Communism is possible

My opponent asserts that Marx's criticism and damning of the system is very specifically aimed at Capitalism. This, slightly, draws attention from the main point of Marx's goal, and that is the elimination of the social conditionining of a need for a tangible reward for a service. This conditioning is seen in all systems of government my opponent has listed: traders in village markets in a Feudalistic society, etc. My opponent also claims that humans will naturally form hierarchies because we are animals; and since the rest of the animal kingdom does so, we, naturally, should as well. It is true that we are animals, only more rational and cognitive. Though, this does not mean that we should be inclined to form hierarchies to satisfy our apparent 'instinct'. Though, to first address a big issue; is it an instinct? Or is it, just as greed is, a behavior learned from our environment? Humans, since the beginning of time, have used nature as a reference and resource to how to live and operate. Is it possible that somewhere along our timeline of social evolution, we observed the process of stratification in the Animal Kingdom and emulated the behavior? It wouldn't be the first time this would happen. Many 'human' behaviors and inventions have been inspired by nature: Business, Farming, Medicine, etc. In resolution, we, as humans, should use our gift of logic and reason, and be able to willfully transcend any inherent, or learned need to set others either superior or inferior. There is no excuse that someone can surmount to contradict this; except a personal testimony of their physical and mental inability to willfully overcome any tendency to need to be socially and monetarily rewarded greater than another, only because society has perceived their profession as more 'important'. Is it so hard to restrain one's self from needing a controlled currency, and to contribute to society with their ability and be given necessities? A misconception is that this will prevent people from attaining possessions that they want; this is simply untrue. Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't merely mean that you are only given your bare necessities and left at that. The quote is only a way for people to see anew, a type of life that would be truly altruistic. The only way for this type of civlilization to actually happen, is for people to learn; and this is done through the long and enduring, but rewarding, process of education. Not fascist, brainwashing education, as seen 1984, but true, non-regimented, open-minded education. ---------------- Now to address my opponent's argument for self-interest. It is true that self-interest is not entirely selfish, as it is how we survive, and does not always lead to the misery of others to sustain our prosperity. But, where exactly does self interest exclude itself from a Communistic society? Look at it from this perspective. The butcher is good at his/her job and wishes to provide to society in the only way that he/she can, effectively. But, the butcher also wants to be able to have a home and the necessities, and pleasures, in life. Through self interest (as mentioned before, not selfishness), the butcher continues to do his/her job in order to be a positive member of the community, because they understand that if they do what they are skilled at doing, they will receive the desired necessities and simple pleasures of life. Self-interest needs not to be completely abolished in a Communistic society. In regards to the issue of the few rotten apples spoiling the bunch. .. Denying that there would be a presence of people unwilling to adapt to the philosophies in a Communistic society, would be ignorant. But as I said before when speaking about the issue of the learned behavior to stratify; education trumps all problems; maybe not completely, as perfection is impossible. But the waning of the greed ridden mindset that would trouble a Communistic society, wouldn't be out of the question. Now, I'm NOT advocating that any persons not wishing to 'assimilate' to this livelihood of the new society be discriminated against, or singled out for immediate attention (similar to what America has done with 'failures' in the IQ system haha) and be 'fixed', mentally. I'm only saying, that education, throughout a person's life, would allow them the chance to understand that the old mindset of "I work, and I receive the payment accredited, even if it is more than another's" is unnecessary and leads to nothing but conflict. My opponent then asserts that in the event that a Proletarian revolution occurs, the Proletariat will want blood in exchange for the oppression that they suffered at the hands of the Bourgeoisie. Although this has been seen many times in history whenever a major anarchical event has happened, this would not be the French Revolution. Although Marx did predict that some, if not most, of the worker's revolutions would involve violence; he predicted this not for the reason of the worker's hate for the Bourgeoisie, but, possibly, as a necessary measure to break free from the chains instituted by the elite class. Now, I may have initiated a mindset of "He's an anarchist and wants to overthrow everything! etc. . "; but this is not my goal. I unequivocally believe that, like Dr. King's peaceful civil rights movement, we can achieve an extreme change in our society, without violence and turmoil (By the Proletariat, the same cannot be said for the challenged Bourgeoisie). If a violent, vindictive revolution were to occur, it would be the antithesis of the entire point of a Marxist revolution; the point of which, is the equalization of all. Wouldn't it be a complete and utter contradiction of the belief to punish others for their past 'deeds', therefore placing them below those involved with the revolution, merely switching the roles of superiority, hence contradicting the main philosophy of the revolution? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx