[quote=@Doivid] no you're not supposed to take it seriously, because you don't discuss anything seriously or actually want to change your viewpoint. you post b8 then mock actual productive responses. whether you disagree or not with him, Villageidiotx made a thoughtful reply, and you just mock it because you have no real rebuttal. [/quote] I mean he brings up valid points still, even if he is shitposting. Anyways I'll bring up some points I found contradictory/improbable. "This method, applied to all industries providing goods or services, would eliminate any semblance of Bourgeois elements in society, with all methods of production being owned collectively by the workers who operate them." Right, and who is going to enforce this? Someone with... more power? I don't see how giving everyone percieved power will fix power structures because eventually somewhere down the line the guy in charge of the military would be able to do whatever, since, well, he has the power. "Only people absolutely necessary to the operation of the factory would make money from the factory, and all would make the same money, but all would also have the same say in how the factory conducts business, how and what it produces, and so on. The person who puts tires on the cars would have as much say as the person who maintains the machines, as the person who cleans the toilets, and so on." The problem with this is that the person making the tires is going to be more knowledgable about making tires than the person who cleans the toliet. It would be more productive to let the person making the tires decide how tires should be made/process since he has more technical knowledge. If the guy cleaning the shitter says tires dont need rubber who's going to stop him? Of course, you might say everyone else, but humans can choose the wrong thing to do at times. Who's to say that the toilet guy didn't convince everyone tires should be made of toliet seat covers? Everyone has a "say" in this situation. Your factories would be terribly inefficient. I would assume everything would need to come down to a group decision. Which means little would get done. And group decisions sound more democratic imo, not communist. "The process of building this society, in my eyes, would be as democratic as possible, while still making sure to advance towards the end goal. " Sounds more like democratic socialism than actual communism. "It would also try to avoid violence as much as possible, and if violence were to be necessary, would only target those deemed unneeded in the processes of production in industries, and would not be racially or nationally motivated, nor would it have any basis in bigotry or unwarranted destruction." Uh, would the disabled count? because if they can't produce anything due to a disability, then are they not unneeded in processes of production? Maybe this is bad wording more than actual malice, but still. " Those of all races, religions, colors, creeds, nationalities, sexualities, genders, and anything else would be welcome, so long as their mission was the eventual establishment of this society." I feel like you're torn between being democratic and being communist. You say that you want to make it as democratic as possible, but does this not imply you will crack down on anyone who does not support your society? The entire point of democracy is the free expression of ideas. Hardly seems democratic when you're going to make them disappear or exile them or whatever you plan to do. "while it would adapt the teachings of the more open Communists of the past to a more democratic and free movement." It isn't exactly "free" when the only choice they have is support the government or die/get beaten up/forcibly removed. You seem more like a democratic socalist than an actual communist, but maybe that's just me.