Opting out of communism?

[Patron Saint Awesome]

I feel that Rousseau's social contract cover's this thoroughly. One's presence in society creates a debt, and since you befit for a good bit of you're life (until you become an adult) you're beholden to the contract. You can change the conditions of it, but you can't deny it.

[Comrade #138672]

Marxists were always Lemarkians! They loved the theory of developmental traits being inherited rather than genetic ones. It's almost compatible with historical materialism. Lemarkkians were exiled and murdered in the Soviet Union (you can Google that)! But it's not true. Humans inherit at least 50% of their genes.Nonsense. Marxism is not inherently opposed to the idea that genes are inherited and do not change during one's lifetime (although there is epigenetics, which is different from Lamarckism). However, Marxism is opposed to genetic determinism, just like science is.

[Aslan]

A communist society would be more economically advanced than capitalism could ever hope to be. This is because contrary to what Libertarians think the free market is not the panacea of human society. Communism relies on human ingenuity and cooperation which is the opposite of a capitalist society. Communism also has the purest form of democracy that can exist. Just tell them that an AnCap Society would not be truly free as a capitalism always degenerates into corporatism. Tell them that Austrian economics is nonsense and that it is an vile ideology greater than even fascism.

[motion denied]

this thread, brought you directly from the world of the dead by

[Sibotic]

Marxists were always Lemarkians! They loved the theory of developmental traits being inherited rather than genetic ones. It's almost compatible with historical materialism. Lemarkkians were exiled and murdered in the Soviet Union (you can Google that)! But it's not true.
Do you just mean that the Soviet Union weren't Marxists because Lamarckianism is really important to Marxism (which it isn't, it's a luxury.)? While Marx and Engels may have had Lamarckian sympathies, it would be misleading to suggest that they were Lamarckians, as they had some respect for Darwin which continued to later Marxists. It might be more relevant to bring up how Marx liked Trémaux and thought of them as in some ways superior to Darwinian evolution, although obviously Marx's views on biology were probably closer to biology's forms since then than his views on economics were to later economics, mostly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A communist society would be more economically advanced than capitalism could ever hope to be. This is because contrary to what Libertarians think the free market is not the panacea of human society. Communism relies on human ingenuity and cooperation which is the opposite of a capitalist society. Communism also has the purest form of democracy that can exist. Just tell them that an AnCap Society would not be truly free as a capitalism always degenerates into corporatism. Tell them that Austrian economics is nonsense and that it is an vile ideology greater than even fascism.

If capitalism "degenerates" then it seems there is some pure, "good" form of capitalism. As if. Capitalism, even (particularly) mom-and-pop-and-apple pie small enterprise capitalism, is shit (for us; for capitalists it works quite well but who's asking them?). The modern large business corporation is simply a particularly efficient form of capitalism - and more importantly (as socialism is not concerned with capitalist efficiency), it represents the objective socialisation and global nature of modern industrial production. Compared to small proprietorships, co-operatives etc., the modern business corporation is progressive. And "corporatism" doesn't mean an economy where some of the firms are corporations, that's a loonbertarian redefinition of the word; it means a society where supposed (cross-class) interest groups are represented on an official level; for example, fascist Italy, Mexico under the PRI, the modern European Union and so on.

edit: Also lol at all the people going "sure you'll be able to opt out of communism" two years ago.

[Ricemilk]

Unfortunately the question involves too many assumptions, simplifications, and abstractions to make much sense. We don't really know what a communist society would look like, nor an anarchist society, nor anything really beyond general outlines of a theory. So wondering about specific issues within this abstraction is rather silly.
Yet, anarchists have (for a time) successfully planned for such contingencies in advance, when the Revolution was underway or looming; for example, Santillan's geopolitical and economic plan for CNT to administer their bit of the Spanish Revolution, dating 1936. To paraphrase: Other than children, the old and the sick/infirm/disabled, those who would eat from the public kitchens must work; if they prefer to try some form of individualism instead of working for a society at large, let them try raising their own modern farm and give them however much time they need to realize they prefer being part of things. Similar hands-off approach to the inevitable non-syndicalist, non-anarchist and/or non-communist forms: give it a shot and if it works out, more power to ya. Those who would exploit others, however, it would be incompatible with communism to simply allow them to do it. Though some anarchists may prefer a bloodless attrition campaign to a forcible liberation op for logistical or political reasons.