[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Communism doesn't just tell the populace to revolt, it tells them to revolt AND to put into place a new system.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really doesn't "tell" people to put into place a new system anymore than ACists "tell" people to put into place a new system when they the state should be dismantled, anymore than feminists "tell" people to put into place a new system when they demand social equality.

[ QUOTE ]
Public ownership of all industry (means of production, whatever) is the central tenant of communism, communism ain't communism without it. There is a stated end goal (classless, stateless organization), this is its doctrine, you cannot deviate from this and be communist.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Public" ownership is a loaded word; communism seeks to have the products of labor "owned" communally. Some socialists/communists would seek to have the means of production controlled directly by the state, while others would prefer the means of production were controlled by worker councils at individual firms. So when you say "public ownership of all industry is the central tenant of communism", that's a bit of a misnomer, particularly if you mean "state ownership of all industry is the central tenant of communism". As TOAFK pointed out, many communists see the eventual dissolution of the state as an end.

But again, none of this, however, suggests that communism is an ideology focused on "obedience". There's no special value placed in communism on obeying orders from others. But, in fact, for many communists, a special value placed on disobeying orders from capitalists and other so-called oppressors. There's really no theoretical value in communism placed on "obedience", except for the fact that yes, many communists are consequentialists and value ends.

Would we say feminists are focused on "obedience" because they see equality for women as an end? Again, one of the foundations of feminism is to create changes in the social order; and yet they seek to "further an end". Are feminists valuing "obedience", despite the fact much of their ideology is focused on a repudiation of the oppression they claim to encounter in society?

Calling for strict adherence to doctrine isn't "obedience"; calling for strict adherence to an ideology isn't a command to "obey". "Strict adherence to doctrine" is nothing more than ideological discipline, and it's valued by ideologues or all stripes, be the communists or not. The recent debate among the ACist camp about the morality of voting for Ron Paul should demonstrate that. Can we conclude that ACism values "obedience" because ACists like tomdemaine and Nielsio are troubled by ACists who are supporting Paul? Are they "obedient to a piece of paper"?

All tom and Nielso are claiming is that if you support Paul, you're not a "true" or "legitimate" anarchist. Similarly, if you don't seek a proletarian revolution and a redistribution of the means of production, then most communists won't consider you part of their ranks. I don't see what this has to do with "obedience".