So are you are suggesting that a modern civilization should be modeled after the conditions of the Amazon rain-forest? Then what is the point of a civilization at all?
Nope, your communist idea of everybody gets an even share is good, only it's not applicable to the real world.
The purpose of civilisation and technology is to make life easier than gathering food and building mud huts. And more pleasant and comfortable. But you need to look at it in one simple way. Do all your necessary commodities just magically appear in the world, or does some magical machine throw them out at the click of a button? No. All of that is made or gathered by someone. There are many things done by machines these days, but people still need to coordinate and watch over them. In your system somebody who makes 1000 loafs of bread has to give them all away, and gets back a few of them that is said to be "enough for him". Somebody else does nothing and still gets the same amount of bread. How is that in any way fair and equal treatment? Today's world has it solved, every person does something or provides some services, gets a unified currency for their work, and then they can exchange that currency for the work of others. It's a system where those who don't want to work cannot afford other people's work. Except for cases of aid, social care, etc. We are not at the level where we can have everything cheaply and without work. So working towards a better wealthier society is mandatory, otherwise you're just slowing the progress of mankind as a leech.
For one it's at the systemic level not the individual level; where in a grouping (the wealthy) live off the work of others
Okay first of all, those wealthy people still mostly work, and work hard, keeping and increasing their wealth. If you think running a whole damn corporation is "doing nothing" then you have a warped view of reality. Also, most wealthy people started out as poor as anyone else, and worked hard enough to amass wealth (exceptions being inheritance, fraud etc, as I mentioned). In fact, getting money for doing absolutely nothing is really rare, even among the wealthiest. A spoiled child of a millionaire perhaps, or a retired banker with plenty of shares in profitable companies. And I believe it's way better than taking away people's life achievements (like huge companies built from scratch) and give it all away to others to make it "fair". Because the output of what you get should depend on the input of your work into the society. And should you be unable or incapable then you can still count on people who just want to share, in form of charities and other crap.
You guys misinterpret that laziness would be the normative of a society where participation is choice. That only seems relevant because you don't trust people to interact for one another's benefit as the highest ideal in the society.
It's true, I don't. People might get there, at some point, but first they got to mature a bit more.
i saw like, this talk on TED.com about how money is not a motivating factor for highly specialized technical or creative positions, and how in multiple studies, productivity in these fields consistently comes from following projects that interest the person working on them, and how merely the recognition by others and for others is what makes them appreciate their work.
Which doesn't change the fact that should those projects suddenly become well paid, the "interest" in them would not go up.
In a communist society, therefore, the things you do would be interesting to you because you would be doing them for in descending order, the personal satisfaction, the reactions you get from others, and the seal of your contribution cleanly made.
Yes, and I'd love to see it work, in a proper mature society. Unfortunately human race is made up of dickwads who take satisfaction off of the fact that they can get around doing anything tiresome. People get spoiled way too easily.
All your other points are merely discrediting my assertion that communism has no positive impacts on the world whatsoever, which I would just say is illogical to assume.
Agreed, Ruff is an extreme anticommunist.
But come on, let's see more arguments to disprove this post's case that will center around how people morally should not be trusted to be anything but lazy and horrible to each other. :\
There you go. My work here is done.
(Because they are! Or rather a number of them are. Sure there are those who would keep such an utopia going, but to make it work you'd have to be selective.)