>>2700734Our core disagreement lies in whether a qualitative, structural transformation of society is possible, or whether all societies are doomed to some form of class rule. Marxism argues for the former.
>Marx says that everyone will work for a wage under the governmentMarx did not envision wages persisting in a full communist society. In the "higher phase of communist society," as described in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, labor becomes "not only a means of life but life's prime want," and society can inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" This is the abolition of the wage system, not its universalization under a state.
>If it's an abundance, you can't impose limits on it.The phrase "draw from a shared abundance based on need" does not imply state-imposed limits, but rather a post-scarcity logic where goods are freely available. The "limit" is the individual's need itself, not an external ration. This principle assumes productive forces have developed to a point where this is materially possible.
>Including the central committee?This conflates a classless society with a specific political structure. Marxism argues that abolishing classes means abolishing the basis for a permanent ruling group. In a classless society, administrative functions would be rotational and non-coercive, not a "central committee" ruling over others. The goal is the "withering away of the state" as an instrument of class rule.
>Marx never suggests "socialism"; he suggests a lower and higher stage of "communism". He was against Socialism.This is a semantic point. Marx did distinguish between a "first phase" (often called socialism) and a "higher phase" (communism) in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. In the first phase, principles like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" (still a form of bourgeois right) would apply. He was against utopian and reactionary socialists, not the transitional phase itself.
>You mean that there's a public sector?No. "Socialization of production" in a Marxist transition means the means of production become the property of all of society, democratically controlled by the associated producers. This is qualitatively different from a "public sector" within a capitalist state, which remains subordinate to the logic of the market and private accumulation.
>What's the difference?Between wage labor and slavery? Marx addresses this directly. The slave is owned outright, their person is property, and the entire product of their labor belongs to the master. The wage worker is legally free and owns their labor-power, which they sell to a capitalist for a wage. The capitalist extracts surplus value from the worker's labor, but does not own the worker. This distinction is central to Marx's critique of capitalist exploitation.
>Why do you sound like Ben Shapiro? The Industrial Revolution only came into being 3 centuries after Marx says capitalism begins in England. If you read Marx, he sees capitalist property relations as progressive because it concentrates ownership in a few hands, which then allows for the state to take over. He likes capitalism because it allows for the theft of property.This misrepresents the Marxist view of history. Capitalism is seen as "progressive" in a dialectical sense: it concentrates the means of production, socializes labor, and creates the technological basis for a future classless society. Marx did not "like" it morally; he analyzed it as a necessary historical stage that, through its own contradictions, creates the very conditions for itself to be overcome. The "theft" (expropriation of direct producers) is primitive accumulation, a brutal but historically necessary precondition.
>>2700734>You sound like the slave-master Engels right now:<We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism.The Engels quote you provided precisely illustrates the historical materialist view. Engels argues that slavery was a "necessary" stage for development at that time because it allowed for the specialization of labor and the growth of productive forces, which ultimately made modern socialism conceivable. This is not an endorsement of slavery, but an analysis of its historical role in the progression of modes of production, just as capitalism's role is analyzed. The "absurdity" is only apparent if one ignores the dialectical method.