Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

'It could work two ways: everyone becomes rich, or everyone becomes poor.'The problem with this idea is that this is not what communism is about, people would not be either rich or poor. If we eliminate the idea of wealth, we simultaneously eliminate the idea of both wealth-y, and wealth-less. If we also additionally remove the state, then there is no class, everyone is on a equal playing field. 'As history has repeatedly demonstrated, the latter almost always wins out.'I am curious as to know what history you are referring to, since the basic idea of communism has never been truly been tested. If you are referring to the USSR, the DPRK, the PRC, or any other country that uses an offshoot of Leninism, then your argument is null and void. Leninism does not subscribe to the definition of communism as I have stated, since it involves the idea of a state, let alone a socialist state, being formed for the people to adjust to, then having it magically decay into a stateless society.'In communism, nobody has more than each other, whether or not they worked or they were lazy.'This isn't true, in actual communism, the point isn't that everyone cannot have more than the other, it is that everyone inside of a commune has all rights to everything produced inside of the producers of the commune. As I stated, people would go into a warehouse, and distribute to themselves what they need, and later when there is a surplus of goods, what they want. Now, you may argue that someone will take more than they need, when there is a scarce amount of goods in the warehouse. This is illogical, since this person is effectively committing associatorial suicide. It will effectively dismantle this persons credibility, therefore people will not wish to associate with them since they were greedy.To answer the laziness argument, this would affect a persons credibility as well. The point of working in a communist society is to pursue your ambitions, however, you would need to organize horizontally with others to achieve your goals. Since association is a must in communism, those who are lazy can be denied association from those who do not wish to work with them due to their reputation. Therefore, laziness would be seen as something that can ruin you, so it would be undesirable to be lazy.'It simply wouldn't fit the definition of humanitarianism, which is supposed to provide welfare for the people, not poverty.'The definition of humanitarian[1]:Humanitarian: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.If we view the idea of welfare as being able to supply good fortune, health, happiness, and prosperity, then Communism as described will ensure this, the rich would not become impoverished by the implementation of Communism. The only thing that would be taken away would be their indivual ownership of collective property. Their survival, liberties, and personal property will still be ensured. In fact, they would be able to pursue whatever they wished to pursue, the only thing that would change is that the poor are on an equal playing field, since there is no such thing as money. This would actually stop the conflict between the rich and the poor, since the exsistence of a class struggle has been demolished through the abolition of all forms of vertical organization. Thereby instilling an order amongst the populace. Since there is no strife, then there must be peace, if this peace stays, then the opposing factions repsect each other, if they respect each other, a sense of equality will ensue, since there is a sense of equality, there is no class, and since communism can provide these people with the means of their survival, liberty, and happiness, then it can improve the welfare of the people. Therefore, it is humanitarian.Sources:- http://dictionary.reference.com...