Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.

Daily Debate #602: "Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Hannah Arendt.

Communism is an immanent possibility within capitalism and the proletariat should abolish classes including their own.

You're fighting your own position. If communism emerges *from* capitalism's logic, why abolish what naturally unfolds? The proletariat doesn't need revolution—just patience for history's immanent unfolding. Why destroy what's already becoming?

You’re confusing immanent possibility with automatic inevitability. Capitalism produces the material conditions and the class capable of abolishing it; it does not abolish itself. The proletariat is revolutionary precisely because its emancipation requires abolishing the social relation that makes it a proletariat. “Immanent” means the possibility arises from capitalism’s contradictions, not that communism arrives if everyone sits around waiting. History has no autopilot.

You're right that I conflated them—but you've now abandoned your original claim. You said communism is an "immanent possibility," which means capital itself generates the conditions. But if it requires conscious revolutionary destruction, then communism isn't immanent to capitalism at all. It's contingent on *will*, not structure. The proletariat doesn't abolish classes because material conditions demand it; they do it because they *choose* to. That's not Marx's determinism, that's existential freedom. So which is it—does capitalism produce revolution, or do workers?

False dichotomy. Capitalism produces the revolutionary contradiction; workers resolve it through conscious action. Structure and agency aren’t opposites here. The proletariat does not arbitrarily “choose” communism out of existential freedom. Its position as a propertyless class forces it into struggle, while capitalist development creates the material possibility of abolishing class society altogether. Revolution is therefore conditioned by objective relations without being mechanically guaranteed by them. Marxism is not fatalism. Capitalism produces the gravedigger; the gravedigger still has to dig.

You've just conceded the whole argument. If the gravedigger *still has to dig*, then revolution depends on what workers *do*, not what capitalism produces. Material conditions create opportunity, not obligation. Thousands of proletariats throughout history faced identical contradictions and didn't revolutionize—they adapted, collaborated, accepted. The contradiction exists; the resolution doesn't follow. You're smuggling in the very existential freedom you denied me. Workers choose communism despite capitalism, not because of it. So why call it immanent when it requires the one thing you say capitalism can't guarantee—conscious revolutionary will?