[norm-from-cheers]

Ah interesting variety of responses. Allow me to reply:

For starters, communism is an extremely broad ideology that generally means the abolition of class society (class being defined along property lines). Personally I subscribe to the specific ideology of communism known as Marxism.

What Marxism attempted to do to the communist movement in Europe was to emphasize a scientific basis such a societal shift. Historical Materialism, one of the most important tenets of Marxist thought (and which heavily influences political scientists, historians, et al. to this day), is the idea that human history passes through certain epochs. These epochs are defined by property and class relationships. In other words: economics.

Because multiple classes co-exist within an economy, there is an inevitable clash and conflict between these classes. These conflicts progress until their is a significant social revolution that discards the old order for an epoch that serves the new dominant class.

The perfect example of this is the rise of capitalism in Europe. Feudalism served an economy that was dominated by landed gentry (i.e.: rich people with land) whose economic might came simply from their land holdings. But private trade began increasing as Europe's manufacturing capacity increased. This created a rift within Europe -- Feudal lords in conflict with a new class of capitalists. There were many social revolutions, and eventually there was a historical shift from feudalism to capitalism.

Communism is therefore the theoretical society which will develop following the inevitable conflict between labor and capitalists. To be a Marxists is to acknowledge that this conflict is inevitable (and as the 20th century has shown, it is already occurring).

Incidentally, communism does not look good on paper, because most people do not write about the future theoretical communist society. China, the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam -- NONE of these countries has EVER claimed to be communist, because they never were. Marx never wrote about the future communist society because it is in the new dominant classes interest to develop a political theory naturally when one becomes necessary.

Asking for what communism should look like in the future is like asking a 17th century French blacksmith what capitalism should look like today.