Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically.

"communism: A theoretical economic system ..." "'communism' is a stateless, classless, moneyless..." You just completed contradicted your own ideals and we've barely gotten started. There is no economic system without a currency. As you advocate some sort of twisted 'moneyless' system to use your word, then your version of Communism by default is NOT an economic system. There can be no economy without some sort of currency. Even in a simplistic barter system there is currency, or value, in goods traded for other goods. You eliminate all of that, hence no economy at all. "I have two cows, my neighbors help me take care of them, and we all share the milk produced." Another contradiction. If there is no currency with which to buy the cows then nobody owns them. By default the cows are either communally 'owned' or they are 'free'. Either way, you don't own them. See, even little nuances like this make it clear you haven't thought this out very well. "Therefore, since I advocate for 'communism' and I am a 'communist', you cannot generalize me and name me as being a 'Communist', and that I support 'Communism'." Communism is an ideology. You support said ideology. That makes you a Communist. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the implementation necessary for it to work. It also doesn't matter that it is impossible to implement your version of it. If you believe in the ideology then you are, indeed, a Communist. I am a capitalist. I don't necessary agree with every misuse and abuse of the system, but I don't get to invent a purer version of it in my own mind and claim THAT is what I am. Fact is we live in the real world, not your fantasy island. In the real world, with real people, Communism does not work. Your tweaks to the theory only serve to make it an even more deeply flawed system impossible to implement. "The logical flaw with this argument, is that human nature itself is not a fixed thing. " Of course not. Which is why your system is doomed to failure. "You assume that all people wish to be competitive, and would not cooperate with one another. This is not necessarily true." I assume no such thing. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. ALL people don't wish anything. There are plenty of folks who have no desire to compete OR cooperate. They simply want to receive because they exist. Those are the people who drag down any socialist society, and they are VERY prevalent in any socialist society. Your version of Communism would be even worse as there is no leadership to enforce everyone pulling their weight and no monetary motivation to do it willfully. "Human nature is something that bends and adapts to the economic system that it habitates in." Untrue. Humans have an incredible ability to adapt to most situations, but it is certainly not human nature to do so. When you push people beyond their WILLINGNESS to adapt, they push back, hard. THAT is human nature. That is why the Soviet Union fell. It is why the United States became the most successful country the world has ever known. They pushed back once Britain pushed them beyond their willingness to accept the economic system imposed. It is YOU who is making the fatally flawed assumption that somehow the entire world would willingly drop their economic system and fall into what in most cases is an inferior system from a personal standpoint. You also assume they would do so without guidance or enforcement. That it would somehow naturally occur and be accepted. "People for many years in Europe believed that the system of divine right and kingship would last for the rest of time" Right. Until the people figured out there was a better way that benefited THEM, not just the royals. Ditto Communism. "Also, by benefiting society, you are simultaneously benefiting yourself" Only when done in a planned and structured way or done of your own free will. Something that could not exist in your version of Communism. "'communism' itself is meant to be on a global scale, when humans as a whole have built themselves a global ethnic backbone that they can use to become one human species." ANY system that purports to be the 'right' system for all of humanity is absurd on its face. Just as capitalism would not be acceptable in many cultures around the world for various reasons, so too would communism be immediately rejected, particularly in western countries that value freedom and independence. You are NOT free in any Communist system. You are almost completely reliant on others for most things. That is not freedom. Hence, yet again, you are proposing something that could absolutely never happen. If it's not feasible, then the claim that it 'would work' automatically fails. It CAN'T work if it can't be implemented. We also still have this leaderless issue...you are working on the entirely fanciful assumption that 7 billion+ people will just magically follow your ideology, without leadership. As if communism is the 'natural' way to run society. If there are no leaders, that means there is no structure, no law enforcement...indeed no laws. There could be no innovation, medical practice would be set back a century. No research and development. No new products. Heck, no continuance of current products that aren't deemed necessities. After all, you can't have an XBox if you have no money to buy one. Or is Microsoft somehow going to exist solely to give out free XBoxes to everyone? I don't have near enough characters to continue down the list of things that could not exist in a leaderless, moneyless system or the adverse consequences of such. Essentially, anything that isn't necessary would cease to exist. There would be no reason to continue producing consumer products and no motivation to advance science. "Now, since you have stated this, you have contradicted yourself. A few paragraphs ago you were stating about how 'communism' = 'Communism', yet now you acknowledge my belief in the lack of a state." No contradiction whatsoever. Your belief and what Communism actually is are two different things. Your version doesn't exist, has never existed, and couldn't possibly exist going forward hence your version means nothing to this debate. This debate is about PRACTICE, not fantasy, as I clearly stated in the 1st paragraph of the challenging argument. "These societies themselves were anarchistic, and communal. They were not chaotic, and they didn't have leaders." Quakers, Mormons, Mennonites, were/are leaderless? That's ridiculous. Of course they have leaders. The elders of the church lead the commune. Without leadership there is no guidance, no prioritization, no organization. All of these groups have all of the above in a very disciplined way precisely because they have STRONG leadership. That is why there is no chaos. They are also not the least bit anarchistic, you're simply making things up to support your weak position. All of those groups are fully law abiding and participate in their countries economic system. They are not and do not attempt to be leaderless, moneyless systems. Far from it. "If we are not equal, how can we call ourselves free?" That makes no sense at all. We are all equal from the get go. However, our actions determine if we continue to be equal on all levels. If you commit a crime you go to prison and are no long free. Are you advocating doing away with laws, prisons, etc.? Well, by default I guess you are because without leaders there can be no law, only chaos. There is not equality (or freedom) in even your pie in the sky theory. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that people will not just act like drones, each contributing to the communal system equally. We know some will refuse to work, but still reap the benefits. That is not equality. We know that others will work harder than most but receive the same as the free-loader. That is not equality. All that does is harbor resentment until you reach the point that NOBODY works, only takes. System Collapses