-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.

I Concure About People Needing To Abide By The Golden Rule

And with slightly different words, so does my article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution":

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

wow . . .

you put a lot of work into that; I bookmarked it--

:)

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

I agree Recon.

Communism is a social order or economic system. It is not a form of government. The Israeli kibbutz are small agrarian communes with no forceful government. People like it. They stay there. They can work as hard or not as they desire. They have been around for a long time.

Communism does not allow the means of production or personal property to be privately owned. Socialism is just the means of production in public hands. Marx did not assume an elite state would exist in his utopia. So there would only be one class. 20th century communism implemented his ideas but with a tyrannical state. I don't think he would've approved.

I am happy if the whole world wants communism. Just leave those of us you don't want it out. It does not work though. Too bad many haven't learned that obvious lesson.

Upvoted OP.

25 downvotes blew my mind. But I sometimes forget that we aren't all Rothbardian anarchists here. "American Conservatives" should still consider this question, because it is very important.

Would you send armed government agents to break up voluntary communist communities? People have a right to live any way they want as long as it is voluntary, non-violent, and members are free to leave.

OP is right, force is the real evil.

Modern form of communism is

Modern form of communism is corporatism.

Some animas are more equal than others

When you hear the words equality-evolved democracy-advanced socialism-communism check first for your wallet and run as fast as you can.

Cyril's picture

... and don't turn around.

... and don't turn around.

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

What

rock have you been hiding under?

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Communism is a FORCED political system that denies God as a

presupposition. What you are referring to is called voluntarily working for the good of a group. It can only work when people love God and their neighbor.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

The family is communist...

The family unit is communistic in structure. The individual works for the betterment of whole; from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Parents work to provide for the needs of their children and/or their spouse. At its core, a successful family requires willing self-sacrifice equally shared by all members.

The problem with taking this system and expanding it to the level of the state is people will not willingly commit self-sacrifice for those they don't owe any fidelity. Since no one is willing to commit self-sacrifice voluntarily, the government must compel them through force. Once people must be compelled by force, calling it communist is laughable. You've achieved totalitarianism at best.

Hmm...

You've never raised teenagers, have you? j/k

By the time the kids are old

By the time the kids are old enough to escape corporal punishment (aka "chores"), the household is a failed state confronting armed insurrection.

Cyril's picture

+1 for completeness !

LOL. Point !

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

Cyril's picture

You nailed it.

You nailed it.

You only forgot to mention that this is also intrinsically limited in time, not just space, and that family members can also opt out after some point, spawning other family cells or to stop a harm ongoing.

Hence my former comment below, and how idiotic it is to even try further to generalize such structure beyond the scale of one's own DIRECT family, after ALL the horrors we can see on records of previous attempts over more than a century :

http://www.dailypaul.com/253314/democide-death-by-government

Or is it a figment of anyone's sick imagination ?

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

???

Yeah I am sure I can work hard and produce as much as a 75 year old Amish/Mennonite/Navy Seal type guy. lol

Unfortunately, all the hard and good workers will be milked by fewer and fewer average and poor workers...and then what?

Ah yes, mandatory labor brigades, no sick days, no truancy, no travelling because of work, no...no....no...omg only two television stations and channels...one with 'programming'and the other one to tell you to turn back and tune in to the first one. :O

donvino

This thread is

such BS it can smell if from here. How old are you? Did you vote for Obiewankanobie (obama)? You need to talk to people who escaped communism and then come back here and give us your opinion. Until then.....You are deluded. You think just like a demoncrat. Deluded and misinformed. You and people like you are what's wrong with this country.

Keepin' it real.

But were the Apostles Individuals or a collective hive.

Individual autonomy is the only way to personal responsibility

Collective heteronomy is a direct way to personal slavery established by some other mind. In this case an imagined "common" will.

Greek Democracy attempt to give the authority of a "common will to the majority. The problem quickly surfaced and State Democracy was seen as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The Roman Republic attempted to establish the "common will" as the "rule of Law." Caesar overthrew this order and established himself as the "common will" of his Roman Empire.

It is true that the Apostles were in accord with their teacher, who told them, "I Do not call you slave, I call your friend." More than the label, he treated the apostles as friends. The Law provides a civil way that offers no redemption.

In the America experiment, government made on offer to govern by strict laws and the several States united by accepting this contract. Under this contract only the States can amend the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln effectively destroyed Constitution as Republic of free states and created an a Federal Union of territories that allowed no freedom to the States. Many were now conquered lands although they kept their names.

The 17th Amendment finished the paperwork of the Civil War by wresting from State legislatures the power to participate in the federal government through their Senators.

The "common will" is told, badly, by our imagined national myth where our great and glorious government is mistaken for the individuals who did the hard work.

Where is the way forward? Individual sovereignty or Collective sovereignty of an imagined "common will."

Make mine Individual Sovereignty.

Free includes debt-free!

What you describe here is not

What you describe here is not Communism, because Communism always brings force with it. Read Karl Marx Communist Manifesto and decide for yourself whether Communism can be peaceful...

Your reasoning is right, however. If people decide to let's say equally distribute their income and everybody is participating voluntarily in that system, it is in accordance with the natural law and there is nothing wrong with it.

However, this is not Communism. It's something else that really doesn't have a name.
Besides, it wouldn't work, but people also do have the right to do silly things. That's what freedom is about.

Even if it's volunatry, Communism destroys itself

It's flawed from conception.

Let's say I start a commune and use faith as my only whip, and get people to share through their own free will.

It's still based on the idea of punishing producers and rewarding need; punish those who produce, and reward those who don't.

It's a downward spiral that ends in predictable ways. Either it collapses and disintegrates, or those in charge put a whip on the communes back; justifying the use of force for the greater good.

So it really only has two purposes, to destroy a society, or put a whip on societies back.

Communes in the '60's

I knew people who decided to join or start communes back in the late '60's, early '70's. The guy who joined an already established household of about 8 members thought it was great. The women cooked, others brought food to the house, mostly the women cleaned, everyone experimented with each other sexually. But no one ever had money and the guy I knew could never find his wallet when it came to giving "donations" in order to pay the rent. They got tired of him real quick and threw his a.. out! In a brotherly way, of course. It ended up being pretty much the same with the woman I knew who started a commune. She decided who stayed and who didn't, which wasn't really how it was supposed to work. Her's did last quite a while. I could tell she'd had enough. But she was gracious enough to let the others know that she was ready to "grow" in another direction and so they had to move out. It really never does work.

The Communist Manifesto was

The Communist Manifesto was Marx AND Engels, and can mostly be attributed to the work of Engels. The central idea of communism is simply "to each according to their needs", so any system adhering to that idea is communism. Murray Bookchin and other anarcho-communists write about it extensively.

You forgot half of it

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

It's a system designed to reward need, and punish ability. In a Communist system, the only way to improve the quality of your life is to claim more need, so stay ahead of the curve. There's always somebody needier than you.

Whenever I see a Communist, I tell them to just cut off their arms and their legs, then the whole world will be their slave.

Communism is a system designed with one aim: get covetous people to destroy themselves, so I encourage them openly. Maybe they'll figure it out before it's too late.

That is an inevitable result

That is an inevitable result of any "system". As I stated below, this central idea is an observation, not a rule of thumb for all communists. The idea was a challenge to neo-darwinians of the 19th century, so it wouldn't make sense, even in a humorous way to tell a communist to chop off their arms and legs for that reason.

What shall we call it in the U.S. when...

...one works their a** off and has a chunk of it taken away and given to someone who sits on their a**?

*sigh* please read through

*sigh*

please read through the comments.

The question you have to ask

The question you have to ask is "to each according to his needs" from whom?

Does the Communist Manifesto propagate voluntary benevolence? I don't think so...
Instead it even advocates violence against the "capitalistic oppressors".

I don't think anyone is

I don't think anyone is defending The Communist Manifesto. The poster was being intellectually honest by defending communism-without-force, and attempting to clarify a taboo word that has been wrongly associated and conflated with other authoritarian ideas and philosophies.

"From whom" is irrelevant in this case. The idea "to each according to their needs" is descriptive of hypothetical observations negating the old, dominant Darwinian theories. It's not a principle, authoritarian rule of thumb for communists....only a principle observation.

...

"to each according to their needs" enforced by a central power. All property must be given over to the state in order to create the equality, that is what Marx and Engels were selling.

Hegel was a piece of work as well.

That is the idea they were

That is the idea they were selling together, but Marx and Engels do not have a monopoly over the word communism, thankfully. Bakunin and Proudhon ripped Marx and Engels to shreds in the first internationale for their idealism, and since they also criticized Kant again and again, I would imagine Hegel would have been buried as well.

Why is this down voted?

If communities want to live communally, that's their choice. I wish people would read stuff before hitting the up or down arrow.