Originally Posted by Xenon
This has always puzzled me as to the many definitions and the deliberate addition of grey zone to term like socialism , and especially communism.
Isn't the simple crux of communism that the notion of private property is not recognized! And thus all of the actions of the Chinese government are fully consistent with communism. Seizing property such as house land etc without compensation is perfectly aligned with communism since it can be easily established that someone / group has a more pressing need for these items. Same thing for the harvesting of organs from prisoners or even simple peasants. Someone else had a more useful goal for such organs. Same thing with unpaid wages for factory workers. The money was needed elsewhere. It all should be really clear to everyone. Bribery and crime are also far more likely to go unpunished under Communism because the very essence of communism disempowers (sp?) the individual.
I'm afraid that is just about as incorrect about the actual meaning of communism as you can get. It sounds more like Reaganite propaganda, written by someone who has never actually read Marx, than anything. You might be able to ague that what you're describing is in line with Maoism, but certainly not classical Marxian notions of socialism or communism.
The simple crux of communism is not that private property isn't recognized. Rather the crux of communism lies in the elimination of exploitation through the unfair distribution of wealth within society. The abolition of private property does not extend to the individual level in the way you describe. Indeed, Marx had a profound respect for the individual, their interests, goals, and needs. And, above all else, their inalienable natural rights. "Private property" refers here only to the means of production - i.e. the mechanisms by which we convert raw nature into useful human objects and the capital which is created through that process. It does to extend to individual private property (like your clothes, house, toothbrush, or - and I have no idea how you made this leap - internal organs). Redistribution is not based on some sort of authoritarian regime which dictates who needs what more and then proceeds to violate individual rights to achieve this. True communist governance is based on a form of radical, republican (in the Greek sense) democracy.
I'm writing in very broad strokes here, in the interest of brevity, but I'd be happy to go into more detail if people are interested. I'd also be happy to email my master's thesis, which deals with these specific issues in the context of (strangely enough) biological commodification, to anyone who is interested.