I argue that it is being expropriated by the state because they produce for the state which in turn pays them a wage. Their labor exists in the value form. Do you have a response or is this whole topic just beneath you?

This is my response: "clarify" means "make (a statement or situation) less confused and more comprehensible" not "reshuffle meaningless buzzwords". But it's pretty obvious your handle of what words mean is very poor in general.

There are many people who have no understanding of communism, and seek to rectify their lack of understanding. There are many people who don't understand Marxism, and they try to understand it. I know many of these people like this. You are not one of them.

You have no understanding of communism. You have no understanding of Marxism. Even worse, you repeatedly make silly, vain attempts to disguise up your transparent, total lack of understanding in ornamental verbal pirouettes. You demonstrably have no understanding of these words mean:

1. "expropriated"

2. "wage"

3. "labor"

4. "value form"

Because if you did, you'd also realize that you sound like a pompous, presumptive ass with no clue what you're talking about.

There's a wonderful phrase I've seen used in this exact kind of situation – "the privileged position of an armchair socialist" – but it's not quite enough in your sad case. It would be more accurate to say that you seem to have spent most of your life in a furniture store.

In other words (and I hope you at least know what these words mean), if you can't be specific and lay out your argument clearly and logically, then yes, it's a total waste of my time, and no, people don't have a sacred obligation to respond to your poorly-thought-out, meaningless gibberish.

But I'm forgetting the fundamental rule of debating: assume that your opponent is arguing in good faith. If I took you seriously enough for you to be an actual opponent, rather than a deluded liberal clown, then I should be assuming that deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, down beneath all the fatuous nonsense, there's a kernel of genuine intent to debate. Ergo, I should assume you're seriously trying to construct an argument, however misguided it might be.

Now, I'll make it clear. I'm ignorant too. I'm completely ignorant, in fact, of what your argument actually is. If you'd written your argument in Lojban, or given me its SHA-512 hash function, I would have just as much of a clue what you're talking about. So I'm going to try and make a generic response, using as little Marxist language as possible, based on contextual clues, and then I'll see how you respond to it, in order so that I can slowly approximate what your argument is.

1. Communism is a classless, egalitarian, largely post-scarcity, fully-automated, blah blah freedom blah etcetera stateless etcetera society

2. The aim of communists is to realize this vision of society.

3. This is not our current society.

4. Therefore, the secondary aim of communists is to enable a transition from our current society, to a communist society.

5. This transition does not occur instantaneously.

6. Therefore, when the working class seizes political power, the society they have power over is still capitalist.

(a.) Social consciousness (how people think and act) is still capitalist. People are still habitually used to operating within capitalism.

(b.) Society is still organized how capital wants society to be organized, not organized in the way people want.

1. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

2. At any point between capitalism and communism, a society will have some elements of capitalism and some elements of communism.

3. These elements of capitalism will diminish over the long-term, and the elements of communism will increase over the long-term.

4. I have outlined how workers both own, manage, and control the economy, and the state, and are consciously advancing the DPRK towards communism, in my above response – so I will not repeat it here.

5. The DPRK is a transitional society, it is controlled by the working-class, it is ruled by a communist party, and it is advancing towards communism.

6. Therefore, the DPRK, on the whole is socialist.

Was that clear enough?