If this concept were rewritten, from the ground up, without any thought toward prior versions of it:
I think it would start with:
How much land, exactly, at a minimum, does every single person need, to sustain themselves? This amount of land should be given to every single human born, for free. The amount of land is actually small: it’s only the amount of land needed for a sustenance garden. Or, a sustenance garden, a few animals, a bed, a toilet. This is a very small amount of land. It’s certainly not even an acre or a half acre. In the middle ages, a sustenance garden was about ten feet by fifteen feet, and usually was filled with giant turnips because these were the most efficient use of a sustenance garden. Anyway, the basic kit provided to each newborn human by their worldwide fellows should be: just enough land to sustain themself as a native, and, just enough farming education and seeds and baby animals, and basic supplies for a bed, a small shelter (single enclosed small room simple shelter), simple basic toilet/plumbing/running water and/or outhouse system. A basic minimum size of land for each person. Maybe a quarter acre each? A third acre?
Outside of the fact that this isn't communism or socialism at all, I have several questions.
First, imagine you get your idea in place, the land is given to peoples but it belongs to everyone collectively, great, now how do you enforce that to make sure it stays that way? Or put in an other way, if a group of jackasses with guns decides that their land isn't gonna belong to the collective anymore and shoot whoever argues, what do you do? Do you have an army or a militia on standby in case something like that happens that you can send? I'm assuming you would still have a court system, so how would it handle the case? What would be the potential sentence in this case? Do the criminals still get a piece of land afterward?
Secondly, if everyone is busy with farming their plot, what about other sectors of production? If I'm a worker at a shoe factory, I need to work at least a minimal amount on the factory so that peoples, shoe factory workers included, can get shoes. But any amount of time I work the factory is time I don't use to farm my plot, possibly not enough to feed myself. You can't take part of other peoples' harvest to help the factory workers because that would be a form of tax and you said no taxes. So what then? Do the shoes factory workers get to go 'screw this' and quit factory work to spend all their time farming, and whoever needs new shoes will have to do with what they have or make new ones themselves? And I picked shoes as an example, but what about critical medical substances like insulin? What about the water treatment plants who prevent drinking water from getting contaminated with nasty stuff and poisoning peoples? I suppose you would be very much against forcing these peoples to keep working at gunpoint, so how do you deal with this problem without forcing anyone?
Thirdly, what if a drought or some other natural disaster happens and too few crops survived on each plots to feed their owners? Again, you can't take from peoples who had a good harvest in an other region because that would be a form of taxes, and see second point for why getting some peoples to spend some of their time working on a communal farm instead of their personal farms would be problematic. How do you feed these peoples then? Where do you get the food they need from? And what about peoples who can't do farm work even if they wanted to, handicapped, the elderly?
That's cute and all, but I think you neglected to consider where the sustenance your system provides is supposed to come from, see my questions above.
Also, I would argue that unless you envision peoples digging their farmland with their bare hands, peoples would still need to "do a series of other unrelated things just to get food", because peoples would need to get tools which means you will need at least a few peoples spending time making said tools.
Further, I think you should consider whether peoples want to "take care of themselves naturally". I have a lot of respect for farmers but I personally have no desire to become one, and since there are many peoples who do like farm-work, I would rather leave it to them than do it myself. And I'm sure a lot of peoples would agree with that sentiment, not everyone wants to or is able to do harsh physical labor under a scorching summer sun or in the cold of winter for hours on end.
With no disrespect, that vision is extremely naïve. You need to think about how you can go from a capitalist world to this, how it would work in practice and so many other factors you have to consider.
You're still talking about one of the most individualistic society one can imagine. And if someone is given property of land, it cannot be communism. Or socialism for that matter.
It's in the name you know? Communism or socialism are about doing things together. That's the polar opposite of you being alone on your private, self sustainable kingdom.
Marxism is fundamentally about collectivizing all of production and distribution. Anarchism is more about communalization. This goes somehow a third way, towards individualizing all of production. It's just preparing the basis for capitalism again, and you couldn't even establish this outright.
I did, and I maintain what I said.
Lmao no.
Maybe I could if you put some lines breaks (two spaces or a \ at the end of a sentence and then a newline)\
or split the paragraphs (put a blank line in between)