It just won't

A communist told the north korean people that if they gave up their property they would be totally taken care of by the party.

They have been starving ever since.

But you’re capable of posting memes and comments on image clip??????

I notice you didn't consider applying your mind.
Sounds like you're one of the useless eaters the commies like to purge.

Precisely

Get out of the comments and go back inside your safe space.

What is your deal?

You can't take some disagreement?

Don't answer...comments are disabled.

Well, since you’re so knowledgeable, why not explain how a “communist” commune in a country with a capitalist economy— which supplies materials and services for that commune — is truly communist. Go ahead.

It's really straight-forward, Jeffy: internally, the commune adheres to the principles of communism -i.e. there is no need for, use of currency, everyone has skills they contribute to, jobs they do in support of the general welfare of the group, everyone is fed, etc.

For the commune's external dealings, as socio-political entities must necessarily engage in trade to procure the things they cannot produce internally, there is a general fund monetized in the coin of the hosting nation & comprised of earnings from the commune's communal output.

I fully expect you'll attempt to seize on the commune's external dealings with non-communist socio-political entities as an underpinning for your "A 'communist' commune in a capitalist country isn't actually communism" canard but keep in mind the dividing line between communism and capitalism is the difference between the internal and external. That said, let's see what you got.

For the commune's external dealings, as socio-political entities must necessarily engage in trade to procure the things they cannot produce internally, there is a general fund monetized in the coin of the hosting nation & comprised of earnings from the commune's communal output.

Their trading resources is capitalist in nature. They may divide the proceeds but it’s still capitalist.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that you don't quite understand the subject matter so let's do a quick walk-thru:

"They may divide the proceeds but it’s still capitalist."

No. Proceeds of a commune's commercial interactions with an capitalist entity are not divided. Rather, they are input to, pooled in the communal treasury upon which the commune as a whole, representatives thereof draw in business dealings with the external world.

"Their trading resources is capitalist in nature."

No. The catch is that the defining characteristic of Capitalism is conjoinment of private ownership with individual profit. As a commune is a conglomerate entity, it engages in commerce with the resultant income/outgo being shared by the group.

Of course, even if a commune trades with 100% privately owned businesses, it's still only commerce rather than capitalism. Why? Let's do a thought experiment: if an individual is encircled by a wall comprised of sticks and said individual is obliged to interact with the wall, in order for your assertion to hold true the individual must obligatorily also be comprised of sticks. Obviously, that's an absurd proposition; interacting with the wall of sticks clearly does not make the individual a bundle of sticks -likewise, a communist entity engaging in commerce with a capitalist entity doesn't make said communist entity capitalist.

Gem

No, trading resources is trade in nature, barter.
Capitalism extends that to maximizing profits by backing said trade off with accumulated capital.