You keep saying that but offer no actual corrections to say where I’m wrong or what is right.

The reason is because of much of what you have written, for example…

in many countries that have applied communism people still get exploited.

Various examples occur throughout your comments appearing as reactionary or liberal obfuscations of communism, and its differences with capitalism, or that seem unaware of general criticisms of capital.

You may feel my characterizations are inaccurate, and you may be correct, but I feel that they are representative of your argumentation, by its heavy assimilation of various tropes common within bad faith engagement with leftism.

Well, money generally has been used for exchange of material items and ordering specialized services.

Above the availability of such, relations in community have represented the difference between living decently and living meaningfully.

I see. I think the particular case is just one event revealing a problem that is much older and deeper.

If worker exploitation has not been overcome, then communism has not been achieved.

As I say, I feel doubtful that you genuinely understand communism.

Arguably, housing should be accessible without toiling to make a rich person less unhappy and more wealthy.

By some measures, Musk’s decisions managing Twitter/X should earn him one million lifetimes of homelessness.

I know no one personally who would remain secure after losing billions of dollars, yet I keep hearing that owners take all the risks and workers are always protected from hardship.

Much of our perception is logarithmic, which is predictable, since patterns occur from proportion of quantities. Absolute quantities are meaningless in themselves. Even ten dollars as a quantity is meaningless except through prior experience understanding the value of a single dollar. Every value except the smallest is tenfold greater than some other value of at least some consequence.

Simply, owners demand for themselves more than they pretend to allow for workers.

Sure. Much of your observations speaks to the more conceptual differences between the millionaire and billionaire with respect to role in society. Workers generate plenty of wealth, more than enough for all to live well.

Billionaires generate no wealth, only hoard the wealth generated by workers.

It feels elusive how anyone could spend so much, but controlling the content of mass media has been of great service for the interests of the Kochs and the Wilkses.

For you, is it more significant that many may achieve such wealth, or that many more may not do so?

You are probably not vastly different from a millionaire, just someone with less pomp and perhaps pretentiousness than some millionaires may have.

You may even know someone who secretly holds such wealth but feels too embarrassed to make it known.

A billionaire is someone who has the social role of controlling a vast section of society, through private ownership of resources and assets that are needed by others for use.

Ellerman, according to my understanding, has tended to approach liberal defenses of private property by attaching further abstractions and obfuscation that produce no particular further clarity above established leftist criticisms.

Since money of course is just the means of exchange, having it prevents the suffering resulting from deprivation being imposed.

Communism is not complacency or obedience.

It is simply the eradication of the systems of exploitation.

Exploitation and autocracy are expressly encouraged by particular structure, though, whereas antagonized by other.

I encourage seeking to develop those structures protect the empowerment of everyone.

I feel doubtful that a society being permanently stable is necessarily the most important objective.

Try to understand what people need and seek in their lives, and consider how certain organization may promote or impede their capacity to reach or to achieve such needs and wants.

Try not to worry about the absolute count of negative events or negative actors. Most important is the structural resilience against such stress.

I return to my original observation, that you are viewing human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, rather than being shaped by personal experience and social context.

In your view, every society is a failure in its essence, because humans are in their essence incapable of forming any society that is not a failure.

I encourage you to think about how societies may differ, one from another.

It is the only meaningful path.

Dwelling on the presumed intransigent darkness of humanity leads to nowhere. It is neither constructive nor particularly accurate.

I think the HoN is useful as a rough guide for how people often feel, think, and act in various conditions.

I doubt it may be useful for a making any firm predictions, or for asserting any unalterable quality of humanity.

The problem I’ve presented isn’t just “people”,

You repeated the particular language several times, though it has no value to anyone except you and someone who may read your mind.

though, it’s more “people will find a way to be unpredictable”.

What do you mean? Do you mean that inconsistency is an intransigent trait of humanity? Do you mean people become restless? Do you mean people try to preserve order, but fail?

Your language continues to be nebulous and imprecise.

Any system you throw at people,

Who would “throw at people” a system? Are you describing an autocracy, or a foreign occupation?

Can people identify a system, or simply organization and practices under which they prefer to live and by which they feel empowered?

Do people seek change that they identify as valuable?

I am not understanding how you are deriving your understanding about how societies occur and evolve.

they will analyse it and try to find a way to defeat it.

Do you sincerely think that most in every society are revolutionaries?

Why do systems last so long, if everyone is constantly trying to depose the current one?

Are you simply lamenting that every society eventually transforms into a different one, that none last forever?

there will always be outliers who try to go against the grain and pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of others.

In every society, some will conform better than others. Every society has systems of accountability, to discourage and to repair harm.

Are you suggesting that no society is stable, because not everyone is always content with the status quo?

Rather than trying to idealise everything and everyone,

Who has done so? Are you referring to a particular antagonistic? Are you generalizing about everyone?

Capitalism requires people to give a fair and honest value to things. Communism requires ultimately the same, but as defined by fewer people.

Systems express a set of structures, relationships, and values.

I am not sure you understand the meaning of capitalism and communism.