I actually have some idea what I'm talking about, precisely because I have read my Marx and my Engels. Have you?

"The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,” it withers away."

"The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong – into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax."

Have you tried Nokia maps? They seem to be more detailed than Bing, and have a more mature navigation mode. They also work offline.

HERE Maps (by Nokia) also work offline, at least on Win8 and WP8.

So what happens when there are no "other jobs", and the ones where you could ostensibly provide more value than a robot are all filled?

How many of those specialists are you going to need? Surely not one for every customer. What are the rest going to do? More importantly, what are their customers going to do?

You can't just handwave automation away. Like it or not, but most people who are in the labor force today work in jobs that do not require any creative input that machines either cannot handle already, or won't be able to handle in near future. Yes, previous advances in technology have created more work openings than they destroyed, because the needs of the world (and therefore the potential market size) have still outstripped the supply capacity. But we're rapidly approaching the point where that is no longer the case. When a single man can run (program, maintain etc) a factory that can supply thousands of people, in a fully self-contained cycle complete from mining raw materials to packaging and delivery, what are those thousands going to do? And where are they going to get the money to pay?

Simply put, automation decreases the cost of labor, and the limit - never achieved, but getting exponentially closer - is zero. On the other hand, the amount of labor that a single man can offer is bounded (basically, you can learn to do more complicated things, but the capacity to learn is limited). Therefore, at some point an economic system that is based on trading labor for goods is going to fail.

Dictatorship is an innate characteristic of the (claimed to be) transitional period to communism, as described by one particular branch of Marxism, namely Marxism-Leninism.

Since communism is meant to be a stateless society, who would be doing the whole murder part?

You sound like one of those people who think that the socioeconomic system that existed in, say, USSR is communism. It wasn't, and not even Soviets themselves claimed that it was (that's why it was called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not Communist Republics).

For starters, communism is not about "average effort". It's about what effort every particular person can and is willing to put in - "from everyone according to their ability".

"To everyone according to their needs".

What happens if you claim more than what your needs are, attempting to justify it by increased contribution? Well, communism is only possible, even theoretically, in a society where the vast majority embrace the underlying notions. So what you'd get in that case is them simply not sharing with you. In a society that does not recognize private property, even without the use of force, you'd basically only be able to claim that which you possess at any given moment - anything beyond that would be beyond your claim, as there is no state to enforce your property rights against other people's claims (that's what many ancaps get completely wrong - they think that the abstraction that is private property beyond personal possessions can exist without a state to back it).

The whole premise of communism is "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need". It is meant to be a classless society (so no division into "workers" and everyone else), and, ideally, the one that is post-scarcity. The kind of thing described in TFA is in fact exactly what most communist utopia writers envisioned.

The entire worker angle was a way to achieve communism, starting from a capitalist society. It's not a core part of communism itself.

Eugenics per se does not have anything to do with the specific traits, it's human population control in general. The historical applications of eugenics were based on such notions, yes (and also racism), but that is not a prerequisite.

Who counts Stalin and Mao as "progressive"?

(aside from American conservative right, that is)

So you haven't actually starting digging into science (you know, the underlying physics and chemistry, climate models etc). Instead, you started digging into the scandals associated with that science, under the assumption that if you find sufficiently many, that would disprove the theory.

That's exactly what I meant by "What they should enforce is telling where the data is".

I am in US, sure. My parents and grandparents are not.

As for keeping the information, I wouldn't want to use a company that'd store my data on servers in Russian, but I don't think the govt should be in business of enforcing that. What they should enforce is telling where the data is, and let me as a customer decide if I'm okay with it or not.

Lack of due process to read my email is annoying, but not directly dangerous. Lack of due process if arrested for "extremism" or some such in Russia is what I'm more worried about.

There's no due process in my country. I don't care about theory, the practice is what it is. There's no-one to go to if things go wrong.