>Don't force your horrible ideology on the rest of us (which communism literally calls for).
No, it doesn't. Communism calls for the liberation of people via the abolition of private property, itself a concept which is forced on everyone, including the owners of private property. This is like saying that the abolition of slavery "forces an ideology" on everyone because now nobody can own slaves. Again, it's farcical. Oscar Wilde and Kropotkin have explained the individualist nature of Communism.
That you need to bring up the Nazis shows how bad your argument is. Please just move to Venezuela or North Korea.
> No, it doesn't. Communism calls for the liberation of people via the abolition of private property
1. It calls for the forced confiscation of private property.
2. Explain how someone can be liberated by having their economic freedom removed?
Moving is irrelevant, too - everywhere has become private property, everywhere is rented or taxed. One cannot escape capitalism.
>1. It calls for the forced confiscation of private property.
Yes. What about it?
>2. Explain how someone can be liberated by having their economic freedom removed?
People's economic freedom is not removed, rather, it is provided in the first place - higher stage Communism is the refined ideal of the free association of people as producers and labourers in the economic sphere.
sure, keep telling yourself that
> Yes. What about it?
Thank you for admitting that communism does require force confiscation of property.
You need to understand that I wasn't arguing to convince you, I'm making statements to point out for anyone reading that when you say "liberation" you actually mean state police going door by door and confiscating any valuables you have. Maybe lynching some property owners along the way.
>People's economic freedom is not removed, rather, it is provided in the first place - higher stage Communism is the refined ideal of the free association of people as producers and labourers in the economic sphere.
Communism is supposed to be ownership of the means of production by the people. Can you sell what you supposedly own under communism? No, you cannot.
This means that
A. You don't actually own it the state does. (The state in this case can be whatever organizational body is being used to manage the means of production).
B. You do not have any economic freedom under communism because you cannot sell what you supposedly own. Even under communism you do not have the option to sell your own labor freely. What occurs is that you are assigned work that the government believes is needed.
You misunderstand the concept of property. I have written about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15160835 as an explanation.
>A. You don't actually own it the state does.
No; Communism is an anarchist ideology, and the workers through voluntary democratic institutions manage the means of production - so you, by extension manage the means of production.
>You do not have any economic freedom under communism because you cannot sell what you supposedly own.
No. These is no sale in Communism because the conceptions of freedom have changed, society adopts a different set of needs, namely, goods are not imbued with exchange value, as they are not commodities. It doesn't make sense to sell things in Communism. This is what Communism is - the bringing about of the condititions such that the current ones are obsolete. As Marx said, Communism is not an ideal to be achieved, but the constantly existing movement which abolishes the present state of things.
>Even under communism you do not have the option to sell your own labor freely.
This is a very good thing! You don't have to sell your labour to survive! And even if you wanted to, you can get higher returns by owning any more labour you do.
>What occurs is that you are assigned work that the government believes that you are most suited to.
Hilariously false. Please actually read Marx; I'll quote the relevant part here:
"He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now."
Oh yeah, the conception of freedom has changed so that slavery is freedom. It's amazing that there are people that actually fantasize about living under a dystopian government.
> Hilariously false. Please actually read Marx; I'll quote the relevant part here:
Marx says a lot of stuff in his worthless books, every implementation of communism has assigned labor.
No; if anything, capitalism is the closest to slavery if we consider the case of the slave abolishing the ownership of slaves (the human component) of private property, the proletarian is the same in that he must actually abolish private property in general to be free.
>every implementation of communism has assigned labor.
Does capitalism not have assigned labour? You are free to move between jobs to some degree, but you are assigned labour in general, for without that assignment (by the capitalists) then you are liable to destitution or poverty or death or the charity of the State.
Yes it does, and if you can't find a company that will let you do the job you want you can start your own business.
And Capitalism is totally non-coercive, right?
A perfect case of strawman.
In his comment, GP was never advocating that communism is particularly good. He was merely using the same logic as his parent.
Also, moving to different countries is not straightforward. The statement does not even come close to being an argument for anything, and does not contribute to the discussion.
Yes, it is a strawman, when you attribute something to someone who did not say it. That he agrees with you or not doesn't have bearing on what makes an argument a strawman. The discussion of property arose after you made your comment.
>You people are delusional.
Very consistent with strawman-like behavior. Tell me how I am delusional. Not the other commenters in the thread. Me. In what way am I delusional?
Actually, most folks don't really have that option. Not legally, anyway. And honestly, I think your statement is pushing a horrible ideology on others as well - capitalist societies have the same sort of hangups on closed-mindedness you fault communism on, evidenced by people's outcry that national health care is a socialist policy. It makes actual fixes nearly impossible.
More to the first point, it is expensive for folks to move, and expensive to find housing and work enough to meet immigration requirements. Even planning for schooling is expensive. Not to mention the fact that in many professions, you need to speak the local language. It is even an expensive prospect when you are moving for marriage (I've been through it, and it is still expensive). Sometimes the education from the US isn't quite good enough to transfer to the same job. Not really an option for large swaths of population making minimum wage or slightly more. Not when a flat tire messes up your finances for weeks or more.
This advice is as bad as telling jobless folks they should just move to a part of the country with jobs. It isn't reasonable or practical.
I was freaking lucky to be able to move out of the states and into a socialist democracy (Norway).
I am currently living in a country that's still under capitalism and I'm experiencing how bad it is right now.
>Despite this, the poverty level reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America and 48th among all countries.[0]
Further, I see it as bad for private property is tyranny, the labourer is deprived of the full value of what he creates, and the class society creates artificial necessity to provide wage labour or accumulate sufficient capital just in order to survive. For these reasons I see the system as barbaric, as with our resources it is clearly enough to do better. To say nothing of the horrendous exploitation of those in Bangladesh for example, this only being the most visible example of the exploitation Marx tells us about.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
Also that you need to lie about what your source says is sad. It's 68th among all countries.
But when you consider that when Cuba transitioned to communism it was a fully developed economy not a developing country you can understand how badly they have regressed.
The world is probably not as black and white as we might think at first glance.
That's as silly a reason as you can give. You don't think I can find a capitalist country that's as bad?
Somebody opening the gates of hell a crack is no reason to fling them wide open.