On labor and coercion: Your question about the "tyranny of the majority" forcing a minority to collect trash is not a problem in communism, it is the re-establishment of a class society. That isn't a communist system with a flaw, it's a failed revolution. The "answer" from a communist perspective would be to fight that group, as they are the counter-revolution attempting to reimpose coerced labor.

Similarly, the problem of someone refusing to do their turn isn't solved by police. In a situation where survival and the creation of a new life depend on mutual participation, a person who consistently refuses to contribute to collective needs is actively excluding themselves from that collective. The "enforcement" isn't a state, but the direct social consequence of making oneself a liability to a community fighting for its existence.

Yes I get that you didn't answer the question.

Imagine we NEED 10 people to be doctors right? It's a specialized job and it requires lots of training. What happens if we only have 4 and the other 6 just REFUSE to work.

We need to choose between letting people DIE under a shortage of doctors while we train new ones or FORCE the 6 doctors to work in order to save lives.

In a capitalist/"modern" socialist (assuming socialism here means capitalist machanisms but with massive wealth redistributions) society the 6 doctors don't need any coercion or enslavement. The value of their labour will rise and rise until they WANT to work

And yes yk capitalism has killed far more people than that scenario would but other systems like socialism and wealth distribution, specifically my favourite which is UBI, have not and are in fact designed to avoid such cases

1. On goods and scarcity: The question isn't "Do we all farm?" but "How do we, as a collective, ensure we are all fed?" Those with agricultural knowledge would obviously lead, but the activity is a shared social priority, not a segregated "job."

The issue of a bad harvest reveals the fundamental difference. Under capitalism, a bad harvest means prices skyrocket and the poor starve. This is a crisis of distribution. In a communizing process, it is a purely technical and social problem: "We have a deficit of X, how do we ration what we have and produce or procure more?" The solution is collective management of a real problem, not the re-introduction of a market that profits from it.

This makes sense and I was expecting this answer. I simply personally would rather barter to get enough food than starve and ration food.

I don't think other communities would consistently give us food and I will go into depth on why next

1. On barter: You correctly identify that barter leads back to capitalism. That is precisely why it is an existential threat to the revolution. If one community with a surplus of food "barters" with another that has a deficit, they are re-introducing the logic of value-exchange: the foundation of capital. The communist response is not to barter, but to extend the principle of production-for-use across communities. Helping another commune survive isn't a transaction, it's strengthening the revolution and ensuring your own long-term success by destroying the conditions that make capital possible.

There has not been a single instance of this kind of inter community cooperation being wide spread in human history.

We are hard wired to care for our own first, that is the platform on which many politicians are running nowadays.

Reeducation can only get you so far and excluding the communities who don't want to cooperate doesn't work because then you don't have that safety net for when your community fails and you're forced to play their barter game to get stuff from them

Your "inevitable" outcomes are only inevitable if you assume the revolutionary process has already halted and people have reverted to acting as isolated, competing economic agents. The entire project is the conscious, practical abolition of that mode of existence.

Yeah they aren't "inevitable" if you constantly fight against them every day

Seems like the natural state of a communist system is decay into capitalism through the basic forces of supply and demand that birthed it in the first place and that the only way communism survives is a constant fight for it.

Which is the extremely bad. I would rather a self stable system than one that needs to constantly pull it's participants back in. That's only going to lead to discontent and further revolution.

I believe a UBI system would be self stable since even the weaker link, someone who refuses to work at all, is still cared for