A society can be non-authoritarian without being unable to use force to accomplish its goals. “Authoritarianism” tends to pick out the suppression of key political liberties or a kind arbitrary rule. Note, these are particular uses of force. Not use of force generally.
So, a non-authoritarian communist society could straightforwardly use the agents of the state to stop people owning property (and note, there is supposedly a distinction between property and possessions. The Stasi aren’t going to come round and take Little Timmy’s teddy bear), provided the rules were made in a robust democratic fashion and the use of force wasn’t especially brutal and so on. Property relations just wouldn’t be the sort of relations that could legally be established.
If that’s too authoritarian for you (and so we are basically talking anarchism) then:
- The person with property claims could just not have those respected. He erects a fence, you climb over it, do stuff with the land etc. If he objects and uses force, you might have a defence claim against him
- You could shun him. If nobody trades with him and he’s isolated, his Galt’s Gulch won’t last very long. And if it does last, who cares? Is crazy old Joe in the wilderness really threatening the communist utopia?
And so on.
- Are Maoists the same as communist?
- How do we turn African Americans away from communism?
- Why do people still shame Germany for the Nazi Party, when China created North Korea and spread communism, which killed even more?
- What are the differences in the philosophies of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and the present day communist parties of India?
- What would the US look like if Che Guevara was the Secretary of Commerce during the 60s?
(I’m not a communist, not that it matters for the purposes of this answer)