Next let's talk about the right to live on a piece of land without paying someone else for the privilege.
Step 2. Plant a flag[0]
Step 3. Declare the land now belongs to you and a descendants.
If anyone is interested in reading the book, which I can only describe as captivating and cutting, you can read it here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudho...
Thank you for mentioning this, I hope more people become interested in the idea.
Communists killed an order of magnitude more people than the Fascists did. The Khmer Rouge killed around a quarter of their entire population.
As well as Marx, interested people should read Mises as well, and decide for themselves which approach is the moral one:
>Socialist critics [during the time of the USSR and others] include George Orwell (known for his criticism of totalitarian Socialism in Animal Farm), economist I.I Rubin, the anarchists which the USSR suppressed, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Bookchin, and later on Hobsbawm, Trotsky (to some extent), Sylvia Pankhurt (and various other feminists) etc.
Furthermore, Communism does not necessarily entail Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism. Do you not think it should be the responsibility of modern day Marxists to find problems with previous attempted implementations, and find ways to fix those problems? Marxism is after all a method of analysis, and can be recursively applied to itself.
Mises is an interesting choice for a 'moral' theory, given the theory of primitive accumulation, property acquired through barbarism, and the exploitative and environmentally damaging nature of capitalism itself, regardless of application. Marx's theory does not rely upon notions of morality, though - it posits merely what is in the interest of the workers themselves. This is why Marx and Engels hoped to advance a scientific theory of Socialism.
Edit: it's also rather comical that the term 'libertarian' was transformed to be about some narrow form of property ownership rather than freedom itself, ironically not realising the tyranny of property and its contrast with the ideas of equality, freedom and justice (Proudhon talks about this in the link in my previous comment). Bookchin and Chomsky have talked about this change, too.
It's an absurd context, you own a wedge of the earth because your great-granddad took it.
And by the way, communism isn't exactly a word you have to be afraid of, and accusing someone of opposing capitalism doesn't shut down the conversation nor mean they are incorrect.
I doubt that Stallman himself would consider them relevant since he, in my experience, takes every opportunity to disassociate himself from communism and anarchism; he is instead concerned with copyright, software patents, and other impediments to scientific progress. Therefore, to try to drag those former kinds of ideas into a thread specifically about the latter is to deliberately cause inflammatory and irrelevant discussion, and also to cause opponents of these former ideologies to connect the two in their minds, creating FUD about the latter.
In the mean time, however, we are all of us allowed to express our opinions on what is relevant and what is not.
His solution to that is a limited form of anarcho-communism—abolishing private intellectual property (while the FSF leveraged existing private intellectual property regimed to effect that goal) in favor of free public use.
Whether he approves of the label is pretty much irrelevant to whether what he advocates is in line with it.