"Communism can never work, because the more productive people will always have more than the less productive people, and the only institution which can take from the productive and give to the unproductive is an all powerful state with the ability to control everyone's lives.

In such an environment, only the most brutal, ruthless people rise to the top, ensuring that for every communist regime, there will be an unelected, unaccountable, unstoppable, psychopathic murderer as leader. "

I know it's crap but would love to hear revleft's rebuttal as I think I would learn from it, thank you

This sounds like its based entirely on a strawman argument. The Conservatard arguing this thinks that Communism = everyone has the same income. This is entirely false, Communism aims to bring about the end of Private Property. If anything, this requires the eventual elimination of a state.

Just tell him that Communists don't give a rats arse about Income equality, we care about "Power" equality.

Assuming the state is a dictatorship, indeed. But that would not be socialism. Socialism is democratic by definition.

Too bad that in a socialist country officials will be democratically elected, will not be given millions of dollars in support from billionaires (in exchange for tax breaks) and will be instantly recallable.

I hope there are people who don't still believe this, but I know I'm going to be disappointed.

All governments are brutal and ruthless. Socialist governments direct that brutality towards the enemies of the workers, while capitalist governments direct it towards a scapegoat (jews, arabs, socialists, the 'evil clique').

As for productivity, your friend is viewing people from a very callous, economistic mindset. Why are some workers more productive than others in the first place?
(I'm assuming your friend has the mindset that sees skilled labor as more valuable)

Your friend can talk all he wants about social mobility, but by and large, that social mobility is only extended to those who have internalized capitalist values, and those who have internalized capitalist values tend to be the ones benefiting from them.

In other words, the fact that every so often one lucky black kid who grew up in the slums gets assistance paying for a college doesn't mean a thing. Usually those around him who don't 'succeed' in the educational system have realized early on that the system is rigged.

You and I think similarly...
I used the same argument once (i.e. anarchism's focus is 'power' equality).

I agree with anthroarmo's post. The person is making a strawman (and most people do since they don't even know what communism is about) plus an odd one...

It's like he assumes there was income equality in the 'socialist' states but I doubt there was (at least for a long period of time).

Also, his mention of "because the more productive people will always have more than the less productive people" rises a red flag...

In capitalism, some of the least productive members get paid more. I remember a study which claim that a hospital cleaner did more good (and more in dollar amounts in some abstract way on analyzing productive work) than a banker (who I think the study determined wasted money, especially with the recent bail-out and bonus giving fiasco, instead of doing something productive that was valuable).

Besides, that douchebag seems to think of himself as some sort of übermensch, part of the "more productive" population and therefore worth more than a common man. Sounds terribly like he has some sort of hidden social darwinist agenda.

That's a possibility. I find it funny when Randroids speak of the capitalist class as the "productive class" and even funnier when the Randriods seem to think they qualify to be part of that "productive" class.

Communism doesn't require everyone to have the same amount of wealth. Obviously if worker X produces more than worker Y s/he will be compensated justly, if everyone was paid the same it would be a wage, which we oppose.

Communism is most importantly a classless society and we as Marxians view social classes in terms of their relation to the means of production if the means of production are collectively owned then social classes will disperse as will the state.