The most used argument against communism

[SacRedMan]

Dear RevLeft,

The argument that communism killed many people and is responsible for genocides and mass-murders is coming and coming like rockets, and we all had those rockets fireing at us. But how do we respond to it? I always say that communism doesn't support killing people by genocides or mass-murders, but they won't listen, and also begin to say that communism and so on is all old bullshit wrote on moldy rags...

It's sometimes depresses me how dumb and ignorant people can be, just as they don't want to read the works of Marx but still think they've exposed communism, just like others.


SacRedMan

[CesareBorgia]

1. Don't justify mass murder

2. Differentiate Marxism and Stalinism

3. Don't argue with fools.

[SacRedMan]

Don't justify mass murder

Good God, I don't do that!! I only say that communism doesn't support mass murders!


Differentiate Marxism and Stalinism

I hear other things about the argument that Stalinism killed many people from stalinists themself... Tendency war coming soon here?

[Delenda Carthago]

Communism is a fuckin way of dealing with economy. There were some horrible, terrible regimes on the name of communism, but that does not changes anything. We DONT LIKE THESE PEOPLE who commited these crimes. We DO NOT want a totalitarian regime. You will not find a single person in here defending Brehznef's and Khrushchev's (well, you might find a couple of retards but whatever)imperialist moves(since you speak on rockets, I assume you talk about Cuba).We like Che because he opposed that imperialism.

But the real question is: can communism/socialism solve today's economic and social problems? Have we reached the point where capitalistic way of production is more expensive and wasting than usefull? Can we liberate the production forces and achieve better? This is the question of our times. Everything else is misleading.

[red_rich]

I usually respond with asking how many people do you think have died as the result of global capitalism? The answer is far more than the exaggerated claims of how many 'communists' killed.

Majority of people know little about marxism.. I even know 'marxists' who know little about marxism. I dont think you can blame most people, they have probably never been expossed to leftist thinking and so derive their opinion from elsewhere, devoid of real though or analysis.

[SacRedMan]

how many people do you think have died as the result of global capitalism?

I have replied with that once... The liberal said to me that capitalism also doesn't support such tragedies, and that capitalism haves also their political currents.

[red_rich]

I have replied with that once... The liberal said to me that capitalism also doesn't support such tragedies, and that capitalism haves also their political currents.

Tell them about capitalist institutions like the Iternational Munatery Fund and how their structural adjustment programmes work in many countries round the world. These result in the deaths of many due to lack of medical and educational funding.

What about capitalisms inherent failure to distribute resources to those who need them most. Capitalism creates poverty around the globe, poverty causes death! It is our duty to explain to people why it is the economy (and those who benefit from it) that is at fault and what we have to do to change it.

[SacRedMan]

Tell them about capitalist institutions like the Iternational Munatery Fund and how their structural adjustment programmes work in many countries round the world. These result in the deaths of many due to lack of medical and educational funding.

What about capitalisms inherent failure to distribute resources to those who need them most. Capitalism creates poverty around the globe, poverty causes death! It is our duty to explain to people why it is the economy (and those who benefit from it) that is at fault and what we have to do to change it.

But still, if they say that communism, capitalism and nazism are the same if it's about the genocides and mass-murders, with what do we have to reply? I always ask them to come up with demographic and historical correct sources that prove that communism killed 'millions' of people...

[SacRedMan]

Next time, it's better to reply with this:


Are you referring to Marxism? Marxism as a political system has never existed. Stalin created his own form of Communism that wasn't really communism at all, and it definitely wasn't socialism. Also, views and political views don't kill people, people kill people. It does not say once in the COMMUNIST Manifesto that we should kill each other. And lets count how many people have died under capitalism :) probably more than you or I can count.

[Bronco]

No point resorting to a petty argument of "who killed more people", by doing that you do nothing to actually refute their view of Communism as murderous. I'm afraid to say there's not really much that you can do, if they really cant be bothered to spend a bit of their time finding out what Communism is actually about then, well, fuck 'em.

[Ocean Seal]

Dear RevLeft,

The argument that communism killed many people and is responsible for genocides and mass-murders is coming and coming like rockets, and we all had those rockets fireing at us. But how do we respond to it? I always say that communism doesn't support killing people by genocides or mass-murders, but they won't listen, and also begin to say that communism and so on is all old bullshit wrote on moldy rags...

It's sometimes depresses me how dumb and ignorant people can be, just as they don't want to read the works of Marx but still think they've exposed communism, just like others.


SacRedMan
Its a stupid argument on their part because I'm fairly sure it doesn't endorse mass murders in the Communist Manifesto or in fact any communist text ever written. Capitalism on the other hand preaches the doctrine that we shouldn't do anything for the starving until "market incentives" kick in. That to me is sadistic. Every year the conditions created by capitalism starve 15 million children in a world where we grow enough food to feed the world 10 times over. Also every revolution is violent, however, standing around allowing for oppression is even more destructive. Do they also condemn the French revolution, because that led to mass murders and the feudal reactionaries would have probably said that capitalism leads to mass murders. So there it is the same argument that was being made hundreds of years ago by the opponents of capitalism is now adopted by those who support capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Next time, it's better to reply with this:
I advise you not to do so. The text is awful:

1) Stalin did not "create his own kind of communism" since, I presume, you're referring to the theoretical deviations and revisionism of the CP of Soviet Union, and "official communist" parties. But it is really imprecise and misleading to conclude what you did.

2) the idea that socialism is a distinct mode of production, separate from both capitalism and communism, is, in my opinion a revisionism of Marxism. But, the proclamation of "achieved socialism" shouldn't be mixed up with Stalin's "false communism"

3) The Communist Manifesto, like most of the writings on workers' revolution, stipulates that the material conditions will probably necessitate violence (example: the Russian Civil War, initiated by the White counter-revolution and wholheartedly embraced by invading armies).

[Bronco]

Its a stupid argument on their part because I'm fairly sure it doesn't endorse mass murders in the Communist Manifesto or in fact any communist text ever written. Capitalism on the other hand preaches the doctrine that we shouldn't do anything for the starving until "market incentives" kick in. That to me is sadistic. Every year the conditions created by capitalism starve 15 million children in a world where we grow enough food to feed the world 10 times over. Also every revolution is violent, however, standing around allowing for oppression is even more destructive. Do they also condemn the French revolution, because that led to mass murders and the feudal reactionaries would have probably said that capitalism leads to mass murders. So there it is the same argument that was being made hundreds of years ago by the opponents of capitalism is now adopted by those who support capitalism.

The nonviolent ones tend not to be

[SacRedMan]

I advise you not to do so. The text is awful:

1) Stalin did not "create his own kind of communism" since, I presume, you're referring to the theoretical deviations and revisionism of the CP of Soviet Union, and "official communist" parties. But it is really imprecise and misleading to conclude what you did.

2) the idea that socialism is a distinct mode of production, separate from both capitalism and communism, is, in my opinion a revisionism of Marxism. But, the proclamation of "achieved socialism" shouldn't be mixed up with Stalin's "false communism"

3) The Communist Manifesto, like most of the writings on workers' revolution, stipulates that the material conditions will probably necessitate violence (example: the Russian Civil War, initiated by the White counter-revolution and wholheartedly embraced by invading armies).

They won't understand, they will even come back with more arguments like "It killed over a 100 million people!!"


(for those who ask themself where I discuss: it's on YouTube. And I know it's the last place to start a discussion, but I can't help it because there are so many idiots and I don't want to do facepalms anymore :()

[Nolan]

In a paper one time I did not give any hints whatsoever to my sympathies for Lenin and Stalin. Instead I went with the professor's opinion on them. He is a libertarian.

I argued that if communism is that and all communists are heirs to Stalin (assuming a good 75% of what is said about him in the west isn't pure bullshit) then libertarians better should take responsiblity for Hitler seeing that Nazi Germany was a society with private property.

The comment written in below that paragraph was like "RRRRNNNGH THATS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS" but it isn't. If the 15 million death toll (ha) of the horrible orchestrated Holodomor is on libertarian communists, then they've got a whole shitload of explaining to do.

[Nolan]

The nonviolent ones tend not to be

They also tend not to exist.

[Toppler]

This http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-information-extent-t154962/index.html and this http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-information-extent-t154962/index.html .

[tracher999]

two words FUCK YOU

i dont talk with that type off people

[SacRedMan]

two words FUCK YOU

i dont talk with that type off people

yeah that will help if we want to settle a socialist/communist/anarchist/etc. society :rolleyes:

[ColonelCossack]

I just normally tell them that
a) The place they heard these things was from bourgeois, right-wing media
b) Capitalism has killed more people
c) Not all communists are stalinists

[Dumb]

I just tell people that socialism is about the world-wide working class, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender, etc., and that Stalin abandoned this principle in favor of turning the USSR into one big fortress - a big, fat "Fuck you!" to workers of the world.

I've actually made some inroads this way amongst a couple friends who hold capitalist ideologies. People will only stop thinking of Marxism as Stalinism once they stop thinking of Stalin as a Marxist - and they will only stop thinking of Stalin as a Marxist once they think of him as something else. If you're still subject to bourgeois thinking, the most plausible "something else" to describe Stalin is nationalism.

[the_red_pickle]

How about the claim that Mao's communist china killed the most people during the 20th century? How would you counter that argument?

[Toppler]

How about the claim that Mao's communist china killed the most people during the 20th century? How would you counter that argument?

Bullshit. More people die in India each decade than in the 1958-1961 GLP famine. Other than those unfortunate years, he immensely helped China. He prolonged the life expectancy from 32 to 62. All this talk about big evil dictators killing millions is made up to obfuscate the fact that around 35 000 children under 5 die fro capitalist caused poverty EVERY DAY.

[SacRedMan]

How about the claim that Mao's communist china killed the most people during the 20th century? How would you counter that argument?

Industrialisation. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Is "everyone makes mistakes" really a good counter argument to the fact that many people were killed under the rule of Mao? Sounds more like defending cruel actions against humans...

The obvious argument is for me that communism has never existed. In other words, communism isn't responsible for killing people, even though some communists are. But I still think RedBrother is right: all revolutions are violent and requires the killing of people. But this killing can be justified -- it's only necessary because the upperclass/bourgeois 'need' to defend themselves from a revolt against them. This is of course difficult -- can really murder be justified? I think I think (no, I really meant to write that) my above argument is right.

[Toppler]

Most of Mao's "killings" are the 1958-1961 famine. Basically, they count starvation deaths from the GLF period as if Mao personally shot each peasant with a shotgun. Basically, if a short famine occurs in a socialist country, it is "man made genocide" according to capitalists. When people die of starvation and disease all the time in the least developed countries (~30 million deaths a year), it is "natural".

Please don't come with this "not real socialism" argument again... no, please... it gets infuriating.

Mao's policies failed during the Great Leap Forward when he tried to industrialize the country quick like Stalin did. He failed and agricultural production fell temporarily, causing hunger. After this, the GLF was abandoned, agricultural production recovered, increased and by 1970 starvation was eradicated from China. Before Mao, the death rate from hunger was the same all the same as during the GLP, that means that in pre-communist China, the GLP famine would not even be recognised as a famine.

A cruel action to humans would be to not let Mao win. Chinese would still have 8 children on average, have half of them die before the age of 5 from malaria and live constantly on the edge of starvation. And cappies would be happy because no evil reds would ever take control...

[CommieTroll]

Most of the time I don't bother to debate wit ''Convinced'' Cappies, For example, My family are staunch Catholics, Brainwashed by the West. I don't bother with them because my arguments fall on deaf ears. I'm outnumbered 10 to 1, it sucks and like you makes me depressed sometimes

[Enigmocracy]

Bush invaded Iraq in the name of "promoting democracy", does this make democracy inherently evil? Of course not.

Likewise, Soviet (and other) leaders committed atrocities in the name of "promoting communism". Does this make communism inherently evil?

There are other more nuanced responses, but this is the most simple and direct one that I've come across.

[Toppler]

Most Soviet leaders have not commited atrocities, only Stalin and Gorbachev (Gorbachev because he deliberately sabotaged the USSR whose fall resulted in millions of deaths, around 9.5 million from poverty/alcoholism/suicide, which make him worse than Stalin).

[Aspiring Humanist]

Theres no way to defend pogroms, gulags, executions or any other form of murder.

The famines in Ukraine, Russia, China were a result of failed policy (which isn't murder) or seasonal droughts/floods etc

When they bring up Pol Pot, tell them that he wasn't a communist. He did nothing remotely communist except throw some symbolism around and claim to be for the people.
When they scream bloody murder about the actual murder in Russia, China, Cuba (I hate to use Trotskyist lingo here) I tell them deformed workers state =/= workers state
Stalinists can go to hell

[Zukunftsmusik]

Most of Mao's "killings" are the 1958-1961 famine. Basically, they count starvation deaths from the GLF period as if Mao personally shot each peasant with a shotgun. Basically, if a short famine occurs in a socialist country, it is "man made genocide" according to capitalists. When people die of starvation and disease all the time in the least developed countries (~30 million deaths a year), it is "natural".

Please don't come with this "not real socialism" argument again... no, please... it gets infuriating.

Mao's policies failed during the Great Leap Forward when he tried to industrialize the country quick like Stalin did. He failed and agricultural production fell temporarily, causing hunger. After this, the GLF was abandoned, agricultural production recovered, increased and by 1970 starvation was eradicated from China. Before Mao, the death rate from hunger was the same all the same as during the GLP, that means that in pre-communist China, the GLP famine would not even be recognised as a famine.

A cruel action to humans would be to not let Mao win. Chinese would still have 8 children on average, have half of them die before the age of 5 from malaria and live constantly on the edge of starvation. And cappies would be happy because no evil reds would ever take control...

I see I have to be careful here. I must admit I don't know that much about China under Mao's rule, but I'll make sure to read more about it.

I see your point. People starving under communist rule: Stalin/Mao etc. gets the personal blame as if they executed those who died. Still -- one billion people starving today. Who's/what's fault is that? Communists/leftists would perhaps claim capitalism is to blame. Capitalists would say 'failed politics'. Do those two words ring a bell?

Criticising communist regimes isn't necessarily the same as giving in to capitalist criticism, as long as one keep it serious and one is at the same time critical towards capitalist sources. I see that my earlier reply perhaps wasn't serious enough.

[Johnthemod]

I think it is important to remember that what the USSR practised was neither socialism or communism but state capitalism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

By accident I actually read something about the famines in China under communist rule compared to the famines in India after the liberation from the British. It didn't come up with any numbers, but claimed that both situations were crimes against humans, only that the only crime we know about is the famines in China. This is often used as an argument against communism, but the famines in India for example, well, people don't even know about it. Why? Because it was an atrocity done in a capitalist society.

The text is a part of a compilation of interviews and talks with/by Noam Chomsky about terrorism called [I]Power and Terror[I/], and he refers to works by Amartyra Sen, an indian economist.

[ckaihatsu]

I just tell people that socialism is about the world-wide working class, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender, etc., and that Stalin abandoned this principle in favor of turning the USSR into one big fortress - a big, fat "Fuck you!" to workers of the world.

I've actually made some inroads this way amongst a couple friends who hold capitalist ideologies. People will only stop thinking of Marxism as Stalinism once they stop thinking of Stalin as a Marxist - and they will only stop thinking of Stalin as a Marxist once they think of him as something else. If you're still subject to bourgeois thinking, the most plausible "something else" to describe Stalin is nationalism.


Not to defend any kind of state capitalism (Stalinism) here -- mostly since it's untenable -- but, given the numbers mentioned in this thread of millions of deaths and millions more of ongoing suffering due simply to this irrational faith in the market mechanism, *any* kind of quasi-rational state planning, even if bureaucratically elitist, would be an *improvement* over leaving supply and demand to the vicissitudes of prevailing weather conditions, meaning the market.

It's really almost *religious* to think that such matters of mass material planning are "too big for us" and "can magically resolve themselves" when all evidence works *against* such a claim.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/