Debunking the lie that communism is for murderers.

[The Inquisitor]

For some reason, I feel like this question has been discussed countless times, but I've skimmed through the stickies and haven't seen anything about it. So, sorry ahead of time if this is just another re-post.

Anyways, I was wondering how to retort a statement like "You think Communism is good? Ha! Read a history book. Every time a communist leader rises up, they order millions of their own people to die!"

I always use China as an example when combating this question, using the increase in life expectancy, literacy, and the doubling of population in 25 years, but for some reason this isn't enough for them to overlook their precious death toll. I also comment at how the number of deaths caused by capitalism is unable to be counted as it kills in so many ways. Regardless, they are stalwart in their stance.

Do you guys have a better answer, or should I just as well be talking to a brick wall?

[Nolan]

Nobody ever "ordered" millions of people to die. The death toll in China was at most 14 million. And it wasn't Mao's fault:

http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

Just respond that capitalism has killed more children from hunger alone since 9/11 (235,000,000, mostly in Africa and Asia) that socialism has ever been accused of killing. All while the local capitalist elite and foreign corporations score billions in those very countries, so the common capitalist excuse of "underdevelopment" doesn't cut it.

[The Inquisitor]

Nobody ever "ordered" millions of people to die. The death toll in China was at most 14 million. And it wasn't Mao's fault:

http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

Just respond that capitalism has killed more children from hunger alone since 9/11 (235,000,000, mostly in Africa and Asia) that socialism has ever been accused of killing. All while the local capitalist elite and foreign corporations score billions in those very countries.

They go around spatting that Mao killed 70 million, almost as if he personally went and did it with his bare hands. Thanks for the link. I'll add this new knowledge to my arsenal. :thumbup1:

Another question, if Mao was communist, why do some people call China a state-capitalist country. Did it happen after his death, or are they just going off the wall. (this thread didn't start out as a China-oriented thread, but it appears to be heading that way)

[mikelepore]

Anyways, I was wondering how to retort a statement like "You think Communism is good? Ha! Read a history book. Every time a communist leader rises up, they order millions of their own people to die!"

When people get subjected to a form of government that has an absolute leader, that has no provisions to protect civil liberties, that has censorship, that doesn't have free elections, then the people are enslaved and sometimes massacred. What label that regime calls itself is of no importance.

But are your critics claiming that the cause of the enslavement and massacre is the fact that the industries don't operate with a profit motive? Insist that they answer that question directly, and challenge them to show any such connection, otherwise they are claiming a mystical action-at-a-distance like voodoo. Where is the supposed mechanism, just because industries don't extract a profit, that would compel them to harm the people? Your public library doesn't operate with a profit motive, so are they therefore killing people? Your town water utility doesn't operate with a profit motive, so are they therefore killing people? Clearly not, so why would the absense of a profit motive in factories, mines and mills suddenly require that kind of violence? When the critics use unfounded generalities, as soon as you challenge them to be specific, their hot air balloon pops.

[Proletarian Ultra]

"If communism was so bad, how come your standard of living's been going down the toilet since 1989?"

[Chambered Word]

Tell them that capitalism has killed numbers of people somewhere in the billions and continues to kill on a scale of millions of people. This is not to excuse the failings of so-called communist regimes but really, calling us murderers is like the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:

[Sir Comradical]

Get his full name and address, we can always liquidate him later.

[AK]

Get his full name and address, we can always liquidate him later.
Evaporate*
After all, we are zombie commies from outer space. Every self-respecting extraterrestrial packs heat - ray gun heat.

[NecroCommie]

I always tell them to point out the chapter in my party programme where I have commited myself to a murderous party. People who claim these things are usually beyond any logic and reason, and have made up their pathetic minds already.

[Sir Comradical]

Evaporate*
After all, we are zombie commies from outer space. Every self-respecting extraterrestrial packs heat - ray gun heat.

I know exactly what you mean! I find it funny how socialist revolutions are referred to by the bourgeois press as some kind of an invasion, that's even if the movement was entirely home-grown.

[The Inquisitor]

Evaporate*
After all, we are zombie commies from outer space. Every self-respecting extraterrestrial packs heat - ray gun heat.

When did this happen?! I've been carrying this steam cleaner around for ages.
Where was my memo!? :cursing:

[mikelepore]

Just respond that capitalism has killed more children from hunger alone since 9/11 (235,000,000, mostly in Africa and Asia) that socialism has ever been accused of killing. All while the local capitalist elite and foreign corporations score billions in those very countries, so the common capitalist excuse of "underdevelopment" doesn't cut it.

We are aware of that tragedy, but unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will not comprehend how capitalism can be blamed for hunger. Their typical responses will be:

* If people are starving, why don't they get a job? They chose to starve rather than get a job. If they prefer to starve then, who am I to tell them they are making the wrong choice?

* I didn't tell their parents to have children that they couldn't afford to feed.

* Poor countries where people starve have some regulations over business, so it's not pure capitalism. So, why are you blaming capitalism, when they don't even have capitalism? Therefore, it's not capitalism that is hurting the people -- it's the lack of capitalism that's hurting them.

* The solution is for affluent people to give them charity. But charity has to be the voluntary giving of your own money. It's not charity if you're offering someone else's money. You may choose to send the poor your own money, but whatever wealth the capitalist has is nobody else's business.

* The wealthy already give something to charity, but if they were not wealthy then they wouldn't have it to give. Would you rather that they not be wealthy, and then have nothing at all to give? Isn't it better that the poor receive some charity from the wealthy rather than none at all?

These are all illogical excuses for the suffering that capitalism causes, but that is the kind of things that people say to us. We shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of getting through to indoctrinated people.

I offer this point because I your post "Just respond that capitalism has killed more children from hunger alone...." seemed to offer hope that we can give someone a real zinger of an argument and then the debate is won. Unfortunately, we have to expect many people to be unreachable no matter what we say. Our progress will be steeply uphill.

[RadioRaheem84]

"If communism was so bad, how come your standard of living's been going down the toilet since 1989?"

1989? More like 1975, when real wages started to sink.

[Nolan]

* Poor countries where people starve have some regulations over business, so it's not pure capitalism. So, why are you blaming capitalism, when they don't even have capitalism? Therefore, it's not capitalism that is hurting the people -- it's the lack of capitalism that's hurting them.



Oh so if that's the case then we don't have it either. You can kiss your precious "free market success," "freedom," and accomplishments goodbye. Or is it only capitalism when the poor eat at McDonalds everyday and have a welfare system? Oh wait..

[manic expression]

If I'm lazy, I usually just get them to commit to a source they know nothing about:

"You think communism killed millions...I see...so I guess you'd agree with Robert Conquest and the Black Book of Communism, right?"

Once they say yes (which they will if you act like you're kind of agreeing with them when you propose the sources), it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Keep beating home the fact that Robert Conquest has been largely debunked by recent research, and that his figures are complete bullsh*t. Then point out that their argument is based on absolutely nothing.

Then tell them that socialist governments have improved life in every country they've been in power. Then tell them that every problem in society can be traced to capitalism, and explain why. Then, if you feel like really turning their world upside-down, tell them that America is founded on revolution, and that if you oppose revolution, you oppose the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

[Nolan]

If I'm lazy, I usually just get them to commit to a source they know nothing about:

"You think communism killed millions...I see...so I guess you'd agree with Robert Conquest and the Black Book of Communism, right?"

Once they say yes (which they will if you act like you're kind of agreeing with them when you propose the sources), it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Keep beating home the fact that Robert Conquest has been largely debunked by recent research, and that his figures are complete bullsh*t. Then point out that their argument is based on absolutely nothing.

Then tell them that socialist governments have improved life in every country they've been in power. Then tell them that every problem in society can be traced to capitalism, and explain why. Then, if you feel like really turning their world upside-down, tell them that America is founded on revolution, and that if you oppose revolution, you oppose the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

And as icing on the cake of defeat, Conquest himself no longer believes that Stalin intentionally killed people with famine.

[Argument]

Oh so if that's the case then we don't have it either. You can kiss your precious "free market success," "freedom," and accomplishments goodbye. Or is it only capitalism when the poor eat at McDonalds everyday and have a welfare system? Oh wait..Indeed, some capitalist apologist blame the lack of free trade when something isn't working, but when something turns out they want it, it's because their country has capitalism! Now, do we have free trade or not? We can't have both on the same time, can we? :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

:rolleyes: Now you tell me.

[Scary Monster]

@OP: You can also tell that turd that communist countries supported independence movements and progressive, democratically-elected governments during the Cold War, while the US always supported authoritarian dictators and fascists. Here are some examples:

-Cuba: US supported and armed Batista. Batista allowed US companies to privatize most of Cuba's infrastructure and resources.

-South Africa Apartheid: Cuba sent troops to fight european colonialists, Soviets supplied the ANC, which was the leading organization fighting against black oppression, while the US and other western governments supported Apartheid and armed apartheid governments.

-Iran: US backed the Shah, who did mass tortures against the Iranians. They put the Shah into power in the 1950s, with the CIA overthrowing the democratically-elected Mossadegh government, because Mossadegh nationalized its oil reserves. The US then supported the Iranian government until the Shah was overthrown in 1979.

There are countless events during the 20th century of the US supporting governments commiting atrocities as long as they remained loyal to western influence and open to capitalist privatization.

[zundap]

If there's wage labour, money, commodity production, a state, it ain't Communism.

[Nolan]

If there's wage labour, money, commodity production, a state, it ain't Communism.

No shit sherlock.

But socialism can have money and a state.

[ContrarianLemming]

For some reason, I feel like this question has been discussed countless times, but I've skimmed through the stickies and haven't seen anything about it. So, sorry ahead of time if this is just another re-post.

Anyways, I was wondering how to retort a statement like "You think Communism is good? Ha! Read a history book. Every time a communist leader rises up, they order millions of their own people to die!"

I always use China as an example when combating this question, using the increase in life expectancy, literacy, and the doubling of population in 25 years, but for some reason this isn't enough for them to overlook their precious death toll. I also comment at how the number of deaths caused by capitalism is unable to be counted as it kills in so many ways. Regardless, they are stalwart in their stance.

Do you guys have a better answer, or should I just as well be talking to a brick wall?

I can't help but take there side against your reactionary outlook on the chinese revolution.

[Nolan]

I can't help but take there side against your reactionary outlook on the chinese revolution.

Of course you can't. You reactionaries have a lot in common.

[A.R.Amistad]

I am sure these same people leveling this attack against you are perfectly OK with the murder that happens everyday because of capitalism (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the Death Penalty, etc.)

[The Intransigent Faction]

I am sure these same people leveling this attack against you are perfectly OK with the murder that happens everyday because of capitalism (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the Death Penalty, etc.)

That or they say "It's not because of capitalism! It's big government's fault!"...of course ignoring the necessary role of bureaucratic government in keeping capitalism going.

[Zanthorus]

But socialism can have money and a state.

It's a shame no-one told Karl Marx that then.

[The Inquisitor]

I can't help but take there side against your reactionary outlook on the chinese revolution.
Since when did I have a reactionary outlook on the chinese revolution?

[CartCollector]

* Poor countries where people starve have some regulations over business, so it's not pure capitalism. So, why are you blaming capitalism, when they don't even have capitalism? Therefore, it's not capitalism that is hurting the people -- it's the lack of capitalism that's hurting them.


Indeed, some capitalist apologist blame the lack of free trade when something isn't working, but when something turns out they want it, it's because their country has capitalism! Now, do we have free trade or not? We can't have both on the same time, can we? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Yes, yes, very nice. But then there's a whole bunch of communists who support their favorite regimes, claiming they did this, that, and the other wonderful thing, and then when you call them out on something that went wrong in their regime of choice, they say "well it's because they didn't have full socialism yet" or some other such technicality ("war communism", etc.) Capitalists aren't the ones who shout "they're not doing it right" whenever their political economy of choice screws up but then turns around to support it when convenient.

[Nolan]

[U]



Yes, yes, very nice. But then there's a whole bunch of communists who support their favorite regimes, claiming they did this, that, and the other wonderful thing, and then when you call them out on something that went wrong in their regime of choice, they say "well it's because they didn't have full socialism yet" or some other such technicality ("war communism", etc.) Capitalists aren't the ones who shout "they're not doing it right" whenever their political economy of choice screws up but then turns around to support it when convenient.

It's not even close to the same. They achieved those things in spite of their material/political situation. It's not shocking that mistakes were made or that things would go wrong. Capitalism has huge (what they call) success and hoarding of wealth on one hand and obvious intentional poverty and inequality on the other which, when you dig deep enough, is responsible for the "success" on the other side of capitalism. Apologists then pick and choose which gets to be capitalism, and then it's praised for all the things it supposedly did.