Communism must win, so that the world can be saved

that's actually a bit cartoonish

that's actually a bit cartoonish

How so?

Well, people have different ideas about what Communism is.

However, in most of his works, Marx talks about exploitation being the greatest problem.

Today, some countries such as China, Japan and Vietnam have workers coops. Workers coop is buisness owned by workers, and it is considered as a form of Socialism.

In his words, all people and all countries have sovereignty, and no one should tolerate the violation of his sovereignty.

This ideology of Juche is like the advanced form of Communism.

If we assume that every individual has sovereignty over his body and his property, what makes a difference is how one earns property.

In Juche, some of it is earned according to work while some of it is free(such as a house, piece of land...).

In Capitalism, rich people multiply their money with very little work.

The masses are forced to work much more for much less money.

In capitalist countries, you dont have sovereignty over your body.

While the capitalist countries have made some small progress on the field of sovereignty, they still seem to prefer to violate sovereignty whenever they like.

communism is modeled after how a family operates

each member is motivated by a sense of loyalty and duty to the family

and not by pure profit motive

each member of the family still has their own clothes and their own room and their own personal possessions

but they also share many things

Communism like every other political "-ism"

if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.

well, it stands in stark contrast to "capitalism" which many treat as a "political -ism"

that's already basically the case

the police force is functionally indistinguishable from a local mafia

and if you really irritate your neighbors, they will take everything from you

well, it stands in stark contrast to "capitalism" which many treat as a "political -ism"

True enough, but it still focuses on the management of resources.

--> @Shila

Should commanding officers represent mother figures instead to improve the American Army?

that would be much less effective

if your goal is to turn teenage boys into robotic killing machines

"What is your preferred description of communism?"

In simplest way, it is society without exploitation.

But one shouldnt stop at just that, but work for sovereignty of all people.

Now, what is exploitation?

In our society, nothing can be produced without workers. But workers earn very little money(wealth). The rich earn a lot of money. The rich didnt work to earn most of the money they have.

Workers must work to produce money for themselves and the rich.

Money(wealth) is used to buy products.

The economy is about production and distribution of products.

1) Workers spend time to produce products later distributed to the workers.

2) Workers spend time to produce products later distributed to the rich.

Workers working to increase the wealth of the rich, when rich dont work to equally increase the wealth of the workers, is exploitation.

Workers coops are one way to throw rich out of the equation.

Workers coops are owned by workers. Workers make the decisions by voting. I guess thats how the wages are decided. I dont know exactly how it works, but apparently its getting popular.

About state:

I do agree that the state meddling is not pure capitalism. However, state is not really something that just goes away. It sticks to capitalism just as it sticks to all systems. It is very hard to destroy it or minimize its influence.

In accordance to work:

1) Workers are paid equal to their work. If worker produces 5 phones, he has 5 phones in money value. The only tax allowed is the one which benefits the worker.

Free:

2) There are things guaranteed to all. They are free in a sense that they are given even if no previous work is done by the individual. This includes house, piece of land, education, healthcare.

i'm not sure what kind of family you've experienced

but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes

The example which you provided is the example of free trade with later some hints of exploitation.

Free trade can exist in Communism in a way that you are free to sell your products at the price you set. And others are allowed to resell them.

Whether someone will get rich from that is not so important.

If your example was happening in Communism, the beautiful woman would still have to work spending her time selling burgers. She wouldnt be able to hire workers to work instead of her.

She would never have an empire.

If my buisness fails because of her, it means the products I produce are no longer wanted by society. So the state provides me with different job to produce products desired by society.

Notice that the same example in capitalism would maybe allow her to start an empire, earn much more money with much less work.

The capital of the rich was created by workers. The rich are not necessary in this situation.

"If one or more of the workers dissent, how is their input evaluated?"

Probably by a vote of majority.

Basically, if there are 20 people owning the buisness, they set wages by a vote. Every worker gets to vote. If most of them agree on a wage, thats what the wage becomes.

But this is only in the case where there is a production line.

The cost of production, to sum it up, is payed by the workers themselves. Either directly with their money, either helped by the state.

Who pays the taxes? The workers. But workers only pay the taxes that they have benefits from. For example, worker pays tax that allows education. In return, children are able to have an education. That increases production and quality of life in society.

So its for the benefit of a worker too and the society as a whole.

The goal is to stop American troops from withdrawing in disgrace. Eg Vietnam, North Korea,  USA, Somalia, Afghanistan! Iraq.

but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes

Where did I imply this?

Sure I might have my "own clothes" if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.

And presumably, the capital was acquired by a willfully-entered agreement, correct?

I honestly don't understand why the mods allow these spam accounts to come on here and do this shit. Everybody knows that these are if not already established member setting up fake accounts idiots who come on here just to do this shit and they allow it to happen. It's why more than half the members here either high school or early college age kids because mature adults don't put up with shit like this.

Not penalty. If she uses her beauty to sell burgers, she needs to be there selling them. Hence, working.

If she hires another beautiful woman as a worker to work instead of her, she risks that the other woman might take over her buisness. Also, its not privately owned buisness, so the workers included in it have an equal vote. 

In my view, people have sovereignty over their body and their territory. What is considered their territory? Their house, and a piece of land.

Same way capitalists determine it.

If buisness produces things that arent desired, it will fail. Hence, move to another buisness.

It is bad considering that later in Capitalism she will not work at all, but have others do all the work for her. Others will earn less money doing more work, because she is taking most of it for herself.

Your argument was that capitalists provide the capital to the workers.

Workers create all wealth and all capital in the society. Capitalists are not needed.

Capitalist existence means that workers work more to sustain themselves and the capitalists.

Yes, the workers consent to work for the capitalist. They consent to the wage. My argument was never about their lack of consent in capitalism. 

They can quit and search for other job somewhere else.

Art is a product, in that case. So the production would increase in a sense that products desired by people would be produced.

People would buy art.

Same with history, in cases where those who know history can work on educational shows or politics.

Now about gender studies... maybe... if people are ready to pay for that....doubt it.

They are not gonna be prohibited, I dont see the need for that. Maybe they simply wont be financed. If people dont want to pay money to finance gender study, it goes to say that gender study would have to rely on unpaid volunteers.

The basic economical classes in Communism are:

1) The state

2) The workers

The state must be democratic, so controlled by the workers. State is funded by taxes. It return, it protects the workers and their property and their freedom to own buisnesses.

The basic economical classes in Capitalism are:

1) The capitalists

2) The workers

The capitalists own the capital and most of the means of production. Workers agree to work for the capitalists in trade for the wage. Capitalists allow workers to use means of production to produce products. From this, the capitalists usually gain profit.

The protection of property is regulated without the state. So it is privately regulated.

The economical structures look similar. Both societies are, in theory, based on consensual participation of every individual.