How do you debate this?

"Communism all in all is a direct product of Individualism and Capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, which shaped distinct groups that could be identified, namely the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, however both ultimately wanted the same thing, it's just that the latter had already achieved it and relied on the former to maintain their prosperity, hence the inevitable narrative of exploitation: the Bourgeoisie essentially "cheated" the Proletariat in the competition for material wealth, and to finally get what they deserve, the Proletariat had to unite and to "expropriate the expropriators". Communism simply becomes the pursuit of Capitalist goals without the Bourgeoisie to stand in the way of the Proletariat."

it was said by a dumb fascists so it's wrong

Read Marx. Exploitation isn't "when the boss does a bad thing", neither are the bourgeoisie simply "rich people. The interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat are often fundamentally opposed. What you have here is a collection of empty, contextless statements and accusations.

capitalist goals are not the same as communist goals because the entire function of capital is the expansion and perpetuation of capital. while it does benefit the Bourgeoisie it does not serve them. rather, it is the Bourgeoisie who are ultimately in service of capital. communism is liberation for all people regardless of class.

I've read Marx, not as much as you, and not as much as I want to, but even still it's hard to refute when logic comes into play. How would one respond to this?

But isn't apart of the struggle to obtain what the Bourgeoisie have, the same lifestyle at least?

It's almost like revolution is in our self interest. Tell him thanks for coincidentally debunking the human nature meme.

It is in our self interest to revolt, that's why both Communism and Fascism/NS exist after all.

Lol, what retard wrote this?

Bumping so someone can give a proper response or for when I get home so I can do it myself

Communism is a system, worker ownership is just a means to that end, not the end goal.

nope, it is simply a movement to maintain and protect the status quo

I'd be glad to hear it.

From what I've read, the status quo in a Fascism/NS are exiled or executed depending upon the workers/peoples judgement.

Much like in our movement, might I add.

top kek!

Capitalism as a system doesn't have a goal. It isn't an entity that exists for a purpose. It simply is.
Also, your quote only proves that nobody likes working. To say that communism's point is to end work is not exactly true though. Marx mostly talks about alienation being the part of work that makes it hated. He wants to get rid of this alienation, so that everybody can enjoy work. In this sense, communism is not about decadence and laziness, but about feeling accomplished in the work you do, rather than being a part of a bigger machine, with no emotional connection to what you are doing.

Is there more of a voice in Communism for the workers or people? Or is there not. None so far have provided a good rebuttal for the original question. It's hard to not be conflicted.

So Marx would have wanted to be apart of a group with cohesion, a clear goal in mind and a future to work forwards too? Working for the betterment of the society and the worker/people. If one throws in "Organic State and Society" and "race", it sounds a lot like Fascism/NS.

read Proudhon, the expropriated doesn't have a voice in a proprietor system

yes, fascists/NS used leftist dogma to gain support

Probably not. He was actually quite individualistic.

Working for the betterment of oneself, would be more accurate.

Philosophically speaking, that might make some sense. However, economically and politically speaking, they are completely different. Fascism involves a state trying to keep in check the class antagonisms. Communism doesn't have class antagonisms or a state, because it has no classes. Therefore, theoretically speaking, it would achieve the goal of having a humanity where all individuals have roughly the same economic interests.

Probably not. He was actually quite individualistic.

That would be against everything he stood for.
Working for the betterment of oneself, would be more accurate.
See the above.
Philosophically speaking, that might make some sense. However, economically and politically speaking, they are completely different. Fascism involves a state trying to keep in check the class antagonisms. Communism doesn't have class antagonisms or a state, because it has no classes. Therefore, theoretically speaking, it would achieve the goal of having a humanity where all individuals have roughly the same economic interests.

Fucked up that last bit with the greentext and repeats, apologies.

I mean individualism in the sense that what trully motivates him is his own need to live in the envisioned society. Communism is undoubtedly collectivistic, in the sense that all individuals have the same rights, duties, and interests, but I suspect that the motivation for it does not come from wishing for a collectivistic society, but for one which maximizes the well-being of the individual, regardless of where he is located in the social structure.
There are plenty of collectivistic ideologies whose main thing is having a supposed "collective" be benefited, at the expense of certain individuals. Often the "collective" is simply an abstraction, like "the nation", which can be used to mean anything.

Nope, in fascism a party gains power by force if necessary to use the state as the tool of status quo mantainance, the goal of fascism is to protect national business through autoritarianism. Hitleristic ns gives more emphasis to racial aspects tho. But the worker has absolutely no value in either system: it has only as a part of the "nation", fascistic rethoric isn't aimed at individuals rather it tries to convey the sense that the individual without the strong power and socio-cultural framework of the nation is lost