Can't refute these clearly yet, help!

[Imposter Marxist]

Nevermind, I got this.

[Imposter Marxist]

And he thinks the "Wage" system has its uses.

[Action Johnny]

Recently me and my friend (Who is a Non-marxist/democratical socialist) and I have been talking. His arguments against being a Communist are the following..

The State is needed, and he cant imagine anything working without it.
Communism would require a global Socialist society, which is impossible due to diffrences in opinons.
Its too authoritarian.
A stateless society cannot work



1. If he can't imagine that, well, then it's his problem.
2. I believe that some sort of federalist system would be established country to country and globally.
3. The end goal is a stateless and classless society, explain that the dictatorship of the proletariat is transitional stage in the revolutionary movement.
4. Why not?

[Audeamus]

And he thinks the "Wage" system has its uses.

What uses does he think wage labor has? A class of people who have no recourse but to sell their labor power, and a class of people owning the means of production are an integral part of wage labor, as much as exploitation and alienation of labor are part of it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Recently me and my friend (Who is a Non-marxist/democratical socialist) and I have been talking. His arguments against being a Communist are the following..

The State is needed, and he cant imagine anything working without it.
Communism would require a global Socialist society, which is impossible due to diffrences in opinons.
Its too authoritarian.
A stateless society cannot work


Well, #1 is the same as #4, in which I'll answer then.

That's like saying global Capitalism is impossible because of differential opinions. Guess not.

Yeahhhh, what Action Johnny said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

[Kléber]

I do agree that a stateless society can "work" (the state did not always exist, that which was built can be knocked down) but there was still a state in Catalonia, even if you take the Republican Government out of the picture. The territory controlled by Nestor Makhno's RIAU and Kim Jwa-jin's KAF were states too. People with guns and officers shooting people in the defense of social interests is a state, even if it's a revolutionary workers' state that intends to disband itself one day.

[whore]

I do agree that a stateless society can "work" (the state did not always exist, that which was built can be knocked down) but there was still a state in Catalonia, even if you take the Republican Government out of the picture. The territory controlled by Nestor Makhno's RIAU and Kim Jwa-jin's KAF were states too. People with guns and officers shooting people in the defense of social interests is a state, even if it's a revolutionary workers' state that intends to disband itself one day.
depends on your definition of state.

i bet that the friend has a definition closer to an anarchist definition than to your (marxian) definition. that is not to say that those times and places were anarchistic (or, indeed, to say that there were not). anarchists can say that there is not a state, and not an anarchist system.

anyway, as to society not surviving without a state, i say three things. do you obey the law because of the punishment that will occur if you dont (which doesnt work anyway, as people still break the law), or because it is sensible (traffic lights)? do you accept that the state is based on violence, and that you cannot have a state without violence, and why people would object to this? can you see that all states are authoritarian?

as to a global communist system, there are two options. one, is that there is an integrated global system (similar to the integrated global capitalist system we have now, except without the profit motive, invasions, states and all that shit). the other is many independent communities. both are plausible, but with modern information and communication technologies (ict), even with independent communities, they will still share information etc.

[zimmerwald1915]

The State is needed, and he cant imagine anything working without it.
The state is needed to prevent class antagonisms from ripping society apart. It is needed to secure the exploitative position of a society's dominant class from those it exploits; it does so primarily by force. Remove exploitation, remove class antagonisms, you remove the state. The attributes the state has acquired in modern capitalist society (the organizer of social welfare, for example) are very recent, and demanded of the state by the current historical period. They are not essential attributes of the state. Social welfare prior to the development of capitalism was largely not the business of the state: even when the state regulated the distribution of welfare funds (the Poor Law comes to mind) the actual money was collected and distributed through religious or other organizations. The state's current welfare apparatus was copied largely from working-class benefit societies set up by workers for other workers, and largely run through the unions: in some countries, the unions still manage such collections and disbursements on behalf of the state. Mutual aid and solidarity, while your friend may associate them with the state, in fact have nothing to do with it, except insofar as it coopts them for its own purposes after they've developed already.


Communism would require a global Socialist society, which is impossible due to diffrences in opinons.
Yes to the first, no to the second. Communist society is not created by people all coming around to liking communist ideas. Its foundations are laid by the abolition of capitalism: the logical endpoint of all workers' struggles, whether they actually develop that far in real life or not (whether or not they do so is based on the conditions in which the struggle develops, the preexisting experience of the workers/antagonists involved, etc.). The creation of global capitalist society has not been impeded by the existence of communists: it was the logical endpoint of capitalism, reached after centuries of back and forth historical development. So too, communism's development is historical development.


Its too authoritarian.
Is authority bad? Your friend has already expressed his belief in the need for a state, the most authoritarian social body we know of. So this authority is good, to him. Authority here is connected to the organizing, ordering principle. According to this model, authority, after increasing in magnitude, reaches a point where it changes from good to bad. How much authority is too much? Where does your friend get the right to decide how much is too much?

Of course, the issue can be avoided altogether because communist society isn't authoritarian, but it's worth bringing up.


A stateless society cannot work
The first couple hundred thousand years of human society disagree. A class society cannot work without a state.

[El Rojo]

to blast no. 3 a little bit; everyone who argues against Communism always *****es about the dictatorship of the proletariat. unfair, too authoritarian, ect ect. but the proletariat is like 99% of the worlds population, and still makes up the majority in most 1st world countries. If the proletariat is in charge, how can this be authoritarian? Mob rule (not to associate mob rule with the proletariat) is direct democracy, the will of the people. That is supposed to be the most sovereign power in our current political system (its not), sooo the dict. of the proletariat is merely true democracy, where the majority of the people hold power. How can it be authoritarian?

[Dimentio]

Recently me and my friend (Who is a Non-marxist/democratical socialist) and I have been talking. His arguments against being a Communist are the following..

The State is needed, and he cant imagine anything working without it.
Communism would require a global Socialist society, which is impossible due to diffrences in opinons.
Its too authoritarian.
A stateless society cannot work



1. The deficiency of a state does not mean no order.

2. Actually not. It would just demand a territory which is self-sustaining in terms of resources, education and infrastructure (but that is my own observation).

3. Ask him to define it more clearly.

4. The deficiency of a state does not mean no order.

[j-mak]

Am i the only one who thinks wage labor is a much better system than the communistic idea that everyone should get an equal allowance?
Wage labor gives reason to have the more stressful, harder jobs.

[Crux]

What communist idea that everyone should have equal allowance? Right me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure Marx blasted that myth to pieces already in the 1840's.

I don't think threatening someone's livelihood is the best way to create incentive, but that's just me.

[Crux]

Recently me and my friend (Who is a Non-marxist/democratical socialist) and I have been talking. His arguments against being a Communist are the following..

The State is needed, and he cant imagine anything working without it.
Communism would require a global Socialist society, which is impossible due to diffrences in opinons.
Its too authoritarian.
A stateless society cannot work


1. The state fills a function pertaining to the present form of society, yes. But that's what we want to change, no?

2. Society is not defined by opinions, and we already have a global society.

3. Based on what?

4. That's the same as 1.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Am i the only one who thinks wage labor is a much better system than the communistic idea that everyone should get an equal allowance?
Wage labor gives reason to have the more stressful, harder jobs.

It doesnt actually work like that, usually the jobs that are harder and more stressful and damaging to the individual who has to do that work are those jobs which are paid the least...

[Muzk]

Am i the only one who thinks wage labor is a much better system than the communistic idea that everyone should get an equal allowance?


Wage labor gives reason to have the more stressful, harder jobs. It doesnt actually work like that, usually the jobs that are harder and more stressful and damaging to the individual who has to do that work are those jobs which are paid the least...We don't give a flying fuck about equal wages, we want everyone to be paid according to their contribution to societys economy.

The goal of "equal wages" is a giant lie.


"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."

It's actually quite common among "leftists" that they think equal wages would be a good thing. I, just recently, found out that it is not this way, and that the bourgeoise/ancaps/whoever actually spread this lie.

[chegitz guevara]

We don't give a flying fuck about equal wages, we want everyone to be paid according to their contribution to societys economy.

The goal of "equal wages" is a giant lie.

It's actually quite common among "leftists" that they think equal wages would be a good thing. I, just recently, found out that it is not this way, and that the bourgeoise/ancaps/whoever actually spread this lie.

Only in socialism, or, the first stage of communism. Wage equalization (actually wage negation) is the precondition of the 2nd stage of communism, or, full communism.

Lenin discusses this in The State and Revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

Recently me and my friend (Who is a Non-marxist/democratical socialist) and I have been talking. His arguments against being a Communist are the following..

The State is needed, and he cant imagine anything working without it.
Communism would require a global Socialist society, which is impossible due to diffrences in opinons.
Its too authoritarian.
A stateless society cannot work


I and 4 are the same, so there's really only three objections.

1. As comrades have mentioned, the state, which Marxists understand as the repressive parts of the government (the police, the courts, the military, etc.) are necessary in a class society or a society in which class antagonisms have yet to be overcome, such as socialism. Once these antagonisms disappear, with no one to repress, the state "withers away."

2. Communism would require a global socialist society, but that doesn't mean we'd necessarily all be under one world government. The United States and Canada pretty much have the same society, but two different governments. Whether or not the world unites under one government or has many is a decision for the people of that future world.

3. His objections contradict themselves. A stateless society cannot be authoritarian. Nonetheless, this is a legitimate critique of previous and current attempts to create a socialist societies. It is necessary to point out that these are societies under siege. That is, external and internal forces are working to destroy such societies, and they are forced to adopt authoritarian means for survival. Every society facing an existential threat does the same.

* Capitalism is destroying the basis for civilization. Left unchecked, the capitalism will destroy the climactic conditions that allowed humanity to reach this level of civilization and population. If we don't place the world on a rational, planned footing, billions will die premature deaths, and civilization will collapse. Even if communism or socialism isn't workable, we need to stop capitalism. Socialism is our last, best hope, for a high level of civilization in the future. If it is workable, we owe humanity the chance to make it work.

[Red Commissar]

Along with these, you should convince your friend to see the similarities rather than differences. If he slides too far he might end up with the third-way social democrats.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

1. Just because there's no state it doesn't mean there's no rules etc. (although I hope they'd be few), it just means we do it ourselves instead of others forcing there rules on us.
2. A global society would occur should there majority be suitably enlightened.
3. I believe most Anarchists/Communists want freedom to do what you want so long as that doesn't affect other peoples freedom - hardly Authotarian.
4. See point 1.

[CartCollector]

to blast no. 3 a little bit; everyone who argues against Communism always *****es about the dictatorship of the proletariat. unfair, too authoritarian, ect ect. but the proletariat is like 99% of the worlds population, and still makes up the majority in most 1st world countries. If the proletariat is in charge, how can this be authoritarian? Mob rule (not to associate mob rule with the proletariat) is direct democracy, the will of the people. That is supposed to be the most sovereign power in our current political system (its not), sooo the dict. of the proletariat is merely true democracy, where the majority of the people hold power. How can it be authoritarian?

I'm assuming the friend is referring to state capitalism when he says "communism is authoritarian." It's not hard to see why, the state capitalists called themselves "communists" and lots of people believed them on both the Left and Right.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm assuming the friend is referring to state capitalism when he says "communism is authoritarian." It's not hard to see why, the state capitalists called themselves "communists" and lots of people believed them on both the Left and Right.
And nowadays, state capitalists call themselves anything from neo-liberals to social democrats. :rolleyes: