Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

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. "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. 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. 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. 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. Communism involves a classless society where private property is collectively owned. From this definition, I believe that really is the point. 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.I would love to see communist sources stating or implying this.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. I don't think it would eliminate any conflict. Rather, I think it would cause more strife and feelings of social injustice, leading to many conflicts.So with that said, I feel that communism would not be humanitarian as it would not benefit society any more than it is now. And also, since you have the BoP, I would like to see sources for your claims on communism's humanitarian benefits and its points.