анонимный вопрос

The foundation of communist ideology lies in the same values of justice, equality, rejection of slavery, and the pursuit of cooperation between people as the foundation of libertarian ideology. Therefore, there is nothing terrible about someone being inspired by these wonderful ideas.

The difference between communists and libertarians is that communists do not believe in people. They believe that, left to their own devices, people will be unable to establish orders that lead them to prosperity, therefore communists must lead them and bring them to victory through armed struggle. Meanwhile, the soft-hearted libertarians, conversely, are filled with a strange, irrational confidence in the benefit of spontaneous orders established in the course of natural human activity; they say that the market will put everything in its place, that aggressive violence is unprofitable in the long run, and that the institutions practicing it are becoming obsolete.

Communists talk a lot about how desirable the nationalization of the means of production is, but when you show them someone like Sechin, it immediately turns out that such nationalization does not suit them. They usually prefer a situation where the enterprise is managed by those who work there. And this is already a normal, understandable starting position for a calm dialogue about the economic efficiency of various enterprise management models, and their compatibility and stability.

Communists talk a lot about the fight against exploitation, and libertarians about how taxes are theft. Nothing prevents us, in communicating with communists, from stating that taxes are exploitation. In doing so, we would not be sinning against the truth; we would simply be translating our thesis into a language understandable to them. Their ideal is a classless society. Our ideal is a stateless society. From the perspective of communists, the state is a tool by which the ruling class oppresses the others. I would say that this is a similarity to the point of confusion.

Therefore, one should not laugh at communists, or reject the entire complex of their ideas outright from the start. It makes sense to debate with them about the permissible means of achieving the goal. Does the love for investing full power in a charismatic leader contribute to the achievement of equality? Can the habit of seizing property from people without clear and unambiguously interpreted criteria as to why this is being done lead to civil peace? Can a classless society be achieved by appointing a hegemonic class? At what point does beneficial cooperation become harmful exploitation, and can the identification of this boundary be entrusted to the exploited themselves?

So, having a communist father is, generally speaking, not a bad thing. It means you always have an excellent topic for conversation. Practice on him; it will be useful in life. And within the family, communism is indeed in most cases the optimal system, so things are probably quite good in your family with a communist father. Well, or your father is an incorrect communist, which is also not surprising—the world is generally full of incorrect communists. It is these incorrect communists who create incorrect communist regimes, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela, but someday they will surely succeed if they start using the correct methods. You know, things like respect for human dignity, for property acquired through honest labor, for freedom of contract, and many other things dear to the heart of every true communist.