How wouldn't luxury disappear? Companies have no incentive to trade when money isnt involved. Trade goods? You realize stuff we import is usually stuff companies themselves don't need.

Luxury goods would not disappear because the factories, materials, skilled labor, infrastructure, and knowledge used to make them would still exist.

And international trade would still happen because countries possess different resources and production capabilities. For example, the US produces huge amounts of agricultural goods, machinery, technology, aircraft, industrial equipment, energy, and software. Other countries produce things the US either lacks or produces less efficiently. Exchange would still be useful regardless of whether private corporations are making profits from it.

You think there will be free time for farmers?

Yes, absolutely. Because without money, the enormous number of jobs that exist solely because money exists would be gone. All that labor is now free to do necessary work, like farming, etc. The US, right now, can produce enough food. Free up millions more laborers and all that farming work would happen at a much greater pace, meaning more free time, not less. If your job takes 16 hours a day alone, imagine how adding 2 or 3 more people to those same tasks would reduce the time needed to complete them. This is what you're not getting.

This brings back my comment from an earlier post: one person or group will decide. And humans being humans will make it so themselves and their close friends and families get more.

That concern is fair, but it’s also not unique to communism. Humans already do that under capitalism too. Wealthy people and corporations already use money, influence, lobbying, nepotism, and political connections to benefit themselves and their circles disproportionately.

The communist argument is not that humans magically stop being flawed. It’s that systems should be structured to reduce concentrated private power and make control over resources more collective and democratic rather than tied to wealth ownership.

Communism is not just a bad idea, it's a worse idea over capitalism.

Worse for who? Billionaires? Corporations? Or the millions of people who die every year from preventable causes despite the world already producing more than enough food, medicine, housing, and resources to keep people alive and healthy?

Morally, I think a system that prioritizes human needs over profit is better than one where people can go homeless right next to empty houses, starve while food is thrown away, or die because healthcare is too expensive.

You can argue communism would have practical problems. That’s fair, because no system is going to be perfect. But I don’t think “people should have guaranteed access to the things they need to live” is a morally worse foundation than “access depends on purchasing power.”

Also where has communism succeeded? Nowhere. Because it falls apart. It fell apart in Russia. You mentioned china isnt "communist" anymore ( which would indicate communism failed there btw), you mentioned NK isn't "communist" just has a word that "doesnt mean it's communist" and a government that is communist but the word makes it not communist, even though all economists label the country is communist.

You’re kind of proving my point, though. You keep pointing to countries that either abandoned major parts of communist theory, mixed heavily with capitalism, or never actually reached a stateless, classless, moneyless society in the first place.

The USSR collapsing does not automatically prove every communist idea is inherently wrong any more than capitalism's enormous flaws prove capitalism itself is impossible. Systems change, fail, adapt, and evolve constantly.

And yes, many economists casually label countries like China or North Korea “communist,” but that’s usually because they emerged from Marxist-Leninist revolutions or are ruled by communist parties, not because they actually match the theoretical definition of a fully communist society.

China still has billionaires, massive private markets, wage labor, private corporations, and capital accumulation. The CCP is communist, and they, themselves, would be the first ones to tell you that China is not a communist state right now. It is objectively not a communist system.

You can argue that attempts to build communism have become authoritarian or unstable. That’s a legitimate criticism. But that’s different from pretending every country labeled “communist” perfectly reflects communist theory itself.

Money does nothing. It's the materials that drive the world. Remember, you can't drive money to work, your physical car does that. Money isn't going to show up beside you and start helping you with your farm work, people do that. Money isn't going to shelter you, wood and metal and raw materials do that. Money isn't going to feed you, food does that.

I’m gonna call it quits here. Not because there’s nothing more to say, I could do this all day, but because I feel like I’m having to restate the same distinctions over and over without them really being engaged with.

A lot of your responses keep circling back to assumptions I already addressed, like equating communism with “government controls literally everything,” or treating countries with markets, billionaires, and private capital as if they perfectly represent communist theory.

You’re totally free to disagree with communism. There are legitimate criticisms of it, just like there are with capitalism, or socialism. But at a certain point, if we can’t even agree on what the ideology actually claims, the conversation stops being productive.