There's this constant thought of something being 'taken away', but that's not the right way to think about it.
Yeah, well, what if we do think about it that way, because, you know, we've invested decades of our lives working and struggling and scrimping and saving to buy it, and now you're taking it away, and telling us you will have the right to SHOOT US for resisting YOU when you come to steal OUR SHIT because you'll be DEFENDING YOURSELF against US.
In socialism and on the road to real communism, you need to own less and less. It doesn't make sense to own a piece of land under communism because there's no real reason anyone would claim such a ridiculous notion of 'owning the land' to begin with: you don't need exclusive access to the thing.
Oh, I'm sure that'll work out great when one farmer is trying to grow corn on the same plot of land a farmer wants to grow strawberries.
And you have an unstated premise. WHY would we need to own less and less? Why doesn't it make sense to own a piece of land under communism? Why wouldn't someone need exclusive access to land if they were, for instance, a cattle farmer who needs to feed his cattle in the same fields that another worker is trying to grow squash?
Why do none of your answers even consider these questions?
You mention your dad has walnut trees on his property. Maybe someone else wants to plant apple trees. Yes, absolutely that is an issue to resolve. But the resolution to that issue, under communism, will be solved differently than who has the slip of paper saying they 'own' the land to plant it on.
So the walnut trees that his father has been growing for 30 years could be cut down because some fucking ad hoc party process could vote that he has no right to grow them on his property, instead the guy who wants to grow apples has that right instead? Why are all your arguments so fucking bad? What right do you have to tell a man with 30 year old walnut trees to cut them down so another man can plant apple trees? Fuck you and fuck that. Oh wait, now you're going to shoot me for dissenting!
Oh, in another thread you were arguing that human history, the full scope of human history, its evolutionary part, didn't matter.
You have to look at a much bigger picture, the picture of human history,
Now we have to look at the "picture of human history" in context? What context? Your context?
Because your context ignores 100,000 years of human evolution, and focuses on basically the past 6000 years to the exclusion of all others.
Anyway, there's that Eurocentric view of the progressive nature of culture, that racist bigoted view that allowed Europeans justification for conquering the Americas, Africa, India and Asia and subjugating their people to mass genocide and slavery and exploitation coming through your rhetoric again as well.
