wich means that nobody would be able to own things that are used to produce other things

Then that's dumb.

How can you produce something without it being owned?

Unless you want to be anprim that wont work.

you produce for exchange

not for profit

or

Profit is from what you produce.

you could get paid depending on the amount of products you make

It also help inflation. And the economy as a whole.

you dont need *profit*, thats the key aspect of communism

the state would wn the means of production

own*

Which would inevitably be abused.

not really

Working for the government isnt something people should do.

well yes, i mean thats another issue

Lenin didnt abuse that

Castro didnt

And yes really. It has happened many times.

Yes they did.

Ho Chi Min didnt

He did.

but thats not a critique of the economic system though... all systems are vulnerable to abuse from the officials / planners, etc

thats true

Ho chi min was smart but he wasnt a smart politician.

@Larry Skywalker true but my main critique is the ability to abused.

what i want to say is, in a capitalist system more than half of the profit you produce gets sucked off by your boss

Communism can be abused much easier.

in a communist system you would get full profit for your work

But this time your profit goes to people who dont earn it. Or goes to people who the state says earns it.

no, it doesnt

it goes for you

You make it sound attractive.

its your work, so you get the profit

Its not your work. The state own your production.

You're merely pawns of government in that situation.

By work and law.

Meaning you give them much more control.

no, the state owns the means of profuction

Control not necessary for them.