the defeat of the French Revolution by Bonpartism 'proved' that liberalism could never be successfully implemented, but the person claiming that would have ultimately been proved wrong by the convulsions that would eventually sweep feudalism out of Europe and establish global capitalism. The fact that the 20th Century socialist revolutions were not successful or did not have staying power does not discount the possibility of future, successful socialist revolutions anymore than the rise of reaction in France discredited the possibility of liberal revolution elsewhere.
You bash Libertarians for never being achieving anything, when not a single one of those "pure" socialist nations survived for more than a few years? As long as people will exist, so will some form of government, and the need for a state. "True" Socialism will never, ever happen, and if by a miracle another Paris Commune type of government is briefly formed, it will quickly collapse at the hands of foreign invaders or the idiots who attempted it to begin with.
The 1814 analogy wasn't a bad one, but you forget that capitalism needs a state in order to protect it. What is keeping a person from robbing a store and stealing from the owner? What prevents owners from killing striking workers or striking workers from killing their employers without some form of a state. The Revolutionary French regime overthrew the monarchy, but it did not end the state. What your form of socialism (anarcho-syndicalism?) is advocating is simply incompatible with humanity, as human beings are innately selfish and could rationalize raping a toaster in ten seconds if left completely to our devices. For someone to bash libertarianism as impractical ("infantile screaming about how you shouldn't be 'forced' to do things you don't want to do "), it seems a little odd to advocate a nation focused around workers councils with no form of centralization what so ever.
Poll
