The plan so far, as I see it, is something like this.
First, we should make participation in the market economy voluntary so that its ebb and flow does not put people into destitution or worse. Proposals to do this in countries with effective social security generally involve deconstructing the old and clunky "for those who deserve it" structure and replacing it with a universal citizen's wage, two or three of which (say in a communal setting) permits one to live in reasonable minimal comfort without being employed. This makes workers far more competitive in the job market, insofar as they choose to become involved in it: being ruthlessly exploited as a call-center servitor would no longer be a life-or-death question.
The money for citizen's wage comes from the dismantled social security systems, which are invariably far more expensive than the benefit they provide to their users... often due to market inefficiencies (chiefly profit and dividends) leading to prices going up whenever funding is increased, thus killing any progress before the sperm it would've been born of has exited it's father's dick. Obviously this would require price controls (either through legislation, or more likely state competition) on basic things such as rent, food, water, heating, etc modern infrastructure -- otherwise the proprietors would simply increase their prices to gouge whatever they can take.
Second, cut all subsidies to the market economy. They want to play free market? Let them play free market. The chickens will come back when the ground freezes over. No more socialized costs and privatized profits: if the market is so efficient then it can bloody well take care of itself. If it can.
Third, make the economic system subservient to the political system rather than the other way around (as it is today). Otherwise the will of the people, as communicated through a (future ideal of, or a near-term approximation of) decentralized system of planning combined with effective democracy, cannot be effectively implemented if it goes against what Capital wants. For examples of effective democracy, look at Switzerland's citizen proposal mechanism where anyone who collects 50k verified signatures can put a piece of their own legislation to popular vote.
The central bit here is that the market aspect of society isn't eliminated outright. That'd represent a harsh transition and most people wouldn't be able to go along with it. Rather, it's cut down piece by piece so that it becomes less critical in the everyday lives of John Smith and Janine Random.
Having a market aspect should also be useful in that it is quite efficient at exploring new and unforeseen things, even if in the long run it tends to abusive monopolies (such as in the case of AT&T Bell, Microsoft and so forth). The market's natural boom-bust cycle, once the people are shielded from it, will also provide great opportunities for the state to jump in and purchase, as an equal player in the marketplace, the resources and business of tanked companies and put them to use in serving interests other than private profit.
Communism today works via small, well-defined steps rather than Grand, Ill-Defined Revolutions that everyone supports but no one understands. This way, if we know where we are, where we're going (a reasonably small distance away, but in the right direction nonetheless) and above all how to determine if we've got there, we can make larger changes using a series of smaller changes.
It's not unlike iterative models of software or systems development, really. Of course this model of communism isn't at all popular with the old guard stalinist types... but they'll grow old and die eventually, even if they do not accept that it's the current younger generations' turn to define what Communism means now.