[Our_Benefactors]

Convenient excuse to claim your opponent doesn’t understand your argument. I do - you are advocating against people being able to spend as they see fit, by placing the “commonwealth” above the individual. It’s communism.

[uoaei]

Communism is when the threat of violence is used to enforce such a rule. I see it as a culture problem but do not wish to use violence to correct it. I think your boogeyman radar is off.

[Our_Benefactors]

I think you’re falling right into the classic “that’s not real communism” no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

[uoaei]

There are many kinds of communism, but someone asking others "please consider spending your privately-held money on slightly different private property and services" doesn't meet any definitions that I know of.

Communism as a political organizational principle requires by definition the use of force (via government) to enforce its dicta. Where did I advocate using force? Where did I mention or even imply the involvement of a government at all?

The word you may be thinking of is collectivism, as a counterpart to individualism, the axis of which obviously aligns much closer with the discussion we've been having above than anything on the capitalism/communism axis. But "collectivism" isn't a 20th century dog-whistle boogeyman so I can see why it dodged your reactionary tendencies.

[drc500free]

I think you're falling right into the classic "any kind of government or shared services is communism" fallacy.