Workers never own the means of production. Workers ARE the means of production. The more individual freedom you have, and less controlled and owned by the state, the more you are in direct control of the only means of production you can own and control, yourself.

Workers are not the means of production. The means of production are objects used to produced other goods, such as (but not limited to) machines, raw material and knowledge of production. The ability to work is only one ingredient in the production of goods, it needs to be combined with objects to create goods. I can't think of a product (value in the marxist economic sense) that was produced solely by labour without using any tools or raw material (if you have a counterexample, I would be interested to hear about it).

What the state wants to own is the people. What follows is the state redefining what people are, and then exercising complete authority over them through the 'law'.

The state (or government or whatever you want to call it) does not want to own the people in a democracy. In fact, if democracy is done right, the government is not an abstract force acting upon the people like some alien overlord, it is the manifestation of the willl of the people and it's power to act out that will. The government is some sort of superorganism that emerges out of a consensus forming process, where the atomic parts of this organism are individuals.

The only instance where somebody owns somebody else is in the case of wage labour. Wage labour is the phenomenon when one person (A) pays to rent another persons (B) mind/body to perform a form of action for A. Person B during that time has no option of deciding about their own actions anymore, thus, person A owns person B for a short period of time.

So why does person A need to rent person B? Because person A has the means of production (machines, raw goods, necessary software) to produce a product, and person B has not. Person B has only his/her ability to perform the action person A is so eager to rent.

So what is putting the means of production in the hands of the workers? Simple. The workers would decide about how to use these means of productions in a democratic process, rather than being told how to use them for the person who owns them.

A classless society means the redefinition of human capital as state property.

A classless society is the exact opposite of that. A classless society aims to make it unneccessary to sell ones body/mind to another person in order to sustain ones own life.

Every natural distribution curve follows the same top 1% that is bandied about in the media as some false focal point of tyranny. Every communist society has also had their entrenched 1% of wealth controllers.

I would say that this is an example of the natural fallacy. Just because it was always the case doesn't mean it is right or just. If it appears wrong and unjust, ways of solving this injustice should be found and applied.

Most of the historical socialist societies have indeed not put a very great deal of effort into promoting democracy because of some weird sense of notion that it would stop the so called revolution (notable exceptions are some anarchist attempts, but that's too much for this comment). Democratic socialists see this tendency to fake a democratic process (or outright dismiss it) and to find ways to preventing this from happening again.

Communism is in fact an utopia. It aspires the life in a classless, stateless society, where people work with each other out of a joy of work and the bliss of creating happiness for others. This is imho an utopia worth aspiring, not possible in my lifetime, but maybe achievable sometime in the future based on incremental progress. Socialism is a society that has already abolished capitalism, and tries to achieve communism, but hasn't abolished the notion of a state up to that point.

Humans are not all created equal. We are a tribe, not a colony. We are content to let the weak die off to strengthen the tribe, such is the very nature of evolution, and such is the very nature of our existence. To steal available carbon from other life. Such is the nature of communism as well. In fact Communism trims the heard with more extreme prejudice than capitalism as the state inevitably loses the ability to feed and support their 'ever freer' workers.

Again, appeal to nature. Just because humans are not equal in their abilities does not mean that they do not possess equal rights to live a fulfilling life. Most of modern civilization seems to be born out of the desire to stop the darwinian principle for humanity, so that a constant fight for survival is not needed and the horrible suffering of past generations can be overcome. Also asserting that humans are tribal in nature (regardless of the question if that is true or not) does not justify any hierarchy without further explanation. The notion of tribes is useful for examining the social patterns of individuals, but I assert that they are mostly meaningless in the industrialized world and the organization of such. International production and capitalism are definitely not tribal in nature, as they involve hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individuals who mostly have never known each other. This is quite a good sign that people can in fact overcome the 'tribal nature' of humanity. I read your use of the word 'communism' in this paragraph as the word 'socialism', for the reasons outlined above. Again, the state is the people deciding about how their lifes should be organized, production of material goods being a part of that. To question the ability of the people to organize themselves is to question all majority-organized systems, which is highly doubtful given the apparent success of democracy.

You are a direct beneficiary of this extreme prejudice against life that is evolution. You are already in direct oppression to the millions of unseeded ejaculate that eventually made you. You already stole that carbon in utero.

Evolution is a process, and I own nothing to it. In fact, if I had been born 20000 years ago, I probably would have never made it this far. Evolution/the evolutionary process would have killed me through one of their agents.

Dreaming of a utopia is foolish and wasteful. Utopian ideals have always led to utter failure and catastrophe, and a hastening of this stealing of carbon. No communist state has ever been anything better than an apocalyptic shit hole. Communism is directly responsible for the violent destruction of over 100 million lives under communist rule. This does not include death from wars that involved communist countries.

I do dream up utopian ideas and I try to bring them into reality bit by bit. After I will have finished my current job, I will either found or join a co-op and work within it, realizing syndicalist ideas in the real world. Also, while I am not entirely a fan of it, the country Cuba does not seem like an apocalyptic shithole to me. I do not think that it's perfect, given the obvious lack of parliamentary democratic control, has developed positively since being a country being basically controlled by the united states.

Marxism and class creation is discrimination in and of itself. Saying one group is oppressed and incapable of rising due to another, is obvious racism and classism in the face of it's own descriptive paradox. Destroying obvious classes that do exist and redefining language in the face of reality is an exercise to eliminate the identity of the self. An attempt of the STATE to own the means of production, people. And thus it is revealed that marxism and all post modern thought is an attempt to re-write reality and accept de-constructivist ideals over nature and reality, in attempts to redefine the world around it and enforce the destruction of human society and humans. We are a varied and complicated creature where no two are the same. I'd thank you to remember that.

Marx's idea of classes is not racist, since it does not try to categorize or value humans dependent on their physical appearance or their genetic/biological features, but on their actions and behaviour inside society. Also, Marxism is not about class creation, but rather tries to examine the existence of classes in the current capitalist society. It is about the abolishment of the difference between those people who own capital, that is money which flows in a Money->Goods->Money' circle, increasing Money' through the extraction of surplus value from the worker. Also, the elimination of classes is as much about the elimination of the self as the elimination of race and gender is: not at all. Rather, it attempts to free those who are restricted in their freedom to define oneself in the social system but who are oppressed (most of the time unconsciously) by prejudices and clichés about the behaviour expected from them, as well as by the circumstances they live in. Also, marxism is not post-modern thought, since it predates it by roughly a hundred years (faq on postmodernism, flawed, but much better than the common sense). I also think that deconstructivism is a very helpful tool at dissecting the reality we live in the circumstances we have grown into, as well as showing the parts of society that are nothing but cages for individuals in regard of their own actions. We are indeed varied and complex creatures, and because of that I would think it naive to boil down the reasons for human behaviour to the rather simple construct of 'human nature'.