I know you weren't replying to my answers, but still:
Quote:
1) So the entire communist idea relies on a strong majority preferring to be productive over personal enjoyment?
No. It would be extremely unlikely that a big enough amount of people simply "do not work". But even in that case, we can choose to lock out non-workers from access to scarce goods.
Quote:
2) How are these people appointed and how is me being required to speak with them not a form of ruler?
You're not really going to have to to speak with anyone. But even in that case, how would they even be able to keep you out from doing what you want?
Quote:
3) So communism criticizes capitalism for creating violence in defense of private property but is in full support of violence in defense of property that happens to belong to a larger group known as a commune?
Private property owned by an individual or an exclusive group is a form of authority. Being owned commonly, by everyone; non-owned, is the absence of that authority, the absence of any hierarchy. If someone wants to damage society, that's a crime and it will have to be protected.
Quote:
1) So who organizes this and how are they not in a position of power like a ruler?
The community organizes it. And it is no form of authority. You can do what you want.
Quote:
2) Who am I checking out whats available with and why must I report to them? If I wish to be a welder and there are no openings as a welder I am no longer free if I cant be a welder.
Does that involve common property? If so, then it is the exact same as under capitalism - if there are no openings as a welder, you can not a welder. If not, you are welcome to do your work by yourself.
Quote:
3) I would peacefully run the machinery. It would be up to you to be violent in defense of your communes property. That was supposedly one criticism of capitalism. That private property creates violence. Yet here we are with the same machinery and the same violence. The only difference is multiple owners.
Capitalism is based on authority,
exclusion: communism is based on
inclusion, on the lack of that authority. If you're going to take the result of a collective work process for yourself, then that's a crime and it will have to be fended off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Archy
So If I own a machine and you take control then you'll say im wrong for using violence to regain control. But if i take control of your collectively owned machine then im wrong and you're right to use violence? So basically the number of owners decides when its right or wrong? If its not everyones machine then its wrong?
Because in the first case communists are taking control of exclusive private property and making it available to everyone; whereas, in your case you're taking everyone's non-property and re-assigning it to yourself, for your own profit.