Yes, the cliche is the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Communism is the good intention that ALWAYS leads straight to a hellish existence.

communism works just fine...as long as the group size is small. Two hundred (or so) max.
Bigger than that and it doesn't work so well.
as the group size increases..it works less and less well.

Basically it doesn't scale well with complexity. Yet, if things are limited and simple if can function.

For me the big issue is whether it is truly voluntary or not.

If everyone involved is involved voluntarily I have no problems with it.

The question and the point where it usually rears it's evil head is when you bring up the person that happens to be there that doesn't want to live that way, but they also are not trying to force other people.

Like... what if everyone agrees there is no personal property. Then a person creates something that is incredibly important to them and they decide it is their property.

They are now outside of the ideas of the community.

What do you do to them?

Do you steal from them?

Do you say it isn't stealing because there is no personal property?

To me Good = Voluntary, Evil = Involuntary.

The solution is the free market.
it scales perfectly well.
it works just fine every time it's been tried.

I agree. Yet that is also not communism. :)

The free market is not..
but the free market can work BETWEEN (tiny) communist organizations (extended families...communes)

Well that has been something I've pointed out before.

Communism can actually exist voluntarily inside of a Free Market Economy.

However a Free Market Economy cannot exist inside of Communism.

exactly right.
the free market scales.
communism does not.

Weighing in here as the comparison in scaling ability is interesting.

I think that whilst communism can't practically scale up it presumes to systematize the totality of social organizations, meaning it must engulf the entire gamut of human life from the individual all the way on up to the societal, and even global, level. And that contradiction obviously factors in its breakdown.

The free market on the other hand does not scale down well. But does not presume to. Its principle is that the market arbitrates with the best practical effect on the whole. It does not work well on an individual basis, but it allows for ad hoc correction because it doesn't dictate conduct or policy, unlike communism.

The free market on the other hand does not scale down well
That is incorrect.
the Free market works perfectly well as P2P, bartering for a chicken for example, or buying/selling Steem on BlockTrades.
the fly in the ointment is when someone (government) trys to regulate it.

I disagree. You're right about your examples.

But it is at 3 people that interaction becomes society. Between 2 people that's intimacy, which is much, much less complex.

The point is that the results at the higher level are worse when you step down to the lower levels.

The Puritans Pilgrims in Plymouth couldn't handle it and there were 50-100 of them. They had to give themselves private property so they wouldn't starve.

• The Mayflower was an English ship that famously transported the first English Puritans, known today as the Pilgrims, from Plymouth, England to the New World in 1620. There were 102 passengers, and the crew is estimated to have been about 30, but the exact number is unknown.
  [IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmdRsKWYhqgR3G8bVakKG4pA5jX4qfYxjiMe1NosQL5a6r/image.png]
  remember the bell curve..
  perhaps they were to the left of the median.
  perhaps five or ten per group was all that they could handle.

Bullshit it wont even work then. All you would need is a couple people in the group who actual get shit done and bam you are back at square one.

The American Revolution was in 1776. The French Revolution was in 1789 (non-monarchal rule ended in serious bloodshed, military dictatorship, and fascism). Marx wrote his Communist manifesto in 1848. Most of Europe was still had monarchs at the time.

I think that Marx was trying to best the ideas of the American and French revolutions and he was really just a philosopher. His ideas weren't ground-truthed with reality while he was alive and his ideas have been used to kill tens of millions of people. He really did not get it right.

Simply put. It was an untested hypothesis. An unlike the scientific method is supposed to do with experiments when the experiments occurred they should observe and if the hypothesis does not fit the observations of the hypothesis then the hypothesis is flawed and should be tossed, or revised to explain the observations, and tested.

Yet there is something that states a speculation, idea, hypothesis to explain things and expects you to believe it whether a test proves it is true or not. We call that religion.

How is Marx like Jesus? They were both philosophers whose ideas appealed to fanatics and were used to kill millions of people. Marxism is the current scourge. They claim they are secular and non-superstitious thus scientific in some way. In fact, their religion is based on nihilism, jealousy, and death.

How else is Marx like Jesus? Their philosophy seemed like a good idea during times when other people had to deal with the practicalities of governance. For Marx, the monarchies took care of the bad stuff. For Jesus, the Romans enforced the peace. Neither philosophy can be used to rule a country. If tried, we wind up with open borders, no accountability, and crazy corruption.

They are both overly simplistic and tap into emotion.

"People are hurting"

"We must help them"

"I can't do it myself so I must force others to help me help them"

I will then feel good about myself and my ability to force others.

That sounds really un-American.

Yep. It also doesn't fit the word FREE very well.

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmZE1abVCQQv2Gqut8aoLwys59C7KFhsat3g2K8KsDQDH8/image.png]

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmaV24VSzSVnfykkF2EVisn7QgVupxsfWi9Q5H7zHA2ekL/image.png]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnIsdVaCnUE

actually he saved tens of millions of lives

WOW!!! This video makes a few good points, but then conflates so many different concepts into singular concepts among a variety of other logical fallacies, I think you just gave me the topic of my next post....

No doubt the post was inspired by the 200th anniversary today of Marx, the genius whom Engels said took leave of his senses.

Point #1 is being debunked more and more by the year:

https://www.rawstory.com/2012/02/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/

Even Darwin saw cooperation and empathy in animals. Empathy is required for cooperation and cooperation is the foundation of the success of the human race. Check the movie, I am - The Movie and you'll see some great evidence of cooperation as a basis for life.

Humans are competitive if they are trained to be competitive. In materialist, Protestant Work Ethic, Western civilization, we are trained from cradle to grave, to be competitive.

awesome your on steemit, watchout for the marxist whales. they have no argument so they censor!

Marxist whales exist?
HOW!? Its an abortion of their very ideology. LMAO

hahahahhahahahha, this made me laugh xD

LOL
have you had a conversation with them about political correctness on this platform?

Not yet, honestly, I have not seen a whole lot of diversity of opinion here really.

LOL
yeah they seem to dissapear.
xD

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works

too bad we have examples, it didnt just work it was the only way to survive for most locations lmao

For me the dead give away on this topic has been the anthropological aspects around gaming and game design. Naturally we gravitate toward games that are appealing to humans. Open world survival style games show all kinds of natural human tendencies.

After awhile of working on games you tend realize that people like building forts killing and fucking each other. With and without consent. We tend to organize in packs and tribalism simply emerges from our primal tendencies. Capitalism is more fun and people love gathering resources. Nobody likes sharing their stash.

If you look at most games with any kind of multiplayer aspect and you will see nothing but meritocracy infused competition. Communism would be so fucking unfun that nobody would ever want to play the game right out of the gate, Oh but everyone loves murdering your little pixel buddy viciously for a quick gold piece.

Imagine if you made revulsion but there's only one gun and one level, essentially what communism is, instead of ipods and smart phones you got gulags and starvation.

fucking lol

Literally "revulse"

Oh snap Styx is on Steemit, what up my dude.