Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.
The only substantial difference between socialism and capitalism is the democratic control of the workplace. Capitalism's idea of a workplace is inherently totalitarian, socialism's is democratic. That's it.
There is no moral distinction. It's an arbitrary distinction to justify robbing people of the value they generate. It's slavery.
> Nobody is advocating for violating personal private property.
But communists are advocating for violating private property.
>And #2 is not something most mainstream socialists advocate for either, so it's mostly a strawman.
Socialists universally support economic regulations. You have not thought about any of this carefully.
You may be confused as to what 'voluntary economic interactions' means, so I'll explain:
This would be any kind trade enter into by two consenting adults, like for example, doing a number of hours of work in exchange for a number of units of currency. By denying the right of employers to hire workers on any terms other than giving workers all of the revenue generated by the business, communism denies the right to engage in the aforementioned class of voluntary economic interactions.
I really recommend you think about these concepts. You seem to have a very shallow understanding of what communism is, and the implications of what it advocates for.
To advocate for radical reconfigurations of society, brought about by force, without thinking through the moral implications, is very reckless and morally irresponsible.
Having said nothing about how or even if communism should be brought about, I certainly acknowledge that it seeks to bar certain apparently voluntary economic interactions on the grounds that they are not as voluntary as they first seem.
Take the rest of your strawman with you, I have no use for it.
It would bar transactions that any court of law would find to be consensual. It's not a just system.
You're right I can't criticize your views that much because you do not actually outline what they are beyond vaguely saying they're communism but not saying specifically what that means in terms of what happens to the property we earn in private trade, and what private trades we're allowed to engage in.
That suggests to me that you are hiding what you truly believe in because you know it is not palatable while still promoting the 'communism' brand, knowing full well what most interpret that as.
I'm not against capitalism as an economic system, but I find this moralising of its means rather than its end to be very distasteful.
Second, if the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents (homesteading natural resources).
Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. Unless you define economic activity to mean "trade within a property system" in which case it's a meaningless tautology.
> Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into.
That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?) I prefer to define my morality in terms of people not property.
>But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents
By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.
Again, I'm not saying Communism is good, I just object to the way you're arguing that the problem is breaking some arbitrary principles you like, rather than the very real suffering it caused.
There has never been an economic system that has has zero defence for private property rights (in the abstract sense of one having exclusive rights to that which they appropriate from the natural world or receive from another legitimate owner). The soviet union had small privately owned farms. North Korea has black markets that are widely tolerated by authorities. But even at a more basic level, having an exclusive right to the food that the state gives you is an exercise of private property rights. Economic existence would not be possible with zero observance of economic independence between individuals.
>That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?)
I see it in an opposite way. I see property as really our own person. I use the term 'property' because that is better understood. But morally, I think it's more appropriate to see the things we own as an extension of our person, and not as a separate class of matter we call property.
>By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.
Withholding resources you created through your own effort, or acquired through private trade trade, is self-defense in my opinion. I think this is common sense and consistent with how we commonly define rights.