the idea that you can own the body of someone else is slavery. The idea that you own your own body has nothing to do with slavery. If you didn't own your own body then you wouldn't be able to say "my body" or "my arm" you would have to say "that body" or "that arm". If you don't own your own body then you have no right to claim any profit or product that's produced by your body. The idea that you can "sell access" to your body is in line with private property in the exact same way that you can sell access to a house that you own. You can easily find citations of Marx claiming that true Communism has no state, but you don't need to because the idea of a state contradicts the idea of no classes. Having a state automatically puts people in the state in a class with more power than people who are not in the state. You can argue that a "communist" state can do all the things that you mentioned in your previous post, but you are in fact also arguing that the same state is authoritarian. Just because a state is forcing everyone to be equal and to have equal resources doesn't mean it isn't authoritarian. It means that it fits the definition of authoritarian perfectly.
For what it's worth, my stance has always been that Communism Is Great In Theory, its just never going to work for as long as humans are humans. We'll need to fundamentally change ourselves on a neurological and psychological level before it could ever work.
The point of fully actualized Communism is that you have achieved a perfect society where no one is forcing you to to anything. A fully actualized Communist Society would be Egalitarian, problem is achieving a fully actualized Communist society is about as likely as finding Atlantis.
Do note that fanatic egalitarians sound incredibly communist, saying to be on guard against those who think their desires are more important than anyone else's and saying that any society that doesn't look after the needs and rights of its citizens is a crime.
Yep.
where do you see the fanatic egalitarian description? If that's the right description, then I will concede that it could be interpreted as the closest thing to an idealistic concept of "communism" (if you want to pretend that there are no leaders or government as well) however, I would argue that it's even closer to a liberal democracy.
