Things can be defined by their opposites; hard and soft, light and dark, rich and poor. If there are no rich people, there can be no poor people. In a classless communist society this is the case.

You have used the term 'poverty' rather than 'poor', which I did not use. There is a clear distinction between these two terms. 'Poverty' is when people cannot survive in the conditions they are in; i.e. no housing, food, clean water, healthcare, education etc. Poor is a relative term. Lets use an example. You live in America. One person earns $17,000 p.a. working at McDonalds. They can barely afford to keep themselves fed with a roof over their heads. They have a poor education and health care. Another person earns $50,000 p.a. working at an insurance firm. They have a nice house, a nice car, can easily afford food and clothing etc. They have a good education and health care. Compared to the McDonalds worker, they are rich. The CEO of, lets say, Dell, might earn $1,000,000 p.a. The person at the insurance company is poor compared to the CEO, even though the insurance worker lives comfortably and wants for nothing.

In a communist society, based on the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the comparison of people's living conditions would be so tiny (lets say, someone owns a thicker duvet or has a larger collection of stamps than someone else) that the term 'poor' would be irrelevant. You must also bear in mind that money would not exist in a communist society as there would be no need for it.

Well, I did ask you for your definition, so I must accept it for what it is. And believe me, I am trying to understand your logic here. So... as an example, everyone in this communist society might be impoverished, but no one would be poor... because there would be no rich people = the opposite removed, by your definitional standard.

The idea of a 'necessary poor' (to paraphrase you) in a capitalist society comes from the very principle of capitalism. People are free to own places of work (bourgeoise owning bourgeoise property). The capital resulting from the products created by the labour of others is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoise. They then pay the labourers enough money so that they can exist and reproduce, creating more means of producing capital. The concentration of capital in the hands of the bourgeoise means that they have more money than those who do not own bourgeoise property. This creates a system by which some people gain more money than others. As not everyone can own places of work because there will always need to be people to work in these places of work, this creates the idea of 'necessary poor'

This is where the theory begins to run into realistic problems for me. Many of the shareholders/owners of publicly traded (and non-public) companies are the employees. At the "richest of the rich" (the Fortune 500), that opportunity is extended to the overwhelming majority of employees. I don't just mean the executive level managers. I mean floor level people, right through middle management. Lady Lazarus was quite close as she described the hiring and wage functions of corporations. Part of this is employee retention. And part of that is to make the employees more closely tied to the organization. Will they become rich? Well, since some will take a matching option and wind up with a million dollars or more in share wealth over 25 years (as an example), and someone else will not take the option and wind up with no shares, I guess one can become rich. Taking this option may not be practical for the impoverished, but it's certainly practical (and wise) for the poor (again, using your definition here) - so they can become rich. So why would they want to go with communism? By your definition, they don't have to golf with Trump to be rich now.. just drive a nicer car than the guy down the block. Communism would take away their rich moniker and replace it with average. I don't think that sounds very appealing. Will this apply to everyone? Well, nothing applies to everyone, except death. But I believe you're saying the object should not be on rich, or rich vs. poor or poor, but on all being equal in economic terms. Is that roughly correct? While I might be less well off than some (poor), better off than some (rich)... I believe I'd still rather take my chances. I mean, you're going to have to sell this idea. And so far, it doesn't sound very attractive. Sounds like all communism can promise me is an average life. Average? I'd just as soon be dead. Er... speaking of which, what's going to happen to troublemakers like me anyway?

It is true that there have been no exceptions to the Cuba/China/Russia form of 'communism'. However, it is not an 'inevitable' consequence of communism. Marx said that in order for a communist revolution to occur successfully, the proletariat would need to be very developed, with a great deal of established political revolutionary thinkers to lead the way. He also said it was necessary that a bourgeoise revolution (i.e. overthrow of the feudal system) must occur before the proletarian revolution can occur. If we look at Russia and China, thier revolutions occured at times when there had been no true bourgeoise revolution and both countries were extremely economically backward. In Cuba, although there had been a bourgeoise revolution to an extent, it was mostly controlled by America, and the populous was still very poor and undeveloped, with few true revolutionary thinkers. These are not the ideal conditions for communism to take hold, resulting in perverted 'communist' states. In advanced and rich countries such as Britain and the US, communism has a better chance of succeding. However, with a bourgeoise stranglehold on the media, the possibility of a communist revolution ever occuring has been effectively eradicated.

I can't speak about Britain, but in the U.S., I believe there are far too many people who do not see themselves as "poor" - so they would not see the benefit. And I'm using your definitions as I present that... not the bourgeoisie or the media. Like myself, they'd rather give it their best shot, on their own and let the cards fall where they may at the end of the game. To be honest, my desire was never to be equal. And I don't think I am alone. So uh, what does happen to me and my ilk anyway?

Hmm, this is a tough one and is a fundamental problem with communism.

Here is my view on it; we, in the west are conditioned to be individualistic (don't care about anyone, out for ourselves), whilst other, generally poorer countries are more collectivist (care strongly about their family and friends). If you want me to post more information on this distinction I can. After the initial revolution, the communist media will work hard to make people care more about their friends and neighbours and not be so internal. Once this 'collectivist' mind-set has been established, people will no longer work for individual rewards and will work for the benefit of their community. If you think this 'conditioning' idea is immoral, please be aware that every day you are conditioned by the current capitalist system to buy the products of capitalism through advertising.

Since this is an ideology that I wouldn't (peacefully) go with, I will ask this. So humor me, please. Yes, I'm familiar with the from each according to his ability bit. But who would know my true abilities... except me? What I'm getting at... my workmate gives it 100% and makes 50 widgets for the state each day. My way of getting back at being forced into this deal might be to (appear to) try my lil heart out and also make 50 widgets a day. At the end of the day, I haven't stressed myself (though I certainly do look tired)and I'm actually in a good mood (cause I got mine the easy way). My time with my state allowed 1.75 children and my state supplied mate is more enjoyable than my tired workmate's. Am I not richer?

Try as you might, I just don't see that human nature can be defeated. The history of man is what it is. There have always been chiefs and there have always been followers and warriors. My joke about snatching an opportunity or two in another thread to SporkLord was barely in jest - that's how it's typically happened. The resulting chaos of forcing a communist society on the masses would simply offer opportunities to many. Competition and (controlled) greed are beautiful things, IMO. I believe we should continue to take care of those who cannot do for themselves. But those who simply won't do for themselves... well, that's why God made Darwin.

If not for the human factor, idealistic theories, like communism, would probably have a chance at success. But so far, these theories have only worked on paper... never in reality. Communism has had enough tests, but has always failed. That it seems to need an ideal, perfect storm type environment to succeed, suggests to me that it is not a very robust theory to begin with. It does provide a fascinating discussion though. Thanks.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."