If you are serious about being an internationalist who puts the welfare of all human beings anywhere in the globe into consideration, then you should be a capitalist.

Nah, I don't want to compete with my fellow humans, nor do I want to be one of a tiny few who grabs the bulk of all the global wealth. I'm just not capable of convincing myself that the billions of people in the world who are impoverished, malnourished because they can't afford to buy food, homeless, or enmeshed in a war-torn environment as my fellow rulers paid paltry wages to working class soldiers to fight over territory and money are somehow benefiting from my privilege position.

I am calling communism what most people call communism.

But it's not the system I support, and you know it, Baldur. Implying that it is amounts to an intellectually dishonest diversion from the debate and a misrepresentation of what I'm advocating for.

I am well aware that no two communists can agree on what communism means,

We can all readily agree upon and understand the difference between socialism as Marx and Engels formulated it (actual Marxian socialism as described in their respective works, i.e., a classless, stateless, moneyless economic democracy); a Leninist/Stalinist system of state ownership and control of the economy; and a liberal, governmentally regulated form of capitalist with many social programs (social democracy); workers' business cooperatives (sometimes referred to as "democratic socialism" or a "socialist market"); or fascist systems of state dictatorship, like Nazism, since they too applied the term "socialism" (specifically, "national socialism") to themselves! The fact that the terms "communism" and "socialism" have been so often misapplied to so many different things for so many different agendas doesn't mean that all of them are identical.

We all know and understand that terms are often misapplied or hi-jacked for a variety of reasons, including "feminism" and yes, "pedophile". That doesn't mean every single usage applies to the same thing, or can be conflated with each other. Arguing that Marxian socialism has been tried but failed when it was actually the not remotely similar Leninist system of state ownership that did instead is not an honest way to debate.

but I cannot concern myself with trying to ascertain how exactly each communist's magical system is supposed to work.

I disagree that you cannot concern yourself with understanding what you're arguing about if you want to have lengthy debates about it. If you do, then show both of us the respect of actually bothering to do the required research before making dishonest statements and misrepresenting what I am talking about, or at least listen to the numerous explanations I have made that make it clear how what I'm advocating does not resemble what Lenin, Hitler, and the European liberals advocated.

Then you would be less able to use your famous pejorative description of "magickal," especially when your own understanding of capitalism is far more faith-based than anything culled from empirical observation. That insult should be reserved for yourself, and anyone else who argues they need not understand a subject clearly when debating it and attempting to refute it, especially when you keep insisting that I'm the one who lacks understanding of the topic.

Either make your system work,

Mmm-hmmm, just the minority of workers currently arguing for it can make it work on demand, when the capitalists are still in full global control of the industries, and the vast majority of workers are still apathetic or clinging to some iteration or other of capitalism because they're used to it or refuse to currently believe there is a viable alternative. I think you know the difference between a realistic demand and one that isn't.

or adopt a system that has already been proven to lift more people out of poverty than anything else that has been tried so far: free market capitalism.

Sorry, Balduria, but that the rampant amount of poverty, homelessness, crushing debt, inability to afford basic necessities, constantly having to choose between what bill they can afford to pay for any given month, the constant crime borne out of desperation, and the crumbling infrastructure I see around me every single day strongly suggests our highly unregulated system doesn't work for the majority. Nor can you show me any example of "free market"--i.e., fully unregulated--capitalism that is actually creating a prosperous system for everyone rather than just the owning few. So, pardon me if I stick to what can be empirically observed rather than what your faith-based propaganda insists to be the truth.

I eagerly await your next salvo. What you say may bore some people here, but it's very telling in its own right.