Spencer's Super-Happy Fun-Time Right-Wing Word Pit

If people actually read what Marx supported they probably wouldn't find it so bad, for example, the demands from The Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Keep in mind that by centralisation of the media, they meant the printing presses - which whilst now you might think was to do with stopping freedom of speech, it was more to do with being able to disseminate information across the country, to all citizens, as Bukharin talks about in The ABC Of Communism.

The are certainly some points, I disagree with, but the principle that you can only achieve true democracy by ending the dictatorship created by the inequality of capital is very true. As Einstein wrote in Why Socialism?:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

..but what about my choice?

How do you mean your choice?

There is no reason that there cannot be the freedom of choice of products in a planned economy, as the most popular designs for products can be produced, and the production of t-shirts, etc. could easily be automated to allow the production of customised shirts.

If you mean the freedom of choice of work then the same principle applies, except now we are no longer troubled by this system of unemployment for many, and overwork for the others. We can use automation to the benefit of all and start automation programmes in as much industry as possible, sharing the labour in the tasks that cannot be automated to relieve the work burden on all. With the products of this, we can provide free education for all people so they can all contribute usefully to society and have a meaningful life, rather than the current system where some are condemned to wasting their only lives sewing footballs, etc. as it is cheaper than automating the work, or abandoned in poverty and unemployment.

If you mean the freedom of choice in democracy, then it is only with the abolition of capital that we will ever truly obtain this, as there will be no corruption from the need for campaign funds and so on. It will also put an end to the problem of globalisation, where the multinational corporations and private banks are now far more powerful than the nations, and so effectively dictate policy by driving down taxes in return for employment and trade, and sponsoring favourable political candidates.

The only people that are any more free under the capitalist system are the capitalists. Those who have claimed exclusive rights to the Earth's land and resources, and hoarded capital from these methods over the centuries, which they now make great profits from whilst doing no work.

So I can have any color I want as long as it's black?

My choice to have personal property. My choice to not participate. My choice to receive inheritance from my father. My choice.

The problem with your planned government and utopia is that unless everyone chooses to participate of their own free will and choice, you will always need enforcement. With enforcement comes positions of power which will spawn a ruling class. Inasmuch as evil still exists, the system will be corrupted by those in power forcing their will on those who are not. So what about my choice. You can't expect a system of government where rights, property, prosperity are abolished to succeed unless everyone is on board.

That's a terrible strawman argument.

Besides, perhaps the loss of some choice is worth it for the end of the environmental problems, the economic instability and the terrible inequality in the current system. I am sure you wouldn't be defending global capitalism if you were born to poor South American farmhands, East Asian sweatshop workers, or poor families in the slums of East London and Detroit.

Where is our choice not to participate in the current system? I cannot simply ignore the "property rights" of those who have monopolised the Earth's resources or I am arrested and imprisoned. Ultimately we can only have one economic system, and the logical consequence of this is that some people will have to put up with it.

There is nothing wrong with personal possessions, but rather the ownership of resources and the means of production simply to profit off them.

There would be no force to confiscate inheritance, etc. but rather a reform of society so that it is not necessary - if we abolish capital, the monopolisation of property and distribute the goods according to need then what inheritance is there to leave? All people would be provided with homes and the necessities of life, the land and Earth's resources would be communal property to be managed democratically, and the idea of inheritance becomes superfluous.

Communism must be a movement of the majority, but the majority should support it for it is in their interests. You will never get the support of everyone - the capitalists will not freely give up their hoarded wealth and their monopolisation of the land and resources.You mention the problem of the lack of choice not to participate as though it were unique to communism, but there is no choice not to participate in the capitalist society we have now, as all the resources and means of production have been privatised.

so morality by your standard?

Strawman? OK, but how do you solve the problem of creating a ruling class?

I won't argue with you, the whole premise of communism sounds awesome on paper or in a Star Trek movie, but its implementation requires one of two things:

Free will and choice of everyone to accept the society.

-or-

Abolition of the human right to choose to accept the society.

Well, mainly by not having Leninist vanguardism - where they had a closed party and specific membership, as they felt that the revolutionaries could decide what was best for the people better than the people could. Of course, that just led to a new ruling class.

Instead the focus should be on using modern technology to facilitate the democratisation of the economy and politics, perhaps not through direct democracy entirely, but it should definitely be run somewhat like Participatory Planning rather than the closed, centralised system the Bolsheviks used.

It is a problem where you can't get the support of everyone, but it exists with any political system - even now, as we have no choice but to respect the property rights of the capitalists or face imprisonment. I am aware that two wrongs don't make a right, but at least it would only be a transitory problem, until the class system and inequality is ended and the idea of someone claiming land and resources for themselves is as laughable as someone attempting to privatise the air or the Moon now.