Malacasta, I know you are a communist, so I understand where you are coming from. I can respect the fact that you believe in command economies. History shows they don't work, but you still believe in them which is certainly your option.
No. I am a communist therefore I don’t believe in command economies. Perhaps you are confusing communism with Stalinism or transitional governments. Stalinism is something I deride far more than you could even begin to understand. To you Stalinism was a mere enemy. To me it was an ultimate betrayal, which also involved the despicable torture and death of millions of people and the obscfucation of an idea to the point that the word communism had absolutely nothing to do with the position that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Lukash, Gramscii or any other respectable communist theorist who had anything whatsoever to do with workers rights and class society took with respect to end of capital.

On the matter of unions, you think they are great, I think they are horribly flawed to the point that they have probably outlived their usefulness.
On the matter of unions we oppose them from entirely different directions. For me, unions capitulate too readily to capital’s demands; they take their worker and their organizers for granted; they engage in Machiavellian reformist politics with a glee that is unseemly; they are far too often interested in nationalist demands in opposition to global worker’s interests. I’ve been in negotiating rooms where I’ve blocked the demands of the most powerful unions in Australia, and won, so I don’t need you telling me how to deal with unions or that they don’t serve the interests of the working class. I know they don’t. Your opposition to them however, is not something that is at all useful to me, or the interests I serve.

Unions are a necessary part of reformist capitalism for what that’s worth. They have fought and won (at the cost of innumerable lives) for workers rights for 150 years. They were the driving force behind the eight-hour day, women’s right to vote, black’s right to vote, equal wages for equal work, and innumerable other conditions that many young workers (and those who believe in the rationality and benevolence of capital) today take for granted. Unfortunately the many is not the most, and my discontent with the union movement has far more to do with their capitulation at the cost of the vast majority of workers to their own interests, than it does with their supposed stranglehold (which is laughably incorrect) on workplace regulations.

As for your diversion about the irrelevancy of a living wage and what not, Capitalism is not some divinely decreed state of being. It is nothing more than the current economic state, which is relatively new in terms of human history. That capitalism necessarily results in the poverty of huge sections of the world population is ITS failing, not some divine decree from on high about the state of man. Failures of the Soviet economy say nothing about a classless society because the Soviet system was obviously not classless (go on, point to a respectable historian who says it was). The failure of the Stalinist model says nothing about communism. Stalinism, Fidelism, Maoism, etc are anathemas to Marxists. Do not continue to draw upon these straw men, or I shall be forced to quote extensive amounts of Trotsky’s (and innumerable other Marxist’s ) writings. My objection is not trivial it is fundamental.

Actually I wont answer any arguments about Stalinism being communist because any such argument is ridiculous by any theoretical standard. Furthermore, to argue against Capitalism is an exercise in masochism since I seriously don’t give a damn about your defense of a system which sees the vast majority of humanity subjugated to an economy which demands that labor be provided to create profit for a select few.