Arguing against people who say Communism or Anarchism is "Utopian"

[the fencing revolutionary]

Today in Global Studies we were studying socrates, and my teacher mentioned his book The Republic (which ya is a super shit book) and she said it was Utopian. Then she said The Communist Manifesto was also an example of a Utopian idea.(she has also said similar things about Anarchism before) I raised my hand and asked why she thought this, to which she responded "It was a good idea, but it could never work." I said what about the Paris commune, the Anarcho-Syndiclist in the Spanish revolution, or other Communes and such, and she said that none of these have lasted for long terms. How do i argue against these kind of arguments . I know its kind of a nooby question, and it has probably been asked before so if there is one could you direct me to it?

[Nox]

Well, you could say that the only reason places like the Paris Commune, Anarchist Spain and the Ukrainian Free Territory collapsed was because they were invaded by a much larger foreign power. Germany/France, Nationalist Spain, and the USSR, respectively.

Which is why the revolution must take place in a world power (such as the USA), not some backward place that has no relevance to global affairs.

[the fencing revolutionary]

i tried that, but i can't remember exactly what she said. although i think it was along the lines of just repeating herself or saying this was proof that it could not work since they were taken over :blink:

[Nox]

i tried that, but i can't remember exactly what she said. although i think it was along the lines of just repeating herself or saying this was proof that it could not work since they were taken over :blink:

Try and emphasise that the only reason they collapsed was because they were invaded by much larger, more powerful countries.

Does the teacher know you're an Anarchist? If not, would you be comfortable if she did? I'd reccommend seeing her after class and explaining to her that those Anarchist societies were destined to collapse simply because all of them created a power vacuum, which is especially bad when surrounded by foreign powers (see: colonisation of India). Tell the teacher that this is the reason why revolution must happen in a world superpower such as the USA in order for world revolution to be successful :)

As a teacher, she should take your views seriously and respect them, especially if you're a good student. My history teacher & tutor sorta knows that I'm an Anarchist, he disagrees with most things I say but still respects my opinion because I listen and do well in his class, thus he knows that I know what I'm talking about.

[Weezer]

Utopia in Ancient Greek means "non-place".

Socialism or Communism is supposed to be a realistic solution and replacement to capitalism, not utopian.

[LeftAtheist]

You could also try telling him that democracy (as in bourgeois democracy) was once thought to be a utopian idea. It might not be something we agree with but I imagine he does.

Also, my pedantic nature is compelling me to tell you that The Republic is Plato's, though it uses Socrates as a mouthpiece. :thumbup1:

[the fencing revolutionary]

all awesome suggestions are awesome! thanks! and idk what exactly she thinks i am, she knows i am left leaning, but ya she idk wat she thinks since ive got an 83 in her class, mainly because she is not that great a teacher but ya. thanks again next time she says something similar i will use these

[MooseCracker]

Change is the only constant. By collectively accepting and/ or rejecting things in life we set the course of those changes, the future and history in some sense. Being social creatures we are practically socialist or collectivist regardless of our political and economic systems and ideas. Unfortunately it happens that right now the most wealthy are directing many/most of the changes and the propaganda that goes with that. So maybe with people (especially those with power in the most powerful countries) tending towards the decisions that they do, socialism is Utopian or just idealistic but that doesn't mean we ought to accept that. Slavoj Žižek put it nicely (unfortunately i don't remember where i originally found the quote hopefully i got it close if not exact) regarding our current situation including, politics, economics, loss of common spaces, and environment, etc. - "the future will be Utopian or there will be none"

[Manic Impressive]

Just ask her if capitalism was utopian before it was tried. I find things like the Paris commune and Spain '36 bad examples as they never really had any chance of succeeding.

[the fencing revolutionary]

ooooooh yeah! i remember he was like a student of Plato, who even though i don't agree with him on a lot of things he was pretty smart.:thumbup1:

[LeftAtheist]

Plato was Socrates' student (then Aristotle was Plato's student and Alexander the Great was Aristotle's). I remember The Republic was the first philosophical text I read. I didn't agree with much of it, but I did enjoy it quite a bit.

[MarxSchmarx]

i remember he was like a student of Plato

then use the allegory of the cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)against his claim that another world is impossible.

[bricolage]

Which is why the revolution must take place in a world power (such as the USA), not some backward place that has no relevance to global affairs.
No, the revolution must be international, ie. it must spread, not be comprised of chauvinistic ideas about 'backward' places.

[metal gear]

However, the transition from socialism to full communism is not inevitable in the same way that the internal contradictions of the capitalist system lead to its inevitable destruction. Referring to critics who held full communism to be an unobtainable Utopia, Lenin pointed out that their position was one of "ignorance—for it has never entered the head of any socialist to 'promise' that the highest phase of communism will arrive. . . ," He further pointed out that full communism cannot be "introduced" and that "by what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this higher aim—this we do not and cannot know.
w w w .economictheories.org/2009/05/full-communism-ultimate-goal.html

(I don't have enough posts to link my source)

[Mr. Natural]

Utopia--a perfect world--must be the unrealized ideal to which we always point and progress. Communism is the means to do so.

Here is one definition Marx and Engels provide for communism: "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto) Now consider your local natural ecosystem. It will be a vast association in which countless species interrelate with each other and the physical environment in such a way as to maintain their being and the ecosystem. That's life and life is "communist."

Communism is naturally organized society. Marx: "Communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being--a return become conscioius, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuineresolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man ..." (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts)

Finally, I wish to point out and underscore that new scientific developments reveal the organization of life's systems such as that aforementioned ecosystem, and that the organization of life must be the organization of communism and socialist-communist revolutionary processes.

I have been remarkably unsuccesful in getting RevLefters to engage these new, revolutionary sciences, but I will be relentless. You have been warned.

My red-green best.

[Ocean Seal]

SOCIALISM UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC
(http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)

[khlib]

The link that RedBrother posted is best for making the distinction between utopian and scientific socialism. Marx & Engels were inspired by Proudhon and other earlier socialists, but they came to see their ideas as utopian, and attempted to surpass them by coming up with a scientific socialism based on materialism and class struggle.

[danyboy27]

Marx in general was not pre-occupied with the future or the past, he was more concerned about the present and what we could do to change it.

Some marxist are indeed utopians, but its hardly a defining feature of Marxism.

The real utopian today are the deluded folks who think we can keep doing what we do today in our society and economy and expect it to last forever.

The belief that capitalism can go on forever is an utopia in itself.

Marxists dont expect everything to go smooth and rosy, but they are aware that some drastic change must be made today to change the system.

[Tim Cornelis]

i tried that, but i can't remember exactly what she said. although i think it was along the lines of just repeating herself or saying this was proof that it could not work since they were taken over :blink:

You should've pointed out that by that logic Vietnamese styled Marxism-Leninism is better than American-styled capitalism because the Vietnamese beat the US in the Vietnam War. Or that North Korean's juche is equal to South Korean capitalism because the Korean War lead to a status quo ante bellum. In other words, military strength says nothing about the desirability nor feasibility of a political, social, and economic system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Today in Global Studies we were studying socrates, and my teacher mentioned his book The Republic (which ya is a super shit book) and she said it was Utopian. Then she said The Communist Manifesto was also an example of a Utopian idea.(she has also said similar things about Anarchism before) I raised my hand and asked why she thought this, to which she responded "It was a good idea, but it could never work." I said what about the Paris commune, the Anarcho-Syndiclist in the Spanish revolution, or other Communes and such, and she said that none of these have lasted for long terms. How do i argue against these kind of arguments . I know its kind of a nooby question, and it has probably been asked before so if there is one could you direct me to it?
This is a prime example of idealism. We can picture it this way:

1) Communism is an idea

2) Practical communism didn't last

3) Therefore the idea of communism is flawed

The root mistake here is the unvoiced* assumption that historical changes happen as the result of the development of an idea without any "collaboration" from the material world. They practically deny the existence of the material world heterogenous from human thought - which is a basic methodolocial position of all science. As such, those people rid themselves of the nasty problem of explaining concretely what actually happened, and instead fall back on this short cut of the accusation of utopianism. To ask the question of material factors behind historical changes and their impact upon human thought (which also, in turn, shapes reality as part of human material practice - you cannot imagine production, for example, of a table without the knowledge of what a table is). It's far to easier, and musch less dangerous, to call any notion of a possible different human world (do note that indeed the charge of utopianism is well grounded when directed at the likes of Fourier and his followers) utopian than examine rationally its material bases (in the case of communism, the material basis being world revolution and the conscious transformation of social relations of production, but the point is that human consciousness cannot just deny the existing material factors - thus the conscious transformations of social relations proceeds from the consciousness of its immediate material "environment") and the arguments put forward to defend its viability.


* in fact, it's very important to note that probably this person is not maliciously misleeading in their arguments, but that certain patterns and modes of thinking are very deeply entrenched, which results in them being practically habits

[Q]

... and she said that none of these have lasted for long terms...

As I've argued before, back in June (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1654), humanity is in fact a revolutionary species, having lived in a communist social order for over 90% of our species' existence. Communism is in fact our species being and it completely natural for humans to tolerate exploitation and oppression for so long before they revolt against it. As I said back in June:


I'm not going to repeat others, but for the "human nature" argument I want to point out that it is also historically flawed. Capitalism has only existed for the last few centuries. Class society only dates back about 10 000 years. Human existence - that is, our specific species, Homo Sapiens - dates back to about 100 000 years. There is a large body of evidense that during about 90% of our existence we lived in a classless society. Marxists refer to this age as "primitive communism". In fact, the Radical Anthropology Group (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html), among others, is defending the idea that human existence itself is actually due to the overthrow of the alpha-male system that is seen in other primates, like gorillas. In other words, historically speaking, humanity is a revolutionary species that has lived in a communist social order most of its existence.

Let those silly capitalists answer that!

[Red Noob]

Logic and way of thinking of people who think Communism/Socialism is utopia:

Women's Rights was a little too perfect, the abolition of slavery was a little too fair (I mean, who's going to do all this work then?, the light bulb was ridiculous, telecommunication was a far fetched dream, I mean, how can any of these things ever come about? It's too hard, it's too complicated, it's all utopian thought. Let's all just sit around and be comfortable with what we have. Social change and technological innovation is no longer needed. :)

Superior way of thinking:

No, it's not utopian, nothing is or ever will be perfect, but if you're going to sit there and tell me something is impossible because it's too good to be true, then you're nothing more than a coward, a lazy coward. A lazy coward who fears change or thinks it would take too much work. So, if you fear change, then you don't know history. If you think it would take to much work, not only do you not know history, but you don't have or know what it would take to make history.

[the fencing revolutionary]

thanks for all the suggestions and ya next time she says something ill speak up.. just more equiped:)

[Comrade Samuel]

Because achieving the dream will only be impossible if people continue to say it's impossible. To simply say communism looks good on paper but will never work out in reality is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Tim Finnegan]

I like to take the Zizekian approach on this one and spin it round on them, claiming that liberalism is in fact the truly utopian philosophy in this era, and that communism is the only realistic solution to the problems amassing at the gates of society. The second of baffled silence gives you a nice head start on trying to justify why this is the case. :D