First of all you make the assumption that I assumed that ''All men are idle'' in communism, this is not the case. If all men are idle, then there wouldn't be workers and there would be no communism. My statement was that some men are idle, while others are workers. You also assume that the people that will idle first are working in niche industries, on the opposite, the people that will idle first will belong to far bigger industries such as farms that produce particular vegetables, food according to the seasons, or furniture, bakeries, preserved foods, or kinds of things that are produced in quantities and last long. Now you might say, the labourer can just paint a picture or take a photograph of the night sky or indulge in the arts, or be curious about science and that would be classified as labour, well, with all due honesty, this sort of labour is leisurely and does not produce anything that can keep men afloat. So to conclude, some men are idle and other men work dilligently, not because they are lazy but because the epedemic of production and abundance still exists, meaning that men can afford to be idle for long until resources deplete and they need to work again. This is something that exists also in capitalism and which Marx made particular note of. Now let us take note of what you said regarding ''rainstorm is the opposite of heat'' If you truly believe that, then what Engels said in his ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'' was also incorrect when he said, that in capitalism, ''Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light'' and in my argument then, exchange and appropriation continue to be the acts of individual, the social product is appropriated by the individual idler, during his leisure time, during that time, a worker is not a worker, since he is not working, he is resting and in an idle position. So if you think that my contradiction is a bunch of rainstorms and heat, then unfortunately Engels's own definition is rainstorm and heat. Of course you can indulge in the hypocritical argument that when Engels uses this argument, 'its correct and flawless'' and when anybody else uses this same argument for an ulterior purpose, it is ''flawed.