New research shows inequality will end humanity

I'm struggling to think where you could have heard that.

That is NOT socialism. Social is something like you see in Sweden. Communism requires joint ownership of the means of production.

And what do you think you achieved with your comment 'I'm sorry neither Google or Bing work for you?'. If someone can be green inked for merely suggesting that a poll should have a third option, I should imagine you can expect to see some red ink for the above.

No Communism is common ownership of everything, no private possesions just temporary custodianship where that suits the collective need.   It doesn't work. 

Lol, he is certainly not helping his own cause.

I think that's back to front.
Communism was the means by which socialism would be achieved.
The ultimate goal being socialism not communism.

It doesn't work because whilst humans have an innate concept of fairness, they also have an innate tendency to want to own things they desire.

Socialism can work up to a point by focussing on the former if it fully acknowledges and works with the latter. Any system that tries to abolish all forms of individual ownership is cutting so deeply against the grain of human nature that it is doomed to fail. Communism in it's purest form is too close to the latter to ever really work.

Also the notion of a revolution leading to a dictatorship of the proletariat which will gradually wither as centralised power becomes unnecessary is highly flawed and against the grain of human nature too. Firstly most people are not ideologically driven so communists tend to be forced to see themselves as a leadership cadre there to infuse the workers with the desired class consciousness. Thus dictatorship of the proletariat tends to be the dictatorship of this ideological elite. And people entrenched in power will all too easily succumb to the personal corruption that becomes possible. They also tend to desire to retain total power for themselves, so the dictatorship not only tends towards corruption, but never willingly relinquishes its power, which does not just wither away. In this sense too communist assumptions do not allow for human nature.

Also the Marxist interpretation of history and predictions of the future which are central to communist ideology was flawed from the start. For one thing it was conceived at a time when democracy was not seriously yet considered and where the standard method of regime change was revolution. Marx extrapolated what he thought he was seeing mid-19th century into the future and assumed that the workers would get ever poorer and more exploited by the wealthy elites until they were inevitably driven to revolt and revolution resulting in them taking control. What was not at the time envisaged is that the ruling elites might concede power to the people themselves by increased levels of democracy and that people would be offered at least the illusion of real change via the ballot box. Nor was it really envisaged that the lot of workers might get better rather than worse via increased prosperity and also granting them things that they might desire to improve their lot like cheap housing, welfare support in times of need, health care, and pensions, plus education for their kids. So Marx was just plain wrong when he said that the lot of workers was doomed to get ever worse and that only revolution could change that.

True, in more recent decades some Marxist economic predictions seem belatedly to be being born out, but eventually the corrective is likely to result from the ballot box rather than from barricades in the street.

Orac's problem is that he seems to want to view every strand of leftish and socialist thinking as  itself inherently communist, though seems rather coy at wanting to spell this out. In this he is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what communism actually is, at least insofar as it differs markedly from many other left leaning strands of thought. Zany's strand of leftism for example is nothing like the bona fide communism I have described above. So the accusation that he advertises world communism from time to  time needs explaining in light of this, for which some broader definition of what communism is must surely be necessary. But Orac, shovel in hand, recognises that this is a hole he best not dig for himself and instead sees me as someone seeking to make him look stupid, hence the hostility. When in fact I have no interest whatsoever in making him look stupid, merely in exposing the inherent stupidity of his ideological assumptions. But the comments of others in this thread - even if said in jest - tend to suggest that most have figured it out already

Definitely bad and mad, painting.