Oh, the irony. By the way, care to respond to my post?
Notice the very important word in what you quoted, "if". The person basically said I had the same ideas as Stalin. Which is a really stupid thing to say, 'cause, like, I had already said I disliked government. Moreover, I had said nothing of the sort. Moreover, I've engaged in much more than just name-calling with people who have different ideas.
Which is more important for human survival, bread or diamonds? Hmm, then I wonder why diamonds cost a lot more than bread. It might have something to do with economics. It is true that bread is more important in general than diamonds but we have plenty of bread and fewer diamonds so any individual loaf of bread isn't important.
Because the diamond miners keep the price so high? Considering that artificial diamonds are just as good....
Almost anyone can pick up a broom and sweep. A lot fewer people can slice open a human skull without puking into it or making the person worse off than before. Therefore, even though janitors are important in general, no individual janitor is important because they are so plentiful.
Your argument seems to be that scarcity+demand means that something should cost more. I disagree. We are approaching this from completely different perspectives.
Personally, I think that few of you have ever bothered to engage beyond name calling with people who have radically different opinions to you.
I'm sorry if we gave this impression.
It's not everyone, just many.
Just answer this question please: how do I convince someone to do something for me in a moneyless society?
Say I want to go in a foreign country but I don't own a plane nor I can pilot one. Should I just find someone who do, and ask him to take me there? What if this person doesn't want to go there, for instance because he thinks he has more interesting things to do?
I would suggest that it would be perfectly possible that there would be regular flights between major destinations 'cause that's what some people like doing to contribute to society.
How do I convince people to work so that I can eat something everyday? If I can't use money, does that mean that in order to have the right to receive some food, I would be required to work too? Does that mean that my economic activities would be planified by some central bureaucracy? Of course I have no problem with working to get some food, but I don't like the idea of people telling me what work exactly I must do and when.
So you don't work for a company then? You work on your own? In a true communist society, I doubt there would be a central bureaucracy, because such things would inevitably produce inequality.
Perhaps what would happen is that people building widgets would notice their stock of gadgets is running low. They might ring up the gadget makers and ask them to send a pile over. The gadget makers say, no worries! Or, perhaps there is an automated system, whereby gadgets get set to the widget makers every month. The widgets then get sent to the distribution center, where they are given out to the people who want them. Personally, I don't like the widgets made by the Daiichi Widget Factory, so I get my widgets from Daini Widget Factory. But most people like the number one widgets, and so only a few people work at the number two factory.
I'm a computer person, so I help out both widget factories with their computers as, and when needed. At other times I go and look after kids at the crèche, or perhaps paint a picture or two. Not many people like my paintings, but enough do that it does contribute. Other people paint just because they like painting, but they consider it a hobby, rather than "work".
In a same way that you think that with capitalism free market eventually ends, I think that communism eventually ends up with forced labour.
I think that capitalism = forced labor. I think that true, proper, communism (no government, no state, no classes, gift economy), would end up with people sharing because they want to. People work because they would otherwise be bored.
We already produce more than sufficient food to feed everyone. We are post-scarcity. Even if everyone worked only half as much (or less) we would still have enough. Partly, this is because in the current system so much energy is going into unproductive labor (finance, including debt-collection and management, government, misc other bureaucracies).
What I've written above is one possible way a society might run, there are many many possibilities. The main point being, that as an anarchist, I would reject any society that wasn't free. And so central bureaucracies and similar are a big no no. But to quote Malatesta, "t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses".
Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter (in this thread at least). I direct people who are interested in discussing anarchism (the left sort, not the fake sort), communism, or other stuff, to RevLeft. I don't post there, but they have other knowledgeable people who are more interested in banging their heads than me.