-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.

Comment viewing options

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

The Natives in this Country...

The Natives in this Country were only able to survive due to a form of family clan communism. Their societies lasted longer than any other in the world, over what they now figure to be close to 26,000 years.

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.

Agreed... +1

At one time, some might have considered me a libertarian communist. If a group of free people want to share all resources and property equally without coercion, that is libertarian.

I don't advocate for communism as a system of governance since on a large scale I don't believe it would work. However, there is nothing about libertarianism that makes the two mutually exclusive.

Forcing people to use fiat money that can be taxed in endless ways is just as anti-libertarian as forcing people to share resources. Or... is it the same thing?

I'd be perfectly okay with almost all of our nonsensical government programs if you they were voluntarily funded. You advocate for welfare, war with Syria? Okay then, pay into it. If not, don't.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Two eighty year olds

One broke his hip in the USA. One broke his hip in Serbia three years ago. One had his hip fixed. The other was told we cant do nothing for you.
One healed up. The other was bedridden and died after several months. One was my dad and the other my Aunt. My Aunt was in better health before the accident than my dad. My aunt died because the state didn't want to spend the money.
Socialism and communism works only if your useful to the state and party.
If we elect communism/socialism. I will tell you. The first thing to go would be progressive Liberals. They wont survive. There mouths would get them sent to prison. The rest would starve waiting for free stuff and entitlements.

My understanding is that Communism was the end of a process

Hegel offered his model of the dialectic: thesis - antithesis - synthesis > new thesis which Marx used to predict the end of the state.
The capitalist state which was replacing monarchies would itself be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This form of the state would magically remold human behavior resulting in the withering of the state resulting in communism which would be a permanent stateless society. It was all scientific and inevitable.
Marx's model resembled that of Jewish mystics who believed in a cycle of history which followed the seasons and movement of the planets and stars. This cycle would be interrupted at some point and the messiah would come. Then all of rules would change.
This promise of a reworking of an unsatisfactory reality is repeated in Christianity which anxiously awaits the end of the world and the return of Jesus on a cloud and his eternal reign.
Communism is a pipe dream incompatible with real human behavior. Even communists know that and depend on new patterns of interrelations appearing through the engineering of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Be suspicious of any theory that promises some sort of miracle occurring to make it work.
Voluntary communes have repeatedly been tried and failed because they incompatible with reality. Therefore, reality must be changed to make Utopia practical. And all I can say is "Good luck with that."

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Why was this downvoted? He

Why was this downvoted? He has a point. If a group of people form for a common goal through voluntary association, is that a crime? The moment force is initiated though, then it is wrong.

Southern Agrarian

That is true.

However, communism is not going to be implemented voluntarily.
Voluntary communism is an oxymoron. For it to exist for very long, force has to be applied.
The Puritans tried it and starved. Any society that is based on "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" will soon find itself composed of disabled, needful people.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

"Voluntary communism is an oxymoron"... I said the exact thing..

You are correct and you post above was great.

I do think I sensed a bit of an anti-religion feeling you may have expressed. Is that correct?

I am curious about your claim that certain "Jewish mystics" had some sort of communist like plan. Can you provide some sources of evidence for that claim? Also, there are some passages in the Judeo-Christian Bible that are not inconsistent with some concepts in communism, but I don't see them as being anything like what Marx taught.

P.S. - Karl Marx, a phony Jew, as he did not practice Judaism, but he said that the Jews must be eliminated, as the represent the existence of G-d, in this world, and that represents a power higher than the State. Marx was also likely a Satanist.

"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]

"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]

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]

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



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


If you think a loose form of communism is why the Puritans starved I would suggest brushing up on your history a bit.

You also said, "Voluntary communism is an oxymoron," but if you really think about it the logical fallacy is obvious. Do you really think that nobody has ever decided to be a communist? If three people decide to live in a house together and share all of their resources you must concede that you are wrong. Are you married? Ever been to an Amish community?

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

It wasn't Squanto that saved the Puritans who were too dumb...

to grow a crop.
a) "During their first three years in the New World, the Puritans abolished private property and declared all land and produce to be owned in common (a commonwealth).


    In Plymouth over half the colonists promptly died from starvation.

Governor William Bradford observed that the collectivist approach "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

b) The family does not have a communist structure. People living together in a family, or in a society, is not that at all. People within a family, or within a household, retain individual property rights. That some resources, or expenses, are shared does not change that. The husband has his property. The wife has hers. The children, if there are any, have theirs as well. When they grow up and leave the house, they take their property with them. The parents retain theirs.
The Amish are also not communists. They have private property and work their farms for their own benefit. They do not hold their property in common.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Kinda like a democracy



takes away the individualism for the group, and that is not freedom, no matter how you slice it.

I agree

The freedom of association is important, so if you want to form an organization that voluntarily follows marxist ideals, that's fine. Can it work ? Sure - there are many examples, even during colonial times, and there are still a bunch today. The shakers set up communes of about 100 people that were relatively successful.

The problem I see is that it is very difficult for growth within such an organization, the point is more sustainability, and so ultimately it breaks down. Anarcho-capitalism is the ultimately flexible organization, that allow people to take advantage of any environment.

Only 1 commune left from the 60s

Communism as a form of government is a Utopian dream that quickly becomes a nightmare but on a small scale it is possible - barely.

Of all the communes that developed in the 60s there is only one left that didn't self destruct and they took a different path. I am referring to Jesus People USA jpusa.org. Instead of isolating themselves they are in the heart of Chicago taking up a city block. They are open to visitors and have a heart to serve the city and the world. I am not a part of them but have meet some of them. From their commune they operate a shelter, a record studio, a t shirt business, a roofing supply company, a cabinet making company. One way they help is by giving the people in the shelter training and jobs to give them skills to get back on their feet. They have many other ministries as well.

The Communes of the 60's

I remember communes, some from afar and some I observed first hand. They didn't work...not even in the days of peace and love all your brothers and sisters the same. Some became cults & some of those became very dangerous. Some of the more benign ones seemed harmless on the surface but all were unsustainable (something we're still struggling with today). Being generous, sharing, helping, teaching are wonderful traits we hope everyone will live by. But we are individuals and your level of contributing is probably much different than mine. Sharing the rent, the food, the chores and even each other's spouses was never equal and that gets old real fast. There are always some who do most of what it takes to sustain a community and some who will sit back, take what they can and think everything is great! Our experience and knowledge of communism always includes the so-called leaders living much more extravagant lives than the plebeians. Communism does not work for individuals. The United States Constitutional Republic does, if our leaders would just follow it the way it was intended.
BTW...what you described as a current day commune sounds more like what we call today a non-profit.

Technically you are right but

just as with the apostles it is always destined to fail just like democracy. Communism is not taught Scripturally but the apostles did try it and failed. Private property rights are upheld in Scripture, Old and New Testaments. For instance the virgins didn't share their lamp oil with the others who didn't provide for themselves and they were not told to do so. So don't try to use Scripture to support communism please.

Dismissed at first..

your comment but after further thought I see what you are getting at.

Yes some German Lutherans/socialists wanted to blend the two ideas in the 19th century as I recall but this was dismissed by Marx.

Eschatology in Communism and Christianity can and has been contrasted.

I read the Rothbard article on it and it was very informative. I did not know Rothbard knew so much about history and religion since there was no www back then.

I was never taught or told this info in my post secondary adventures :P

p.s. I do recall that the color green is and/or was the choice of the communist 'church'


Anarcho-communism or commonism is Christian not StateCommunism

The problem here is that many people do not understand the real root of communism is libertarian. The State has always been the plunderer of publicly managed land called the commons. The tragedy of the commons is a myth. When we realize that each individual is born into life with certain rights of which we must apprehend and appropriate, the solution to our current political situation becomes clear. There are arguably more than one type of potential ownership that we must grasp. First of course there is self ownership. This I argue, yes, is the primary right. We define ourselves as selfowners who as such have the right to free movement. The right to roam is very important. In fact when the bible says, 'do not move the ancient boundaries', which is always against the backdrop of other peoples free use of unowned pastoral lands. See Isiah 5:8 and Proverbs 23:10. Reading in Isiah chapter 5 (in context) we see that by greedily destroying the commons we have also encroached on our destruction with poor agricultural practices.
The idea that each person can and should grasp a property right in our common heritage counters the idea that the unowned land cannot be managed without the tragedy. The Leveller/Digger movement of Gerard Winstanley (1649) was an attempt to regain the commons and establish the libertarian right not to be enclosed.
Furthermore, I argue that land cannot be owned (land is undefined). We can however own the fruits of our labor! These are the things we take from the land or "create". There is always a tension yes between the self owner and the group. However the self owner also has "ownership" in the commons. As long as each person does not abuse his usufruct rights this tension does not arise. There is and has been the management of the commons and its resources bye all peoples and communities throughout the earth.
The idea of communism brings up communes in peoples minds where all property is held in common. This is but one form that primitive Communism can take. The others are Eco-villages, Coop and the Cohousing movements. See www.ic.org/ for the varied intentional communities trough the world.
As libertarians we must take the high ground and realize this is a current movement. In fact the State has been the biggest encroacher on the commons holding it polluting it, limiting its use and finally privatizing it. Libertarians in their fetishizing private property have missed the boat completely. We have denuded our movement.
The best place to start is to study the historical unity between the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Commons. The short video series livinginthefuture.org/ #1-13. I highly recommend it for inspiration and understanding.
The green movement, the Occupy movement and the doctrines of Permaculture can all be seen as an energy toward understanding the management of and taking back of the commons. We as a 'movement' must make it our central theme!!
The left/right split has always been a scam. Our battle is against CORPORATISM along with its technocratic bureaucracies not Socialism/Communism. When the state control over the commons is finished and competitive currencies emerge markets will still exist. Markets will always exist because of the unequal distribution of resources and talents throughout the earth. However, markets can be levelled by eliminating patent/intellectual property right privilege, and other monopolies which Benjamin Tucker discussed. He mentioned four, but there are many. Our movement to regain the commons along with the Ron Paul Revolution should start to do this.
See Stephanie Murphy's narated audio book accessed in c4ss.org/markets-not-capitalism-audiobook Here I recommend reading first before listening. Here you can find the libertarianism in Tucker, Proudhon and the radical Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess.
Roderick Long's A plea for 'public' Property. Brad Spangler's Market Anarchism as Stigmeric Socialism is also a recommended.
Another great work is Kevin Carson's c4ss.org/content/9805-communal property: A libertarian Analysis.
There is so much to say on this topic that I am leaving out because it could take volumes. If anyone is interested reply.


Even theoretically Communism

Even theoretically Communism is evil.
As the 1951 Catholic Dictionary stated, "Whether in theory or in practice, the Church utterly rejects Communism on account of its errors, notably: its atheistic materialism, its doctrine and practice of class-war, its denial of the rights and liberties of the human person, including the natural right to possess some measure of private property, and its contempt for good morals under several heads.
Communism has been repeatedly condemned by the Holy See, notably by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical letter, Divini Redemptoris."

As for Jesus being a Communist, he surely was not. Jesus acted in a very authoritarian fashion when instructing the Apostles and setting up a hierarchy in Peter for the continuation of the Church.

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN

I'm not a communist, but I

I'm not a communist, but I think you are missing the point. If all parties agree to live with a communist style agreement, then no force has been used. People simply share their stuff with everyone else because they want to, not because someone is making them. Of course, the more people you involve, the more difficult this becomes. But, if it was just a small group of people that wanted to live like that, there would be no force involved.

That's like saying that

That's like saying that there's nothing wrong with war so long as it doesn't kill anybody. Communism can't work without force. Lot's of it.

Communism vs Marxism vs Marxist-Leninism

I subscribe to none of the above ideologies, but am I correct in understanding that it was the Marxist-Leninist version that added the idea of active force to implement Marxism? Does Marxism itself call for the use of such force to achieve it? And is Communism synonymous with Marxism or Marxist-Leninism or both? Or are Marxism and Marxist-Leninism merely two instances within a broader spectrum of Communism?

The Pilgrims

learned the hard way that it doesn't work.

Cyril's picture

Communism explained so that a 7 year old could understand


I make the laws, regulations, and rules.

I care for all of you... You, and your brothers and sisters.

You work for all of us.

You don't own anything you produce.

I can take back any time anything I grant you to keep, in quantities I define and for how long I define.

You must trust me because I care for us all, remember.

I am always right because I am THE STATE, there is no discussion about that.

If you do not agree with these terms you are the enemy of us all, starting with me, THE STATE.

I will decide about your fate, then.

And to begin with : if your existence is still even useful to us, useful to me, THE STATE.

Go ahead :

sign here.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Are you talking about the

Are you talking about the USA?

Cyril's picture

Fair enough ?

Fair enough ?

What do History books say, btw ?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Denise B's picture

Comparing communism

as a parallel to what the NT details in Acts is way off base, because even though everyone happily shared with each other, it was done out of love of Christ and each other; however, everyone was required to participate in someway (except in cases of inability to contribute, such as illness or handicap) and those that were unwilling to work were not given food or sustinance (i.e. no laziness or freeloaders were allowed!). That is completely different than a welfare state were some are forced to work to provide food and benefits to those who are unwilling to do so for themselves, or unable because they decided to have 5 children out of wedlock with no father figure to provide for them. What is described in the bible is more like a loving community based on love of each other and love of God where all participated in the well being of each other and the society of believers....far, far different than communism as it is was seen in Russia or China where the very existence of God is denied and people unwilling to work were cared for by forcing those that did work to take care of them.

Sharing is normative for all peoples

Yes ,sharing is a Christian principle see Luke 6:38. Part of sharing here is spiritual as well as physical. See verses 39 and 40. There are different motives for sharing. It is really part of our self interest that we share. Not only is there returned blessing from God but sharing is a wise and sometimes defensive move. Giving to the indigent and helping a man to get skills helps us to live without seeing our friend suffer in some cases going to a hospital or prison. Allowing the animals to have the low hanging fruit is another example. On a market we do not completely share; however, both parties benefit when an exchange is made. In fact because of unequal distribution of resources including weather and talents (division of labor) exchange (free trade) is necessary. When monopoly privileges and regulations are eliminated prices go toward zero (to the labor's idea of his value). Mutual aid societies when allowed enable consumers to pool their buying power (i.e) against monopoly hungry doctors further reduces prices. Open source ecology (see www.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global-Village-Construction-Set) enables others to receive the blessing of technological advances. They can use their talents with these open source technologies to produce needed products for the market so to increase the supply of products which we need to buy. With these sharing becomes easier (reduced prices). We then approach Stigmergic Socialism.
Sharing and giving are normal for all peoples regardless of religions. The capitalist creed of competition is a perversion. We must remember Corporatism and its private property capitalist ideology is intended to divide and destroy our peoples into warring camps. Conflating Capitalism with free markets has been one of their methods to divide.
Give and it shall be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure it will be measured to you in return. luke6:38


no system of government can ever work without . . .

the basics of honesty (integrity) and virtue.

When I see how many people took Romney's 'religion' as a guarantee for his honesty . . . I realized how far gone this nation was/is.

REAL integrity, as in honor, as in a man/woman's word is his honor--

and virtue, where they exist, almost negate the need for government.

People who are honest talk about the 'best' forms of government, while people who are dishonest rob, cheat and lie to others in every/any form of government.

I've given up. Until people CARE; until people want to be good; until people honestly don't want to hurt anyone else--

there is no hope for peace or civilization.

IF people were completely honest and upright and virtuous, it wouldn't matter what form of government--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Constrained vs Unconstrained

I could try to explain this, but I wouldn't do it justice. Watch this video: