Straight talking.....Communism

The excerpts are taken from @ anarchyhasnogods and his post.

His explanation of communism is a very good one...this is his post....

https://steemit.com/politics/@anarchyhasnogods/a-communist-definition-of-property
His posts excerpts are in 'the faded out bit', and all credit to him.

Here is my take, - my straight talk - on the intellectual gymnastics -and desperation - required, to even attempt to support the principals of communism.
There are more holes in it, than Swiss cheese...

Under Capitalism it is assumed that every type of property is equal to another. That property is often called private property.

Yes, that's because it belongs to someone.

That, however, is not that simple under any other system.

Keeping it simple is always the best system.

Every economic system analyzes social relations in a different way. All property exists through these social relations, so under different economic systems property comes in different forms.

Or, lets make arbitrary rules up, and create complexity where there is no need for any.
Other economic systems, such as?.... The USSR? China? Cuba? Venezuela?

One of the main aspects of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, otherwise known as private ownership of capital. The means of production are the tools used to produce the goods for all of society.

No, the means of production is to produce goods the owner wishes to produce.
Society will decide if it is successful or not, and not the owner.

(and not to be confused with the 'for the good of society'. Only the egotistical narcissist would assume to know what is 'for the good of society', rather than letting society decide for itself.)

These tools can take many forms, but the most commonly used example is the machines within factories. Under capitalism these are under absolute control of an entity or group of entities.

These entities have risked their own time and capital to obtain these assets. They did not just 'appear' to them. here was a cost incurred, prior to any production.

The working class must come to an agreement with those who control the means of production, or starve.

The owners with the means of production also starve, if a mutually satisfactory agreement is not reached with the worker.
They also risk losing all the value that they have invested into their assets prior to any production.

This agreement generally comes in the form of wage labor, where the worker is given a portion of the profits while the majority goes to those who control the property.

The majority of the workers labor goes to the worker,(wages) with a small percentage afforded to the owner.
If the worker is paid $50 an hour, the owner may make between $3 to $8 dollars from that hour.

So quite the opposite of 'the majority' goes to those who control the property'. Far from it.

The owner may also lose money invested in that labor.

Personal Property tends to exist under every economic system.

Because private property is a constant, natural desire of the individual.
It has manifested itself throughout history, in all cultures.

Personal property is property intended for use by the individual who controls it, and is attained in a socially “fair” manor.

This is a statement from one group of individuals who think their perspectives has precedence -and more validity - over anther's.
It is no one else's business what constitutes private property for any one individual, or for anyone else to define what is their private property.

Items in this category would include toothbrushes, personal computers, and most cars. Most personal property of the bourgeoisie, the owners of private property, can only be afforded through this ownership. A 500 room mansion, and collective of private jets would not count as personal property.

Because some one else decides for them? -what is, and what is not, private property?
And if you use a personal computer to work on, are you stealing from the person who built it?
(very authoritarian)

A private jet could easily cost a million dollars per year, and very few people would be able to produce enough themselves to afford that, so it can only come through control of the means of production.

And that means of production, being the creation through personal risk of an individual's capital and time. In investing in that production, prior to employment of other individuals.

Property and The State
All public law today is based on the principles of a “monopoly on violence”. A monopoly on violence.
The state is the only agency that has this monopoly of violence.

ergo, no state, no monopoly?

The social relations of the worker to the controller cannot exist without this.

The worker and controller relationship has nothing to do with violence, but contracts between two parties.
There is not threat of violence, or coercion.
There is mutually agreed exchange.

There is no basis for control without a monopoly of violence, so private property cannot exist without it.

Only from the perspective of individuals with a sociopaths attributes and similar perspectives of other's peoples motivations..

Communities have worked together for millennia before centralization, with the exchange of labor for goods.(wages)
Without any monopoly of violence.

….That means anybody controlling the means of production through violence is doing it offensively, and not defensively.

Like all socialist style and communist governments. I agree.

..As they are trying to take the rights of the workers away by calling it their own property and structuring society around that control.

They are not taking the rights of the worker away. They are in mutually agreed contract of employment.

The only thing somebody controls when they are born is themselves.

But communist believe 'they' have the right to decide for others. Control other peoples way of lives.

Everything that comes from the control of their own body is the fruits of their labor.

Agreed.

The fruits of their labor, and their personal property created from that is part of their freedom.

The fruits of their labor comes from _ time. Time that has been paid for by an employer. The time the employer has agreed to pay for, and the fruits from that time, is the employers.
The investment of that paid time /labor is a voluntary exchange.

The employees takes money for his time. The employer pays it forward , with no guarantee of return.

To take personal property is to take their freedom.

There is no theft, in a mutually agreed contract.

This means that a thief is using offensive violence to attack the freedoms of a worker.

There is no 'thief' in a voluntary exchange of time /labor, and just shows the inherent weakness in the communist argument- to have to try to twist words to fit into the paradigm.

Where terms like 'take', are conflated to become 'thief', as though it goes unnoticed, and suddenly becomes a truth.

Defensive violence is not authoritarian like offensive violence, so thus personal property can exist outside the bounds of the state (or depending on your definition, each individual is their own state).

Employment is not offensive nor authoritarian.

Telling people what is permissible for how to live their lives, and define to them what is , and what is not – IS offensively authoritarian.

For socialism to work, it has to be a social construct. I.E, a localized endevour, with personal relationships.
It cannot be an economic system.

For Marx to superimpose this very workable, small scale social system -( which is clearly visible for everyone to see - and works quite successfully) onto some huge economic system, really shows how very naive, - a little bit stupid - he really was...