Edit: Speaking of which, Communist is a ridiculously flawed system, inheriant in it's basic philosophy that an individual has absolutely no self-ownership.
No, this is wrong. The communist idea is that of absolute self-ownership, that we are all brothers and no man can own another. Hence why the communist "golden state" is governmentless. Since this is obviously not what happened in the attempted Communist states, this is part of why people are saying they were not "real" communist states.
The amount of effort put into a communist system has zero correlation to what one received from that system. A 'from each to their ability and to each their needs' creates a system where the least productive and most needy benefit the most and the most productive and resilient people lose. So instead of offering incentive for effort, it punishes it and instead of punishing irresponsibility, it rewards it.
This is a common thought, but it is wrong. Firstly, it assumes one who is productive in one area, say intellectually, can't be unproductive in another - being paraplegic, for example. Hence a great inventor and engineer may still use his skills for the good of society and society takes care of his needs through nurses and other services.
Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that the "least productive and most needy" isn't so because they are lazy, but because they are disabled in either a mental or physical way - or both. That, however, does not mean they are worthless, and it is our moral duty to make sure they do not starve and die or languish in extreme poverty.
Thirdly, it does not recognise that even for the small amount of "lazy coasters", the amount of money they actually get from just drifting along will always be a lot less than if they put in an effort. So no, "the productive" (which, I repeat, are not a group without needs and thus not separate from the "needy") do not lose. They always keep more than they give.
It also doesn't mention how many of the rich and successful supposedly "productive" people are also the biggest leeches on society. Those are the people who wants to enjoy all the benefits of a socialist society - from things such as social services, infrastructure and communications or schools, to safety and health - but doesn't want to pay for it. In my mind - it's the same problem as the "lazy" people, except it's worse since these people have the resources to share to begin with. And that's not even going into the problem of big businesses and fompanies gladly accept millions and millions in grants, which they then call "profit" and store overseas instead of reinvesting into society.
So, it's no wonder why every 'communist' or 'socialist' society have been miserable, oppressive hell holes.
Once again. Look at western Europe, all successful social democracies. Look at Scandinavia, all successful socialist countries.
Scandinavia has a thriving free-market economy. They just have a lot of taxes and public welfare. That isn't what socialism is. It's anti-thetical to communism. It rejects most all of communist philosophy. It embraces the free-market and uses the prosperity inherit in it to provide common benefits. Sweden does not describe it'self as 'socialist'. It's a 'welfare state' if you want to apply a label to their system.
Also, communist ideology is a direct negation of the concept of 'self-ownership'. With full self-ownership, society would resemble some anarcho-capitalist Ayn Rand Land. Communism is a society that everyone owes a debt to everyone else. All labor, wealth, material, thought, innovation, is the property of everyone else. You can't 'own' anything, let alone yourself. There isn't anything to 'own' in communism, everything belongs to everyone.
Also, productivity means how much they contribute to society. This can be digging holes all day long, pushing a mop, designing software, defending others from violence, anything you can imagine that contributes to society. In Communism, your contribution to society has no reflection on the rewards gained from society. You can be self-less, hard-working, produce far beyond your share and if you don't need much, healthy, single, used to austere conditions the society would give you what you 'need' which isn't much. While somebody who is lazy, selfish, contributes little or nothing and has immense demands and needs, would contribute little, and gain so much.
So, the human always looking to better themselves, will figure it's a better deal to never go to work, have limitless expenses and that system would accommodate them. It encourages exactly the wrong kind of person to make the system work in theory. That's why the USSR harped on this concept of 'The New Man' or 'The Soviet Man' that contributed more to the system then they took from it. Naturally, nobody is going to do that. They want to contribute less and get more.
