Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

> nonsense

In simple terms, capitalist farmers produce a surplus, kibbutz farmers produce a deficit. Kibbutzen operate within a market economy and have all the resources of it that are available to the capitalist farmer - they still can't make a go of it.

> not a principle of communism.

Collective ownership of the means of production means confiscating it.

> Forced labor

When the collective decides that certain work must be done, and with no market forces, that means assigning people to the jobs. I.e. forced labor.

Thanks for the response. But is the civil war really a great example of that? Slavery seems largely orthogonal to capitalism. That's a war that could have happened in a communist or capitalist country.

Thanks for that. That seems like a pretty solid example. In reading about it, I would nitpick one detail that seems non-capitalist to me: they didn't allow the currency to float. This is a pretty big deal, from my admittedly limited understanding of economics.

If you don't allow the currency to float, your import/export ratios can't respond to market forces, and in a globalized economy this can be catastrophic, especially during a global downturn. To quote from the wiki:

"One of the junta's economic moves was fixing the exchange rate in the early 1980s, leading to a boom in imports and a collapse of domestic industrial production; this together with a world recession caused a serious economic crisis in 1982, where GDP plummeted by 14%, and unemployment reached 33%"

Of course, you can't prove a counter-factual. There's no way to know for sure what would have happened if they hadn't done this. But it seems to me that this, at least somewhat, mitigates the significance of this particular example.

>What evidence are you using to claim that laws against 'stealing' are one of the basic laws of society?

Maat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Negative_Confessions_....

>42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)[edit]

>1. I have not committed sin.

>2. I have not committed robbery with violence.

>3. I have not stolen.

>4. I have not slain men and women.

>5. I have not stolen grain.

Babylonian Law:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

>8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

>9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony--both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant.

Ancient Greek Law:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/brutal-draconian-laws...

>Plutarch, another ancient source for Draco, in his Life of Solon , claims that the penalty for the theft of an apple or a cabbage was death, and you could have someone made your personal slave if they owed you money. The writer also records that when Draco was asked the reason for making execution the punishment for most offences, the reply was that ‘Small ones deserve that (i.e. death), and I have no higher for the greater crimes.’

Biblical Law:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1%E...

>15 You shall not steal.

And pre-agricultural societies that we have accounts of universally prohibit theft as well. For example Australian Aborigine:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&contex...

>The process of the law was one of political negotiation that involved everyone in the community. When there was a dispute, the elders met to discuss the punishments: their word was LAW. Offences regarded as unlawful included the unauthorised killing of a person, sacrilege, incest, adultery, theft, unauthorised assault, insult and neglect of kinship obligations. Punishments could range from making compensation over an agreed period of time to having to face a squad of spearmen, with only a shield and that person's ability to protect himself.

The reason laws against theft are universally found is that theft creates harmful incentives. It doesn't matter what stage of civilization we reach: the fundamental dynamics of multiple parties co-existing make theft harmful to creating economic value.

This is something I would argue is self-evident. Not sure why you're so desperate to question the moral principle that theft is wrong.

>I just think we can imagine something better.

Moral principles are timeless. There is nothing "better" than not stealing, because it is a basic requirement for a functioning society. The only type of configuration better than 'not stealing' is 'not stealing' + doing something good. But not stealing, murdering, assaulting etc are the foundational principles that a functioning society has to build on top of.

No I am not confusing anything. Marx laid out what mainstream Communism is, and that includes expropriating property from people, and denying the people the right to engage in voluntary economic interactions.

You may be confused as to what 'voluntary economic interactions' means, so I'll explain:

This would be any kind trade enter into by two consenting adults, like for example, doing a number of hours of work in exchange for a number of units of currency. By denying the right of employers to hire workers on any terms other than giving workers all of the revenue generated by the business, communism denies the right to engage in the aforementioned class of voluntary economic interactions.

I really recommend you think about these concepts. You seem to have a very shallow understanding of what communism is, and the implications of what it advocates for.

To advocate for radical reconfigurations of society, brought about by force, without thinking through the moral implications, is very reckless and morally irresponsible.