I am tired of reading "USSR, China, Cuba, DPRK, DDR wasn't communist/socialist'

[campesino]

Yes I do recognize that they did not develop into communism. I do recognize that they are state capitalist or degenerated worker's state. But, telling this to capitalist(conservatives liberals,libertarians) serves no purpose, besides to make us look like we are changing the subject.

when someone brings up the issue of human rights abuses, starvation we should bring up the example of terrible living conditions and starvation in India, Thailand, USA, Saudi Arabia and pretty much anywhere in the capitalist world. Capitalism does not work.

We should criticize their narrow minded view of the capitalist world as one of white picket fences and men coming home from good paying jobs in late model cars, and the view of the East Bloc as some terrible gigantic gulag where no one ever smiled and everybody ate turnips in between waiting at the bread line.

zDkzpVIBfH0

[Art Vandelay]

You have the weirdest avatar.

[Lobotomy]

The thing is that there are people who really don't know that the USSR, China etc were not communist, so it's really not changing the subject at all. as long as you explain why they weren't, there isn't any counter argument they could use. If they're open minded they'll listen; if they're not open minded then it's useless anyway. You might even end up exposing them to the idea of communism for the first time ever and possibly influencing their worldview. it is tiring but we need to expose these ideas to people as much as possible.


when someone brings up the issue of human rights abuses, starvation we should bring up the example of terrible living conditions and starvation in India, Thailand, USA, Saudi Arabia and pretty much anywhere in the capitalist world.

I agree.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You have the weirdest avatar.
It makes me cringe like I've just dragged my fingernails down a chalkboard

[Zukunftsmusik]

when someone brings up the issue of human rights abuses, starvation we should bring up the example of terrible living conditions and starvation in India, Thailand, USA, Saudi Arabia and pretty much anywhere in the capitalist world. Capitalism does not work.

well, yeah, it is true that capitalist apologists critisice "us" for Mao's great leap forward, while completely forgetting about the deaths by starvation of even more people in India during the same historical period. For example.

However, this isn't a number game, where we win by saying "yes, x amount people died because of "real socialism", but even more people die from capitalism!". Such a counting game isn't very fruitful, for either of the sides, actually.

[Comrades Unite!]

It makes me cringe like I've just dragged my fingernails down a chalkboard

You have the best sig, It's from the grapes of wrath.

Well anyway OP you make a fair point, Disagreeable but fair.

[RedHammer]

I'll copy and paste my response to another thread.

"I'll chime in and say that if we continually dismiss the historical attempts at socialism with the "that wasn't real socialism/communism" line, we come across the same way as idealistic lolbertarians or otherwise people who are out of touch with reality and history. We do indeed lose our credibility.

Instead, what's more fruitful is to detail the material conditions surrounding the states that attempted socialism; to explain, with detailed analysis, what went right and want went wrong; to draw parallels; and to suggest models for the future based on what was learned in the past. Like it or not, socialism was attempted in history and we need to recognize that and analyze that and not dismiss it out of hand. "

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You'll have to used to it, chicken

[Blackbird123]

We have unveil the mist surrounded in the word "communism" and "socialism" to a person before we can even have a discussion with a regular person. We cannot help that the rich class has to give the wrong definition for communism to poeple but we can undo the damage made by the Tories.

[The_Red_Spark]

I don't know where I stand on this question. You can call a dog a cat but its still a dog and it certainly won't meow. I think it is important to explain the real characteristics of a Socialist and Communist system to the world so that the words lose their fear factor when used so loosely by right wingers and those who use fear mongering to scare people away from progress. The words are tossed around so loosely that even reformist capitalist policies are dubbed communist by people like Glen Beck and other imperialist pundits.

I also feel it is important to explain that the growing pains involved in taking a backwards nation, without a fully advanced mode of production, to Socialism are far worse than in an advanced nation where the country has already developed to full capitalist maturity first. China and the USSR went from a third world level of backwardness so rapidly that there were massive problems and the human cost was one of them. Another thing to consider is that even the American Civil War had a high death toll and both China(23yrs) and Russia(5yrs) had long civil wars before establishing the workers states in these nations. Much of the death tolls can be explained by civil war; just like much of the famine in the USSR can be attributed to the worldwide famine over the same time period.

However, I also agree with another poster in the thread who said we must also point out the progress and successes. To go from just emerging from a system of serfdom to full industrialization in a generation was considered an incredible feat and success. The USSR spread electrification throughout its territory which consisted of one sixth of the worlds land above water and became a superpower. It made tremendous progress and had major accomplishments. It was an incredible experiment considering it was questionable if a backwards nation like Imperial Russia could make the jump at all. It did pretty well despite a world war that nearly destroyed everything it had built and having all of capitalism's might from all over the world bearing down on it from day 1.

[campesino]

well, yeah, it is true that capitalist apologists critisice "us" for Mao's great leap forward, while completely forgetting about the deaths by starvation of even more people in India during the same historical period. For example.

However, this isn't a number game, where we win by saying "yes, x amount people died because of "real socialism", but even more people die from capitalism!". Such a counting game isn't very fruitful, for either of the sides, actually.

The purpose in bringing up the victims of capitalism is not to play and win a numbers game, but to teardown their idealistic view of capitalism.

[RedMaterialist]

The purpose in bringing up the victims of capitalism is not to play and win a numbers game, but to teardown their idealistic view of capitalism.

I think socialists and communists need to take a longer view of history. It took 5,000 yrs to transition from tribalism to slavery, another 1,000 from slavery to feudalism and another 500 from feudalism to capitalism.

As far as the numbers game why not add up the total slaughter under capitalism, both in the aggregate (as the economists would say) and as a percentage of world population? You could start with the transatlantic slave trade, the clearances, the Irish Famine, native American genocide, WWI and II, etc.

[The_Red_Spark]

The purpose in bringing up the victims of capitalism is not to play and win a numbers game, but to teardown their idealistic view of capitalism.
The problem is that by playing the bean counting game you are playing their game. You are playing the game they want to play. It is a losing battle from jump. You have way too much to cover to make a cohesive and coherent point and if it isn't a written debate you will get cut short before you can make a coherent case and the whole subject will change to some other tidbit and you will be backpedaling the whole time. Steer clear of arguing on numbers.

[The_Red_Spark]

I think socialists and communists need to take a longer view of history. It took 5,000 yrs to transition from tribalism to slavery, another 1,000 from slavery to feudalism and another 500 from feudalism to capitalism.

As far as the numbers game why not add up the total slaughter under capitalism, both in the aggregate (as the economists would say) and as a percentage of world population? You could start with the transatlantic slave trade, the clearances, the Irish Famine, native American genocide, WWI and II, etc.
This would have to depend on the format for debate. Do you have the time, without interruption, to give a history lesson and a breakdown on deaths by capitalism category by category? This is playing into their argument and is a tactical error. You fight on ground of your choosing not on the ground that your enemy selects for you.

What do either of those backward societies have in common with the most advanced nation in the capitalist world, e.g. the US, or one of the other highly advanced nations like the UK or Germany where the mode of production is prepared for a takeover and immediate transition to Socialism? The answer is virtually nothing. So you cannot make a comparison or draw a conclusion that the same results will come about in an advanced country.

That is three sentences. Being that they won't know how to argue that point due to total ignorance the momentum is taken away and the initiative is in your hands. Not only that but it is a technically sound position.

[Hermes]

I'd have to argue that it usually is useful, if only because it might actually make them learn what it is.

But only, in my opinion, if you're willing to take the time and (monumental) patience that are involved in leading a person to a discovery of any kind, especially one that goes against predetermined beliefs. If you aren't there to help, they'll probably just continually second guess the conversation, as well as what they're finding, and end up abandoning it.

[Grenzer]

Usually this is the line taken by people who have shitty enough politics to actually think that the Soviet Union and co. were socialist to deflect from the fact that it can in no way be justified from either a practical or theoretical point of view.

[Teacher]

The "communist" states have done a great deal that is admirable and worth learning from. By dismissing the experience of actually existing socialism leftists only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

It is really interesting to me that "leftists" on here are so eager to dump on the Soviet Union and Maoist China but are eager to celebrate liberal reformists. You'd think revolutionaries would support... I dunno, revolutions? Or something.

[Teacher]

Dismissing every example of actually existing socialism makes you look like a right-wing libertarian arguing that "real capitalism" doesn't exist nowadays, and the only reason capitalism has problems is because it isn't close enough to "real capitalism."

[#FF0000]

The "communist" states have done a great deal that is admirable and worth learning from. By dismissing the experience of actually existing socialism leftists only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

There is plenty to learn from the USSR and China, I'm sure, but that doesn't really change the fact that their revolutions failed.


Dismissing every example of actually existing socialism makes you look like a right-wing libertarian arguing that "real capitalism" doesn't exist nowadays, and the only reason capitalism has problems is because it isn't close enough to "real capitalism."

I agree with you here -- that's a bad way to frame it. It's much better to say that these countries were communist in name only, and were, at best, struggling to build socialism. But they couldn't. Russia was just too isolated and devastated after the Civil War.


It is really interesting to me that "leftists" on here are so eager to dump on the Soviet Union and Maoist China but are eager to celebrate liberal reformists. You'd think revolutionaries would support... I dunno, revolutions? Or something.Where did anyone celebrate 'liberal reformists'?

[RedHammer]

The problem is that by playing the bean counting game you are playing their game. You are playing the game they want to play. It is a losing battle from jump. You have way too much to cover to make a cohesive and coherent point and if it isn't a written debate you will get cut short before you can make a coherent case and the whole subject will change to some other tidbit and you will be backpedaling the whole time. Steer clear of arguing on numbers.

I generally agree, but as campesino said, it does serve to demolish the idealism surrounding capitalism.

The main problem with pointing out the death toll of capitalism is that people will tell you "but that's not real capitalism".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Dismissing every example of actually existing socialism makes you look like a right-wing libertarian arguing that "real capitalism" doesn't exist nowadays, and the only reason capitalism has problems is because it isn't close enough to "real capitalism."

This is true if you think that all that the USSR or China or North Korea needed were some new reforms on an otherwise workable system.


But, telling this to capitalist(conservatives liberals,libertarians) serves no purpose, besides to make us look like we are changing the subject. Well if someone says Nazi-ism is a kind of socialism, is it changing the subject to try and clarify what socialism really is and why Nazi-ism isn't it at all.

The problem with countering their argument with detailing the "crimes of capitalism" is that it becomes a moral highground argument as others have said in this thread. But it also doesn't challenge the basic reason that this argument about the USSR et al is so effective: it's a way to convince people who ALREADY aren't impressed with life in capitalism that the alternative is WORSE. So often detailing the crimes of capitalism won't impact an anti-communist liberal because they may even grant you that capitalism has done all these terrible things from enclosures to slavery to imperialism and so on. They'll say, well at least we can try and change things here unlike in North Korea.

Complete capitalist apologism is actually pretty rare in the general population - outside of libertarian and tea-party circles. Propaganda is more effective in showing how the USSR was the same or worse than Western Capitalism for workers and so detailing the problems of capitalism doesn't counter that - it may actually bolster the idea that capitalism and socialism are both oppressive, but at least in western capitalism we have the Beatles and some bourgeois rights.

We really need to emphasize IMO the basics: that socialist revolution is the self-emancipation of the working class. Not some reforms from above by parliaments or coups.

[jookyle]

To be honest, if someone says Nazism and Socialism are the same thing(or a varient of such) then they simply don't know what they're talking about. You should tell them to go read a book and leave the conversation.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think viewing strictly in terms of X state being 'Communist' or not is a rather simplistic analysis however with this being said, I've always found the "it wasn't truly Communist herp derp," argument silly myself.

[piet11111]

If you let them get away with painting those country's as socialist/communist you let them set the definition of what socialism/communism is.

If i was a bystander and heard you say that north korea is socialist but not quite there yet i would end up voting for the right to avoid having the "left" turning my country into another north korea.

They are trying to discredit our ideology by using those specific country's because they are terrible places to live in and saying we want to replicate that !

[Lokomotive293]

I don't think dismissing any attempt at building socialism as "not reallly socialist" is getting us anywhere. Instead of buying into the bourgeois propaganda about how terrible those states were/are, we should challenge that view, and point to the achievements of actually existing socialism, while, at the same time, having an analysis of its mistakes, as well as the specific material conditions socialist countries were/are in.

[maskerade]

All of those states came about because of a communist movement. To deny that they were socialist/communist seems to be a really cheap tactic, because it was precisely because of a communist movement that they came about. There was always a leftist bloc that was heavily critical of the soviet experiment, and this should be kept in mind, but unfortunately it was the entire leftist project that was socially discredited at the end of the cold war, not just Marxist-Leninism.

USSR/China etc were attempts at communism/socialism, and the point should be to explain why those attempts weren't ideal and also to emphasize that they came about because of specific historical circumstances that can't be replicated today, and to point out that just because those revolutions failed it doesn't mean that future revolutions will - because that doesn't really seem to make any sense.

[Geiseric]

I don't think anybody who knows the marxist definition of socialism can really define any of these countries as socialist, because there was still a state hanging over the populations, a state that was formed because of the reactionary forces worldwide, which ended up emulating and eventually becoming them. Capitalists don't get that the USSR couldn't become socialist because of the war that happened, and because Nazis killed all of the communists in Germany, and also because those communists in germany recieved their orders from Stalinists, which represented the interests of the Russian state bureaucracy, namely the restoration of capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All of those states came about because of a communist movement. To deny that they were socialist/communist seems to be a really cheap tactic, because it was precisely because of a communist movement that they came about.Well the same would be true of the Social Democratic parties and movements which have also come to govern counties - do we also say, well they are socialist, just imperfect because of X, Y, Z?

We shouldn't deny that these are trends that developed out of the movement, but it's a whole other argument to say that any level of "socialism" was maintained or produced in these societies. I don't think it was a trick by these groups or individuals either, I think many sincerely wanted change, but without power from below, power at the top even with good intentions is not going to "make socialism" which makes it all too easy for other forces (in the absence of working class power) to assert their interests.

But then again this really depends on how socialism is defined and what people mean by socialism. For me, it's not a collection of reforms or the quantity of non-private production, it's who's actually in power in society and so that qualitative transformation was fleeting in Russia and basically non-existant in many of the revolutions that adopted the USSR model or fought for a system along those lines.

So it's a bit loaded to say that we shouldn't argue that "the USSR wasn't socialist" when at least 1/2 of the members here think it was and the other half don't think it was. So as someone who thinks that socialism is a worker-run society with power from below, I think it's important to differentiate what I'm fighting for from what the USSR and the US agreed was the definition of socialism: state-ownership organized from above by bureaucrats (even benign ones).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

All of those states came about because of a communist movement. To deny that they were socialist/communist seems to be a really cheap tactic, because it was precisely because of a communist movement that they came about. There was always a leftist bloc that was heavily critical of the soviet experiment, and this should be kept in mind, but unfortunately it was the entire leftist project that was socially discredited at the end of the cold war, not just Marxist-Leninism.

USSR/China etc were attempts at communism/socialism, and the point should be to explain why those attempts weren't ideal and also to emphasize that they came about because of specific historical circumstances that can't be replicated today, and to point out that just because those revolutions failed it doesn't mean that future revolutions will - because that doesn't really seem to make any sense.
It doesn't matter if they came about as a result of a communist movement, by the very definition of 'communism', neither China nor the USSR was communist. As for socalist, this is all dependent on what you think the defining features of socialism are, and this varies across the left.

It is necessary to view things rationally and without jumping to defend anything which features a hammer & sickle or a red star. If we're to irrationally defend any system based on ideological reasons then we are no better than the liberals which lump the whole left into the category of Soviet flag-waving Stalinophiles. It's not about picking sides, the only side we take is the side of the oppressed and what's good for them is the first point of analysis.

The entire leftist project was discredited after the fall of the USSR, you're right - this doesn't change the fact that, as leftists and rational thinkers, we need to remain critical and objective in our approach to analysing society.

I refuse to take sides in historical narratives which are constructed by the bourgeoisie.

[The_Red_Spark]

I generally agree, but as campesino said, it does serve to demolish the idealism surrounding capitalism.

The main problem with pointing out the death toll of capitalism is that people will tell you "but that's not real capitalism".
I think it would depend on where, how, and with whom you are arguing. I hear that argument brought into play most often by fascists and right wing types that are Glen Beck fan-club members and I feel that those are people who are in mental gridlock and incapable of seeing it any other way than as true and total manifestations of communism. People who believe that Obama is a Socialist are fixated on this illogical conclusion and aren't going to budge.

I would have to say that these people are not interested in learning anything and at best you can foster some curiosity with bystanders and eavesdroppers. In this case the argument has potential to engage the curiosity of the bystanders. Again this depends on the who aspect or in other words where they stand ideologically and their capacity for critical thinking.

I think that you have to be flexible with your approach and correctly tailor the debate to the proper target audience. It is best to be well armed with an agile and multifaceted debate using all of the discussed ideas in the thread. You just have to keep in mind that verbal debate is fast paced and you may only get to develop your point to a very limited extent before being cut-off. An argument that takes 5 minutes to deliver and explain is usually not possible in that scenario.

[The_Red_Spark]

I think the discussion in this thread has been excellent. Many good points have been brought up. I would like to especially point out the 2nd page and Broody Guthrie, Random_Girl, Maskerade, Jimmie Higgins, Piet1111, JooKyle, and Mahmoud Amandinnerjacket. All have made excellent points.

With that being said I would like to add the following to the discussion; the word most often used in this debate(not here but outside the forum) is the word communism. I ask you this: have we been fortunate enough to witness the withering away of the state as described my Marx and Engels? This is not a word that is interchangeable with the word Socialism when defining the system itself and is not a mere matter of semantics, hair splitting, or an oversimplification in any way. The world has never seen Communism as it is properly defined and this is a matter of fact not opinion. You may not like this position in the course of debate but this is a fact that must be acknowledged.

These 'Socialist' states, no matter the individual take on whether they achieved Socialism or not, were brought about by Communist parties in name and with this aim in mind irregardless of the methods they chose. I do not think it is relevant to question their intentions or integrity in this matter. They made an earnest effort and I think that one must admit that these were Communist parties in name and Communist individuals who seized power in their respective countries. I think this should not be denied and that it is intellectual dishonesty to take any other position. This much should be obvious even to our opposition.

I also feel that we should point out the successes these states had despite the full weight of the world trying to destroy them with every means at their disposal. Accomplishments should be taken into account with the understanding that when one takes this position we must be willing to accept the good with the bad or run the risk of attempting to bury the bad under the concept that it wasn't Socialism while claiming only the successes. Again this would not come across as anything other than intellectual dishonesty.

For this reason I think it is important to point out that the accomplishments were made under the strangest of contradictions in consideration of how Socialism is defined and that the successes can and should be attributed correctly and properly to the centralized planned economy and not to the state itself. This is the catalyst for these breakthroughs and it is from this point that the resources and funds were allocated. The Soviet space program comes to mind when I make this point.

I would not fail to mention, in the course of debating this subject at length, the conditions both socio-economic and historical, under which all of these states were formed and in which they existed. It must be considered that the Second World War is the reason for much of the death toll in China over the period from which these statistics are figured as well as a 23 year Civil War. It must also be considered that during the collectivization process of agriculture inside the USSR, the world was undergoing a worldwide famine and food shortage. This even caused an estimated 7 million deaths in the United States over the same time period. Another factor to consider is the worldwide Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-20 which also killed an estimated 50-100 million people worldwide. Lastly I would mention the position that all of the countries that attempted to make the leap to Socialism were extremely backwards and underdeveloped.

It should be mentioned that the necessary preconditions were not present within any of these countries. That industry was just beginning to be established in most and was only present in small concentrations. Even Imperial Russia was only just beginning to exit an era of serfdom and concentrated industry was in it's infancy and was only in a few major cities. I choose to describe this as growing pains but I don't want to minimize the human cost of this.

The conditions were not ripe for Socialism which was theorized to be possible in countries with an advanced mode of production that would be ready made for the transition to Socialism. This was not the case and though Karl Marx did mention the possibility of a Russian Socialist state it was not a fully developed economy which was the basis for most if not all of his major works.

This state of underdevelopment meant the countries had to make a major leap forward economically, bypassing the stage of bourgeois capitalism, and into a system that was untried and untested. The end result was neither Socialism nor Capitalism but a hybrid of sorts. For the States to have moved on to true Socialism it would have necessitated a further spread of Socialism into the advanced nations of Europe to balance the scales in an odd sort of way. Without this prerequisite being met it was forced to compete on a capitalist footing. This unequal footing caused both competing forces to hybridize and adapt to meet the demands brought about by the methods of the other. I can give concrete examples of this. If I am not mistaken I believe this to be dialectics in motion. In this regard this was a necessary step in the historical process that has brought us closer to the realization of Socialism.

I still maintain the position that the best argument is not to engage the numbers game but to remain highly flexible. It is hard to cover all the above ground in a limited time constrained format of verbal debate. You cannot expect to stay as organized and expect to be granted time without interruption to get out a cohesive and coherent position like this without it being a typed/written online debate. Verbal debate is fast paced, thought is fleeting, and interruptions and jumps to new topics are the norm. You lose the opponent to often when attempting to give long winded history and economic lessons. I also feel it is a critical mistake to allow the enemy to define what Socialism and Communism truly are.

Regardless of my personal take on all of this I hope people here have found my analysis helpful and thought provoking. I am not very strong on theory and I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts. By reading this thread; I have developed my own position more definitively. I would appreciate respectful criticism and feedback from everyone. Cheers to all for having a civil discussion that is beneficial to all.:)

[Zukunftsmusik]

The purpose in bringing up the victims of capitalism is not to play and win a numbers game, but to teardown their idealistic view of capitalism.

indeed, but you said that when people mention this or that atrocity in [I]we should respond with pointing out the victims of capitalism, which in the end would turn into a number game. It's basically equal to pointing out that "we've killed the fewest", which isn't a very good point.

But of course, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the faults of the capitalist system, which of course isn't excluded to atrocities and famine.

[Lanky Wanker]

But, telling this to capitalist(conservatives liberals,libertarians) serves no purpose, besides to make us look like we are changing the subject.


1 + 1 = 5

No it's not.

STOP AVOIDING THE SUBJECT!!!

I don't see how pointing out an error in the most important aspect of someone's anti-communist or anti-China/Cuba/Russia/whatever argument is avoiding the subject in their eyes. If they choose to ignore that they're arguing bullshit, THEY are the ones avoiding the subject. Are we supposed to avoid correcting people on important aspects of their arguments because they're too stupid to clean out their ears? What are you hoping to achieve by letting them go along with that idea? How can I defend the practice of wearing shoes if someone claims that shoes shoot bullets and kill people, and I just go along with that idea? Anyway, people who are too thick to take in and process the words "the USSR was not communist" aren't going to pick up the Manifesto and join a Marxist forum anytime soon, so what are you hoping to achieve in the first place?

[NorgeKommunistAntiIsrael]

Haha very funny. :thumbup: Are you history less or are you joking?

And the communist label for North Korea was removed in 1992. They kept the socialist label, but they aren't at all! :laugh: I am tired of reading that North Korea is still communist. And they have never been in fact either. And DDR, do you really mean so or are you joking?!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: The USSR and DDR had cleptocrat leaders taking money from the people.:( I agree about Cuba, but the others are just redicolous claiming that they were. Because they were never. Cuba is the only of them to have escaped the cleptocrats.

[Tim Cornelis]

well, yeah, it is true that capitalist apologists critisice "us" for Mao's great leap forward, while completely forgetting about the deaths by starvation of even more people in India during the same historical period. For example.

India adopted a Soviet inspired "socialism" including central planning, consequently pointing that out would backfire if your opponent has historical knowledge regarding the subject. (Though unlike in the USSR, there was still a relatively major private sector).

[Il Medico]

Yes I do recognize that they did not develop into communism. I do recognize that they are state capitalist or degenerated worker's state. But, telling this to capitalist(conservatives liberals,libertarians) serves no purpose, besides to make us look like we are changing the subject. How so? Their argument against communism in those cases is completely based on the x,y,and z's of that particular country's misdeeds. Correcting them is completely on topic, especially considering most people you'd be arguing with don't understand how capitalism or communism works beyond the spoon fed line of "Capitalism is freedom and democracy and socialism is dictatorships and breadlines".


when someone brings up the issue of human rights abuses, starvation we should bring up the example of terrible living conditions and starvation in India, Thailand, USA, Saudi Arabia and pretty much anywhere in the capitalist world. Yeah sure you could, if your only goal is to get your jollies off by making them feel slightly uncomfortable or just pissing them off. Sure, I've enjoyed bringing up the crimes of capitalism or Christianity when arguing with a right-winger in the past, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Saying, "Yeah the Khmer Rouge kinda sucked and all, but capitalism sucks way worse because..." just makes you sound like a war crimes apologist and doesn't help your case because at the end of the day politics isn't some fucked up golf game measured by kill count with the lowest score taking home the gold.


Capitalism does not work.Except it totally does. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite sure capitalism will eventually tear itself apart, but so far its still working. The problem isn't that it doesn't work, but how it works. Just like feudalism or any other socioeconomic system we've had, capitalism isn't designed to make sunshine and rainbows and keep everyone well fed and happy. It's designed to benefit the few at the top, while keeping the exploited masses in line. Unless your having the argument at a yacht club, that's probably a point you're gonna want to stress.


We should criticize their narrow minded view of the capitalist world as one of white picket fences and men coming home from good paying jobs in late model cars, and the view of the East Bloc as some terrible gigantic gulag where no one ever smiled and everybody ate turnips in between waiting at the bread line.

I agree, but you don't do that by comparing kill counts. You do it by talking about the realities of capitalism they can both see and feel, especially nowadays, while dispelling the bullshit about communism. It doesn't matter if you convince them capitalism is bad if you haven't convinced them that communism isn't.

[Peoples' War]

You propose we claim it was socialism?

Christ, you have to be taking the piss. The capitalist who refuses to accept that the USSR/DDR/etc was not socialist, is in no way going to accept anything else as a game changer in a debate.

The death tolls are capitalist death tolls, regardless.

[campesino]

so what are you hoping to achieve in the first place?

that the USSR or DDR wasn't terrible, and most capitalist states are worse. That those states strayed very far from Marxism and still produced results better than capitalism, and Marxism is worth trying.

P.S I have never advocated kill counts.

I have advocated making capitalist aware of their crimes, because they currently view their system as crime/atrocity-less, and they should be educated.

[Peoples' War]

that the USSR or DDR wasn't terrible, and most capitalist states are worse. That those states strayed very far from Marxism and still produced results better than capitalism, and Marxism is worth trying.

P.S I have never advocated kill counts.

I have advocated making capitalist aware of their crimes, because they currently view their system as crime/atrocity-less, and they should be educated.
How do you figure capitalist (read: liberal democratic) states were worse?

[campesino]

How do you figure capitalist (read: liberal democratic) states were worse?

that is very selective, lets not forget all the other nations liberal democracies had a hand in overthrowing socialist governments. lets not forget the victims of imperialism who bring liberal democracies their goods. Would you consider apartheid south africa and 1960's america, liberal democracies?

In the DDR and USSR people at least had jobs and healthcare.

[Zukunftsmusik]

India adopted a Soviet inspired "socialism" including central planning, consequently pointing that out would backfire if your opponent has historical knowledge regarding the subject. (Though unlike in the USSR, there was still a relatively major private sector).

do you have source(s) for this? Not that I doubt your claim, I'm interested.

[bluepilgrim]

At this level of discussion, with people who do not know the history of USSR and China well -- most people, including me -- the response should be kept simple and something people can relate to personally.

I think relating socialism to the family (which most people support) as a way to organize society (and in which 'from each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her needs is not the exception but the rule), may be a good approach. Of course there are dysfunctional families, and families which are corrupt -- even organized criminal gangs (the USSR ended up more like a Mafia family) -- but that doesn't mean that democratic families are a bad way to organize in the smallest of groups, or that strictly authoritarian or 'dog eat dog' families work better.

This explanation needs some work, I think, but the idea is that if we look at a well functioning family, where everyone has a say, and everyone works for the good of the whole family, then we have a model which can be expanded to larger groups, such as communes, communities, states, and the world and 'family of man'.

Try to imagine a strictly capitalist family where infants would eat only if they work. Yes, there ARE families, even currently, where papa earned the money and says that gives him the right to boss everyone else around as slaves, and even 'own' his wife and children, but they don't function well. That authoritarian paradigm is hardly the best or most productive. Yet, that IS the undemocratic paradigm under which capitalism functions.

Bring the scale way down to groups of only a few people, and is personal, and we may be able to get the ideas across. If so, then the issue becomes one of how to scale up socialism, not whether it would be a good thing if it can be done.