Obviously there has to be some sort of incentive structure for humans to produce and invent.  However, I feel like I addressed this point in my post -- correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're arguing that in a communitarian system, there is a lack of incentive to invent and produce because one will not reap the benefits for one's self.  However, that assumes that one only cares about the welfare of one's self.  Whether it is true care for others or a selfishly-motivated desire to be liked and inhabit a positive community, human beings in general are naturally sociable creatures at the local level (obviously there are exceptions -- the serial killer, the serial rapist, etc.).  This likely is an evolutionary trait that we evolved during years and years of living in small scale tribal communities where one had to contribute in order to receive a piece of the pie because everyone's actions were there for all to see, but I'm not enough of a scientist or anthropologist to be able to really speculate as to the reason for this human characteristic.

Also, I have nowhere put forth the idea that there needs to be redistribution of income to live in a communitarian society.  To argue that anyone who sees merit in communitarianism wants to live in a completely communist society is a massive, massive, massive straw man.  I simply mean that there are certain physical aspects of the community -- say, nature reserves, commonly used commercial areas, trading centers -- that could have their societal benefits maximized by being communally owned and managed at the local level.  I argue this in opposition to the anarcho-capitalist idea that all things must be operated and owned by private individuals or companies.  A communitarian system makes sense at the local level because not only can it easily be maintained, but it also can be easily dismantled by those contributing to it by simply ceasing to give resources.  This makes corruption very difficult, and I would argue that it makes corruption more difficult than it would in an anarcho-capitalist society where the person who can be the most economically efficient can wield the most power.

If the greatest economic good for the individual is your goal, then I'd argue that you should be a statist, because the modern state system has been the most efficient system at subjugating the rest of humanity and reaping economic benefits for itself than any other system in the history of the world by mixing together elements of free market capitalism and state-guided authoritarianism.  The state makes economic gains for itself without ever lifting a finger every year on tax day when millions of people send them envelopes of money due to what could happen if they didn't -- how do you get much more efficient than that?  However, it's obvious that every single person can't be a statist, because who will mail them money?  This brings to light the idea of communitarianism -- if actual societal goods are your goal, then it might be useful to ask if maybe the problem isn't that we don't have enough individualism, but rather that we are attempting to form our communal bonds at the improper level.

also. simply noting that a drop in material production may be possible doesn't really mean much when it comes to creating an ethical society. honestly, i doubt that the decrease in the quality of production would be that significant, but for the sake of our  argument, i will grant you that this drop in production will happen.  the problem here is that you are equating production and material wealth with happiness, safety, true prosperity, maximized non-material utility, etc. fascist countries are very productive, probably more productive than free market countries, but they do not produce the greatest social good. im ok with a decrease in material wealth if that means something greater for me and for society.

However, you bring up a point that legitimizes voluntaryism IMO. Such a localized communitarian system would not be prohibited in a voluntaryist society. Under such an arrangement, individuals would be free to form (voluntary) collectives of all forms (a petri dish of sociological and economic systems). Those systems that are successful would thrive, while those that are not would wither and die. To me that is the strength of such an ideal- People can develop any type of social arrangements they see fit as long as they voluntarily agree to it.

dear sir. no economic law is immutable. please read up on your marx (and read it with an open mind because most right-libertarians can't do that)

I agree with you that there are some serious problems with Marx's theory.  However, as Mike Munger, chair of political science at Duke University and former Libertarian Party candidate for NC governor said to me, "I'm a big fan of Marx, I just can't stand Marxists."

For his time, Marx had some pretty cool ideas.  Granted, he also had some terrible ones.  But for example, we can look at his writing in Capital about the nature of capital accumulation and see that governmental coercion was heavily involved in accumulating the capital to create the modern ruling class and other such groups.

I just wouldn't discount every word Marx says because some of his ideas, like his value theory, can be called into question.

a.you should check out kevin carson's "studies in mutualist political economy".  he makes a very good attempt at reviving LTV, so good that even if you don't agree with it, it at least makes enough room for one to take people like Marx and Ricardo seriously.

b. not to be rude, but i've read alot of rothbard, and i'm not so sure about him. he's good, but....

c. if you want to check up on the definition of a "class" you should check up on the first few chapters of marx and engel's "the german ideology" its a real short read, and basically says that a class is defined by people who have separate interests from the rest of society, based in their division of labor within the materialist view of history. its kinda bunk, but its alright. however, you really want to check out more legit class theory i know that there is a pamphlet called "agorist class theory" and roderick long has written some good stuff on libertarian class theory as well. its worth checking out since marx made a very strong try, but fell short as far as class theory is concerned.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that the communitarian systems that I am speaking of would only be formed by consenting individuals.  Thus, it's not me deciding what is the greatest good for the individual or what is the greatest good for society, but rather individuals and societies deciding for themselves.  This is why it can only function at the local level -- there's no way you're going to get people over massive distances to voluntarily contribute to any kind of mutual aid society.

Also, just to clarify, I do think that economic theory is extremely important.  Having read Human Action, I also think there is a lot of credibility to Austrian economics.  However, I think that economic theory has its limits.  Productive power and efficiency certainly are important, but they are important as means, not ends.  I don't think that the end of mankind is to produce as much as possible.  Rather, it's to achieve happiness.  Economic efficiency and productive power are very important in achieving this happiness, but I do not think that they are the end all.  At times, I think it is legitimate to sacrifice some economic efficiency or physical wealth to achieve ends other than these, and this is what my communitarianism comes down to -- the idea that sometimes managing some properties as mutually owned may not be the most economically efficient method, but it may provide for overall community enjoyment better than the economically efficient method would.  i.e. parks, business strips, community centers, etc.  I have to reinforce that I am only for this at the local level.  The last thing I want is to establish some "happiness council" at the national level that decides what makes people happy.

I'm basically just trying to reinforce that we shouldn't flee from anything that hints of communitarianism, as sometimes there are legitimate reasons to consider the doctrine.

I wrote this really fast, I hope it makes sense.

My goal actually isn't to convince anyone of my views -- it's rather to mobilize the massive number of people who consider themselves members of the libertarian left but who feel they are in no way represented.  I'm hoping that if they see posts like this representing their viewpoints, they will come and join our cause.