CynicalIdealist
24th January 2011, 08:04
So I was talking to a new comrade of mine today, and he has some interesting views. For one thing, he thinks that a transitory socialist society should retain the market because the market is one of the "better parts of capitalism." He also believes that Marx was wrong to advocate the abolition of money, as he thinks it's an easy system of exchange rather than a barter system.
Furthermore, he also thinks that anarchists are reactionary and childish, because he ultimately thinks that in a communist society there should still be a "world state" with a monopoly over power; that is, a global government with millions of representatives who are more capable of engaging in political work since political work is "their job." He believes in the abolition of nation-states, so I guess his technical view is in a world government rather than a world state, but nevertheless he's a bit of a Republican Communist in that sense.
My rebuttal to his world government argument was that a true communist society wouldn't need so much legislation, and my rebuttal to his belief in market socialism was that competition fosters inequality and domination, to which he responded that the state could be a mechanism for preventing competition from getting out of control. He also made other social democrat-ish remarks in that he pointed out that the French, Russian, Cuban et al. revolutions were led by the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie, not the workers (to which I responded that Russia was iirc).
So... I guess I couldn't tell whether I was arguing with a communist or an eventual spineless liberal. Thoughts? His belief in market socialism and skepticism of worker revolution concern me the most.
Furthermore, he also thinks that anarchists are reactionary and childish, because he ultimately thinks that in a communist society there should still be a "world state" with a monopoly over power; that is, a global government with millions of representatives who are more capable of engaging in political work since political work is "their job." He believes in the abolition of nation-states, so I guess his technical view is in a world government rather than a world state, but nevertheless he's a bit of a Republican Communist in that sense.
My rebuttal to his world government argument was that a true communist society wouldn't need so much legislation, and my rebuttal to his belief in market socialism was that competition fosters inequality and domination, to which he responded that the state could be a mechanism for preventing competition from getting out of control. He also made other social democrat-ish remarks in that he pointed out that the French, Russian, Cuban et al. revolutions were led by the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie, not the workers (to which I responded that Russia was iirc).
So... I guess I couldn't tell whether I was arguing with a communist or an eventual spineless liberal. Thoughts? His belief in market socialism and skepticism of worker revolution concern me the most.