Written by [user id=40767] on 28.04.2009 at 12:10

Written by Uller on 27.04.2009 at 22:39

Written by [user id=40767] on 27.04.2009 at 11:12

Ok, but if you're a leader you can't be like the others. It's normal that a leader is necessary for leading a revolution and as he/she is the leader, then is in some ways superior, because he has to lead, to rule. And even if he's not a dictator he's not equal to the others.
Oh, and if there's a leader how could anarchism be achieved?

Being a leader doesn't make you superior!!! why?? because when you are a leader isn't beacuse your super powers?? or how can you be superior??? being a leader only means a higher responsibility as a proletarian and as a human, its a responsibility with history. And this makes you no better than another, cuz everyone as a proletarian has the same responsibility. What is the difference?? well, proletarians are a collective, leader is a normal person, just he/she has enough experience, in theory and in praxis. And he has the support of the proletarian class to lead the revolution.

Now, this is a leader for the revolution, when socialism is achieved, he/she doesnt have the total command of the country, in socialism, later communism, the ones that rule over the country are the proletarians, the collective. How?? well it depends of the structure, in a leninist structure people that lives in a same geographic zone or works in the same place,etc. gather to discuss their problems, and ways to work, and how to solve them, then they seIect a Representant (seIected by democracy, real one). And the state is made of this representants. Later in Communism this state tends to disappear.

How this will lead to Anarchy, well when the people has so high class conscience, that there is no need to be a state, because everyone works and lives the way they want and the way they need, and for the needs of the society.

Yes, and they lived happy ever after...
Anyway, there must be a leader, someone who takes decision. A group of millions of people can't always agree on all subjects of the world, can they??
Without someone who rules, people will start to do whatever they want, they will start to disregard the rules of this utopistic society and there will be nobody to punish them, and the society will ruin itself!

I have already explained that..... Lol

Written by Ragana on 28.04.2009 at 01:25

Yeah, communism is a lot worse than that.

You're probably thinking of the Soviet Union. Communism does not equal the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviet Union was mostly a capital failure in retrospect, and quickly turned into the same imperialistic type of police state that proletarian revolutions are meant to abolish in the first place. It happened pretty much this way in China too, as well as pretty much all of the other supposedly communist states around the world.

The revolutionary ideal needs to find a way to support itself after the actual revolution has already occured, which is a problem that most communist states have a hard time dealing with. This is where Soviet failed. The proletarian leader needs to be a person of immense integrity not to become corrupt. Power corrupts, and those who make great revolutionaries do not necissarily become good leaders.

Also, Marx was a communist, and most of the communist ideology is based on his and Engels' work along with some input from Lenin as well, and Mao if you look at Maoism.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 28.04.2009 at 20:41

The revolutionary ideal needs to find a way to support itself after the actual revolution has already occured, which is a problem that most communist states have a hard time dealing with. This is where Soviet failed. The proletarian leader needs to be a person of immense integrity not to become corrupt. Power corrupts, and those who make great revolutionaries do not necissarily become good leaders.

That's why developing a revolutionary moral, is more important that knowledge itself. The idea is try to be as close as the new man/woman will be.

Communism? why should people believe on a model that could never have a normal application?

Maybe that's why in most european countries communists keep on decreasing year by year.

Written by Deadmeat on 16.05.2009 at 10:41

Communism? why should people believe on a model that could never have a normal application?

Maybe that's why in most european countries communists keep on decreasing year by year.

First of all, we (communists) don't believe in "communism", communist isn't a dogma, is a science, therefore we know it's possible. That the road to communism is a very long and hard one, we don't deny that, that we leave em to the idealists.

Tell how do u know that communists are decreasing? is there some kind of statistic?. And for the record, Greece has one of the largest communist parties in Europe (yes they are more than 2 people).

Written by Fhuesc on 16.05.2009 at 20:41

Written by Deadmeat on 16.05.2009 at 10:41

Communism? why should people believe on a model that could never have a normal application?

Maybe that's why in most european countries communists keep on decreasing year by year.

First of all, we (communists) don't believe in "communism", communist isn't a dogma, is a science, therefore we know it's possible. That the road to communism is a very long and hard one, we don't deny that, that we leave em to the idealists.

Tell how do u know that communists are decreasing? is there some kind of statistic?. And for the record, Greece has one of the largest communist parties in Europe (yes they are more than 2 people).

in developed countries communist parties are decreasing. i do not have statistic i can show you. i ve read it on a newspapper and heard it/discused it with many people.

here in greece first of all we are not developed. we are developing. and secondly the state has done so much bullshit that people feel the need to escalate.

also we had in places 3 and 4 2 communist parties. today, they fell one possition. one party called "greens" is now on possition 3. and IMO this is much better than voting for communist parties which are never going to govern.

Written by Deadmeat on 16.05.2009 at 20:50

in developed countries communist parties are decreasing. i do not have statistic i can show you. i ve read it on a newspapper and heard it/discused it with many people.

This is false. Here in Sweden our communist party is actually gaining members. There are still very few of us, but our numbers are slowly increasing. The bigger socialist party (referring to the left-party and not the fake-left socialdemocrats) is also gaining members at a good rate, and hopefully they will get more and more influence in the coming years. Unfortunately the nazi party is gaining members faster than us, but they're just fucking bitches so we don't pay much attentnion to them. I've also heard that all over western Europe communist parties are gaining in strength to better fight the shackles of capitalism. Sure, it's not at the level it was at during the seventies, but we are gaining ground again. Besides, just because the cause might seem lost, that does not make it an excuse for not fighting for what is right.

A tip is that the newspapers are usually sponsored by capitalist corporations, and other people who are very opposed to communism and wouldn't mind lying a little to stop it from spreading, and you shouldn't always believe everything they write.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.05.2009 at 23:40

Unfortunately the nazi party is gaining members faster than us, but they're just fucking bitches so we don't pay much attentnion to them.

about that, don't say those words cause i am sure they say the same about you

I don't know if this is established but imo it is logical that communists may increase a bit cause the states do only shitty things and no one is happy with that. but imo communism could never make good to the world. imo it is a retrogressive politic system..

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 02:11

...imo it is a retrogressive politic system..

Normallly the excuse is that communism is so advance (utopic) that's no possible to achieve, but u found it the opposite, so please tell in which ways communism is a retrograde political system?

@ForeverDarkWoods: yes socialdemocrats are a pain in the ass, here we dont have too many nazis, but they must be another pain in the arse.

Written by Fhuesc on 17.05.2009 at 09:09

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 02:11

...imo it is a retrogressive politic system..

Normallly the excuse is that communism is so advance (utopic) that's no possible to achieve, but u found it the opposite, so please tell in which ways communism is a retrograde political system?

@ForeverDarkWoods: yes socialdemocrats are a pain in the ass, here we dont have too many nazis, but they must be another pain in the arse.

it is retrograde for the synchronous society. what the main concept of communism says, goes against the progress..

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 09:49

Written by Fhuesc on 17.05.2009 at 09:09

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 02:11

...imo it is a retrogressive politic system..

Normallly the excuse is that communism is so advance (utopic) that's no possible to achieve, but u found it the opposite, so please tell in which ways communism is a retrograde political system?

@ForeverDarkWoods: yes socialdemocrats are a pain in the ass, here we dont have too many nazis, but they must be another pain in the arse.

it is retrograde for the synchronous society. what the main concept of communism says, goes against the progress..

What book of communism, or who says that communism goes against progress??? communism boost progress, why?? because there is no economical slow downs for progress, no need to sell all the technology before develop a new one, no need to finish the petroleum on the planet before finding new fuel alternatives, no company interest for selling technology.... i will now say that capitalism is against progress don´t you think??

Written by Uller on 17.05.2009 at 10:19

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 09:49

Written by Fhuesc on 17.05.2009 at 09:09

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 02:11

...imo it is a retrogressive politic system..

Normallly the excuse is that communism is so advance (utopic) that's no possible to achieve, but u found it the opposite, so please tell in which ways communism is a retrograde political system?

@ForeverDarkWoods: yes socialdemocrats are a pain in the ass, here we dont have too many nazis, but they must be another pain in the arse.

it is retrograde for the synchronous society. what the main concept of communism says, goes against the progress..

What book of communism, or who says that communism goes against progress??? communism boost progress, why?? because there is no economical slow downs for progress, no need to sell all the technology before develop a new one, no need to finish the petroleum on the planet before finding new fuel alternatives, no company interest for selling technology.... i will now say that capitalism is against progress don´t you think??

i never said capitalism is better. imo most political systems are foolish. but remind me please, in communism who is going to make the revolution???

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 10:37

Written by Uller on 17.05.2009 at 10:19

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 09:49

Written by Fhuesc on 17.05.2009 at 09:09

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 02:11

...imo it is a retrogressive politic system..

Normallly the excuse is that communism is so advance (utopic) that's no possible to achieve, but u found it the opposite, so please tell in which ways communism is a retrograde political system?

@ForeverDarkWoods: yes socialdemocrats are a pain in the ass, here we dont have too many nazis, but they must be another pain in the arse.

it is retrograde for the synchronous society. what the main concept of communism says, goes against the progress..

What book of communism, or who says that communism goes against progress??? communism boost progress, why?? because there is no economical slow downs for progress, no need to sell all the technology before develop a new one, no need to finish the petroleum on the planet before finding new fuel alternatives, no company interest for selling technology.... i will now say that capitalism is against progress don´t you think??

i never said capitalism is better. imo most political systems are foolish. but remind me please, in communism who is going to make the revolution???

No, proletarians are the ones that are going to make the revolution so we can free our chains from capitalism and then live in a socialist system, and when the class conscience is high enough in everyone, the socialist state tends to disappear and then a communist system will be born.

Written by Uller on 17.05.2009 at 16:28


No, proletarians are the ones that are going to make the revolution so we can free our chains from capitalism and then live in a socialist system, and when the class conscience is high enough in everyone, the socialist state tends to disappear and then a communist system will be born.

do exactly know what proletarians are???

Communism is an economical system, not a political one.
I have two problems with communism. First of all, it seems idealistic in the way it assumes society would be largely altruistic towards each other. Instead, I think most people are selfish, greedy assholes and capitalism, for all of its faults, at least makes use of this basic human nature.
My second problem with communism is that there is no proletariat anymore. The class system identified by Marx etc. no longer exists.

With all of this said, I do believe Marxist theorists generally made a HUGE contribution to sociology, science, economics, you name it. Marxism as an intellectual stance seems to be very fertile in academic advancements.

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 16:33

Written by Uller on 17.05.2009 at 16:28


No, proletarians are the ones that are going to make the revolution so we can free our chains from capitalism and then live in a socialist system, and when the class conscience is high enough in everyone, the socialist state tends to disappear and then a communist system will be born.

do exactly know what proletarians are???

Sorry i didnt read well your comment, in communism proletarians are going to make the revolution. but what's your point?? i dont get it, this doesnt make communism a retrograde system

Written by Uller on 18.05.2009 at 07:42

Written by Deadmeat on 17.05.2009 at 16:33

Written by Uller on 17.05.2009 at 16:28


No, proletarians are the ones that are going to make the revolution so we can free our chains from capitalism and then live in a socialist system, and when the class conscience is high enough in everyone, the socialist state tends to disappear and then a communist system will be born.

do exactly know what proletarians are???

Sorry i didnt read well your comment, in communism proletarians are going to make the revolution. but what's your point?? i dont get it, this doesnt make communism a retrograde system

Proletarians are skilless laborers (they are called also nawys if i spell it right). Could they ever manage to do something in todays society? In order to "go on" the earth and the states need people with knowledge not nawys... that's what i mean...

@Jupitreas: the proletariat will always exist as long as capitalism exists (even a little further), the fact that a worker has a house or a car, that doesn't make him/her another social class. What Marx describe as the proletariat/bourgeois wasn't based on how many commodities they had, it was on based on who owned the means of production, in simple words, who owned the tools, the machines, the raw material. Example: a nissan worker, he may have a car, house and from time to time, he can take his family to a vacation trip, but he doesn't own nissan (the infrastructure), so no matter how many things he has, he's still a proletarian, he earns his live by SELLING his LABOR FORCE (the only thing he really owns). That bullshit about low, medium and high classes, was developt by the burgeois to fool the working classes, and giving em the illusion that with hard word they could rise to the "highest" classes of society.

@Deadmeat: the proletariat, isn't the skilless workers, they are what i wrote above. They may not who painted the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't make em idiots by any means, and from what i deduce u belong to that broad part of the society who has been fooled, to think that a bunch of curious facts about the bourgeois' arts and sciences (institutionalized knowledge), is the "only" and "real" kind of knowledge.

EDIT: gonna copy something that Engels wrote, so u dont have to take my word, i know this will make my post even longer, increasing the chances that nobody will read it. So anyway here it is:
Taken from "The principles of communism"

What is the proletariat?

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor - hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition.

Written by Fhuesc on 19.05.2009 at 09:22

@Jupitreas: the proletariat will always exist as long as capitalism exists (even a little further), the fact that a worker has a house or a car, that doesn't make him/her another social class. What Marx describe as the proletariat/bourgeois wasn't based on how many commodities they had, it was on based on who owned the means of production, in simple words, who owned the tools, the machines, the raw material. Example: a nissan worker, he may have a car, house and from time to time, he can take his family to a vacation trip, but he doesn't own nissan (the infrastructure), so no matter how many things he has, he's still a proletarian, he earns his live by SELLING his LABOR FORCE (the only thing he really owns). That bullshit about low, medium and high classes, was developt by the burgeois to fool the working classes, and giving em the illusion that with hard word they could rise to the "highest" classes of society.

Ah, but said worker can also own a share of Nissan. Or make money from real estate.

Written by Fhuesc on 19.05.2009 at 09:22



The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor - hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. [/i]

Nah you havnt lived in USSR so dont tell me about working class, I sugest you go beck in time and born there

Working class, we wanna justice stupid aristocray stoll from us, but why they ddint vanking when Com Party rules and has extras, like special shops in ussr, nobody didnt vanking,

Look t working class in western Europa , funny is it skin heads wanking we're working class imigrants stoll our jobs, but when they shood go to work tehy vanking gourement stoll social garanties , let imigrants work

Man if you know how much cost for example real US jeans in ussr , omne month incomes !!!!

nah dont wanna wast my enegry and time talking about red deasise

@jupitreas: yes in theory the worker can own a share of Nissan, but in order to do that, he needs capital not money. So what's the difference between capital and money? Capital is that amount of money that his purpose isnt the satisfaction of needs but the creation of more capital. A worker NEVER will have that amount of money, cuz he/she will be payed only the necessary so he/she can go to work the next day, no more and in some cases even less. So in really the worker can't own a share of Nissan. The same happens with real states.

@K7: what has to do some jeans with the definition of proletariat?.

We were discussing political matters with Cuban schoolmates....it is admirable, the Cuban people are so positive and energetic....compared to Mexico where it's dangerous going out after dark in Mexico City, Havana is a true paradise, and that's admitted by Mexicans....

The question was about the functionality of socialism in Cuban Republic...it is admirable that everyone has the opportunity for FREE of charge high education of fine quality and not only that, there is a guaranteed job and wages by country according to your studies.....and after that, one may either choose another profession or continue at the chosen field....

Now the social failures of rightist countries where people, even when studying a subject, the country will do nothing to provide proper jobs so that a smaller or larger percentage people with high education will end up shovelling manure in the countryside (YES, that's also the situation in China, altho the percentage is smaller than in some other places)...the failures of let's say, Milton Friedmanism, appear even more painfully in situation where you're living in a house where gas and electric appliances are failing leaving you without proper warm water and power and even may endanger your safety and you have to bear the burden because you don't have the necessary money to hire people to fix the things....whereas in a socialist state and even today in "thicker" states the country provides any needed help for every situation for all people....

"Do everything yourself and pay" policy as such is spitting on the people of the country and the utter neglecting of them.....

One should start thinking how to manage living in such world by oneself and then consider what is the desease here...I say Milton Friedman's monetarism is a disease and curse any politician who has or wishes to introduce this to his country and unleash the consequences on the people....

Oh, last thing concerning Cuba, if there's any thing that has caused poverty and economic restrictions in Cuba, then that is the embargo imposed by the US....period...

so long let's drink Cuba Libre......thing's are already getting better....

Written by Fhuesc on 19.05.2009 at 22:10

@K7: what has to do some jeans with the definition of proletariat?.

He appears to be three years older than me, anyway this means we both were small kids in the USSR and that was during the economical breakdown and crisis of the USSR which eventually lead to it's collapse.....no shit that jeans cost a lot in such society.....

I might say the same about things such as computer software, food etc in lots of countries where the costs are unproportionally large in comparison with the incomes of an average person....well...if "economic hardships" is an excuse then may it be....

To bad that socialism (populary mixed with communism) went wrong......The idea is great so near to early christianity....World of equals,where you can work as much as you can,and spend as much as you want...Where it get wrong?

I don't understand how communists can still exist or have ever existed. Marx himself stated that communism is but a theory which is not applicable to a society or the world. Another form of communism states that everyone should be on an equal basis. How can a doctor get paid as much as a buiilder. On one hand we have a highly educated person who has invested a few good years of his life to obtain a certain title, on the other someone who after leaving school chose to work. If doctors were paid as much as workers, who would go to Uni to be a doctor, only a seIect few who do it entirely upon vocation. How can any society live or exist under these circumstances. Yes, the capitalist regime needs several changes but communism is a step back, not a step forward. Just look at what we possess today, computers, TVs, cars...basically a middle class family can afford any luxury they what within reason. Now look 50 years back, our parents never had these luxuries. My dad used to kill chickens in the pen in his yard when he was a kid, and he lived in a large town, not the country. Anyone who says capitalism is bad simply needs to open their eyes. And anyone who is stupid enough to state this on the WWW needs their head checking, for they have used a computer and internet, two products of the capitalist society.

Another argument I like to use may shock many but I believe is founded. I believe we can consider football clubs as micro-communist societies. The club is the society generating vast amounts of money which is then shared fairly equally between the players, the workers. The wealth of the society is therefore evenly spread out amongst the generators of this wealth, the players. And who doesn't criticize the wages earned by footballers. However, this is exactly what most communists are fighting for for regular industries and commerces. an equal and fair distribution of the generated ressources to the workers.

Written by Haddonfield on 21.06.2009 at 23:39


Another argument I like to use may shock many but I believe is founded. I believe we can consider football clubs as micro-communist societies. The club is the society generating vast amounts of money which is then shared fairly equally between the players, the workers. The wealth of the society is therefore evenly spread out amongst the generators of this wealth, the players. And who doesn't criticize the wages earned by footballers. However, this is exactly what most communists are fighting for for regular industries and commerces. an equal and fair distribution of the generated ressources to the workers.

lol no the wages of footballers and such are not based on what they win, but on HOW MUCH their president can spend. For example, new Real Madrid's president has already spent over 160 millions without having earned a single cent. It's all money he already has.

Written by Elio on 21.06.2009 at 23:59

lol no the wages of footballers and such are not based on what they win, but on HOW MUCH their president can spend. For example, new Real Madrid's president has already spent over 160 millions without having earned a single cent. It's all money he already has.

Yes but all that money will be recouped with the sales of merchandise, tickets, TV rights,,,it's an investment that will be repaid. Football is capitalist, but the internal structure of a club has many communist facets as the players benefit from a fair share of the clubs generated wealth.

Written by Haddonfield on 22.06.2009 at 12:45

Written by Elio on 21.06.2009 at 23:59

lol no the wages of footballers and such are not based on what they win, but on HOW MUCH their president can spend. For example, new Real Madrid's president has already spent over 160 millions without having earned a single cent. It's all money he already has.

Yes but all that money will be recouped with the sales of merchandise, tickets, TV rights,,,it's an investment that will be repaid. Football is capitalist, but the internal structure of a club has many communist facets as the players benefit from a fair share of the clubs generated wealth.

Nah, that money isn't recouped, everytime presidents put more and more of their own money in the clubs and still most of them have huge debts. And btw I don't think that internally money is equally shared.

Written by Elio on 22.06.2009 at 12:55

Written by Haddonfield on 22.06.2009 at 12:45

Written by Elio on 21.06.2009 at 23:59

lol no the wages of footballers and such are not based on what they win, but on HOW MUCH their president can spend. For example, new Real Madrid's president has already spent over 160 millions without having earned a single cent. It's all money he already has.

Yes but all that money will be recouped with the sales of merchandise, tickets, TV rights,,,it's an investment that will be repaid. Football is capitalist, but the internal structure of a club has many communist facets as the players benefit from a fair share of the clubs generated wealth.

Nah, that money isn't recouped, everytime presidents put more and more of their own money in the clubs and still most of them have huge debts. And btw I don't think that internally money is equally shared.

I read somewhere that the Ronaldo transfer, including his wages will be recouped over five years with merchanising, TV rights, sponsership deals... How can the money not be shared equally internally? Clubs generate vast amounts every year but their profits are much smaller than their income because the vast amnount is spent on wages. The problem I think you have with the metaphor of football clubs as micro-communist societies is that you are looking at other details like dept, investments... I'm talkiing as an internal micro-society only. CLub generates wealth through players and the success they bring - Club shares welath throughout the players. Anything else in football is purely based upon the world we live in, the modern capitalist society.

Written by Haddonfield on 22.06.2009 at 13:40

Written by Elio on 22.06.2009 at 12:55

Written by Haddonfield on 22.06.2009 at 12:45

Written by Elio on 21.06.2009 at 23:59

lol no the wages of footballers and such are not based on what they win, but on HOW MUCH their president can spend. For example, new Real Madrid's president has already spent over 160 millions without having earned a single cent. It's all money he already has.

Yes but all that money will be recouped with the sales of merchandise, tickets, TV rights,,,it's an investment that will be repaid. Football is capitalist, but the internal structure of a club has many communist facets as the players benefit from a fair share of the clubs generated wealth.

Nah, that money isn't recouped, everytime presidents put more and more of their own money in the clubs and still most of them have huge debts. And btw I don't think that internally money is equally shared.

I read somewhere that the Ronaldo transfer, including his wages will be recouped over five years with merchanising, TV rights, sponsership deals... How can the money not be shared equally internally? Clubs generate vast amounts every year but their profits are much smaller than their income because the vast amnount is spent on wages. The problem I think you have with the metaphor of football clubs as micro-communist parties is that you are looking at other details like dept, investments... I'm talkiing as an internal micro-soci9ety only. CLub generates wealth through players and the success they bring - Club shares welath throughout the players. Anything else in football is purely based upon the world we live in, then modern capitalist society.

I understand a bit better now, in theory I guess you are right, but in reality, not all the players have the same wage, without even considering the staff.

Written by Haddonfield on 21.06.2009 at 23:39

I don't understand how communists can still exist or have ever existed. Marx himself stated that communism is but a theory which is not applicable to a society or the world. Another form of communism states that everyone should be on an equal basis. How can a doctor get paid as much as a buiilder. On one hand we have a highly educated person who has invested a few good years of his life to obtain a certain title, on the other someone who after leaving school chose to work. If doctors were paid as much as workers, who would go to Uni to be a doctor, only a seIect few who do it entirely upon vocation. How can any society live or exist under these circumstances. Yes, the capitalist regime needs several changes but communism is a step back, not a step forward. Just look at what we possess today, computers, TVs, cars...basically a middle class family can afford any luxury they what within reason. Now look 50 years back, our parents never had these luxuries. My dad used to kill chickens in the pen in his yard when he was a kid, and he lived in a large town, not the country. Anyone who says capitalism is bad simply needs to open their eyes. And anyone who is stupid enough to state this on the WWW needs their head checking, for they have used a computer and internet, two products of the capitalist society.

Another argument I like to use may shock many but I believe is founded. I believe we can consider football clubs as micro-communist societies. The club is the society generating vast amounts of money which is then shared fairly equally between the players, the workers. The wealth of the society is therefore evenly spread out amongst the generators of this wealth, the players. And who doesn't criticize the wages earned by footballers. However, this is exactly what most communists are fighting for for regular industries and commerces. an equal and fair distribution of the generated ressources to the workers.

Please read the older posts so then you can generate a new discussion or argue those older posts; fhuesc allready explained what happens with your doctor - builder example. I have already explained the point of technology development. And yes now we have internet, flat screens tv's, etc. But just because this "middle class" family (which doesnt exist, there are only proletariat and burgeois) can afford this "luxury", then the rest of fabric workers have to screw themselves? I think is a very selfish position, besides not everyone lives in the UK.

About the football clubs, they arent micro communists societys, why? because if they were there would not be personal profit form football, it would not have the enormous PRIVATE inversion that has today, and because football isnt a fabric or a production resource, you cant compare.

And finally "Marx himself stated that communism is but a theory which is not applicable to a society or the world" where he say that??? really where?? I have read the communist manifesto and says the opposite, i have read the capital and cant find that.. so?? have you read Marx

Communism is not a theory, Marxism is a theory that leads to communism as a result of the praxis of this theory.

@angel reaper: Again, read the older posts. the discuss about socialism was a good theory but it all went wrong is a older discussion, and because socialism fell in the URSS doesnt mean that it went wrong.