The distinction between communism and individualism, between individually voluntary and involuntary, between emergent private property and anti-propertarianism is not one of any specific norm or organization but the process by which those norms or organizations emerge – with the individual qua individual as the basic unit or some concept of “the collective” as the basic unit.

Individualist sociocultural metanorms are not individually voluntary in any immediate sense, but they are functionally premised on the individual as the basic unit of emergence. And all norms are dynamic. They change bottom-up. Individualist organizations (ie. free market collective action) are individually voluntary in the immediate sense as they’re premised on the metanorm which allows for any norm emergent from the individual as basic unit.

Proposed communist norms have the collective – the council, the commune, the state, the party, the class, the society – as the basic unit of humanity.. which is nonsensical given that individuals are in fact the basic units of humanity and are not aggregatable into collectives as Arrow (and others) demonstrated, and this is why any kind of individually involuntary collectivism plays out as individual murder, individual death, and authoritarian rulership by individuals over other individuals. The very premise of the thing is nonsensical, making the ends impossible and means tragic.

eg.

Three things:

I.

I’d suggest looking at Arrow’s Impossibility Theorum to understand why “the collective” or “social choice” is a non-concept:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/arrow.htm
http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cm/m12-2/index.htm

II.

And if you can open this from where you are, fairly straight-forward on norm vs. metanorm:

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/5/461

And freedom as non-normative:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yQgdDp9E4XkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=quality+of+freedom&ei=_x-CS561OKa8zgS0lIiRCw&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

III.

“Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being…

Above all we must avoid postulating society again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Mans individual and species-life are not different, however much and this is inevitable the mode of existence of the individual is a more particular or more general mode of the life of the species..”

- Marx, Private Property and Communism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm