Dealing with reactionaries and persuading people

[Lei Feng]

Hello comrades.

I have another topic that i'd like to bring up. Not too long ago, whilst having a discussion with a few people about Marxism Leninism(and Communism in general) I was met with mixed results. Some seemed interested, others bored saying things like "who gives a fuk?" or ignoring what i was saying, and then there were the right wingers/libertarians/market fundamentalists....

damn, where do i even begin. They stared off by calling me a nazi(even though i'm not white or racist in any way) then saying that humans are naturally barbaric beasts that are supposed to take advantage of one another because thats "the only way to survive". Then they claimed every socialist country was a "Failure" to which i responded, what of the current economic crisis and the previous crises of the past in capitalist countries? and they said "oh, that was caused by you socailist bastards fuking up free market capitalism" then they made accusations of Mao being a pedophile. I could go on...but i could write a damn book.


Anyways, it seems hard getting the idea of Communism across to some people and convincing people can be easy at times, but in certain cases, like this one, it can be pretty hard.

well, id appreciate any tips to help combat this reactionary garbage and set people's minds on the right track. Also, it'd be cool if you guys tell me about any times you were encountered with reactionary statements and how you countered them.

thanks :hammersickle:

[CommunityBeliever]

We actually have a separate thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/science-overturns-view-t168131/index.html) which provides scientific evidence that overturns the claim that humans are naturally barbaric beasts. As for the claim that Mao was a pedophile, that is a ludicrous slander. Mao had a happy family life and he has living descendants in China

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

First of all, Mao was not a pedo.

Second of all, reactionaries like statistics. They use it aginst us all the time; that our glorious ideology of Marxism-Leninism killed "over 100 million people throughout the 20th Century." They get this shit from this French book called the Black Book of Communism. According to some of the contributors to the book (Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin), the author was apperently obsessed with reaching the number of 100 million, even if it was right or wrong. Typical of right-wingers to lie. Tell your capitalist friends that. Also, we do not know how many people actually died "at the hands" of our great leaders. For Stalin's Russia, estimates range from 3.5 million to 60 million dead. For Mao's China, estimates range from 19.5 million to 75 million dead. How nice and accurate. Also, tell them that Stalin and Mao had to transform their respective nations from feudal economies to strong socialist economies, and they did so in short periods of time with success. Some people died by mistake during these progresses. While it is sad, what are you going to do? Dismiss the ideal overall just because of a few statistics from history. Also, it is estimated that about 100 million people also die worldwide from capitalism every ten years. According to capitalist exaggerations, 100 million people died because of communism over a period of about 70 years. So in the same time frame, capitalism and imperialism killed over 70 million people worldwide, excluding wars, famines, genocides, and whatnot. That will surprise the hell out of them and shut them up.

To convince them to switching over to our side, I do not know what you can do.... I did change one of my friend's mind to communism, but he was already a radical Social Democrat, so it really does not count. As long as they stop calling you a supporter of murderers, everything's ok. You should really do your own research because no one can really help you more to combat reactionaries than yourself.

I hope this helped at least a little. Just don't worry, you are not alone. :thumbup1:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mao had a happy family life

If by "happy family life", you mean "he happily spread veneral disease among his entourage of groupies", then yes, he certainly did. ;)

[Ostrinski]

Don't bother with them imo. Not unless you enjoy it for some reason.

[RedSonRising]

I can usually either convince them or at the least make them aware their arguments hold no basis.

[Babeufist]

I suggest two arguments:
1. cooperation not rivalry is natural way of human progress. Read Kropotkin.
2. "free-market capitalism" NEVER exists, in fact. Read Spencer.

[Imposter Marxist]

Just convince them that all previous attempts at socialism were a farce, and were infact deflected bourgeois totalitarian takeovers led by either: The Intellgentsia, Petty-Bourgeois elements, party bueracratic-careerists.

There wasn't enough workers control. The workers didn't own 100 precent of their social surplus value. The socialist capital was controlled by the elites.

[Drosophila]

I tend to just ignore the existences of people like that.

[The Αnarchist Tension]

Personally, I think time should be spent on dealing with people who are more open first. Get all of the support from the easiest first, then move on do talking to reactionaries. When we don't have many people on our side, people will dismiss us even quicker.

[citizen of industry]

I.Know the counter-arguments. They all use the same arguments, because they just regurgitate the same old misconceptions, slanders and lies. So knowing the counter-arguments is helpful. Perusing the OI thread should take care of that.

II. Don't defend socialism, attack capitalism. Especially modern examples. Chomsky provides a lot of good, modern examples. Read socialist websites, labor websites etc. Someone praises Steve Jobs, attack labor abuses in China, i.g; foxconn. Marxian analysis is accurate, so finding modern examples to back it is easy.

III. Just avoid arguments with those people. People don't enter arguments in order to be convinced of something else. Let material conditions convince them, and focus on building your union, party, or what-have-you.

[Enragé]

just learn this line by heart

"all we want is that people have the power [or if you want to come across more moderate: a say] in the places where they live and where they work"
if they start bullshitting about the 'communist' or 'socialist' states or whatever, you can simply reply "well, according to you people did not have that power there, right? So you're attacking me for supporting something i clearly dont support"

the human nature = evil argument is complete bullshit. You can discount it by naming things that people do that all people consider good (loving, caring, altruism), and point to the social side of evolution (human beings have always lived in groups and depended on one another to survive). For the vast majority of our history we lived in groups without (structured) hierarchy, because the only thing you could own was a nice spear or neckless or whatever and people were always on the brink of starving. This is not to say that humans are inherently good, just that we can be both 'good' and 'evil', even if we reduce humanity to its evolutionary history.

[Optiow]

Also, it is estimated that about 100 million people also die worldwide from capitalism every ten years.
You got any evidence for this? I think it's feasible, but I'd need evidence to link it in an argument.

[m1omfg]

You got any evidence for this? I think it's feasible, but I'd need evidence to link it in an argument.

Cca 14 million people die from malnutrition every year in the world.

[Psy]

Just convince them that all previous attempts at socialism were a farce, and were infact deflected bourgeois totalitarian takeovers led by either: The Intellgentsia, Petty-Bourgeois elements, party bueracratic-careerists.

There wasn't enough workers control. The workers didn't own 100 precent of their social surplus value. The socialist capital was controlled by the elites.
That is a over simplification and causes huge issues when you want to bring the good elements of Leninist Russia. Instead I refer to the Russian revolution as a half-revolution that failed to create a post-capitalist society and only were able to heavily reform capitalism yet never was able to move past capitalism due to the revolution stopping at the end of the Russian civil-war.