> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Who decides from where, to whom, and how much, "redistribution" will take place? When does the marginalized group get enough support that the balance shifts and they are no longer marginalized?

Supposing you're asking the question in good faith, the answer is: the people, democratically. For example: unoccupied/unused properties become commonly owned by the people, and their management and decisions about their use are done democratically by all, therefore serving the interests of the public, rather than that being decided by the owner class, therefore serving the interests of that select few.

Just because a property is unoccupied or unused doesn't mean it isn't owned by someone. You are still suggesting theft of private property. Just because a majority of people vote for something doesn't mean it is morally good. I think taxes are theft and immoral but I accept them because of what I believe about human nature.

It's simple, you start at the top, by imposing a 70% tax on the higher brackets as Cortez wants. If the marginalized group would get too wealthy (straw-man argument), the 70% tax would still do it's job.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexan...

I'm not saying higher taxes aren't something I want, but it's impossible to get by the heavily lobbied government

So remove the incentive to earn above a certain threshold?

If taking home 300 mil on a 1 bil income is not incentive to you...

Who earns $1B as income? I seriously don't think that is a thing. The big earning usually happens when companies or stock gets sold. And yes, it would hurt incentive and takes away funding from capital investment.

I suggest that you pay a visit to Venezuela at your free time, to see such policies applied at a national scale.

Ponder this: the very same economic policies attempted in Venezuela are almost equivalent to those attempted in Norway. The difference is one country had well-functioning democratic institutions and pre-existing prosperity, the other had widespread corruption and limited freedoms. The results are in plain view, and so are the lessons to be taken: democratic social ownership of common riches (in this case, oil) is a good idea, but stress on the democratic part.

Is there any country in the past or present, that has implemented communism with any degree of comparable prosperity and individual freedom as democracies?

No country in history has implemented communism in the strict sense of the word.

As for the success of socialist principles of economic management (i.e. common ownership of property/means of production), it varies (there's Norway, and there's Venezuela), much like the success of capitalist economies varies.

Of course not. Oppression is baked into the system. It's by design. Marx explicitly describes it as necessary for abolishing the capitalist state and suppressing those who would undermine by attempting to engage in individual market activities.

No country has had proper communism. So there is no compassion to be made.

No country has had true scotsmen, either.

Every country has had communism that I say has had communism.