The problem with both is the same. The benefits are only derived if everyone follows the system, but human nature dictates that will not be the case. The problem is with the nature of what is voluntary. Most homeowners in a non communist country, presumably don't want to leave their home, or join a commune. When you determine everyone MUST participate, the distinction you make evaporates.
If the system itself is the unit of survival, then individual members' rights aren't so important. That's the communism way. They certainly need to be selective in allowing membership or it'll degrade into a bunch of freeloaders.
I don't know what kind of communism the OP refers to, but some kinds of communism defend the idea of personal property but are against private property.
Although I agree: How does joining a Communist or Anarchist group help? We need a broader movement. This isn't even a leftist thing (or only leftist).
There’s nothing about capitalism that prevents, or is anathema to companies, organisations or individuals from collaborating or pooling resources. Communism is a specific political and economic system with explicit and deliberately coercive communalising policies. It doesn’t have a monopoly on community forming or coordinated community action or the pooling of community resources though.
But also, historically, these sorts of communities have been targeted by governments. Police literally went to war with unions to break up community power for coal miners. While communism is different than socialism, there's a huge public smear campaign trying to couple those two together. (And, in fact, historically there were major pushes to blacklist folks who were connected to communism.)
There are communities that exist without private property, like communes and Monasteries and Kibbutz. I wouldn't really call them communist though and the hallmark of all of them is that they exist in a larger societal context, rather than being a separate society.
Communism is not for you buddy, you're not the same class as those toiling in India or other Third World nations. With its proven track record of defeating imperialists and for those with nothing to lose and first world nation traitors, it has still proven viable.
To be honest that isn't such an issue until it's an ideology enforced by the state. Most ideologies are pretty hostile to other ideologies. However they normally exist in free societies where people can opt in and out of them.
I still don't understand why there aren't many communist communities. Wouldn't it be better if you could opt in or out?
"In contrast in a capitalist system the capitalists can prosper from the communists desire not to exploit their fellow men"
Why do you give Intellectual or personal superiority to communist?
Part of my family comes from a former communist country. The were slaves of a communist elite that of course wanted to exploit fellow men on a level that a person living on a Western society could not understand(like rapist and murderers controlling the police).
Some of them(people at the party) could barely read and write, let alone sum and substract. Chosen incompetents because they served the party better. Thinking on your own was a bad habit there.
Personal charity does not make you communist or contrary to capitalism. Communist forces OTHERS to work for free for the community(and specially for those who control the community).
But I'm not joining a communist cell just for the comradeship.
reply