-24 votes

There is nothing wrong with Communism...

...Unless it's implemented through force.

People should have the freedom to live how they see fit as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else.

A Capitalist Government that uses force to steal from it's citizens is just as bad as a Communist one.

And if you think about it...

A family is a commune or "communism", just on a very small local scale.

It's even in the New Testament. Acts of the Apostles:

42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship ... 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
—King James Version

So communism, even though we are conditioned to have a knee-jerk reaction to it, isn't the real "evil".

The real evil is the force that's involved with governments implementing authoritarian rule, no matter what name it's given.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You use a logical argument in order to create an opportunity to

misquote and misinterpret a book from the collection of 66 books known collectively as the christian bible.

The disciples gave their things away to other people that they never saw again. They didn't distribute and share their possessions amongst themselves at all, as the only possessions they followed Jesus with were their clothes and their sandals.

And you did this by coming in with an argument that no one here can really argue with - the freedom of free association, which includes communes or groups of people following communist principles or any other sort of lifestyle voluntarily. And you followed that with not one but two ill-conceived conclusions.


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.


always runs on force and violence since there is no other means of dividing up resources and labor for lack of a pricing system. If even on a small scale there is incompetence or laziness (or injury or old age), force must be applied or people must go without the service of that person while supporting him. Families may be willing to do this depending on the circumstance, friends less so, and acquaintances...don't count on it. On a large scale the non productive must be made to work by whip or they have to be exterminated for the good of the already unproductive group. This can mean just not feeding the old and sick, or just giving them less health care as in Obamacare.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com


I would just say, using the bible to defend communism is a strange tactic. Should people be allowed to form collectives peaceably? Absolutely. However the bible is primitive control mechanism that implies force against you for not heeding it's dictates. I'm a god fearing man, but I loathe religion. Just my two cents.

Karl Marx, father of communism, was a pure SATANIST!!!


"Marx writes: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of man is a requisite for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their conditions is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusion...."[p.6]

"Marx was anti-religious because religion obstructs the fulfillment of the Communist ideal which he considers the only answer to the world's problems."[p 6]

"...a new Marx began to emerge. He writes in a poem, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.”[p.7] So he was convinced that there is One above who rules....

'So a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
Nothing but revenge is left to me!

I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark -- superstitious dread.
For its Marshall -- blackest agony.'[p.8]

There exists a Satanist church. One of its rituals is the black mass which Satanist priests recite at midnight....An orgy follows... [pp.10-11]

We will be able to understand the drama Oulanem only in the light of a strange confession which Marx made in a poem called The Player, later down-played by both himself and his followers:

The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. -
For me beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.[p.12]

Now I quote from [Marx's] drama Oulanem:

And they are also Oulanem, Oulanem.
The name rings forth like death, rings forth
Until it dies away in a wretched crawl.
Stop, I’ve got it now! It rises from my soul....

Yet I have power within my youthful arms
To clench and crush you [i.e., personified humanity] with tempestuous force,
While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.
You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,
Whispering in your ears, “Descend, come with me, friend.” [p.12]

The Bible which Marx had studied in his high school years... says that the devil will be bound by an angel and cast into the bottomless pit (abyssos in Greek: see Revelation 20:3). Marx wishes to draw the whole of mankind into this pit reserved for the devil and his angels....[pp.12-13]

Marx had loved the words of Mephistopheles in Faust, “Everything in existence is worth being destroyed.” Everything — including the proletariat and the comrades. Marx quoted these words.... Stalin acted on them and destroyed even his own family. [p.13]

The Satanist sect is not materialistic. It believes in eternal life. Oulanem, the person for whom Marx speaks, does not contest eternal life. He asserts it, but as a life of hate magnified to its extreme. It is worth noting that eternity for the devils means 'torment.” Thus Jesus was reproached by the demons: “Art you come hither to torment us before our time?” (Matthew 8:29)....

[Marx'] correspondence with his father testifies to his squandering great sums of money on pleasures and his constant quarreling with parental authority about this and other matters. Then he might have fallen in with the tenets of the highly secret Satanist church and received the rites of initiation. Satan, whom his worshippers see in their hallucinatory orgies, speaks through them. Thus Marx is only Satan’s mouthpiece when he utters in his poem Invocation of One in Despair the words, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.”

Listen to the end of Oulanem:

If there is a Something which devours,
I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins—
The world which bulks between me and the abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses....

In Oulanem Marx does what the devil does: he consigns the entire human race to damnation. Oulanem is probably the only drama in the world in which all the characters are aware of their own corruption, which they flaunt and celebrate with conviction. In this drama there is no black and white... All are satanic, corrupt, and doomed.[p.15]

When he wrote these things, Marx... was eighteen. His life’s program had already been established. There was no word about serving mankind, the proletariat, or socialism. He wished to bring the world to ruin. He wished to build for himself a throne whose bulwark should be human shudder.[p.16]

It has also been claimed that Marx was a Jew. Clearly, that is not the case.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

A family is NOT a commune

If it were, we wouldn't have the word 'family'. A family is NOT voluntary as it relies on blood ties. And it is not 'force' as it is natural - unless you want to consider the 'force of nature' as something centralized.
People have an idea of what a family is, albeit there are some who would like to change that though I personally do not endorse new concepts attached to traditional views. Sue me!
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as: a group of people who are related to one another. You may abandon your family or it may throw you out but you will always be John's daughter or Jane's son and that family link can never be broken. A libertarian may even rise from among a very staunch, progressive household and that libertarian will still belong to that family.
What you seem to be ignoring is that central or government force IS what shapes and defines communism and you can't separate the two.
And your quote from Acts, "sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men," is an example of charity and self-imposed austerity, not communism.
I think you should have thought this through a little more before blurting out your misquided conclusions. I knew two people who escaped from the USSR and knowing their stories I feel confident saying neither would agree with what you wrote.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Yes it is...

Unless you have lost all love for your family, Then you have accepted the Communist situation. I have trouble admitting I am doing it right now. I love my family. I cannot be self righteous, I am giving of myself things that I normally would feel I should defend my self from.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.


Communes are man-made, families are natural. You can't choose who your family is while like-minded people create a commune. Communes are intentional, families are random. The nature of the relationship holds a family together even if one leaves it, ideology alone holds a commune together until new ideas enter which break the group apart. A commune can't exist with differing goals and points of views. The same cannot be said of family.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Can you give me an

example of a communist country where people are free and prosperous? Can you name a communist country that has succeeded?

Can you give me an example of ANY country

where people are free and prosperous?

These things are relative. Unfortunately.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Well okay...

let's have that conservation in relative terms, friend.

I am not aware of any modern democratic government that murdered millions of their own people such as we saw in commie Russia, China, Eastern Europe and Asia. Didn't happen in America, Canada, the UK, Australia...etc.

Have you ever read any Ayn Rand? Her description of growing up in a communist state is gripping.

Communism is a horrible deal and the facts bear that out.

I understand why you may be tempted to gravitate to the pink side. You have lost faith in capitalism. You think it has failed.

Your right. Capitalism has been gradually over time morphed into corporatism...otherwise known as fascism.

Forget about communism friend and let's restore honest free market capitalism and sound money to America.

Do ya know that Gorbachev resides in America?

Flavors of statism

Communism is a horrible deal, no argument from me. Ayn Rand, however, incorrectly identified the source of its failure. She thought that holding altruism as a moral ideal was what led to all the evil results she saw in Russia. Such is not the case. Altruistic systems often work well in small groups (eg. families & friends), where people know and truly care about each other. Demanding that people sacrifice themselves for people they do not care about, on the other hand, is contrary to human nature, and the failure of any such system is predictable. See David Friedman's great essay "Love Is Not Enough" for insight as to why communism doesn't work.

The real evil that was worked in purportedly "communist" systems had little to do with the ideals professed by communists, and everything to do with the ideals and principles of statism. Specifically, the idea that the men who call themselves "government" have a moral right to boss people around and take their property. The belief that coercion can ever be initiated ethically is the real evil. And coercion is the heart and soul of statism.

The American flavor of statism may have been less bloody than the Russian or Chinese flavors. (Or not; ask the American Indians.) And free range cattle may be happier than those raised in feedlots. But don't confuse either with freedom. And don't regard the lack of domestic bloodshed in the American past as a guarantee for the future. Our rulers aren't any more kindly than the Russians -- they just haven't been as desperate. That can change, when something like a currency collapse happens . . .

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


Rand's analysis was really about a tactic, though she didn't understand it, brilliant though she was.

Altruism isn't the problem per se. It is just that appealing to altruism (and faulty deceptive logic) is one typical ruse collectivists use, and the one she had experience with. Altruism is also harder to argue against.

But you don't need altruism to 'justify' collectivism. You can do it fine with bigotry, racism, religious or ideological or cultural intolerance, feminism, patriarchy, nationalism, classism, and just plain old envy, to name a few.

In fact altruism as a justification for collectivism is usually only promulgated by the academic class to candy coat their real purpose. The rank and file rubes that go along almost always have a more vulgar motive.

Any excuse to consider the rights of some group as less legitimate than those of another group, or even entirely illegitimate, will do for the purpose.

Also The question of whether there is any such thing as altruism is a bit silly. Are you being nice because it makes you feel good? Does it mean you really shouldn't get credit for being nice unless you have no psychic of material gain whatsoever?

Nonsense! You're being nice! That's the salient point.

Why are you defending communism?

There have been times, no matter how short lived, where a people lived freely and prospered. Anyway, true freedom come from within.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I'm not defending communism.

I'm condemning governments. All of them. Freedom is what you have when the damn governments leave you alone. That doesn't happen much.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Of course I cannot name any

Of course I cannot name any successful "commies" but that doesn't mean that I have the right to stop (restrain) others from doing what they want as long as they don't hurt others...

Beware the cult of "government"...

ChristianAnarchist's picture

-25? Why? I had to vote it

-25? Why? I had to vote it up (to -24). The OP has a good point. If you believe in liberty, anyone should be free to start their own "communist" community as long as it's not forced on anyone. It's not my business how people choose to live and if they choose to live as a "communist", who am I to try to stop them? As long as they don't trying to force me or others to join them, they are not harming anyone.

Beware the cult of "government"...

If you keep turning left

you eventually come to the right. A great big, never ending cycle.

Its a nice idea.

First off, there's no such thing as coersive capitalism. When Capitalism is instituded by force instead of voluntary exchange, we call it fascism. Capitalism "must" be free and voluntary, or else its not capitalism, its something else.

Voluntary Communism works great if you're into that sort of thing right up to the point when food becomes scarce or times get tough. People are into sharing right up until there isnt' enough to go around, then we turn into greedy savages who will do whatever it takes to take care of our own.

Ask the Pilgrims.

Humans are a warlike species who will ruthless fight for control of resources for themeselves and their families. Communism fails because it tries to make people into something they are not. Altruistic saints who care more for their neighbors and the good of the "community" than they do for themselves and their own families.

Capitalism does not try to change what we are, it simply gives us a non-violent way to act like war-like savages who fight for control of resources for ourselves and our families. Ultimatly you can lie and spout bullshit all you want, but when push comes to shove, we care about our own long-term self interests more than our neighbors. When you act according to your own long-term self interests, everyone prospers. When you sacrifice for a fake ideal that you don't truly believe in, everyone fails.

When you are a enviro/hippy/green person concearned with living in a commune since its so peaceful and respects mother earth, you can find a lot of bliss and stuff. Now throw in hard times where you and all your commie buddies litterally depend on the food you grow to survive. Oops! Someone's harvested part of the community crop before it was ready last night! Oh dear... they did it again, you better get some before its all gone! Oh gee, now there's no seed for next year since the crop was pre-harvested by sneaky people who were affraid they weren't going to get their "fair" share.

Speaking of fair share, how come Bob gets the same as me when BOB spent most of his days laying around bitching about his hurt knee while I was out slaving in the fields!? Whats more, how come Suzy gets more than me just because she pops out a unit every 9 months and her house looks like a run down orphanage!?

Fuck Bob, im going to smash his head in and toss Suzy out so that things will be more "fair."

Take the same group of people who all have their own privatly owned plot of land and are responsable for growing and protecing their OWN food. Suddenly Bob's knee isn't quite so bad and he manages to bring in his harvest because a bit of discomfort turns out to be preferable to starvation. Suddenly Suzy realizes its harder to feed 20 kids when its her own labor that will go into her mouth instead of the poor sap "comrade" she used to exploit.

Lo' and behold, everyone works harder and brings in their own food for themselves because if they dont, they don't eat.

Note: The entire bible is a giant commercial for the wonders of authoritarian monarchy and bowing down to your betters. Should we really be suprised to find a section cheer-leading communism? Lets leave advanced concepts like the proper role of government to smart people, not ancient roman ologarchs.

Talk to someone

Talk to someone who escaped communist rule and then come back and tell us how bad it is. Until them it's best to ZIP it.
We already have partial communism. i.e. putting a cap on how much people can earn. Doctors and financial people for staters are already hit with that rule. Next they tell you what job you can do and where you can live. Sounds good huh? NOT!

Keepin' it real.

Voluntary communism might

Voluntary communism might work on a very small scale (a small neighbourhood) much like Subsidiarity (which was discussed in other threads).

You would start see complex problem if you just expand communism to even a village level. The classical communism with its money-less policy would never work in a complex economy.

Communism can only work on a very local scale. If that...

As a concept, communism (collectivism/re-distribution) is only sustainable for any amount of time, in small, localized, isolated communities.

It may work temporarily in an end-of-the-world type scenario, like in the show "The Colony". But if it ever succeeds to any degree, and the community survives, then people will realize they can have more, if they work for it, and will want more. Then they will work for more, and will keep it. End of communism.

More likely though, it can never really work. People will always, necessarily be possessive about certain things. Private property is always going to be necessary. That means you get to keep, what you earn. Charity has always been afforded to those who are truly desperate, and as long as it is physically possible, people will continue to provide for the unable out of the goodness of their hearts.

Advocating for communism in ANY situation, is misunderstanding the concept(s), and it amounts to advocating for communism (collectivism/re-distribution) in all situations.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Maybe you are right :) In

Maybe you are right :)

In India, the village temple used to own land given as grant by the local ruler or village rich-men in generations past. The land used to be primarily agricultural-land and cultivation in the land is over-seen by the temple trust elected and selected by the people and the proceeds of the land go back to temple costs and general charity by the temple.

Ofcourse it was a feudalistic setup with little regards to private ownership but the system ran very stable (multiple centuries) without the concept of money and with a traditionally set of laws evolved over generations. There were many major evils in an Indian village but it is so difficult to differentiate between cultural, economic and religious issues back then. The setup was definitely unfair to a set of people but very very stable.

Anyone who advocates....

....for communism should be deported to China immediately and have their benefits administered by the government there imo.


Communism is a myth

If you read the literature put out by the CP a discerning reader (critical thinker) can readily see the entire communist line is just that a line of crap of the same variety BO spouts. Communism simply does not exist. It is little more than a blue sky sales pitch designed to garner approval of the Great Unthinking Masses to create and support Institutionalized Tyranny where a few have everything and the many have nothing - not even basic rights - rights are property. The entire ideology is founded on LACK and FEAR - both anathema to our American Spirit, Christianity and Common Sense. Communism is nothing more than a hoax, a con-job and a fraud edifying egoic constructs of myth and illusion.

Exactly. Can never arrive at an actual state of pure communism..

The idea of "voluntary communism" or communism without coercion, is an oxymoron.

If people just got along, voluntarily, shared their resources, perfectly harmoniously without some 'authority' overseeing the re-distribution, then that would be a state of "peaceful anarchy". Which was allegedly Lenin & Stalin's goal the whole time. They just needed a transition period where a totalitarian government forces the people to get accustomed to absolute collectivism, and the destruction of individuality. f course this is totally contradictory to the nature of the human race. Therefore it is ridiculous.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?


Commonality, communion, community, communism, are not bad things. Communism works great as long as the individuals in it can be kicked out if they don't uphold their obligations to the group.

But since the American people mostly got kicked out of somewhere already, they aren't good material for this type of government, nationally.

These things don't work with most people. No amount of good parenting (if it can be got) will stamp out teenage rebellion, so they don't work very well from one generation to the next. (Many of these groups lose their teenage boys.)

Voluntary communism should always be an option. We have group insurance plans, don't we? But, unless you want to have the minority paying taxes to house the majority in jail, or mass executions, national communist governments don't work for long (as seen in history).

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Depends on what you mean by ...

... "wrong."

If you mean that it is not immoral to join a commune, then of course you are correct. People have the fundamental right to freely associate. And as you point out, as long as force is not initiated, then there is nothing "wrong" in the moral sense.

But there is something "wrong" in the practical sense. Communes just don't work in the long run. Even the example you cite, the family, is not really a commune, and it does not hold together. The children are raised until they are old enough to produce for themselves, at which time they ... leave.

Ha. This is what my Democrat

Ha. This is what my Democrat sister once said. It is so silly. You can not really own ANYTHING, you can never "get ahead" nor is ambition for self-growth a virtue. Those "at the top" of governance live much differently than the "average Joe", despite what they want you to believe. You do not have FREEDOM. Silly, I say...

The theory is flawed

...and history has proven it thus to be.

If people vote for it, that is their ignorance. Intelligent people would flee that place if it was voted in.

Would you people be willing to give up everything you have and turn in your relatives and friends to the officials? Perhaps for a good position in government you would and a pass to shop at specialty stores?

ie. bureaucrat/diplomat, policeman, psychologist, officer, factory manager, advocat, etc.


Depending on what you mean by "communism"

If by "communism" you mean simply that people living together in a commune by choice and freely shared their resource with each other, then that is perfectly alright and good.

But if by "communism" you mean the philosophy and theology espoused by Marx and Lenin, then it's totally wrong. Their philosophy has no redeeming value at all. It was based on a false premises and it can never draw the right conclusion. And communes started using their philosophy even when voluntary, eventually fell.

Christian communes on the other hand succeed throughout history because it is based on a different foundation, ie. Christ. Therefore, to confuse the two ideas is misleading. The Christian ideas of sharing with each other everything is totally different from the idea we call "communism".