So what you are saying is that other than the system we have, which apparently is not really even capitalism, no alternative is possible, other than on a spectrum ranging from total state control to a free ride to big business i.e "Laissez-faire"

If so, I can not help but disagree. I think it is still to soon to pass such judgement, when few systems outside of that spectrum have been given a chance. We both know, state authoritarianism was tried and failed in countries from North Korea to East Germany... so obviously, that extreme is not the right path forward. I still happen to think the real alternative is not in the spectrum of opinion most people are use to.

As long as important decisions are made by remote elites, the over all result will never benefit the majority. Workers' control, in my view... is the only real alternative to the present system. All others either involve authoritarianism, chaos, or more of the status quo.

Sorry for the long reply, but I think there is a lot people should consider when ever such issues are discussed. Some things are not as simple as they are portrayed, and vice-versa many other things are not as complex as what many people believe. Feel free to reply with any thoughts, comments, and disagreements as I will remain open-minded.

Anyway, I really think people should stop repeating what they've heard and been told , and think for themselves. Why not think outside the box, beyond the family, beyond national borders, and all lines of division we draw between ourselves and the rest of the world? I think no matter our own history and beliefs, there comes a point where we must truly start thinking for ourselves, independently, and outside of the "box" Otherwise, how is it possible to reach the truth so many desperately seek when we only repeat what has been said and done...

Also, I notice you wrote earlier "Communism CANNOT work." But, how do you know this for a fact when it hasn't yet existed? I ask you, do you believe Capitalism CAN work if actually applied in the real world? If so, what is your argument? Because you also earlier commented on my channel that capitalism hasn't existed. It's an argument I have heard before, and I might agree with you.

However, I think anyone who is a reasonable supporter of free-market capitalism should at least set equal opportunity as a precondition for any truly fair competition. From what I have read about the founding fathers of the United States, this was what they intended with free-markets and capitalism... Yet, it never happened. Also, you say "Communes breed authoritarianism" but I would reply, why not have a democratically-run commune? One administered directly by the people involved in it.

It is a very simple principle, that those who work in a place ought to also own, control, and manage it.

I haven't seen any law of human nature or science that says it's impossible for people to take a meaningful part in running their workplaces, community, and day to day affairs. Why should we let our lives be guided by some far away remote elites we never meet or see? According to some polls I've seen, taken from people in America, most are very dissatisfied with Congress, Corporate control, and most of the system of government.

In fact, many are now desperately seeking an alternative to the present day system they live in, not only in America but around the globe.

You could easily have a country where "consumers' rights, a welfare state and required social programs" all exist, and that country could be an authoritarian dictatorship like during Stalin, or it could even be a country like Norway, Germany, or France where such programs also exist side by side with 'free-market mechanisms. But the existence of such things is not what defines Socialism.... You could also just as easily have equality in a prison camp...

What needs to be asked is ....is it right or necessary that the economy be administered by a "corporate aristocracy", state management, or some other ruling elite group which sets planning and decisions independent of the public? This is the question Socialism and Communism actually delve in to.

I agree, that any modern advanced economy needs to have all of the micro-economic measures that you mentioned in order to function and succeed. We can surely agree on this, and there is a discussion to be had about it. However, what Socialism really concerns at the end of the day, is not issues of bread and butter, but rather control and power...

In summarizing the essence of the genuine philosophy of Communism, my view is that everyone should have total freedom to do as they choose as long as they do not take away the same freedom of others. I think if you consider yourself libertarian, the ideas I mentioned should not be hard to understand. However, if you disagree or have any comments about what I have brought up here ...I am open to feedback.

Another thing that is very important for all to realize about Socialism and Communism, is that the goal is not to take away the property of everyone and hand it over to a state bureaucracy. It is simply to bring about a more just and equitable society which is owned and managed directly by people and producers themselves.

For example, in any truly Socialist society, there would be no problem if you or I possessed property/commodities like a computer, bed, or anything in your house... You know, I was actually born in Russia during the Soviet era, and even back then people could have their own cars, homes etc. While the Soviet Union was not a true Socialist society, even there the state bureaucracy did not care if people owned such things.

Certainly, you would agree that the kind of property you possess is not the same as the kind of property the owners of a large corporation do... or the property of the corporation itself. You can not use your toothbrush, computer, or couch for much other than what concerns you as an individual person.... it has little relation to society as a whole, and will not cause exploitation or take away the same freedom of others to possess such commodities.