So communism isnt workers coops or soviet central planning, can I get a quick rundown on what communism actually is?

this also

then what does non-private property mean? a government declaring itself to be "the people" and it being them and therefor the people who own everything?

It means that ownership is based on use - not government papers.

who owns the forests and how is this ownership authorized?

♫Communism is whatever you want it to be♫
♫Even if others don't agree♫

No one.

...

then how do you prevent people from depleting them?

if the workers own everything, it would seem so

Imagine everything (outside of your place of residence and personal belongings) is publicly owned and democratically controlled. How resources are used and the general direction of the economy is decided by society at large instead of a small group of investors. Works is divided up based on social necessity, and greater automation and efficiency leads to shorter workdays. In addition, since the means of production are socially owned by society, you could potentially switch jobs if you get tired of the current one you're working at, assuming you have the appropriate qualifications. Imagine working some stuffy office job, getting tired of it, and deciding to go do some outdoors work for a year.

They'd likely be given quotas that they're not allowed to go over.

Since when is the forest a mean to produce?

by whom?

me.

You prevent people from depleting them by removing the need to deplete them. By removing private property and the need to expand your business.
When society as a whole owns the forrest, there is no incentive for anyone in that society to chop down all trees.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - This "mantra" is not an ethical guideline for how people should behave, but how it is theorized that society will function under communism.

everything is a commons except for your personal property.
examples of commons existing now: open-source sofware, intellectual commons, videogame mods, everything downloadable or accessible for free on the internet, you're bio-genetic code (that mega corps want to privatize), community gardens, the environment, etc
Idk if we can truly have every single thing function like this, but I want to protect and expand the commons as much as possible, so I am a communist.

again, what does this practically mean? "nobody would want to exploit the flaws in communism, so it doesn't matter" is a highly naive awnser

also, the definition of a state can be wonky.
like, some people would say it's not a state if it's completely transparent, local, immediately democratic, etc.
I think you would still have laws (and punishments for breaking those laws) and elected officials (but very horizontal, and if you didn't like the laws in one city you could move to the next)
We don't have a crystal ball

well, if you could get all the wood you needed for free and so could everyone else, there would be no incentive to chop down the forest.
I still think you would have laws and a justice system imo

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Give me one good reason why someone would want to chop down all the trees when he cannot sell it or possibly use it all.
And if a lunatic for some reason started randomly destroying the forest, society would be incentivized to stop him. Either with words or bullets.

What flaw? What incentive would someone have to clear forests if they can't accumulate wealth or sell it for a profit? That's a lot of work to do for funsies. Regardless of that if you are needlessly exploiting communal resources the community will stop you. No state doesn't mean a lack of social organization.

for free from whom? if workers own the means of production, why would they give away what they produce on demand?

selling the wood and using the land for agriculture. i don't see how he can not sell it if there isn't an overarching authority that prevents him from doing so

and what if an entire community, like a tribe or a mormon settlement decides to do so?

My guy right here is correct.

I can't wait for open source vidya and open source government run amateur pornography websites.

Community-run, dear one-winged newfriend.
Or, you could, y'know, get out of your armchair and into the big blue room and maybe hook up with one or more qt3.14s.

I think you're not actually trying to understand what we're telling you, but rather want to prove us wrong.

Society as a whole is the overarching authority. If you decide to burn a forrest, then anyone who uses the forrest is incentivized to stop you.

Who's he going to sell it to?
What are they going to buy it with?

i don't think you actually understand what you're trying to tell me, as no one in this thread manages to go further than "trust me, it'll work because everyone will have everything".

and what if the burners have the upper hand?

There is no market to sell it on. If people need wood for construction or hobby interests they would be provided wood for "free".
Seeing as how deforestation is a global issue I'm not so sure the local community would have complete sovereignty over the issue.

Then the forest gets burned, you fucking rube. What kind of a question is that?

Jeez this is pretty stupid fam.

Well, what if aliens came and tried to impregnate your mother. Huh? Checkmate capitalists.

...

The material human community.

The self-conscious organization of society, meaning conscious social control of production (production of all of life). Central planning through soviets (workers councils), will certainly be a part at first, but it is not the beginning and the end of the process. All social relations being immediately intelligible

they aren't "workers" anymore, everyone becomes a "producer" (a producer of social life)
You don't really "give away" anything, you produced it for social use in the first place.

Exchange will not exist, as people will not be separated from their needs

One of the first things communist society (perhaps even before communism is fully established, even though the task can not be completed until a while after then) will have to deal with is the contradiction between town and countryside.
Agriculture will look very different, even if we can't imagine it now (although there is some science already existing which will be our start).

Either way, the difference between primitive communism and advanced communism is the foundation of the latter upon science. The community will be founded upon a scientific understanding of the world which it changes to meet its needs, this naturally includes care and caution to reproduce the environment which it produces its life necessities out of.

What you listed aren't "entire communities'", in communism, the entire world population (with certain exceptions) will be the community.
Religion and tribalism will only exist in those groups which choose not to participate and go out to live in the wilderness on their own.

What happens if isolated groups plan or start doing something which will endanger the world community?
No one can know how or what it will look like, but communist society will intervene.

faggots telling you where you can eat and sleep

Pretty sure that's fascism, where practically everything is owned by private coorporations.

Money is like energy. In a capitalist society, those who own money can direct the flow of energy. They can decide whether that energy goes into building a house, a car, a restaurant or whatever..
They can decide this completely arbitrary without regard for whether they are wasting the energy or not.
In communism the flow of energy is directed rationally without waste and with maximal efficiency.
The question is merely who decides? An old idea is that firstly the energy is divided up into small units, which is accomplished by the abolition of the legal concept of private property. Private property can only exist when a state exists, which implements the jurisdiction and executive necessary for dealing with private property. It is a legal concept. The state basically enables the bundling of arbitrary large amounts of energy in the hands of a few individuals.
Without the state and thus without private property, no such bundling mechanism exists anymore. Energy is now identical to work and there are no legal concepts anymore, enforced by the state, which could bundle this energy. The only binding mechanism for energy is now collective work.

There would not be a "working class" in communism, since there would be no class. Everyone would work, but they would work for their own benefit.

Somehow the post link got deleted

The third paragraph on refers to

No its actually both. "pardon me sir but I like this hill could you not build your commune's factory on it? I really like the scenery and want to build a cottage here." Commie shitbird "no user we are doing this for the glorious enrichment of the people's republic of ancommistan, you are not the collective. Your will is nothing. You will submit or be gulaged/killed. Fuck your hill"
Lmao

That doesn't make something fascism

lmao so true xD

What does?

Maybe we could approach the abolition of private property by firstly putting an upper limit on the amount of property that someone can legally own. Thereby we avoid that energy is bundled in too large units that are directed by a single individual.
Say if everyone can only own private property in the worth of maximal 10 million dollar and everything above goes to a public fund which can then be used to financy public projects. I wonder what effect this would have.

When this is done, capitalism would be viewed as "fixed" and there'd be less incentive for change.
Then again, if people see the success of that, they might just be more likely to take the second step.

Secular rule over the goyim workers

anarcho-greenie eco-terrorists?

ahahahahahahahahahahahah

Has nobody in here actually read Marx, and everyone is just spewing bullshit? Communism is the abolition of the commodity form of products and therefore of value production.

Most leftists haven't studied Marx, and if they have not past Capital Vol. 1.