I agree with your main point completely, that sharing is good. I fully embrace the whole sharing thing. I’m even a bigger fan of charity, or even consecration, which is what you get when you mix simple sharing with a dose of sacredness. That’s where the problem comes in with Communism, or even voluntary communalism.

You’ve already noted that Communism is a very bad idea. So I will just agree by suggesting that the legislating and forcing of “sharing” through Communism strips charity or consecration of its sacred counterpart. At that point, I’m not sure I would even call it sharing since there is no private property to “share.”

However: Forcefulness is not the only problem with Communism. Even the more general “communalism,” which can be practiced voluntarily, is still not a very good idea.

First, there is still no private property with which to “share.” Sure, we’ve given our time and talents to the good of the Common. But by handing it all property over, we’ve also handed over all responsibility that goes with that property to the Common. This is a problem because God seems to like to hold individuals accountable of their stewardships instead of the whole society (parable of the Talents, parable of the 10 Virgins).

Second, since there is no private property, the individual is completely dependent upon the Common. Here again is a problem as we are generally encouraged to be self-sustaining and independent. I’ve often wondered why we are asked to be self-reliant when Zion communities have been described as “having all things in common.” I’ve since discovered that there are at least two different ways to have “all things in common”: dependently or inter-dependently. It’s not hard to see that an inter-dependent system would benefit more people for a longer time than a dependent system. The caveat to inter-dependency, however, is that everyone involved must first learn to be independent. And, one cannot remain independent or inter-dependent without private property.

I can only assume that is why more than one prophet/apostle has said that the Law of Consecration is based upon private property.
http://tinyurl.com/yhgh4cn
http://tinyurl.com/yk5kx93
Communalism in any form is obviously the antithesis of private property.

So, I am a full supporter of charity. It is for this very reason that I want to retain my right to private property: So that I can have a say to whom or to which charity organization my sharing goes to (instead of the “charity” of the Fascist Fat Cats).