In their day violence was a much more common daily fact of life.
Peaceful revolution wasnt really an option.
(It could also be that they were picked by historians/publishers over those more nonviolently oriented for just this reason. We certainly dont see authors that offered nonviolent means, though they must have existed. Thoreau couldnt have been the only one.)
Nonviolent revolution may be more likely today, but when it really comes to cutting the nuts, do you expect hitlary, et al, to put their heads in the noose willingly?
As for regaining the narrative regarding communism, part of getting the masses to stand on their own two feet will be getting them to recognize that their most cherished beliefs are wrong.
That their most trusted authorities lied to them.
That they need to examine their beliefs to see if that is what they actually know to be the truth, or if they have accepted it blindly through faith.
This one will be difficult for nearly everybody 'educated' in the united snakes.
That makes it broadly applicable to what i wish to accomplish.
Causing us all to think critically before accepting something as truth.
Folks will largely have to learn to live with having been wrong.
That wont be very easy for most of them, too emotionally attached to their infalibility illusions.
I think volutaryism continues trading this for that, communism does away with that.
Though you still trade your time for standing in the community, the willingness to withold your contribution doesnt necessarily mean you will starve or be forced to be naked under a bridge.
Voluntaryism continues that option on the part of goods manufacturers.
Either jump through the hoops the voluntaryists erect, or do without.
Not very voluntary if you ask me.
Still there is this disparity in your offered communist position that in one context, you say 'no rule by force', but within the same context there continues to be the offering up of the authors of force of revolution, and 'putting heads in nooses'.
You have become much better in arguing your position, but this contradiction continues to repeat. I think Emma may be a singular writer that doesn't use force of revolution, but it is taking time to sift through her work and find mention of it.
What hoops are you seeing under voluntaryism?
Taking rule by force off the table means violent revolution wont be needed to change things.
Voluntary hoop:
Submit to exploitation by a have to get money, or starve.
The havenots are not free if they have to dance to get food from a have.
I dont expect all of those that rule by force to surrender their priviliges willingly, they will have to be forced from power.
What final stands they make remains to be seen, maybe they will all break weak.
-"Taking rule by force off the table means violent revolution wont be needed to change things."
I completely get what your saying, but the authors you keep citing have rule by force as a premise.
Kropotkin and Berkley specifically, they make your argument in this area weaker.
-"Submit to exploitation"
The many facets about what is often perceived as exploitation are addressed here:
If you think he somehow gets the nuances of it wrong, let me know where, as he does a pretty detailed job of the subject as far as I can tell.
I don't see a specific mandatory requirement for money within voluntaryism, or that money would lead to the 'surplus value' problem I think communism is concerned with.
Privileges are only granted by power, and when they find they have no power, then there is no privileges.
I had to check out, the guy's accent was driving me, i made it to the 15min mark.
If you got a link to a text copy, id be glad to read it.
The guy presumes that the worker can wait, that he has sufficient crapital to live while waiting for these future goods.
The worker wouldnt sell his labor if this was true.
Show me how to escape this and i wont call it exploitive.
The crapitalust pays the lowest wage possible thereby insuring the worker cant escape the plantation.
Which again, largely becomes accademic in freedom.
When rule by force stops sucking sooo much to the few this wont really be an issue.
Workers will become scarcer as money spreads out.
Voluntaryism will end in a cooperative, and therefore, communist society.
When scarcity no longer is the driving force of so many life becomes much more relaxed.
No worries. As far as I can tell there is no presumption made that the worker can wait. The assumption is the worker has time preferences on the return of his labor.
Time preferences also show up in communist models.
There is no proof that voluntaryism will end in a economic model where the products of labor are taken from the worker and distributed (or even distributed 'equally') by a social construct.
As we discussed before demand is the 'pull' part of the system, and scarce resources will remain scarce unless the motivate to produce the resources is directly linked to the need. Social distribution uncouples the motivation from the need. As Hoppe mentions, you get less resources.
https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=document