In your 'true communism', what stops people from making businesses? Without a government communism won't work

Business is just an organisation made to sell goods and Labour. It's not a government supported thing.

By eliminating markets through centralised planning. This necessitates the elimination of commodity production, as needs are then produced at will.

Not an argument. Governments have been a fact since the inception of our awakening.

Marx didn't make a distinction between communism and socialism. He used the terms interchangeably. This dude is full of shit.

...

There is no state to defend private property, so the only organizations that can exist are non-capitalist worker cooperatives.

I can call any sentence full of ideology spooky, and you can not stop me, fag.

How do you force people to give up most of their labor to you without government?

Businesses rely on the government to enforce property rights, without a state they also become impossible (other than say a megacorp with its own private army which is basically just a neofeudal state at that point)

If the vast majority of the population are committed communists, anyone trying to set up some sort of business and make a private property claim, and horde resources for their own profit, would first not be cooperated with (a boycott) and if somehow that doesn't work, say if the business owner is violently controlling resources, a militia would be formed to take that person out.

"If you can't enforce your property rights you don't deserve your property" - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
You buy a gun and you use it.

lmao capitalists rely on government intervention to enforce property rights and laws surrounding the market

Literally read the critique of the gotha programme

Well, I can't claim to understand how communism would work, I just advocate for socialism, let the future take care of itself.

So the CEO has to personally hang around his store 24/7 with a shotgun to defend it? The lack of police would make any kind of business not run out of the home completely untenable.

If you are capable of defending it yourself, it's most likely not private property

You guys should read up on ancap Ideology, theory and economics. It's an interesting read and may actually educate you on how real life works.

Read it for yourself. He refers to lower stage communism not socialism. Socialism being a distinct stage from communism was a product of Lenin's theory.

I can better spend my time reading any other fantasy novels

A "right" is by definition granted by a government. If you're defending territory with guns for your own benefit, and not the community's, you have no "property rights", you're just a petty warlord.

...

You don't need to do that though, do you. That's what private security firms are for.

TOP WEW

sure that was more codified by lenin but 'lower stage communism' is easier to just call socialism, it's just a rewording of the marxian theory

Do you sincerely believe that huge piece of land controlled by mafia is sustainable?

No, seriously. If you don't understand how an economy works you won't be able to stop the ever growing ancap threat

No. It's really not. The lower stage of communism is still communism. Marx had a name for the transitional society and it was called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The conflation of socialism as some transitional period that's just capitalism with red flags is a major flaw in 20th century socialist thought.

Oh I see, so the rich can use their money to get an outside force to protect their property for them… how is this not a state again, except that poor people have no protection?

But seriously, in the absence of any kind of ruling body, a private security firm is only as good as their numerical force, if a rival megacorp wants to take over they can just hire more guys to go kill them. Every business would have to turn into a fortress. Capitalism is only possible through the recognition of someone with a big huge stick (the government) to regulate disputes and protect property.

Ancaps make light of self deprecating humour. Posting their own memes isn't going to help.

It's optional.

texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/

STATISTS BTFO!!

And you don't see how 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is way worse branding for the 21st century than 'socialism'?

It's not optional if they shoot you because someone pays them to.

Why not? Who's going to stop them? Force is the only rule of law.

>if you don't want to obey what main don mafioso CEO says, you can just leave
How can you call yourself anarchist, cuck?

that "rewording" let to a bunch of m-l movements embracing state bureaucracy as a form of socialism

fair point but socialism alone still has PR issues.

You can shoot them if you want, but it's safer to just leave. If everyone has a gun there will be very little violence through the fear of getting shot.

I agree with that logic, but how does it align with right-wing ideology? How is this thought compatible with NAP?

I just don't think that the idea of socialism being a transitional phase is revisionist when Marx himself described a transitional phase. The issues with M-L states were how they existed in reality, they didn't even live up to their own interpretation of Marx. I do believe in central planning so maybe that makes me a tankie to you inherently but there we go.

And at least socialism is associated with some good things too, I can see both sides of the argument for renaming it but I think ultimately it wouldn't fool anyone.

What do you men, making businesses?

And… this isn't the same logic that justifies the state's use of force how?

That must be why the US has far more murders than Europe (not even only gun murders)

What stops people from selling things they don't own to people who don't own anything to give in exchange, in order to themselves buy things to other people who don't own them, all this while every can actually have all these things for free?
Jeez, I wonder…

Businesses as privately operated entities under capitalism only in exist thanks to the protection of property by the state. The person in OP’s image is a retard.

The idea behind full communism is that the the a material abundance and distribution thereof will make business obsolete.

Top cringe.

So is government and taxes.

Yeah. I fucking wish. Unless you have enough money to buy your own outer haven it's optional.
Your next words are: it's entirely optional if you can take the prison sentence.

Guess what, unless you have enough money to buy your own private security firm that isn't optional either.

Of course taxes are optional, just don’t own a house or make an income.

A question for those in this thread:
Can we even have a post-scarcity society? I always see people complain about capitalists ignoring how the world has limited resources.

No, full communism is utopian nonsense. Socialism/DotP is the best that can be achieved.

...

No he's not. lolbergs think any kind of organization at all turns into a state and whine profusely at others. Which is all the more ironic and hilarious because lolbergs require a state for their philosophy to work, unlike anarchists (being as capitalism grants them private property rights, etc.)

Oh that's a good one, user.

In other words, capitalism is impossible without a government. What you're implying is Stirnirite left-anarchism.

Where did I imply collaborationism?

The absence of the private property form.

Class collaboration is the idea that class is an inevitable aspect of civilization. Your assertion that the DotP is as far as we can go comes with the implication that class can not be done away with as communism is just some silly utopian dreamland. You're a class collaborationist.

So what do we do before post-scarcity, just barter?

This shtick about there not being a state under true communism was just a trick to get the anracho simpletons to go along. The reality is that really achievable communism is bureaucratic, and that's fine.

Why would someone want to work for someone else when they can work for themselve and their co-workers while the co-workers do the same for them? You would have to use force to make someone serve and force would be retaliated with by those who do not wish to serve others.

what "class" does DotP require?

Proletariat and bourgeoisie, at the very least.

well now you are conflating DOTP and socialism, in which you first said socialism was the first stage of communism.

Marx himself did not describe a transitional stage. He described revolution and communism.

you don't seem like person who knows what is he talking about, or at least using non-marxist definitions. How can bourgeoisie exist under DotP? What new classes are created?

Tell me kid, what do you think "dictatorship of the proletariat" means?

shortest definition from top of my head would be "representative democracy in state with planned economy", grandma

A system where the people who were the proletariat under capitalism now have the power in society.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is actually the political regime in which the proletariat imposes its power onto the other classes in a class society (typically: in capitalism; although the main exemple of a dictatorship of the proletariat – the USSR – was in a still mostly feudal society).

It must not be confused with socialism, which is a phase of communism itself.

which in the end (if we ignore cornman's reforms) mean that class society is abolished.

No. Class society is abolished only when private property is abolished; that is: not when the proletariat merely imposes its political power onto the other classes, but when it has effectively used this power to get rid of property.