Antithesis

[comrade_cyanide444]

Please excuse me for the large amount of questions I have. I'm writing an extensive term paper, and I'm not very good on economics, so I need a bit of help countering the antithesis.

So the thesis (sentences) for term paper is: " Taking historical and logical evidence into account, Marxism promotes civil and economic liberties in post revolutionary societies. Logic and theoretical evidence can clearly back this up."


I am having a little trouble finding a good antithesis, however, I think I've stumbled across one: http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/socialistmyth.html#truth


In essence, the article states that Socialism a) does not take into account that the market is comprised of "billions" of industries that interact with each other independently (not a bad argument) b) Marxism ignores the importance of the middle class c) Marxism promotes a lack of competition and innovation due to the removal of an incentive d) Communism kills son, that Evil Empire can go to Hell, it never worked in the first place


For a, I think I'd say that the market isn't simply a collection of industries, but entities that produce in a single industrial category. For example (and this even occurred in the USSR), a plant that produces turbines will also possess the capacity to produce washing machines, generators and the such. Thus, raw materials will divert to that one plant to cover the production of a variety of goods. This does not depend on a market or socialist economy, it simply is common sense to produce as much as possible and cover a wide range to supply to as many populations as possible. For b, I'm not sure. I do not really know what Marxists think about the "middle class". I got this same argument from a teacher of mine, who said that most people move up from the lower classes through work, citing the immigrants coming from Ireland and SE Europe in the early 20th century as an example. I believe the middle class to be more proletariat than ruling class in these times, as the middle class is slowly being pushed into the lower class due to income disparity. A rift is forming. For c, I would say that monetary gain isn't the only incentive, and in Communism, someone who doesn't work doesn't get their salary. Just like in the States, you can apply for welfare like programs, but unemployment would already be low in such a society anyways (historical models display a remarkable decrease in unemployment in societies that went Socialist).


Tips? suggestions? Help? Anything would be appreciated.

EDIT: Oh, and what exactly was Lenin's economic policy in Revolutionary Russia?

[Dunk]

I don't know what to say about A, because I have no idea what you or the opposing argument is claiming.

You could highlight the differences and shortcomings between analytical and empirical conceptualizations of class.

Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose are powerful motivators for people who are able to be unconcerned with putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.

As far as the communism = authoritarian/totalitarian society/doomed to failure is easy to deconstruct. First, you can claim that either the capitalist or socialist mode of production doesn't necessarily equate any particular degree of negative freedom. You'd have to find more obvious historical examples that undermine the ingrained belief that capitalism = freedom, like South Korea. Of course, behind that ingrained belief is the belief that liberal democracy = freedom, and it's fun as hell to smash that myth to pieces, although people tend to get really worked up when you do that. You could highlight the differences between Stalinism and other possible approaches to socialism - perhaps one where there is decentralized, radical democratic control of the means of production by workers rather than a unelectable, unrecallable democratic centralist bureaucracy having control over production across a nationalized economy. You could drive a semi truck through the holes you could poke into the whole "'communist' countries are hell on Earth" myth. Take the nastiest criticisms you can find and compare them with the nastiest forms of oppression and suffering of people in capitalist societies.


Taking historical evidence and reasonable analysis into account, socialism can promote civil liberty and economic parity in post revolutionary societies.That's what I think you should change your thesis to.