@Sythe You asked for my definition. That is how i perceive it and it is not up to you to determine the bounds of my definition.
Now let me get to your topic.
"Communism is an ideology that claims every man on the planet owns every item of value on the planet in joint ownership"
Interesting you attack property ownership right off, Shows you are presupposed that ownership is a value. Taking the case to extremis does not do well for your argument. You will still own a tooth brush and your clothes and a cell phone. Ownership does not mean the same in communism and you idea of owning people is a strong argument agianst the current wage slavery in Capitalism. The main difference you may be able to understand is that in our current system 1% own the 99% of the rest of us. The Marxist idea of communal ownership would eleminate that ownership of us that currently exists. So do not dwell too much on the idea unless you can see the intricate problems of Capitalist ownership of the masses.
"...This is fallacious because public assets must be controlled, and therefore owned, by a small group of people."
This is interesting in that you agian are suggesting that the ownership is by the State. This is why Soviet Russia was not communist. You are discussing top down ownership, and it the state owns it then it is stil a Captialist system, only owned by someone else, in this case as you say, the few in the leadership. This is why bottom up management, and the local communities must be the starting point, because once you attempt to make Socialism into Captialism it fails. It is not a social system to fix Captialist failings but a system to stand on its own vice Captialism. You supposed these things must be controlled by a dictator type responce. Socialism is true Democracy where it is managemd from the People. Being a believer in the Republic is clouding your ability to view what a socialist democracy means.
"In a free society man is free to own his assets, work has hard as he pleases, employ whoever he pleases at whatever price they will accept. A man is free to buy property and build industrial facilities thereon. He is free to grow his business. All of these activities create wealth."
Wow, is this flawed. So many levels of falsehoods. Lets go slow; an asset is something that makes you money. Working hard does not equate with wealth, working hard means you can barely support your self or family and each year you find you have less. The using of other people for the labor at the lowest wage means you are in an unethical act of consumption of another. The exess that you can pry from the pay and the product your workers produce for you is your profit. You are using the hard labor of others to give yourself a false elevated level of exsistance. Your worker will never have the same oppurtunities to do as you say. You do not give him the education or possibilities of being much more then his parents were. If there was an equal oppurtunity for everyone, then I will conceed this, but as it is now, and has been it is impossible to rise much further then your birth, dispite all the propaganda telling us other wise. Creating wealth is the difference between what you are able to subjegate your work force down to, and you collect from their labors. This is what Socialism is discussing. When the CEO is making 1700times the salary of his workers, and they are barely surviving, then this is not a value, it is a sin. This is not a positive thing to exploit others labor and lives to enrich another simply because you can.
"This is where wealth comes from. It comes from the innovative middle class. The capitalist and his fresh ideas, his understanding of markets and economics, and his freedom to pursue his own goals."
This presupposes that under a socialist system all innovation would end. Do people die? Why would people stop being innovative and creative? If anything if all the members in a socialist buisness had a democratic vote and input into the organization as it would be, then the idea pool would be alot larger then the little pool of motivated "Middle Class" as you call it. This also presupposes the end of competition that a socialist enterprise would still have to in fact react too. You seam to be trailing off here as to what a market place would look like under socialism. Cooperatives, worker owned enterprises, would still have to compete and market what they produce or they would not be sustainable, as with your glorified Captialist enterprise. You can still pursue your own goals, only now you will be benefiting your community not just yourself.
"They have no economic interest in industrial projects. Their job is to sit in a room and put marks on paper"
This is just plain false.
"It gets its wealth through taxation, stealing it from the people. The people have no wealth because they have been forced to stop creating wealth by their enslavement."
This is just plain silly. This has nothing to do with Socialism or communism as you are trying to seperate them here. You are suggesting a Captialist state with no taxation? Where is that? Why would a Communsit or Socialist State need to tax like this? If the communities are self sufficent then there is no need for this top down taxation as you say. You agian are confusing a Captialist Welfare state with Communism and Socialism. Its hard to answer this one when you are so far off base.
"...how anyone could see the process of wealth creation as being evil I'll never know."
That is easy because it is evil. The exploitation of the majority by a minority for the sake of this value you call "wealth Creation" is a perverse sickness. You have placed a value on robbing people of the value thier labor produces for your own excessive lifestyle is a moral and ethical deprivaty. It would be hard to make your sickness well.
"...because of their ignorance they end up actually hurting the underclass,..."
I like this presupposing there would be an underclass in socialism...
"...If I want to employ people to do a job, then I want the reserve the right to stop paying them if they fail to do the job for which they were employed."
Ahh a slave owner would of said the exact same thing. Only they would sell them or just kill them, either way they are treating them like property, only you have the option of throwing them to the faceless unemployed labor pool, that allows to to feel you can treat anyone anyway you wish. You can find someone else. Where is your incentive to treat those that produce your wealth in an ethical manner? Because G-d ordained you with this right of worker ownership by divine decree, so however I wish to treat them is my divine right? Wow, how mediveal.
"For business it is much worse. You can only build certain things in certain places. You can't mine land you own unless you have a permit. You can't broadcast radio unless you buy an hideously expensive license from the government."
First this supposes that any regulation is Socialism. Wow what fantasy world you live in. The regulations are on the books to defend us from you. You already established you have no morals and can not be trusted to do the right thing, so now I am supposed to trust your lordship to not pollute me, build substandard houses and products, or not poisin my foods. I am sorry, first that is not a socialist thing to defend me from you, and second it is a nessicity in Captialism because you have 300 years of the worst track record in doing the right thing, so no you can not be trusted and thank G-d there is a Pro-Capitalist Govenrment that is willing to regulate you.
"The answer is simple. When the industry was first socialized the government took professionals out of the free market to work in the socialized environment. In the case of health this would have been private doctors, in the case of schooling, private school teachers, and so on. So for a while the socialized industry is really very good because these professionals have developed their service skills in the free market and are used to losing customers if they are rude or make misjudgments, or are unable to fulfill their requirements."
You are talking about a welfare state not socialist or communist, so stay focused on the subject and not wander off to Capitalist welfare states. That is a different web site.
"Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism"
Now you are just plain scary. I do not trust you to pay me a wage I can live on, I can not trust you not to fire me on a whim, pollute me, poisen me, deprive me of medicine and basic human rights, but I am going to let you do what ever you want? The dark ages ended and you want us to return to them? Why do you not just bring back the German ovens so we can weed down your masses of burden currently depriving you of your right to exploit.
