PierzStyx

Originally Posted by gb13

First of all, it's important to note that "Capitalism" is actually a term coined by Marx (in a derogatory fashion) to describe a state/corporate perversion of the marketplace which existed in his day. For this reason alone, Marx's and Engel's argument fails at point one because it doesn't even really know its enemy. I don't even like to use the word "capitalism", because I don't like peddling a lie. I prefer talk about voluntary exchange; that vital manifestation of innovation, choice and variety -the essence of human output- which Communism tries to obliterate, but for the sake of speaking your lingo, I'll let it slide for now.
The reason I say that "capitalism" (here again meaning voluntary exchange), as a widespread system, does not exist today is because it actually does not… Not because it's more convenient an argument; it simply ceases to be. All the capitalism we've had in the past 100 years has existed solely under the power-structure of central banking, which as you know, is a vital component of Marx's and Engels' argument. Voluntary exchange and central banking are antithetical to one another. The market fails under such a system, because it is perverted at step one. Corporatism, on the other hand, thrives in this environment, because with the issuing of capital and the powers of economic planning being so centralized, the elite business *class* and the political *class* work, via elite-centric regulatory conditions and manipulation of the supply of capital, toward a mutually beneficial end, and to the detriment of the rest of humanity. Again, the modern communist argument fails at point one, by failing to even properly define its enemy, but we can go further, considering you touched on so many different topics.
I think Bastiat said it best when he wrote that statist communism is based on three fictional components, "the utter inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator". As hinted at by my use of the word "fictional", the trouble is that none of these things actually exists in real life.
The entire concept of communism is predicated on the great lie that someone (or a group of people) entirely benevolent can exist at the top of its structure in order to ensure equitable distribution. This is not a classless society; it is merely a society with fewer classes: the overseers in one class, the rest of humanity in another, and little opportunity to change stations. This aspect is entirely similar to the corporatist system, except that under communism, rather than the corporation being a legal fiction created by the state, the corporation IS the state. (So, corporatism is actually closer to communism than it is to my system of voluntary exchange). Considering the undeniable truth that, in human beings, pure benevolence is nonexistent, how anyone could believe that such a structure as Communism -one that is even more oligarchical than the corporatist system- could somehow wind up being fair, is beyond me. It assumes an impossible, idealistic scenario where somehow the instinct to act in self-interest can be removed from the human psyche. Every single point of history shows us the complete opposite is true. What's that saying about absolute power, again? This central reason why Corporatism and Communism -and Statism, in general- fail is precisely why an unfettered system of voluntary exchange works; it accounts for selfishness, checks it with consumer/worker choice, and leaves protection of life, liberty, and *legitimately* acquired property as one of the state's strictly limited functions.

The reason communism never talks about liberty, is because under communism, liberty does not exist. It is a wholly authoritarian system -an absolute state- which completely ignores the value of the individual in favor of "equitable distribution" of imaginary capital to the collective; capital containing no intrinsic value which can be arbitrarily expanded and contracted by the state in order to fulfill whatever allegedly altruistic goals it may have. Sure, one could take the Bolshevik argument and say that money should not exist either. But, considering that actual "money" (i.e., not fiat) is nothing more than a convenient way to create equitable exchange while bypassing the unworkability of a barter system in a modern world, one need only to look at Russian life in the early 20th century under the Bolsheviks to see that transitional or hybrid systems lead to disasters that those of us living today in the west (even under our unjust system) could hardly imagine, let alone empathize with.

It's also important mention that under the Bolsheviks, while private trade in the urban areas was made illegal, it actually took place at a higher rate than perhaps at any other time in Russian history! If this were a fictional literary attempt to create a perfect depiction of irony, it would be lauded by critics as a wild success; tragically, though, it actual happened. The starving, impoverished people were desperately (and illegally, under penalty of death) using "capitalism" in order save themselves from the unspeakable inequities brought about by the unjust, failed policies of their Communist rulers.

Communists rail on about how workers are exploited by the owners of the means of production, because in order for a company to be profitable, it has to pay workers less than the market value of what they produce (an entirely true point, though redeemed by virtue of the relationship being entirely voluntary) but, the communist fails to apply the same standard to the State, which under communism, has de facto ownership of a person's output, because wages are garnished by the state in an compulsory, unchecked, arbitrary fashion... The state owns 100% of the fruits of your output, and permits you to keep whatever portion it deems fit. And so we come to the graduated income tax -another pillar of Marx's system- which also very curiously exists under what you like to call "capitalism", even though, here again, the two concepts are antithetical.

So now we have two concepts central to Marxist communism perverting the market, and yet you fail to recognize this fact, preferring instead to blame voluntary exchange for perversions committed by the state in the marketplace.

That's like blaming the rape victim for not being impervious to penises.

Sadly, these are but a few examples of the inherent dishonesty that must be committed when defending ANY Statist system (communism being no exception). Such systems trade voluntary interaction for forced labor; individual freedoms, for collective imprisonment; the ability to change your station in life, for the miserably static existence of a serf.

A just system is one which does not rely on force and violence to accomplish its end. A fair system is one which allows people to act freely so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Statism is the opposite of this. But, to answer you question, if you would like to live under a system of communism, no, I would never use violence against you to force you to choose otherwise. I would bitterly defend your right to live voluntarily in a commune as a part of a collective. As long as you're not going to force me to join up with you, I say more power to you. Have at it. The trouble is that I highly doubt, given the history of Statist ideologues, that you would afford me the same courtesy if I chose not to partake. That's the rub.