We both want a society where people don't starve and work has meaning. That part is easy. The problem is that communism's answer to that — central planning and state ownership — has a structural flaw that no amount of good intentions fixes. When you remove prices and profit from the equation, you remove the feedback loop that tells producers what people actually need. A planner in a ministry can't know the local, constantly shifting details of supply and demand. So you get shortages in some places, surpluses rotting in others. That's not a bug; it's the inevitable result of trying to compute what the market computes organically. And then there's the power problem. If the state owns everything, control of that state becomes the only game in town. That doesn't produce equality; it produces a new elite who decide who gets what. I'd rather have a system where mistakes get corrected by competition than one where mistakes get enforced by decree.

[No submission - Time expired]

I think this fact is worth sitting with: the Soviet Union, founded on Lenin's ideas, had more arable land than almost any country on Earth, yet by the late 1970s it was importing grain to feed its own people. That undercuts the claim that Lenin was right. The system built on his ideas couldn't reliably produce food. That isn't bad luck. It's what happens when central planning removes the price signals that tell producers what people actually need. Shortages aren't a bug; they're the predictable output of the design. A system that can't even feed itself isn't correct by any measure.