You're not an Ayn Rand fan, are you? She turned 'check your premises' into a cliche by 1960...: When you say "...people doing some of each of the work necessary to sustain the people so everyone can develop as a human being to the utmost of his and her capacity," you are, in essence saying that everyone has the obligation to contribute their labor to ease the labor of others so that those people can "develop as a human being..."
Are you advocating instead the strict social division of labor that we presently have in capitalist society? (My full argument against that is in this post.)
The problem with that is a political one. If we continue to ration education so only a minority will have the skills necessary to manage the affairs of industry and state, then we perpetuate minority rule. If you wish to get behind minority rule...
: Not only do you put the "collective" (group, society, etc..[it's all the same to me]) above the individual, you also stamp out the individual's freedom of choice and natural rights.
Of course, the 'collective' is more important than the individual. Isn't that the underlying assumption of democracy?
You are not Robinson Crusoe, my friend!
You---and I---are already in a 'collective'!
The Industrial Revolution has interconnected everyone's labor through most of the world. No one labors or produces according to personal need (except starving peasants). We are all alienated from our needs by the vast commodity market and its labyrinthian modes of production and exchange. We must participate in this 'collective' in order to get what we need to survive.
Currently, this 'collective' is owned and operated by a minority.
Communists propose that this ownership (of all the means of production) become owned by the majority (those who actually do the work).
Choose your side.
