Let history not be the only judge: an arguement for communism.

Alright. So this is how it's gonna be then. Well you want this debate, I guess we'll have it. Ahem. From the bondage and inequality that is capitalism arose communism. Within it was the hope of liberation and equality for all humankind, and the destruction of the system which perpetrated these offenses. Communistic thought came in many forms, but ultimately it was Marx who most ingeniously proposed communist theory in a way which multitudes could rally around. There were many glorious attempts. All have failed, for varying reasons, and we have learned from all of them. In small American Utopian communities, it was noted that the men really just seemed to want to sit around and philosophize, while the women and children worked. We now know you can't create a communist society of only intellectuals. Many worker owned co-ops in the US did quite well in the 19th century, but they could not compete with big business, displaying that eternal truth of capitalism that its not the best but the biggest and meanest that survive. Those communist nations in the twentieth century were sabotaged mainly by the fact that they were all heavily influenced by Soviet style communism, and the West was constantly trying to uproot them. Nothing like the constant threat of US invasion to make you paranoid. Private property is one of the most misunderstood terms in the communist arsenal, much like the "middle class". In many countries, people think of private property as just stuff they own. So when we communists say "get rid of private property," people think "they want my stuff!" Completely untrue. We don't care about your stuff. Why would we? What we mean is private means of production. That just means factories and farms and the like. I shall allow Marx to make his point on the subject, "We communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! ... But does wage-labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage -labor, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labor." Ah, the manifesto at its finest. Lets examine Marx's point here: if you accept that work actually creates nothing for the worker except his wage and capital (the worth of his production) than he is inevitably getting the short end of the stick from private property, because his wage is always lower (and usually much lower) than the capital. Is that not an easy example of the the word "exploitation"? Now lets segue to wages. This is another often misunderstood area of communist thought. First, I might refer you to another saying of Marx's "To each according to his contribution" This is the pre-communist era statement by which we shall be equal in socialism. You receive equal to what you contribute. Who could ask for anything fairer than that? But the worker and professor you mention, do they not both contribute something vital for society? For without the worker, the professor would not even have a desk. But lets move to your quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" This refers to the communist epoch. This will only be put in effect when we have the capability to produce so much for society that we no longer need to do more than say "give all you can, take all you need". Money and wages shall be rendered useless. Now that is not to say communism is easy on slackers. The benefits and luxuries which we shall all enjoy shall never be "free", and those who try to take without contributing shall be dealt with. Only communism can liberate humanity from its woes. Capitalism is brutal and inefficient, and will, with time, inevitably begin to collapse under its own contradictions. If we want a truly democratic system, we cannot allow tyrants to control the economy. If we want to be equal, we cannot allow huge portions of some demographics to wallow in poverty. If we want to be free, we must liberate ourselves from poverty and ignorance, chains which hold us down with more weight than any other. Only communism can do this.