Best counter-argument to communism

[dteiml]

Hi everyone,

Firstly: I don't want to discuss an opposing ideology, but the communism itself - I am forced to use this sub-forum, because I was told I would be deleted and banned if I posted anywhere else (e.g., in the more appropriate "Learning" sub-forum).

Now that that is out of the way, let me proceed to my question.

What do you think is the best counter-argument to communism? Tell me the its weakest point, its largest flaw, its greatest deficiency, its most pronounced shortcoming; in short, the strongest argument against it. Thanks in advance.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

All of them are pretty absurd, tbh... but if I had to choose I would say the horrors of Stalinism as that takes the most time to debunk.

[JPSartre12]

All of them are pretty absurd, tbh... but if I had to choose I would say the horrors of Stalinism as that takes the most time to debunk.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people that I talk to think that communism, socialism, etc are all synonyms for Stalinism. "But communism doesn't work," they say. "Look at the USSR! We tried it and it failed. It was an economic disaster and they had no freedom at all."

*sigh* The Western propaganda machine is depressingly effective sometimes :unsure:

[campesino]

it is unattractive to the philosophical idealist who believe in free will, freedom and deny material condition and materialism.

If the entire proletariat would realize materialism is true, the entire world would be Communist.

idealism- spirits and free will exist, ideas come from heaven or some other non-physical place.

materialism-ideas consciousness and all of humanity is influenced by material condotions, the only thing that exist is the material/physical.

[Welshy]

it is unattractive to the philosophical idealist who believe in free will, freedom and deny material condition and materialism.

If the entire proletariat would realize materialism is true, the entire world would be Communist.

idealism- spirits and free will exist, ideas come from heaven or some other non-physical place.

materialism-ideas consciousness and all of humanity is influenced by material condotions, the only thing that exist is the material/physical.

And with that statement you do two things. 1. you were an idealist, 2. you made materialism/communism sound like a religion.

[campesino]

And with that statement you do two things. 1. you were an idealist, 2. you made materialism/communism sound like a religion.

woops,
for me, materialism lead me to marxist.

I thought if everyone was somehow a materialist they would become a marxist.

if I am an idealist because i thought class consciousness would precede material conditions, it was because it was in a hypothetical situation.

[Positivist]

The best argument? Well nothing from the liberal mainstream for sure (good on paper, equal pay etc.) and I can't really think of any good criticisms of the systemic functioning of the actual type of society that most of us advocate. That being said, arguments against the law of value (that price is determined by socially necessary labor time) can be quite good. Though a lot of the time these good arguments are moreso just reasonable objections like "how do producers know what the value of a product is from labor?" But even this is based on a misunderstanding of the law, which does not postulate that producers inherently know the value of a product but that prices of certain products fluctuate around the "labor value" of said product as the result of competition within that industry. The LTV accounts for competition in pricing, and is based on the subconscious, intersubjective valuation of labor by producers. Upon understanding the theory this way it kinda leaves even refutations of it easily defeated, so yeah there aren't really any good arguments against communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The "human nature" argument is too easily shot full of holes if one has any knowledge of history or anthropology.

I don't think you need to accept LTV to be a communist - the fact is there's no profit without labour.

As far as I can tell, the best "argument" against communism is that one needs large proportions of the population to be on side in order to successfully enact it. But that could be equally applied to other political philosophies so it does not speak to the feasibility of communism itself.

[Ostrinski]

woops,
for me, materialism lead me to marxist.

I thought if everyone was somehow a materialist they would become a marxist.

if I am an idealist because i thought class consciousness would precede material conditions, it was because it was in a hypothetical situation.your idealism is demonstrated through your view that materialism itself serves as the foundation of some kind of movement, when on the contrary it simply serves as one of many methods of examining movements.

Our goal as class conscious folks is not to turn everyone into elite sociological intellectuals before the revolution.

[Welshy]

woops,
for me, materialism lead me to marxist.

I thought if everyone was somehow a materialist they would become a marxist.

if I am an idealist because i thought class consciousness would precede material conditions, it was because it was in a hypothetical situation.

Either way what you said was idealistic and really religiony sounding, even if you didn't intend to and saying it was a hypothetical situation still isn't a good excuse.

[campesino]

your idealism is demonstrated through your view that materialism itself serves as the foundation of some kind of movement, when on the contrary it simply serves as one of many methods of examining movements.

Our goal as class conscious folks is not to turn everyone into elite sociological intellectuals before the revolution.

i have the feeling i'm derailing this thread so I'll pm you and if anyone has anything to say about my view please pm me.

[Tim Cornelis]

There isn't one great flaw, but there are multiple smaller ones.

But if I had to choose one it would be the economic calculation problem. Still few have grasped the extent to which this applies (often misrepresenting the argument).

[Positivist]

There isn't one great flaw, but there are multiple smaller ones.

But if I had to choose one it would be the economic calculation problem. Still few have grasped the extent to which this applies (often misrepresenting the argument).

Would you care to elaborate?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You could try to pull a Mises and ask about the economic calculation problem. Although, it's been 92 years, and the internet and computers came around, pretty much blowing this criticism to smithereens.

[Regicollis]

What I consider the best argument against socialism is how it is going to happen. Revolutions are chaotic events and nobody is sure what the outcome will be. If we're lucky the result of a revolution could be socialism but it could just as well be Stalinist state capitalism or fascist reaction. It also seems a bit far-fetched that the working class will attain a critical amount of class-consciousness on a global scale within our life-time.

The liberal dream of "the same as now - just with more windmills" is a more realistic thing to work for.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

There is no argument against Communism because we are correct.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I think this guy is actually looking for someone like 'Liberty" (an insult to the term).

If you want counter communist arguments, look somewhere else, and come back to us with them.

[Tim Cornelis]

Would you care to elaborate?

For example this:


You could try to pull a Mises and ask about the economic calculation problem. Although, it's been 92 years, and the internet and computers came around, pretty much blowing this criticism to smithereens.

This is a misrepresentation as computers do not solve the economic calculation problem.

Let's take an example: the expansion of the port of Rotterdam. It has been decided to expand this port. In a market economy we have these figures:

The expansion will cost a total of $100,000,000.
The expansion will generate a revenue of $150,000,000.

In socialism we have these figures:

The expansion will cost a total of 100,000 labour hours, 10^3 cubes of sand, 100,000 tonnes of steel, 10 transportation ships.

The expansion will generate the following benefits: it will save 100,000 liters of oil, 50,000 tonnes of copper.

(these figures and materials are of course completely random).

How do we compare the two? What is better: not spending 10^3 cubes of sand thereby forgo on saving 100,000 liters of oil or spend 10^3 cubes of sand and thus save 100,000 liters of oil.

These are two wholly incomparable materials.

Computers cannot solve this issue.

In response we can say a couple of things. First, markets are themselves inefficient (no Marxist economics needed here), production for profits leads to irrationalities (such as exporting food from starving regions). Secondly, we can 'solve' this conundrum by adopt labour-hours as core decision-making guiding principle, and second economise those materials that are most scarce.

Labour-hours are of course also often incomparable, they differ in intensity, productivity, content, and so forth.

In spite of this, the economic calculation problem will still persist in socialism (of the non-market variant, but market socialism has of course different economic calculation problems).

[Ravachol]

There isn't one great flaw, but there are multiple smaller ones.

But if I had to choose one it would be the economic calculation problem. Still few have grasped the extent to which this applies (often misrepresenting the argument).

That argument only makes sense when you conceive of communism as use-value liberated from exchange value, which is nonsense. Communism knows no value.

[Lynx]

The greatest flaw is that it is poorly understood by workers.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

For example this:



This is a misrepresentation as computers do not solve the economic calculation problem.

Let's take an example: the expansion of the port of Rotterdam. It has been decided to expand this port. In a market economy we have these figures:

The expansion will cost a total of $100,000,000.
The expansion will generate a revenue of $150,000,000.

In socialism we have these figures:

The expansion will cost a total of 100,000 labour hours, 10^3 cubes of sand, 100,000 tonnes of steel, 10 transportation ships.

The expansion will generate the following benefits: it will save 100,000 liters of oil, 50,000 tonnes of copper.

(these figures and materials are of course completely random).

How do we compare the two? What is better: not spending 10^3 cubes of sand thereby forgo on saving 100,000 liters of oil or spend 10^3 cubes of sand and thus save 100,000 liters of oil.

These are two wholly incomparable materials.

Computers cannot solve this issue.

In response we can say a couple of things. First, markets are themselves inefficient (no Marxist economics needed here), production for profits leads to irrationalities (such as exporting food from starving regions). Secondly, we can 'solve' this conundrum by adopt labour-hours as core decision-making guiding principle, and second economise those materials that are most scarce.

Labour-hours are of course also often incomparable, they differ in intensity, productivity, content, and so forth.

In spite of this, the economic calculation problem will still persist in socialism (of the non-market variant, but market socialism has of course different economic calculation problems).
I don't see how software wouldn't be able to compare stockpiles of a given resource and relate the expected future accumulation of said resource, to the expected future expenditure of said resource, then compare that to the benefits of said project (ex, expanding the port to allow for the transfer of goods a region needs) following the expenditure of said resource in the project, etc.

It may not be the "magic bullet" to solve the economic calculation problem (as I implied earlier) as much as it will allow us to compensate more easily, or allow the costs and benefits of a given project to be more readily analyzed. Price and profit is absolutely an oversimplification that pretends to compensate for this as it does not always relate the costs as a function of a multitude of other factors (ex, are we using too much of our stockpiles of A/B/C compared to how much of and how easily we will be able to accumulate A/B/C in the future?)

I feel as though neither of us are really in disagreement - for example, I don't see the problem with using computer software for a detailed analysis of large projects while simultaneously using labor hours as a "core" comparison (or superficial comparison - for lack of a better term)

[l'Enfermé]

There is no argument against Communism because we are correct.
If anyone believes otherwise they are not a communist.

[campesino]

I don't think the price calculation problem is legitimate because, the goal of socialism is to meet everyones need not to value commodities.


The socialist economy kills bureaucracy not because it is applied from the base or from the centre, but because it is the first economy which goes beyond the muck of monetary accounting and of the commercial budget system. [1956-7] - Bordiga

there won't be any prices in socialism just fulfilling the needs of society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If anyone believes otherwise they are not a communist.

That is dogma, not reason.

[Caj]

If anyone believes otherwise they are not a communist.

. . . and are therefore wrong.


That is dogma, not reason.

I'm pretty sure he was kidding.

[Blake's Baby]

The best argument against against communism is that some people are too stupid and/or selfish to see that it's a good idea. Thus, they will oppose it. That's going to mean that violence when we try to institute the abolition of property etc, because some people just refuse to see that the abolitiuon of property is actually in everyone's interest.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I don't think the price calculation problem is legitimate because, the goal of socialism is to meet everyones need not to value commodities.

- Bordiga

there won't be any prices in socialism just fulfilling the needs of society.
Resources will still need to be managed until we achieve Star Trek.

[campesino]

Resources will still need to be managed until we achieve Star Trek.

where does price come into resource management? I'm under the belief that the end of wages is also the end of prices.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

where does price come into resource management? I'm under the belief that the end of wages is also the end of prices.
Right now, it's how resources are (inefficiently) allotted. Tim Cornelis proposed labor hours as a successor to prices for managing resources and determining costs (in terms of limited resources).

[rylasasin]

What do you mean by "Best"? Best as in winning in an argument against a single communist, or best as in best to trick convince a bunch of people in a town hall meeting that communism is bad?

For the former... ehhh... good luck with that. Assuming the communist in question is at the top of his game and isn't some YouTube rabble "communist", you're pretty much screwed. Your best bet would probably be stalin and mao killings, but only because it takes so long to debunk and it gives you time to walk away from the conversation or change it before they can get the chance.
Also, keep in mind it only works if your opponent is a Marxist-Leninist and/or Maoist. It doesn't work on Trotskyists or Left Communists or Anarcho-Communists for example, who'll just shoot it down rather quickly by explaining how neither of those regimes were socialist let alone communist in any way.

If the latter... well. No effort is really needed here. Just cook up a strawman argument about big government, throw some Stalin around, maybe a little religion, and then slide down the slippery slope. No need to actually be truthful or honest or actually do any research, since if you're in that situation odds are no one there is actually interested enough to double check you anyway.

Unless of course you're in a room/board (hint hint) full of leftists. In which case... yeah, you're screwed.


But yeah, most "arguments" against communism really only boil down to "Big Government" strawmen attempting to turn liberals/obama/hitler/*insert person they dont like here* into communists when they truly aren't, "zomg stalin" guilt-by-association arguments, bogus human nature arguments, slippery slope arguments, and just about every other logical fallacy in existence.

Good for propaganda geared at fooling the unwashed masses, but not at actually debating Communists.

Explains why so many trolls come here expecting to "pwn" us, only to wind up either running away with their tails tucked between their legs after a month or two or getting banned, and why reactionaries who know better never really attempt to "debate" a communist. Or when they do, they find the stupidist sort they can (usually from the CPUSA).

[RedMaterialist]

Its greatest flaw is that it cannot be achieved except through a world wide, simultaneous revolution. Socialism or communism in one state cannot work.

[Comrade Dracula]

Its greatest flaw is that it cannot be achieved except through a world wide, simultaneous revolution. Socialism or communism in one state cannot work.

Not necessarily simultaneous global revolution (after all, local DOTPs could manage the affairs for at least some time), but sooner's certainly preferred to a protracted scenario akin to the Cold War.

[Tim Finnegan]

There's no argument against the Marxian conception of communism, not really, because communism isn't a proposal or a goal, it's the culmination of historical class struggle. The only viable way to argue against it is to argue against the Marxian conception of history.

[l'Enfermé]

That is dogma, not reason.
If it is, I don't mind.

[Tim Finnegan]

Dogmatists generally don't, no.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm glad that someone who adheres to the bourgeois ideology of humanism disapproves of me or my politics. It only serves to solidify my views, comrade.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm glad that someone who adheres to the bourgeois ideology of humanism disapproves of me or my politics. It only serves to solidify my views, comrade.

What? It's not bourgious in the least to make critical analyses of the things you stand for. In fact, identifying the weaknesses in Communism is the first step to better understanding and therein being able to deal with them. The same goes for almost any situation.

To advocate otherwise is to advocate blind ignorance, and if that's what we're supposedly led to believe to be proletarian, then we may as well quit while we're ahead.

[RedMaterialist]

Not necessarily simultaneous global revolution (after all, local DOTPs could manage the affairs for at least some time), but sooner's certainly preferred to a protracted scenario akin to the Cold War.

I used the world "simultaneous" because of this quote from The German Ideology:

" Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

[l'Enfermé]

What? It's not bourgious in the least to make critical analyses of the things you stand for. In fact, identifying the weaknesses in Communism is the first step to better understanding and therein being able to deal with them. The same goes for almost any situation.

To advocate otherwise is to advocate blind ignorance, and if that's what we're supposedly led to believe to be proletarian, then we may as well quit while we're ahead.
1) I didn't say critical analysis is bourgeois, I said humanism is a distinctly bourgeois ideology(an ideology of the progressive secular bourgeoisie in struggle against the remnants of feudal superstition)
2) Communism has no weaknesses

[Comrade Dracula]

I used the world "simultaneous" because of this quote from The German Ideology:

" Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

My mistake, then - I misunderstood what you were saying. You have my apologies.

[RedMaterialist]

2) Communism has no weaknesses

No weaknesses? The 20th century is littered with failed communist states. The most obvious example is the Soviet Union. China seems to converting to a kind of socialist/capitalist economy.

Marx was quite clear that communism could only be successful as the result of a world wide "simultaneous" (his word) revolution. If the 20th century has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt it is that socialism or communism in one country is doomed to failure.

Is this to say that future national communist or socialist states should not be attempted? No. I think Marx would have been in front of the Russian Revolution, hoping that it would become an international revolution. It is impossible to know exactly how the world communist revolution will occur.

(btw, Nazi Germany was national socialist in name only, probably the first use of Orwellian language in modern politics.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm glad that someone who adheres to the bourgeois ideology of humanism disapproves of me or my politics. It only serves to solidify my views, comrade.

What's humanism go to do with it? You just admitted to being a dogmatist. That makes you an anti-intellectual tool. Authoritarian governments and organisations just love people like you, who can be easily gulled into committing various atrocities and be made to take the blame for them as well.

[CryingWolf]

For example this:



This is a misrepresentation as computers do not solve the economic calculation problem.

Let's take an example: the expansion of the port of Rotterdam. It has been decided to expand this port. In a market economy we have these figures:

The expansion will cost a total of $100,000,000.
The expansion will generate a revenue of $150,000,000.

In socialism we have these figures:

The expansion will cost a total of 100,000 labour hours, 10^3 cubes of sand, 100,000 tonnes of steel, 10 transportation ships.

The expansion will generate the following benefits: it will save 100,000 liters of oil, 50,000 tonnes of copper.

(these figures and materials are of course completely random).

How do we compare the two? What is better: not spending 10^3 cubes of sand thereby forgo on saving 100,000 liters of oil or spend 10^3 cubes of sand and thus save 100,000 liters of oil.

These are two wholly incomparable materials.


Disclaimer: I am not a marxist.

The trick is that you don't compare materials to each other. Materials do not have value in and of themselves. What is important to consider here are the goals of the organization that controls this port. Once we know our goals, we can ask whether those goals are better served by not spending 10^3 cubes of sand and forgoing on saving 100,000 liters of oil or spending 10^3 cubes of sand and saving 100,000 liters of oil.

Just because you don't assign values to outcomes in terms of money does not mean you don't evaluate outcomes at all.

The calculation problem is complete bs.

[l'Enfermé]

No weaknesses? The 20th century is littered with failed communist states. The most obvious example is the Soviet Union. China seems to converting to a kind of socialist/capitalist economy.

Marx was quite clear that communism could only be successful as the result of a world wide "simultaneous" (his word) revolution. If the 20th century has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt it is that socialism or communism in one country is doomed to failure.

Is this to say that future national communist or socialist states should not be attempted? No. I think Marx would have been in front of the Russian Revolution, hoping that it would become an international revolution. It is impossible to know exactly how the world communist revolution will occur.

(btw, Nazi Germany was national socialist in name only, probably the first use of Orwellian language in modern politics.)
Let's get China out of the way first, because really, what does it have to do with communist, at all? The CCP/CPC that prevailed over the KMT, Mao's CCP/CPC, was absolutely devoid of any proletarian character. It was a peasant party. What does it have to do with communist/socialism?

And what's a "communist state"? This is an oxymoron.

And how is the degeneration of the Soviet Union and the Stalinist counter-revolution a valid argument against Socialism? Is the fall of the First Republic and it's replacement by Napoleon's Empire a valid argument against democracy? Is the fall of the Second Republic and it's replacement by the Second Empire a valid argument against democracy? Is the conquest of the the Third Republic by anti-democratic Nazis a valid argument against democracy?

No.


What's humanism go to do with it? You just admitted to being a dogmatist. That makes you an anti-intellectual tool. Authoritarian governments and organisations just love people like you, who can be easily gulled into committing various atrocities and be made to take the blame for them as well.
A self-described humanist showed his disapproval of my views. I replied that if bourgeois humanists disapprove of my views, to me, it means my views are correct.

Authoritarian governments, haha. Please. Perhaps you're the one being gulled, into thinking that the authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy exists. Regarding me being an anti-intellectual tool, I'm flattered, I don't know if you fancy yourself an intellectual but I certainly don't and I'm thankful I don't come off as one.

[RedMaterialist]

Let's get China out of the way first, because really, what does it have to do with communist, at all? The CCP/CPC that prevailed over the KMT, Mao's CCP/CPC, was absolutely devoid of any proletarian character. It was a peasant party. What does it have to do with communist/socialism?

Mao was a communist; the fact that he led a communist party on behalf of the peasants does not change the nature of that party.


And what's a "communist state"? This is an oxymoron.

Not any more than a dictatorship of the proletariat is.


And how is the degeneration of the Soviet Union and the Stalinist counter-revolution a valid argument against Socialism?

I didn't say it was. I said it was proof that socialism in one country is not possible, unless it is immediately followed up by world revolution.


Is the fall of the First Republic and it's replacement by Napoleon's Empire a valid argument against democracy? Is the fall of the Second Republic and it's replacement by the Second Empire a valid argument against democracy? Is the conquest of the the Third Republic by anti-democratic Nazis a valid argument against democracy?



The French revolution was a victory of the bourgeoisie over the feudal monarchy. The fact that democracies are sometimes replaced by reactionary anti-democratic forces is nothing new.

[l'Enfermé]

Mao was a communist; the fact that he led a communist party on behalf of the peasants does not change the nature of that party.
Mao was no more a communist than Obama. How can a party be communist if it's lead on behalf of the peasants? Can a communist party be lead on behalf of the petty-bourgeoisie too? Can a communist party be lead on behalf of the landowners?


Not any more than a dictatorship of the proletariat is.How is the dictatorship of a class an oxymoron?




I didn't say it was. I said it was proof that socialism in one country is not possible, unless it is immediately followed up by world revolution.What does Socialism in One Country have to do with anything?



The French revolution was a victory of the bourgeoisie over the feudal monarchy. The fact that democracies are sometimes replaced by reactionary anti-democratic forces is nothing new.
So, the Bourbon restoration is not a sign of the weakness of democracy, but the Stalinist counter-revolution and capitalist restoration in the USSR is a sign of socialism' weakness?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A self-described humanist showed his disapproval of my views. I replied that if bourgeois humanists disapprove of my views, to me, it means my views are correct.

My understanding is that humanism is an ethical philosophy or "life stance" that places the welfare of the human species as its most important consideration. Sounds pretty damn good to me, and if people adhering to such a human-centered approach to ethics disapprove of any positions you hold, then perhaps those are positions you should reconsider.

Otherwise you sound like Genghis Khan being proud of being called a mass-murderer.


Authoritarian governments, haha. Please. Perhaps you're the one being gulled, into thinking that the authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy exists.

So torture, murder and oppression are just fine and dandy in your opinion, as long as they are happening to the "right" people?


Regarding me being an anti-intellectual tool, I'm flattered, I don't know if you fancy yourself an intellectual but I certainly don't and I'm thankful I don't come off as one.

Oh, so you're one of those people who would rather die than think?

And people act shocked when such "communists" become fascists!

[l'Enfermé]

My understanding is that humanism is an ethical philosophy or "life stance" that places the welfare of the human species as its most important consideration. Sounds pretty damn good to me, and if people adhering to such a human-centered approach to ethics disapprove of any positions you hold, then perhaps those are positions you should reconsider.Your understanding of humanism is faulty. I'm not going to stop you, not that I'm able to, from sticking to your idealistic philosophy, but since I'm a Marxist, I'm going to stick to Marx's scientific anti-humanism.


Otherwise you sound like Genghis Khan being proud of being called a mass-murderer.Mass-murder has nothing to do with this.



So torture, murder and oppression are just fine and dandy in your opinion, as long as they are happening to the "right" people?
I said no such thing, but now that you mention it, I have no objections to torture and murder as long as they're done for the right reasons. As punishment, or to advance the interests of the working class.


Oh, so you're one of those people who would rather die than think?

And people act shocked when such "communists" become fascists!One has to be an intellectual, a Hitchens or a Dawkings, in order to think? Too bad Aristotle, Engels and Marx never got the note; according to you they weren't able to think. Poor bearded fools!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Your understanding of humanism is faulty. I'm not going to stop you, not that I'm able to, from sticking to your idealistic philosophy, but since I'm a Marxist, I'm going to stick to Marx's scientific anti-humanism.

Right, so you're using some definition of "humanism" that I am unfamiliar with. Care to enlighten, or are you just gonna toss the word "idealism" at me in typical non-sequiter fashion?


Mass-murder has nothing to do with this.

Since I didn't accuse you of such, consider it an analogy freighted with considerable hyperbole.


I said no such thing, but now that you mention it, I have no objections to torture and murder as long as they're done for the right reasons. As punishment, or to advance the interests of the working class.

Duly noted. However, what are the limits of this? I don't understand how torture can advance the interests of the working class. It has no utility beyond breaking the body and spirit of a person, it is not a reliable method of gathering any kind of useful intelligence. Torture's effects on the mental health of both perpetrators and victims are injurious, to say nothing of the physiological effects on victims of the more physical methods.

Torture is applied sadism, and as far as I can tell has no utility in building the "socialism" half of "socialism or barbarism".


One has to be an intellectual, a Hitchens or a Dawkings, in order to think? Too bad Aristotle, Engels and Marx never got the note; according to you they weren't able to think. Poor bearded fools!

Wha'? You appear to be under the delusion that I don't consider Marx or Engels to be intellectuals. What on Earth led you to that conclusion?

[l'Enfermé]

Right, so you're using some definition of "humanism" that I am unfamiliar with. Care to enlighten, or are you just gonna toss the word "idealism" at me in typical non-sequiter fashion? Check this our comrade, being a clever guy you'd appreciate the interesting read: http://www.mcg-j.org/english/e-theory/crideolog/raya.html

"Humanism essentially is nothing but a defense of the abstract and meaningless "human nature" of this bourgeois human being"

Duly noted. However, what are the limits of this? There are no limits. The proletariat would be damned if it allowed anything to contrain it's actions.



I don't understand how torture can advance the interests of the working class. It has no utility beyond breaking the body and spirit of a person, it is not a reliable method of gathering any kind of useful intelligence. Torture's effects on the mental health of both perpetrators and victims are injurious, to say nothing of the physiological effects on victims of the more physical methods.

Torture is applied sadism, and as far as I can tell has no utility in building the "socialism" half of "socialism or barbarism". You're right about that, actually. Torture can't be too useful a tool, if the class-conscious proletariat is wielding it against it's enemies. Though I'd suggest it could be an interesting choice of punishment, against rapists and molesters, for example, but no one would agree with me.



Wha'? You appear to be under the delusion that I don't consider Marx or Engels to be intellectuals. What on Earth led you to that conclusion?Because Marx wasn't a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois intellectual, he was an active revolutionary and philosopher. An intellectual is a specific kind of man peculiar only to bourgeoisie-infested society.

[Baseball]

I don't see how software wouldn't be able to compare stockpiles of a given resource and relate the expected future accumulation of said resource, to the expected future expenditure of said resource, then compare that to the benefits of said project (ex, expanding the port to allow for the transfer of goods a region needs) following the expenditure of said resource in the project, etc.

Yes. A computer program could do this. Indeed, a computer can pretty much do anything it is programmed to.

The comment is based upon the content of that program; what it is trying to do. essentially, you are trying to figure whether the value of expanding the port is worth the costs in doing so. So calculation is required, and the problem remains. A computer would make it the job easier and quicker; it doesn't change the substance of the problem.

[Baseball]

Disclaimer: I am not a marxist.

The trick is that you don't compare materials to each other. Materials do not have value in and of themselves. What is important to consider here are the goals of the organization that controls this port. Once we know our goals, we can ask whether those goals are better served by not spending 10^3 cubes of sand and forgoing on saving 100,000 liters of oil or spending 10^3 cubes of sand and saving 100,000 liters of oil.

Just because you don't assign values to outcomes in terms of money does not mean you don't evaluate outcomes at all.

The calculation problem is complete bs.

So then what is the advantage to the organization of saving 100,000 gallons of oil versus not spending 10^3 of sand? What is the basis of the organization drawing the conclusion it will eventually draw?

[CryingWolf]

So then what is the advantage to the organization of saving 100,000 gallons of oil versus not spending 10^3 of sand? What is the basis of the organization drawing the conclusion it will eventually draw?

Well do you want your machinery to be well-oiled, or do you want to build sand-castles?

It all depends on what the organization is trying to do, there is no single answer.

[MarxSchmarx]

If we are talking about the traditional view of "full communism" with a gift economy and all, I would say the biggest flaw is the assumption that scarcity will not exist, or even be negligible. Time will forever be limited for individuals, for example.

We will undoubtedly live considerably richer material lives after capitalism, but I suspect that many of our desires will remain unfilled. There are simply material limits to productive capacity - and although these can be increased quite consistently, our ability to "squeeze out" productivity gains will become increasingly strained.

Ultimately I am skeptical that humanity will move much beyond "advanced socialism" with some system for allocating of scarce resources still in existence but people living incredible lives. I think the abolition of the state is realistic, as are the abolition of work and the notions that all people will be quite satisfied with 95% of what they have. But as to unlimited access to one's desires, we probably won't be able to provide that.

[feather canyons]

I can't think of any real argument against communism. The masses are just too obtuse to get it.

[Rafiq]

It depends on what you mean by "Communism". If you mean a "stateless, classless" society that we must establish, that you must fight for in order to establish, then there are a lot. For one, organizational problems in a "stateless, classless" society (Do we even know if that's possible?).

[Genghis]

The best argument against Communism is that there is no example in the world today showing a successful Communist state. All we have left are N Korea and Cuba. They both are ruled by a wealthy clique (the plutocrats who claim to be Socialists). They both have a largely enslaved population of poor people.

[Prinskaj]

The best argument against Communism is that there is no example in the world today showing a successful Communist state. All we have left are N Korea and Cuba. They both are ruled by a wealthy clique (the plutocrats who claim to be Socialists). They both have a largely enslaved population of poor people.
Oh how I have missed your misinformed and predictable ramblings.
The argument of "there is no example in the world" is a very bad argument. Just try to apply the same standard to any other epoch of history.
"Point me to a successful capitalist country, if you can't then feudalism is as good as it's gonna get!" - Peasant during the 11th century
Doesn't really hold up, does it?

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Oh how I have missed your misinformed and predictable ramblings.
The argument of "there is no example in the world" is a very bad argument. Just try to apply the same standard to any other epoch of history.
"Point me to a successful capitalist country, if you can't then feudalism is as good as it's gonna get!" - Peasant during the 11th century
Doesn't really hold up, does it?

Furthermore, while agree with what he has said, we must remember that everything that succeeds is accomplished by trial and error.

Look at the Space Programs. Have you ever enjoyed a meal you heated in the microwave? At the same time, can you remember how many rockets blew up in our faces (some with live crew on board) during the space race? And did the Americans say 'its failed, moving on'?

[Lowtech]

There is no counter argument to communism without misconstruding what communism is and ignoring real economic processes. Capitalism is based on social constructs of might makes right, ownership etc and preys upon conditioned dependence on a market.

Essentially, If you are condecending toward your fellow Human beings, ignore mathmatical observation of economics and simply dont care enough to read Marx, you dont need to seek the nonexistent "counter argument"

[Raskolnikov]

Not any more than a dictatorship of the proletariat is.

If one forgets what Revolution is, what transpires after Revolution and how states usually view a Revolutionary State/Nation then likely a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a most fitting term.

That is - There is no Reality, no concrete materialist condition, which allows for the DoP to be kind to counter revolutionaries, plots or assumed plots. Hell they must translate the emotions of the people to ensure that anything like the September Massacres do not happen under their regime.

Whether they need to implement La Terreur or a Purge is up to them.






I didn't say it was. I said it was proof that socialism in one country is not possible, unless it is immediately followed up by world revolution.

And what materialist conditions can allow for this very whimsical equation to come forth?




The French revolution was a victory of the bourgeoisie over the feudal monarchy. The fact that democracies are sometimes replaced by reactionary anti-democratic forces is nothing new.

It was - however it was also a conflict between those whom wanted to progress to something better, be it the Virtuous Republic (Robespierre) or an ultra-leftist, at the time, egalitarian society (Jacques Roux and the Enrages).


So torture, murder and oppression are just fine and dandy in your opinion, as long as they are happening to the "right" people?

You can not really escape those absolutes. Fine and dandy if you do but to accept Revolution is to accept those things /will/ happen and that those things may occur. Be it the people's hands or the Revolutionary State to prevent an all-out riot against a percieved enemy be it fictional or a very real threat. (Your take. I hold there was a real danger to the First French Republic and to the USSR during the 30s from the military. However the risk of violence and the disorganization of the C.C. allowed things to spiral out of control. While it did calm down to certain extents after the NKVD was put on a tighter leash, to avoid such things when one isn't an absolute dictator is..well I'd say hard. Especially when Dogmatism can run rampant through out the party)

Sometimes you must commit evil against a Greater Evil, your ends (if better than the prior condition) could justify your means. But that is all up to /you/.

Just think about it long and hard.

[Ocean Seal]

Communism's greatest flaw is that it asks its proponents to take on a horridly unpopular position for the rest of the their lives and take the derision, violence, and alienation from such a position for something that may not materialize to anything in their lives.

[Althusser]

I think the one that sometimes stumps me a bit is when people tell me about how competition is necessary for technological advancement.

[Dunk]

Liberalism is the greatest counter argument to communism. Communism is the greatest counter argument to liberalism. Class struggle, not class debate.

[Marxaveli]

The best argument against Communism is that there is no example in the world today showing a successful Communist state. All we have left are N Korea and Cuba. They both are ruled by a wealthy clique (the plutocrats who claim to be Socialists). They both have a largely enslaved population of poor people.

This post is filled with loaded arguments and misconceptions. Communism, by its very nature, is based on Internationalism, therefore, there can be no such thing as a "communist state". N. korea and Cuba are not, and never were, communist. Neither was the USSR, China, Cambodia, or Vietnam. If you are going to argue against something, know wtf you are talking about first.

[Luís Henrique]

What do you think is the best counter-argument to communism?

It depends on what you call "communism".

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

I think the one that sometimes stumps me a bit is when people tell me about how competition is necessary for technological advancement.
What they fail to note is that competition is, in this case, imagined to be the only possible incentive for the work of the scientists.

Of course, a social-economic formation, on a global scale, which is based on production for human need doesn't present any kind of obstacles to further technological advancement. Would scientists be much worse at what they do when a need or a possibility for some kind of a technological innovation arises?

Ultimately, it the same old argument, that everything stops with capitalist social and economic organization.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think the one that sometimes stumps me a bit is when people tell me about how competition is necessary for technological advancement.

This argument, I think, can be refuted as follows.
This is a circle: competition is necessary for innovation, and innovation is necessary for competition. But communism is not based on competition, therefore innovation to stay ahead of competition is unnecessary. Even if innovation under communism stagnates completely we can use the current technological level to create a far better world.

But the following video refutes that as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Lowtech]

This argument, I think, can be refuted as follows.
This is a circle: competition is necessary for innovation, and innovation is necessary for competition. But communism is not based on competition, therefore innovation to stay ahead of competition is unnecessary. Even if innovation under communism stagnates completely we can use the current technological level to create a far better world.

But the following video refutes that as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

i absolutely agree, although a simpler refutation would be that humans don't require money to understand the merit of their deeds.

as when capitalists refer to "competition" they are actually referring to people being motivated by the dollar.

[Sir Comradical]

The best argument against socialism/communism I've come across is the Calculation Problem put forward by Mises & Hayek.

Let me find a good rebuttal to it. Here:

http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

[human strike]

Communism's greatest flaw? Communists.

[Lowtech]

There's no real argument against communism, all attempts to do so are simply the attempt to falsify It.

In its simpliest terms economically, communism is

the abolishment of money and abolishment of the market as the primary means of resource exchange

And

The abolishment of a plutocratic class

These two things must be refuted to refute "communism"

Essentially, you must try to convince others that money/market economy and a plutocratic class are economically necissary

It's very hard to persuade the economically aware, being that our parasitic arrangment with the rich is mathematically observable.

the elites reduce the scarcity they experience by artificially increasing scarcity for everyone else by the transfer of value via the profit mechanism; profit being the selling of commodities above production cost and paying workers less than the actual value of their labor.

this allows the elites to consume more than they produce, they negate their own contribution, they are mathematically non-working individuals consuming massive amounts of value

and so far capitalists have gone with the garbage like market/money = incentive/competition/advancement. Which really is simply assuming people are idiots without money. Capitalists have a disgusting opinion of people as a whole and this is reflected in their condescending nature. This attitude has no place in a governing body.

And they go as far as saying a plutocractic class is necissary because, they assert, people cannot organize themselves without a plutocratic ruling class.

That's like allowing a wolf to decide if its justified to eat you; his conclusions will always be in his favor, nomatter the facts.

[feather canyons]

I said it was proof that socialism in one country is not possible, unless it is immediately followed up by world revolution.




I don't understand this attitude.

The USSR was a successful state for a lot of years. And this was a country that was completely shattered when proletarians took over - shattered by centuries of imperialism and by it's own monarchy. It was a backwards, illiterate peasant nation and it was made into an industrial superpower, one of two global hegemony (the other being America).

Was it an ideal communist state? No, of course not. But far from being an example of why socialism in one state cannot work, I take the USSR as as demonstrating how well socialism can work dispute being beset by so many obstacles.

[Marxaveli]

One minor problem - it wasn't Socialist, not after Lenin passed anyway. It was a State Capitalist, top-down bureaucracy where the workers had little self-determination.

There is no "ideal" Communist state, for the simple fact a "Communist State" is an oxymoron. Communism is defined by an international classless, stateless society - and nothing else.

[Zannarchy]

Here is a counter arguement. a permanent communist utopa as a world society would quickly stagnate, as all one opinion cultures do without outside influence.

[Luís Henrique]

Here is a counter arguement. a permanent communist utopa as a world society would quickly stagnate, as all one opinion cultures do without outside influence.

Why would a communist society be a utopia, much less a "permanent" one? And why would it be a "one opinion" culture, or "without outside influence"?

Luís Henrique

[feather canyons]

One minor problem - it wasn't Socialist, not after Lenin passed anyway. It was a State Capitalist, top-down bureaucracy where the workers had little self-determination.

There is no "ideal" Communist state, for the simple fact a "Communist State" is an oxymoron. Communism is defined by an international classless, stateless society - and nothing else.

No shit. It was a transition period. What, do you think communism is just going to drop out of the sky without revolutionaries paving the way?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No shit. It was a transition period. What, do you think communism is just going to drop out of the sky without revolutionaries paving the way?

A transition period to what? Capitalism?

[feather canyons]

A transition period to what? Capitalism?

You do know that capitalism is materially required before socialism and communism, right? If we can skip stages of history, we should be able to go straight from master-slave relations to pure communism then? Why waste any time worrying about material conditions? :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You do know that capitalism is materially required before socialism and communism, right? If we can skip stages of history, we should be able to go straight from master-slave relations to pure communism then? Why waste any time worrying about material conditions? :rolleyes:

I never mentioned skipping anything. In fact if anything under a stageist framework the Soviet project was doomed from the start.

[Rafiq]

What they fail to note is that competition is, in this case, imagined to be the only possible incentive for the work of the scientists.

Of course, a social-economic formation, on a global scale, which is based on production for human need doesn't present any kind of obstacles to further technological advancement. Would scientists be much worse at what they do when a need or a possibility for some kind of a technological innovation arises?

Ultimately, it the same old argument, that everything stops with capitalist social and economic organization.

Of course, even if we were to assume he was correct, how exactly is competition unique only to capitalist social relations? I don't think there's anything, "systemically" wrong with competition.