capitalism may be unfair and sometimes dangerous but it is completely natural and works with human nature unlike communism which works against human nature and tries to control it
It is human nature to submit to outside authority?
Given all the rebellions, revolutions, etc. throughout history, and the natural tendency of people to reject outside control, detest being coerced, etc. I must strongly disagree.
Edit: As for the Spanish cities, they were actually anarchist, and the anarchist experience was destroyed not by Franco's fascists, but rather by communists following Moscow.
Bolsheviks, not communists. The Spanish anarchists tended to lean towards collectivism (at least during the short time of the Revolution), but they were far closer to proper communism than the authoritarians of the Comintern.
No - you make what you can. If we go back to my example of a fairly unique 'proper' capitalist system, there's no exploitation - someone needs to do work that makes nothing, for example paying to keep the mine working and managing the thing, and so he takes what the people using the mine make since it is, after all, his mine
Money does not work the mine, workmen and women do.
Capital does not manage the mine, workmen and women do (although, under a capitalist system, these individuals are separate from the ones actually working in the mines; this inefficiency would be corrected in socialism).
Capitalists themselves do absolutely nothing. They put up capital, yea, but where did they get that capital in the first place? They certainly did not create it; it was, again, working people who invented uses for the mineral, who found the mineral deposits, and who dug the mine.
I like our system because communism says that when there are two men in a mine, one of whom can shift fifty pounds of coal and one who can shift ten, both are somehow entitled to 30 - that doesn't make sense. You get what you can get, that's how it should work.
What if each person is only able to use five pounds? Anything more than that is superfluous; it is irrelevant if one is able to generate more than the other, when both are generating more than they need.
In capitalism, each working person works to produce far more value than he/she uses, as this is the source of the capitalist's profit; unpaid labor.
What shouldn't happen is that people who are good at what they do get their produce taken from them to pay for people who are lazy.
Kropotkin made the interesting argument that virtually all "laziness" is a consequence of capitalism (which you might read from him, as I do not recall the specifics); that under communism very few cases of legitimate "laziness" would exist, and these few cases would be much too trivial to affect the overall economic prosperity of the commune (and, regardless, these cases could, if necessary, be dealt with by expulsion of the troublesome individual from the commune).
Is this correct? So everyone owns everything - that sounds like nobody owns anything to me
Correct, in the sense of a commune. No one owns the factories, houses, and fields; they are all free to all to use (though of course one has
control over his/her own home, such that people cannot just come in at 2 o'clock in the morning and disrupt your sleep or appropriate your microwave). However, as communism is anti-authoritarian, if a person outside the commune wishes to have personal control over his plot of land and his home, we will not interfere with him, so long as he does not make use of wage labor.
