How does one address the fatal flaw in socialism where the measures in place to keep the commissar class from imposing...

You can easily establish a comfortable living and leave a start for your children when the economy isn't killed by inflated labor costs, but of course this means nothing to people who believe being able to buy things is in itself slavery. Luckily very few people believe this, which is why

Abolishing a Constitution that makes private property illegal won't turn very many heads.
Also haven't you noticed the hundred countries who post new constitutions every other decade? Not all of those countries are in perpetual civil war, and those that are enter war to abolish the Constitution, not because one they liked was canned by the party they voted in.

If people are that ambivalent about communism it isn't happening anyways.

Meaning that isn't the endgame of the Democratic Party?

The main point is some people are born into wealth and others have to sacrifice their youth and time to achieve a decent life.

Some people think this is bullshit.

Furthermore using property to serve private needs disadvantages the property-less.

Who the hell made the decision that ability to attain property and the good fortune to keep it(not get fucked by a sudden crisis) should be what determines whether or not you get healthcare, job stability, leisure time.

Don't forget if you win the birth lottery these are not even problems.

People will realize the only reason private property exists is because they decide to respect it. Once they decide that it is not in their interest and grow the balls to revolt. Private property will end.

Private property isn't ended by decree, but by people ceasing to even see it as a legitimate concept.

You may be too dense too understand communism but can you at least see why the disadvantaged poor might get buttmad when they see #richkidsofinstagram and then some hack economist implies that wealth is somehow a meritocratic indicator.

learn to recognize tautologies
The poor ask
hack economist reply
see how this fails to convince people?

Don't forget when wealth is concentrated you can use it to buy influence and corrupt politics. A law that prevents corruption is useless if you bribe the authorities to ignore it or amend it.

Do you see how private property corrupts politics?

No

You seem to forget two things:
1) countries with the smallest income inequality are the ones with the least restrictions on business, i.e. if you let people make money, they will do so; concentration of wealth is caused by limiting the amount of people allowed to hold it

2) star trek replicators cannot exist, says science

Yes and they also have the most robust systems of public education, transportation, healthcare, infrastructure, housing, welfare etc.

The benefits offered by markets can still be kept while eliminating many of their detrimental effects of you switch to a system of market socialism as a transitionary period towards a more planned system.

Forgot the necessary pic

Sure if your economy is strong enough you can afford socialized healthcare, but that would only be social democracy. The problem with that is that is that eliminating such a large field from the private sector can only slow economic growth: if your economy isn't tippy top already your country will suffer like Greece. The quality of services will also suffer. Conversely deregulation gives opportunity for competition in the industry : bad companies lose business and are forced to provide better service to continue to exist, and if they can't do that, they compete by price. Rinse and repeat; ultimately everyone gets top quality for the best price.
As for flaws, I'm guessing the fact that CEOs are entitled to take a bigger share than the workers, I'll bring to view the fact that worker co-operatives and hippy communes can and do exist within a laissez faire economy, but economic competition cannot happen on a socialist state.

Or keep market socialism and allow for non-profits and volunteerwork to thrive until everything is automated enough that we can function without regular companies as they have been outcompeted by people who don't need to get paid as everything becomes basically/completely free.
A lot less forced way too, tbh. Just the right level of communism when just the right material conditions exist.

I've seen the argument that automation will ultimately kill the need for work, but I don't buy it. If anything it will simply resituate the economy to the construction and maintenance of robots. Because those specialized positions cost money, goods created will never be free. But since nobody but the specialists are working, nobody buys the products and the economy tanks. Because of this, businesses would much rather hire humans for cheaper than the cost of the robots, provided the government allows them.

never implied that.

Work on your reading comprehension

Then how will private property end?

You're mistaking socialism for the dictatorship of proletariat.

Or state capitalism. Point being every attempt at a socialist state has ended that way. It appears to be an inevitability. That's the topic of the thread, not "sell communism to a libertarian".

people stop respecting private property. they organize and treat property as a common thing that belongs to the community.

Show me your logic and how you connected lack of private property to replicators?

How about you explain the chain of events where people suddenly stop wanting things?

An example of people not respecting private property is
Man walks into a factory and says this factory is mine, you guys will show up at 6 A.M and work until 6 p.m.
The workers just laugh and then go aout their business.

another example is
Man walks onto a collective farm and starts build a fence around a parcel and putting no trespassing signs. the people arrest the man and tear down the signs and fence.

So this would happen in Dali's melting click world?