Communism works if applied correctly

Hello, good luck to you as wellTo strengthen the base of my argument, I will restate the definition that I provided.Communism: the belief in the creation of a stateless, classless, money-less society, where private property (save for personal property) is collectively owned.(Also, arguments directly against the thesis stated above that are based upon Leninism and other forms of Statist Communism will be regarded as null and void. Example of an illegal statement:"The form of communism stated by pro is oppressive and corrupt, due to the existence of regimes like that in the U.S.S.R., North Korea, and Cuba")Now, if we view that an economic system "works" by judging how humanitarian the system is, then Communism in it's traditional sense "works". This system being humanitarian by providing the definition as stated.1. Money-less:Due to this system being money-less, it will provide people with the ability to achieve what is needed for their survival, people would distribute to themselves the goods needed for their survival freely. These goods would be produced in factories that reside within communities of individuals who would organize to build these factories based on the collective demands of said organization. There would be no need for people to take more than needed, other than to prevent from having to go and acquire the goods in the first place. An example of this being a family eating dinner (at least, by Western customs, please excuse my ignorance if i am mistaken). Each family member gives themselves the food needed to sate their hunger, while also being conscious of other family members hunger, and their need for survival.The benefits of this also include the effect of monetary based crime becoming redundant. Organized criminal activities (such as bank-robbing) would not occur since there is no incentive. Even burglary and theft would become redundant, since people would have no incentive to steal things away from people, since they can acquire an item of the same utilitarian value at the local goods warehouse.However, other things are neccessary to include alongside the aboltion of the monetary system. The wage-system, being directly tied with the monetary system, would also be abolished. This is called for since the wage system in general is dominatory and hierarchial. It constitues that someone should have power over the livelyhood of another human being, and is a contract that is, if anything, qasi-voluntary. Championing the Leninist ideal of, "He who shall not work, neither shall he eat". This idea demonstrates that someone must work to survive, which will, naturally, cause humans to want to pursue a job that pays more, instead of what they are actually interested in. For example, say a man wants to be an artist, well, painting pretty pictures in a capitalist society does not get you bread, so instead, he lives the rest of his unhappy life a hum-drum lawyer who hates his job. Bitter that he must pursue this instead of his passion. This, is the problem with the wage system.This destruction of the wage-system however, can provide benefits. I will use the U.S. public education system as an example. In the system, schools hire people based on qualifications and degrees, sometimes even regardless of whether they have a teaching degree. These people are usually those who came in the lower section of their grade at their university or tertiary school. Because of this, these ambitious minds are stuck with jobs that they have no passion for, thus making them not want to be involved in their teaching, and simply hand out packets and not care at all for the education of their students, since they are bitter.However, people who pursued a degree in teaching, and naturally aspired to teach children in the classroom, are usually naturally better at teaching, their passion fuels their job. Their wages are just an added bonus to the intrinsical incetive they already recieve. So, if this system were adopted, kids would recieve a more quality education due to learning from people who enjoy their job and who also aspire to inspire the next generation of adults.2. Classless:If we are to state that the monetary system should be abolished, wouldn't that also collapse the class system along with it? If there is no such thing as wealth, then there must also be no such thing as wealthy, or wealthless. Because of this, there would be no economic exploitation of people, since the monetary system is the base of the house of cards that is the class-system.However, why fight the class system? Some may argue that those who work harder are those who become richer. I disagree, those who work harder are those who are working in sweatshops in India and China for pennies a day. However, i digress. The main reason as to why we should fight the class system, is that to do so is to liberate workers and allow them to pursue their ambitions, instead of having to sell their body for labor simply to eat bread. The workers, being all of us who sit at the bottom of the socioeconomic caste system.This argument for abolition of class is brief, for it is hard to describe why egalitarianism is so appealing to us humans. However, to support the oppression and exploitation of the worker and the proletariat, is masochistic in nature, since you are most likely a part of it. 3. Stateless:The state is the next point of my argument, due to my belief that it is an oppressive entity that is based in corruption. This corruption of the state being divided into two camps, incetivized by money, and incentivized by power.To demonstrate corruption of the state based on power, I will use Kim Jong Un's oppressive regime in North Korea. Here, Kim Jong Un is the embodiment of the state, an autocrat. He oppresses and makes the people fear him for his personal gain, not that of the people. He places them in concetration camps to keep them productive, all the while emulating bourgeois culture of that in the West. This shows that he refuses to progress the nation that he rules over, due to his belief that he is superior, in fact even godly, to them.Another example of this is an experiment conducted by Stanford University, on prisoner-prison guard relations. Conducted by Phillip Zimbardo, the experiment, which included 24 white males from the middle-class, showed that as time progressed, the prison guards became addicted to the authority granted to them, and even began to subject the prisoners not just to humiliation and domination over them, but psychological torture [1]. This shows that a clear power incentive exists for those who have authority.However, there is another incentive for corruption, that being money. I will use the U.S. Government as my example. In America, money is equivalent to free speech, if you give money to a political candidate, it is seen as the same as having a chat with them [2]. This allows for people to, quite literally, buy the candidates they wish to see win. This encourages corruption and working against what is wanted by the people, and the point of the state being that they are there to serve the needs of the people. Therefore, because money is free speech, and political bribery is used as a tool by the rich to ensure their domination over the poorer classes, and keep them under their thumb, the state in this instance is being run only to server the needs of the corruptor. Thus making the state oppressive against the common man. This shows the state as being oppressive, and that it should be abolished so that the common man may find liberty and equality on his own or through voluntary association for mutual gain.4. Private Property:To show the distinction in what the difference is between private property and personal property, I will use this definition:Personal property: Items that have a certain utilitarian use, that is personal in its basisThe difference between this and private property, is that private property encompases not only personal property, but also things like forests, oceans, deserts, factories, farms, etc. I will start as to why this is wrong from my standpoint by beginning with factories. If factories are things where workers supply labor to input the means of production into the factory, and goods are produced from it, shouldn't these goods be collectively owned by the community or organization of workers that own it? Why should the capitalist who owns the factory own the goods produced when said capitalist will most likely expolit these workers for their labor by paying them pathetic wages to increase his/her profits? The answer to the question, is that these workers should own the goods produced, since it was their labor that produced it. Since they all collectively own the goods produced from their combined labor, they all have a right as to what was produced. To put it in simple terms, what produces for society, should be owned by society.Sources:[1]- Zimbardo Prison Experiment- http://www.prisonexp.org...[2]- McCutcheon vs. FEC- http://docs.justia.com...