Need help rebutting typical anti-communist arguments

[Skyhilist]

Alright so I know I already posted this in the High School Commies' Guide, but I figured not too many posted in that thread anymore so I might as well repost it. Alright, so I'm not a very great debater. I really see good in communism in many ways but never know how to provide the best rebuttal to these questions without going into a detailed explanation that the person I'm arguing against likely wont even understand. Anyone have any suggestions for short and simple rebuttals to some of the following argumentative questions/statements that are commonly used by cappies?

Main arguments I hear against communism:

"What would stop someone from seizing power (without the use of violence) as in communist states in the past?"

"If people get rewarded equally for working and not working, what incentive will the most lazy people have to work?"

"Why don't I deserve to own anything?"

"Without money, how would the value of items be determined?"

"What would stop people from mooching off of the system?"

"What makes communism any better than other failed government systems such as socialism?"

"When you take away my right to choose what I buy, everything that everyone has becomes uniform and the same. Look at the USSR where you couldn't choose what types of things to buy and everyone simply had to buy the same thing. If everyone has to be the same, how can anyone be unique?"

"If everyone is the same, how will people value themselves as important in society when everyone else shares the same status?"

"How would communism be democratic? It's either democratic or un-democratic. If un-democratic, then what would make it any more effective than a dictatorship?"

"If communism was democratic, how would you keep people in the minority from being oppressed due to mob mentality?"

"Why should I have to pay for somebody else's life when I have nothing to gain from it myself?"

"Why should people accept the lack of personal choices caused by communism in comparison to other systems such as socialism and capitalism?"

"Why haven't communist governments worked in the past?"

"In very large populations, who will keep things from getting out of control in times of communism? IF there are elected people, then wont that create different classes of people? If not, then my first question remains."

"What would stop war and conflict from breaking out in times of communism?"

"What will stop people from rebelling against and overthrowing a communist government without the use of violence?"

"Why shouldn't I be able to start my own small business as long as I run it ethically?"

"Who will be in charge of the distribution of services? Wont the people who do this be in a position of power? If not, then why not?"

While some of these questions are a little easier to handle than others, I often have a lot of trouble answering these questions in debates? Can anyone answer these for me please? Thanks!

[campesino]

you don't work, you don't eat.
personalities don't disappear in communism.
your choices aren't what you buy, but what you produce.

1."Why shouldn't I be able to start my own small business as long as I run it ethically?"="why shouldn't I be able to own slaves as long as I don't beat them?" because it is wrong for one man to live off the labors of another.

there is no point in arguing with these people they do not even know the definition of communism.

communism isn't a welfare state, communism isn't lack of private personal(non-means of production) property.

communism is worker control over the means of production and how can you be against workers owning what they create.

[ckaihatsu]

Alright so I know I already posted this in the High School Commies' Guide, but I figured not too many posted in that thread anymore so I might as well repost it. Alright, so I'm not a very great debater. I really see good in communism in many ways but never know how to provide the best rebuttal to these questions without going into a detailed explanation that the person I'm arguing against likely wont even understand. Anyone have any suggestions for short and simple rebuttals to some of the following argumentative questions/statements that are commonly used by cappies?


Overall, these all deal with the *paradigm* of society, so in many cases each one is going to be just as much about the *attitude* as about the *content*. In other words you may want to get a feel for what the person's attitude is in asking the question in the first place -- are they genuinely wondering about the point they're asking about (or parroting something they heard), or are they more about *accusing* the politics of communism as *inherently* having those shortcomings they're naming -- ?

If you can tell that it's more the former, then there's room for actual discussion -- under favorable conditions this person might very well argue *for* communism with someone who's to the right of them. But if their attitude is more anti-communist it may not even be worth engaging them.





Main arguments I hear against communism:

"What would stop someone from seizing power (without the use of violence) as in communist states in the past?"


Only in uncertain times do leadership roles tend to play pivotal roles -- a more broad-based, successful revolution would be more able to fulfill its promise of an egalitarian economy.





"If people get rewarded equally for working and not working, what incentive will the most lazy people have to work?"


They won't, and society won't need them, and probably wouldn't want them. Those who are motivated to better an egalitarian society would be self-selected to do just that.

It's not that everyone would get "rewarded" regardless of their contributions, it's that no one would be under any physical duress, as for their basic needs. But not everyone will take an active interest in societal, political, and labor matters, just as is the case today.





"Why don't I deserve to own anything?"


What a person *possesses*, as for their personal usage, is distinct from *private accumulations*. People deserve a proportion of what the world produces, for their actual personal usage needs, but there's no reason for private ownership just because it's a habit -- there are far better ways for humanity to administrate large-scale assets and resources.





"Without money, how would the value of items be determined?"


Basically according to the number of labor hours that go into their production. (And these labor hours can be weighted according to hazard and difficulty.)





"What would stop people from mooching off of the system?"


For most automatic, machine-produced goods and services this wouldn't even be a problem. But if someone else's direct labor was requested it would then require that person's cooperation since they, too, could just be mooching off of automatic production instead of assisting someone else.





"What makes communism any better than other failed government systems such as socialism?"


World conditions are better-suited now than in the past to make a genuine socialism a reality.





"When you take away my right to choose what I buy, everything that everyone has becomes uniform and the same. Look at the USSR where you couldn't choose what types of things to buy and everyone simply had to buy the same thing. If everyone has to be the same, how can anyone be unique?"


No one is saying that "everything has to be the same" -- what's being said is that 'basic needs come first, for everybody'. If this means -- depending on conditions -- that mass-production can only produce bland uniform products, but that everyone is certain to be housed, fed, educated, etc., then that comes first, with embellishments to come later.





"If everyone is the same, how will people value themselves as important in society when everyone else shares the same status?"


It's not that "everyone is the same" -- that's an over-generalization. It's that everyone would have proportionate political and economic power, as an extension of democracy into matters of industrial production. On a personal level people will value themselves the same ways as ever.





"How would communism be democratic? It's either democratic or un-democratic. If un-democratic, then what would make it any more effective than a dictatorship?"


For communism to be democratic it would have to allow those who do the actual work for society to have collective political power over their own labor.

If chickens were geese then how would they be at all effective as chickens?





"If communism was democratic, how would you keep people in the minority from being oppressed due to mob mentality?"


The focus of communism is on *production* -- it's not necessarily a strongman-led Stalinist dictatorship unless the larger world conditions back it into a corner to become one. In terms of mass production the worst case is that a minority of consumers wouldn't quite get the particular products they requested, since the majority production order would win out.





"Why should I have to pay for somebody else's life when I have nothing to gain from it myself?"


A communist economy -- even a capitalist one -- is not a zero-sum game, where one person's hour of labor worked (or a dollar spent) goes directly into someone else's pocket.

This only serves to illustrate why we need a *political* solution -- revolution -- to a *political* problem -- capitalist crisis -- since a strictly *economic* viewpoint illuminates nothing.





"Why should people accept the lack of personal choices caused by communism in comparison to other systems such as socialism and capitalism?"


For the sake of humanity's better good. The upside is that no one could deny you your proportionate access to society's implements of production, for either consumption or for use yourself to make exactly what you want to make for yourself.





"Why haven't communist governments worked in the past?"


International private interests blocked their development.





"In very large populations, who will keep things from getting out of control in times of communism? IF there are elected people, then wont that create different classes of people? If not, then my first question remains."


It will be up to the self-liberated proletariat to control mass production in its own best interests, now as then.





"What would stop war and conflict from breaking out in times of communism?"


Ending any and all claims to private ownership.





"What will stop people from rebelling against and overthrowing a communist government without the use of violence?"


Nothing.





"Why shouldn't I be able to start my own small business as long as I run it ethically?"


As long as it's not set up to endlessly accumulate profits from revenues.





"Who will be in charge of the distribution of services? Wont the people who do this be in a position of power? If not, then why not?"


Those who provide the labor for services would also be the first ones who could deny their providing of those services.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/

[Ocean Seal]

Main arguments I hear against communism:

"What would stop someone from seizing power (without the use of violence) as in communist states in the past?"

How do you seize power without using violence?



Stuff
Utopian idealist bullshit. Not even worth discussing.

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm sorry but the kind of people who would be asking these type of questions are lost causes. There are two main strategies to answering these questions. Either using a bourgeois framework which appeals to their ignorance and betrays your own convictions or using answering them with a more Marxian logic, which they will not understand. Either way you're fucked.

[ckaihatsu]

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/

[Misanthrope]

"What would stop someone from seizing power (without the use of violence) as in communist states in the past?"

That's a complete failure at an emotional appeal. Parties under the name of communism have accomplished nothing. There is no reason to defend failed states.




"If people get rewarded equally for working and not working, what incentive will the most lazy people have to work?"


The incentive to work is to receive goods, for lack of a better term, in exchange for one's labor. Incentive will increase when working conditions are controlled by the workers themselves.



"Why don't I deserve to own anything?"

Communism seeks to eliminate private property or private ownership of the means of productions. There is a tremendous difference between land and one's clothes, house or tooth brush.




"Without money, how would the value of items be determined?"

Irrelevant.




"What would stop people from mooching off of the system?"

:rolleyes:



"What makes communism any better than other failed government systems such as socialism?" Where has socialism actually existed long enough for it to be accurately analyzed? Bourgeois statism is not socialism.



"When you take away my right to choose what I buy, everything that everyone has becomes uniform and the same. Look at the USSR where you couldn't choose what types of things to buy and everyone simply had to buy the same thing. If everyone has to be the same, how can anyone be unique?"

That's simply a slippery slope. Capitalism, by way of intellectual property right laws, prohibit the free distribution of media and ideas. It does not allow culture to grow in any meaningful way. The Soviet Union is not an accurate example of communism by any means, it simply was totalitarian and anti-worker.




"If everyone is the same, how will people value themselves as important in society when everyone else shares the same status?"


Why must one derive their self worth via others' suffering? That is just a fucked up argument to make. All these really are fallacies.. I can't go on honestly