PandorasJackinthebox
I stopped reading about the second page. Clearly you have no concept of what pure communism is--because it has yet to happen within the confines of our world's history. The USSR and China were called "communist" during the Cold War, as North Korea and Vietnam are called now, but what you fail to realize is that, while their economies have a loose basis in communism, THEY AREN'T COMMUNIST. They run much closer to totalitarianism. Why? Because these countries do not (or did not) allow for any other political party to exist, and banished or killed political enemies to maintain control and power in their countries. There are very few actual elements of communism in these instances, as in a purely communist society, resources would be distributed according to NEED, and there is common ownership rather than government overregulation, as you suggest. What you are speaking of sounds borderline Fascist, which is about as far from communism as you can get.
Wikipedia
Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.
In case you didn't hear that, it ISN'T hierarchical, you are NOT "controlled" by the government. It is based on EQUALITY, and you are SUPPORTED by the government, but not controlled by it.
And me? I'm a proud British citizen, a socialist, and part-Cherokee, part-Middle Eastern, part-white. Argue with me or attack me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that socialized programs in England and other such nations are MUCH more successful than their American (capitalist) equivalents.
Common ownership is a giant pile of bullshit.
What's the difference going to be, anyone can just take my land any time they want or do whatever on it, or will it end up being just like private land and the only difference being a name?
Social equality?
No, some people will work harder and do harder jobs and still get paid less, that is in no way equal. Even so, some people will be mistreated, or beaten, or called names, or disliked, becuase they possess "X" quality, equal money does not result in social equality.
And what happens to art, who decides what is and is not art- the government, you have to be a registered artist, becuase you can't get paid to sale something, you can't go out on your own and write a book or have a flower garden and get paid, it's all controlled by the state, oh wait, I mean "the people"? Right, so you go out and create a shitty book and you get the same supplies and support as a 12 hour coal miner, that's SO ******** equal.
You can't go out and do whatever you want, you can't have a yard sale becuase that's definitely not communism, one person deciding what's sold and their price, can't have that.
All tinkerers, all self employed, all small business, you kill it, you are essentially looking to further big business under impossible romantic self contradictory "idealistic" notions.
Where you "have no state", yet all the land is owned, yet you "have no state" but a super powerful government, which less government control but oh, government in control of all of business, etc. it's just a giant pile of crap, and the second people believe it's a good idea is the second they start burning the world for no reason.
Right, becuase if we all own the land I can decide all the Gays and Jews are evil and do whatever the hell I want.
And anyone can stop me from leaving my house, or live in my house and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it cause "Oh, we're all brothers and we should all share, and there is no 'private' land" and then they steal all your s**t and there's nothing you can do about it, or god knows what while you're sleeping.
You can tell me oh, communism is a super ideal form of government, and I can tell you that what I want is for everyone to have super powers and live forever and never want to hurt anyone and have energy sources that create energy from nothing like magic, but it's not going to happen and it's physically impossible.
Get real; if you push for a society with such a thing, you will fail, as no such things exists.
What you want to do is fundamentally impossible, to have a "stateless" society. And why? Because "state" carries a negative connotation; you want to get rid of a word. You want a "government" without a "state", something fundamentally impossible to do, that will end up being the exactly the same as any other government except with no secondly available option than what the government gives you.
The idea of words is that they have value, instead you want to change the word and then remove it's use, which won't change anything. Change your perception of why you work and then carry on without changing anything. It'll be totalitarian regardless if the "people" are behind it or not; even if they were, pure democracy is not a good thing, it's why we have a constitution.
I like the military, rigid discipline is fine and everything, and I like the rules and generally the government, although not every politician.
But that kind of rigid discipline and lack of an interpersonal option isn't for everyone. We should be able to peruse a private option- and so what, is the government going to provide cosmetic surgery too? How about mountain dew, or Dr Pepper, or the really Authentic Taiwan food (And I mean Taiwan) food down the street? How about those who want "organic", and those who don't really care? Will the government provide all that, should they even, can they provide what I want to do, it's impossible. People should be allowed choices, and in general they can run things by themselves. It's that 2% that messes it up for the rest of us, the 1% in jail and the 1% still walking around. That's why we have government, to stop those people, to ensure our rights, to ensure our freedom's. The forefront of American democracy has never been democracy but our freedoms. We can't just murder people and things, even if that would be a more "free" society (such as in Anarchy) so we find the right balance, to just throw things out of whack is silly. When we need government control and intervention, we'll have it, and when we don't we'll leave whatever else up to the people. Constitution and things. This should be the forefront of our society, Communism is just too strict I think for the majority of people, and there's no reason to restrict ourselves like that.
In theory, communism isn't evil, becuase you say it isn't evil, becuase you say the backing isn't bad.
In reality it will end up being something entirely different, and evil; just becuase you say you want to help others, perhaps you sincerely want to help others, does not mean that the end result will necessarily be that.