Humans basically lived in a communal system for all of our history besides the past 10,000 years. Hunter-gatherer tribes isn't communism because there is a hierarchy, but it was much closer to communism than anything else we've seen since we've left that way of living.

And to avoid a smartass comment, the early agricultural lifestyle was much harder and harsher than the hunter-gather lifestyle so it wasn't a progression, just a different way of living. We can still live that way without problems.

Human culture seemed to have worked well in small groups, so that each person could be personally aquainted with all members of the community. In fact, I wonder if our way of thinking isn't hard-wired into this kind of situation, so that our present lifestyle doesn't even make sense to ourselves.

In a smaller, intimate group, surely you are inclined to share with your extended family, in order to ensure the survival of those close to you. Of course, just across the horizon are "the others" and therein lies the ingrained "us versus them" mentality. Maybe larger societies attempt to overcome this through creating a large, homogenous family. But, it's anonymous; A merit-based leadership becomes harder to achieve in such large numbers. [/tangent]

It is more about the fact that 100% employment is a goal that has yet to be proved attainable in a capitalist economy and therefore those that cannot, or even would rather not, work are those best suited to be without work. (It would seem to cost more in health care and law enforcement if those that are unemployed are unhappily so).
It is more about asking whose work is more "valuable" the hospital manager or the hospital cleaner.
It is more about who "generates" the wealth, the guy putting in the mental effort in planning, or the guy putting in the physical effort in production.
And I repeat that as I understand it communism included a striing towards a "withering away of the state", via centralisation of the economy. I'm not saying that was the right path, but that was the intention, I believe.

Depends on how you define value.
Supply and demand and bang for your buck makes the manager the clear winner here.
A better manager is going to give you far more profit and make your hospital far more valuable than just one good cleaner.
You can replace that one cleaner far more easily and one good cleaner will generate far less positive change than one good manager.
It has always bothered me when envious people gripe about CEO and sports figure's salaries.
Those salaries are a fraction of what they bring in profits to the business, if they do their job well they deserve it.
If the inventors and managers did not do their jobs well the laborers would not have jobs at all. Just because they put their hands on the end product does not mean they do the most "valuable" work.
Let them run the company for a month and see what happens, then get back to me.
Edit:
BTW, I have been on both sides and know it from both views... management deserves to make more money most of the time.

I'm curious.
If you do not pay management differently?
How do you motivate people to do the job for the same pay?
I would not go to school the extra time, do the extra continuing ed, do the extra hours per week, take on the extra stress, work from home, get called in, etc, etc, etc, for the same pay as a laborer who learned his skill in six-months to a year.
My answer to that would be fuck-you.
If told to do it... still would be fuck-you.
If told in grade school "you have aptitude for leadership we are going to put you in management training"... fuck-you.

That sounds just like my response to being put in management, no matter how much it would pay. I don't want to be a baby-sitter.

I apologise Orthodoc, I made the point badly: It wasn't the people of Russia that led it to be a totalitarian state. The reason I say it was because it was Russia was because the Russian Empire (and later Soviet Russia) tried to combine a central authority with a vast landmass. That (imo) creates a need either for a significant move of power outwards into more hands, or extreme, central control. Totalitarianism wasn't the only way Russia could go, but with a starting point of a single ruler and vast landmass it was highly likely. I also think there are aspects of Russian culture which lends itself easily to personality cults, due to their seeming fondness for 'Strong Men' leaders. Of course, I am basing that purely on the bits I've read and am happy to accept that may not be the case.

[eta) Orthodoc, you asked if there was anything specific in his writings that stated explicitly that Communism was democratic. I would say that if you look at the theoretical structures its intent is to widen participation rather than delimit it. Also, in terms of the totalitarian question: Marx predicted/warned about the route to dictatorship in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). In the Communist Manifesto, envisoned a system in which all Commune officials were elected and subject to recall.

Also from the Communist Manifesto:

Marx was not seeking a totalitarian system, nor were the majority of communists of the day (Many, many people in Europe counted themselves communist at that time) they sought instead to overturn oppression. The problem with Marx's analysis as with many of his contemporaries was the idea of Revolution as the means of achieving this ideal.

With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy for us to see the political and economic progression that brought a society with such extremes of poverty and wealth into an age where even the poor have luxuries that Marx's contemporaries couldn't dream of. In the 19th Century this did not look so clear. We know, because we have the benefit of that hindsight, that the rights, freedoms and higher living standards which we now enjoy, didn't need a revolution to be achieved.

We also have the knowledge of just how devastatingly wrong a system born of revolution can go. What did they have to go on? The Terror in France? Big, but we're not exactly talking the same scale as the Gulags.

That's the other key factor I think, along with the scale of Russia. Violent revolution doesn't build consensus...true communism is absolutely dependant upon the building of consensus.

I would like to see true Communism; however, I do not believe in Revolution, unless there is no other outlet for democratic expression.

Here's a question for you, not really about whether socialism is good or bad, but along the same lines:

Imagine a society, if you will, where everyone makes the same wage based on 'tiers' so to speak. Based on your experience, and certain evaluations (in which education, job performance, etc are factored), you can move up a 'tier,' and make more money. You make the same money as others in your tier, regardless of birth, raising, skin color etc. Certain jobs would get more money if they're less desirable or are more taxing, but for the most part it's even.

Now, regardless of which tier you're in, EVERYONE in the society gets full health care, money for housing and sustenance based on the cost of living in the surrounding areas, and money based on whether you are single of have dependents, and everyone works.

Two questions about this society:

One, is this a good idea for a society? You DO make more money if you work harder, but no one can live off of the system. You stay in the same job, but you can change jobs if you're up to snuff, it just takes some paperwork.

Two, is there something ironic or even wrong if this society (which is undeniably socialist) has the single job of defending another society who detests socialism? I'm of course, talking about the US military, but I'm starting to think that with some tweaking this could be a system of governance (if you eliminate the whole absolute rank thing).

What if I want to move to Montana and raise dental floss?

I just remembered to reference where I got this image:

That's an interesting one. I would do it for the job satisfaction and prestige, I think.

In the society I live in now, I would expect financial reward commensurate with my experience, training and seniority. But that's because I know this is how my society indicates value. If it was the norm that people be paid at the same rate and respect, validation and recognition was expressed in a different way then that'd be fine by me. As long as I have a reasonably comfortable house, enough money to eat reasonably and go out for a drink with my friends a couple of times a week and a basic model TV, radio and Computer I don't really have much need of a large income. If I have those things, it doesn't matter me that someone else has them and had to work less. I have them, that's all I need to know.

Queeq... that is a caste system, or class system.
I thought the idea was that the two jobs were equal?
I would not work more, more often and harder for the same, or less, than others. That is ridiculous.

That's where we differ, I think. I like to have a job that facilitates a lifestyle I want.
I did the $100,000/p.a management-thang to earn enough to buy a house where I want to live. I then did (and preferred) the $22,500/p.a job (care assistant in an old folks' home) to pay the bills here. I now sell soap for a living, which pays a little better than that; but if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than doing what I'm doing now.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?

Maybe not, but as an institution it remained in place until 1861. My point wan't that they were still serfs, but that for some at the time of the revolution, serfdom was in living memory.

The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.