...so I'm gonna tell you something here instead.
I think a future communist society would have more nomads. For the bulk of humanity's existence, nomadic life was the norm. Property and contractual obligation has made settled life mandatory in most of the imperial core, with a slim handful of exceptions.
Here in the states, the contradiction is mind-boggling. We're told the settlement of America was necessary to the establishment of freedoms, that nobody else enjoys as much liberties as we do today. And yet, for those "liberties", we had to stop people from leading nomadic lives. Corralled and marched people miles, so they could be free. Stole babes from families, so they could be free. Free to do what, exactly?
Centuries ago, nomadic life was a fundamental freedom for millions. Maybe it could be again...
~
...not that I know what that nomadic life would look like, or how it would interplay with settled life... just that it seems like something that should be striven for
I can see it in a private-enterprise economy. Services for hire. Like traditional tinsmiths and silversmiths, even performers/carneys/acrobats. But I don't see how it'd be possible under communism.
the simple answer is that they just wouldn't be part of the planned economy and would just do what they have always done it's not like their lifestyle hurts anyone
I don't get this thread at all. The claim being made is "I think a future communist society would have more nomads" but there's no support for the claim.
I mean, sure, they could maybe keep doing what they've been doing under some forms of market socialism with private enterprise, but it wouldn't be part of communism.
It seems to me that the opposite is likelier to be true: a future communist society would have fewer nomads, like happened in the USSR