Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

"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." Is the debate over whether communism is efficient or humanitarian? Because I feel you've failed to touch on the former. "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." They would be equal in that they would have no money, so they would be equal in wealth in that sense. "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." How would they raise their standard of living, then? They don't have money to buy anything, and they can't get any more than what's provided by the suppliers. And also, if you could make the idea of wealth unappealing like you say, they wouldn't want higher standards of living anyway. "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.'" This is argumentum ad populum, and is therefore invalid. "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." That's exactly the problem.There's no guarantee that the collective will even be enough. There is still someone running that whole thing, and if he has malicious intent, then that gives me one more reason to think communism wouldn't work. "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." They are being denied access of pursuit of something more than just what is provided by the warehouses. In capitalism, you may have to work or starve, but if you work hard, you will rise up and earn what you worked for. It's a work ethic, and in capitalism, it is greatly rewarded most of the time. You can buy and sell more than what is just provided for you, which may not be enough. You'd be able to stock up on goods for later and such. This is how capitalism is more free; you work, and then you can make your material dreams come true. In communism, there's no way this can ever happen. "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." And there would be social unrest, as people would not be able to reach and make more of their lives. No matter how hard they work, they will never be able to achieve any more. "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." Capitalism in its purest form has never led to civil conflict. People can still work, and their work will be rewarded. "However If 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." When communism was used or has tried to been used, it has always led to more social unrest. So this point would be moot in my view. "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." Except as I demonstrated, communism is not humanitarian.