Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

'"Well, to start out with, you can't just eliminate ideas; that thought of wealth and the class system will always be there. And also, in other words, everyone would be equal in wealth, right? I'm going to assume you're against capitalism and business competition, but can you really say in good conscience that a system where everyone will always be equal and possibly miserable at the thought of a potentially better life would be better than a society where people can work to earn better lives? This is why I don't believe communism would be beneficial is because no matter what, the people would always be equal; and with the idea of possibly having a better life under capitalism, would be miserable up to their final breaths.'How about we start out with this, if wealth and class are things that were made by man, then they can be eliminated by man. Sure, you cannot eliminate ideas, but you can make their usage redundant and unappealing to the average human by showing them a more effiecient system.Yet again, you are making the assumption that 'people would be equal in wealth'. This implies that there is money, which there would not be. So, since there is no money, there is no wealth. Things would not be 'bought', they would simply be acquired.The people would not be equally miserable, if the standards of living are low, then there will be people who contribute towards raising them, because they, like everyone else, do not wish to have low standards of living. It would go completely against human nature to simply sit by and not contribute towards your survival. 'Then how would I be able to reasonably argue against communism without referring to how it's been used in the past? The logic I am using is that if everyone were to be equal, they would have equal amounts of money, food, etc. and no private property. I am saying this is because. Once they get the idea of capitalism and other possible, more free social systems, this would cause frustration and civil uprising and then the downfall of the communist society would follow in time.' These countries cannot be used as examples of communism since they are not inherently communist. This is due to the inclusion of the state, when communism is primarily an anarchist ideology, a left-wing one at that.The countries that have been laughingly labelled 'communist' are, in reality, socialist states.Some communists completely disagreed with the ideas of Leninism and its various strains, as quoted by Kroptokin[1]:'Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing.'Again, as i have said, they do not have an equal quantity of said goods, they just have a collective right to the entire collective of goods, they take for themselves what they need, they would not all be given the same amount of food, since others need more food than others.If people can aqcuire anything they need without having to sell themselves for labor, then why would they want to rise up against it? They are not being oppressed, they are not being denied access to their means of survival. Therefore, this does not show why they would rise up against it. You say capitalism is a more free social system. On what basis? Capitalism dictates that one must sell their labor to a capitalist, or else they will not have access to their means of survival. Hence, the 'choice' they make to sell their labor is not voluntary. They must work for a capitalist or starve. At least, in free market capitalism (like that of the Gilded Age) that is.'Communism involves a classless society where private property is collectively owned. From this definition, I believe that really is the point.'I think you are confused when it comes to the phrase 'private property'. This does not necessarily mean things like your house, your phone, your computer, or even simple things like your toothbrush. These would still belong to you. However, things that produce should not be privately owned. for example, factories.As quoted by Marx[2]:'Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.''I would love to see communist sources stating or implying this.'Ok, I will source Peter Kropotkin's An Appeal to the Young[3] in the sources.To answer your last argument, it's about what it would cause that makes it humanitarian; and in today's world, there's no hiding from the idea of being rich for anyone.That isn't the point. It isn't abolishing only the idea of being rich, but also poor. It eliminates class, therefore the formerly rich would still keep their standards of living, and pursue what they wish. Whereas the formerly poor man can achieve just as much as that formerly rich man.The point is, that as long as there is class struggle, there is strife and conflict daily. Because of communism's elimination of both economic and political class, strife based on class in those categories would cease to exist. I will use this maxim to demonstrate the logic behind this:If Capitalism is the system used, then there is economic hierarchy.If there is economic hierarchy, then there is an economic class system.If there is an economic class system, there is a lower class that is being oppressed and exploited.If this class exists, then there must be an oppressing higher class, therefore there is a class struggle.If a class struggle exists, there is instability.If there is instability, it will eventually lead to civil conflict.HoweverIf Communism is the system used, then there is no economic hierarchy.If there is no economic hierarchy, then there is no economic class system.If there is no economic class system, then there is no class struggle.If there is no class struggle, then there is stability.If there is stability, then there is peace.In Conclusion:Communism is a system that; by eliminating money, would allow for more people to have access to the means of their survival; by abolishing class, would cause civil strife based on economic status to end, since all are now on an equal field, and cannot be subjugated or exploitated; by demolishing the state, would free people from oppression based on political class, and would give all people the same equal political rights;by collectivising private property (with the exclusion of personal property), would allow for workers to have more rights in the workplace, and would give all of mankind the abundance that factories produce.Therefore, if we define humanitarian as[4]:Humanitarian: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.Then communism is a system that fit this definition, therefore it is humanitarian.Sources:1- http://www.goodreads.com...2- http://www.goodreads.com...3- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...4- http://dictionary.reference.com...