"The reward is your passion for the work, or humanity has changed that you feel an obligation to work."

Simply not good enough and will never work in practice. Far too idealistic and disregards how humans actually behave.

"By the time they would be in control of that, they wouldn't. It would be an alien idea."

So they're brainwashed, is what you're saying. You are advocating for a system so closed that people are so brainwashed that they lose any kind of thought that isn't about the communism they live under. That is absolutely terrifying and downright wrong.

"They relinquish power slowly and subtly. They wouldn't just say "K, we're done doing government now." They'd release bureaucracy to the proletariat, etc, slowly and surely little things phase out until there is no government left. "

And how are the proletariat going to deal with it? How are the government going to relinquish their power? Why would they?

"I think no one has the right to profit off the work of others. I may design a product, but if someone else makes it, sells it, ships it, what have I done to deserve the profit off what they did? The people who benefit from business should be the people who work at that business. Management is nothing but parasites stealing the fruits of labor of others."

Well, you invented it for a start. That gives you a little bit of a say, in my book. Having said that- this would decimate the film and music industry to start with. Adaptations of your favourite books into film? No longer possible under this idea. If people can't gain reward for their actions there is no reason for them to perform them. A complete decimation of creativity because people would get sick of putting in personal creative effort for no return at all.

"The point is to change human nature. Yes, this would happen if I flipped a magic communism switch. But after hundreds of years of development, it's no longer a concern - people need to be removed from the idea that they can do such things. So at first, that first step in marxism, you rigidly punish those actions. Murder, rape, you shatter those you commit those crimes. No one dares hurt another for fear of themselves, and it goes on for generations, the idea that you even can hurt another dies a natural death."

No. This is pie in the sky- or pie on pluto it's so far removed from reality. There is nothing about communism that stops crimes being commited. How do you punish those actions without a central authority? And then you've already reintroduced use of force to get this to work. You scare people into a totalitarian system. That's going to work wonders for the state's productivity. You can't punish crime effectively without some centralized system.

"Whoa whoa whoa. Full stop. NK also claims to be a democracy. They can swear up and down how communist they are, but they fail every criteria for communism. They have a state, which communism cannot have to exist. They have money, the won, which is another big no-no. The quality of the military's life is much higher than the citizens, so they have class. They are not communist by any definition. Ask any communist what they think of north korea. They hate it."

But this is identical to nearl EVERY self proclaimed communist state. Is it simply coincidence that these have never achieved 'true' communism. The state, as per my previous post, is inevitable to maintain the communist nation. They have money, but the government still have the means of production and there is no free market. Same flaws apply. Of course they have class- this is inescapable. Humans put themselves into positions of power. You can talk about 'changing nature' by somehow super evolving humans but that's simply not how things work. You always end up with some form of heirarchy as individuals try to exert their own sort of control on their environment. In NK, it's still collectivist, it's still socialist. This is just the typical "But that's not real communism" argument, which surfaces every time a communist state appears and does miserably as it inevitably will do.

"I have to be blunt here. Yes. Needs of the many..."

Then I fundamentally have to disagree. That is the worst way to actually meet the needs of those many people, is by applying a stereotype to them and ignoring their individuality or their ability to make their own decisions. Your positiong seems to be pro-brainwashing people against their will for the sake of the glorious commune. No consent given or asked for, and yet in every other situation we typically hold consent paramount.

"The bolsheviks were a tiny party and they took over russia, the physically largest nation on earth. All you need is control of the state and you have control of society, and you can enact change in that society. "

Which required force and a government. And sure, it's a physically large nation, but at the time it the population wasn't exactly large given the land area. It still required that people have things done to them against their will because some other people thought their communist utopia was a good idea. An idea so good people end up fleeing from it because of how much it controlled their lives in every facet.

"No one is forced to work barring dire emergency, that's a common misconception. As long as people want things, people will produce things."

But people ALWAYS want things. If you don't have production, you have no technological progression. If people are placated, they have no motivation. What if someone wants something and can't get it?