Conservative logic

Taxation is robbery. Any increase in taxation by any means for any reason is an increase in violence. Anyone who advocates for increased government spending wants more state violence.

Actually in complete agreement with you here

So you are for cutting government programs and decreasing or eliminating taxation?

I want to abolish the social institution that is the state, which includes doing away with taxes and police and prisons and more, but I still find it necessary to have a system in place that guarantees the needs of all are being met, and I think that means workers owning the means of production, managing their workplaces democratically and providing through a network of mutual aid.

Oh, got it. You are insane.

Insane in contrast to the conservative that likely wants to gut the existing welfare state, where the U.S. already offers the least amount of benefits in the developed world, despite being the richest nation on earth. No-one deserves to be left behind. No-one should face hunger, eviction or poverty in the 21st century.

So you don’t believe a word of what you said about government violence. Got it.

Eviction is violence...

Redefining words to suit your needs is wickedness.

Starvation is violence...

Oh - hahaha, yeah, you aren't aware that socialism and communism frequently kill those they deem "useless eaters"

If you can't feed yourself, you're useless. If you're homeless, you're useless. Socialism isn't merciful once it's in control. Those in control will eliminate as many of the expendables as necessary to ensure their status and privilege remain unchanged.

Bolshevik policies twice called for food requisitioning, and was necessarily met with the resistance of self-sustaining peasants. I am not in favor of central planning, and government/bureaucratic direction of production, or forced collectivization. A smart communist should know that communism is not when a so-called "worker's state", or "proletarian dictatorship" owns the means of production, it is when the workers themselves own and manage the means of production.

Capitalism, particularly in the United States, is especially cruel to its poorest civilians. We don't build them schools, we build them prisons. We are told the poor are to blame for their own situation, and not to aid them in any way. Those at a disadvantage, or have been disparaged by the system are expected to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps". Social mobility is expected of everyone, though even the international working class sees this is an illusion.

So, explain to everyone why communism always kills millions? Why has there never been (what you call) a smart communist?

Just saying that the workers own the means of production doesn't actually change anything. Workers get paid a pittance, managers get paid more and are political. History is replete with examples of communism and socialism killing millions. You don't even have to look hard for it, find a communist country - there will be death (unless it's newly communist, and then it's just a matter of time)

It's never been done in a manner that treats the lower class well. The lower class is expendable.

Most of the deaths I'm aware of were the result of famines, which I already explained. There was also some political repression, especially with Lenin's red terror and the Russian Civil War. Still, Stalinism was the most horrific period for the Soviet Union, and for communists and the working peoples' movement everywhere.

Workers owning the means of production changes everything. It establishes true democracy -- the ability to make decisions that immediately affect your own life, right there in the workplace, and to produce according to need instead of profit (where many goods go unsold or are destroyed).

Socialism requires true democracy, and in communist one-party dictatorships, that is impossible. "Democratic centralism" is a farce. You should also be aware of different schools of communist thought, like Trotskyism, following the ideas of Trotsky who declared the Soviet Union under Stalin to be a "degenerated worker's state", the left-communists (responsible for the significant Kronstadt rebellion, and resistance against the USSR and Nazis in Germany), many of whom are council communists and of course anarchist communists and syndicalists (libertarian Spain, and Makhnovia). I consider myself an anarcho-communist.

Hahahahah! You're an idiot. It's never worked anywhere for very long because of inefficiency and corruption. And anarcho-communist is a contradictory combination. By definition, communism as a form of government is centrally planned.....you need to find the person who filled your head with this nonsense and kick them in the balls - to death.

By definition, communism is the realization of a stateless, classless, moneyless society where property and the means of production are owned in common. That does not seem inconsistent with anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-communists are not Marxists, to be clear. Marx wanted to achieve socialism through the state apparatus through the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he thought would necessarily transition to anarchism (obviously a wrong assumption). Leninism was an interpretation of orthodox Marxism, and not only did Lenin betray his own writings, but he ultimately rejected Engels’ idea of a transition state.

You're using the philosophical definition, as soon as you look at the political/economic definition - it's central planning. Philosophies don't govern countries - governments do.

People cannot be trusted, which is why the Republic form of government was created. Leaders are in power until those they represent choose to elect someone else. The problem with communism is that leaders select themselves and are usually in positions of power until they die (of natural causes or they're deposed)

Communism and socialism are vile constructs, not because the ideas are bad - but because no person has ever been virtuous enough to live up to them, and you will always have the lazy citizens who will become lazy/useless eaters - simply because they can.

You really should stop generalizing communism. You act like the first International Workingmen’s Association didn’t have multiple socialist factions, including anarchists and syndicalists.

Anarcho-communists believe in the decentralization of industry and organization to best fulfill the needs of all. Kropotkin talks about the decentralization of industry in Fields, Factories and Workshops. We have always rejected central planning and bureaucracy.

You're citing an organization that dissolved over 100 years ago as evidence that it works!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

The only thing you're triggering is laughter....at you!

Clearly I am speaking to a laugh happy idiot who is skimming over what I'm saying and not reading clearly. My point is not all communists believe in the same methods of organization or application, that's not me "citing a more than 100 year old organization to prove communism works".

You're still providing an organization that existed barely 12 years - surely one of those amazing methods of organization could have extended their organizational longevity beyond puberty.

You see, the difference between you and me is that you have an irrational belief that you're making some kind of positive contribution to your worthless cause - and I, as a cynical idealist, know this is the Internet, where the best I can hope to do is highlight that you're a fool.

And you're advocating going to war with the government instead of paying taxes? Which taxes are you objecting to? Sales, property, income? All of the above? Do you live out in the woods where you don't drive on roads or need any government services? I just don't get what makes people think this is something that they're entitled to.

“And you're advocating going to war with the government instead of paying taxes?”

I don’t recall saying that. Don’t put words in my mouth, you lying shit.

“Which taxes are you objecting to?”

Which ones are collected by force?

“Do you live out in the woods where you don't drive on roads or need any government services?”

I’m not aware of anything the government does that either A) free people couldn’t do better for themselves or B) I don’t want done.

“I just don't get what makes people think this is something that they're entitled to.”

So you think that people who don’t pay taxes shouldn’t get government benefits?

Are you saying that fighting back is bad ?

No, we should fight back.