Libetarian arguments and accusation on Marxism.. Your answers?

[R_P_A_S]

I was bombarded at a party by two Libertarians...

First question was: Do you believe in freedom? In Liberty? Men being able to move as they wish, do as they wish with out force? Marxism Forces people! There's no way around it. We don't believe in that.

I said.. Do I believe in Freedom and Liberty? How vague.. I never really got a word out.. they were just taking the debate to their corner and hitting me with the typical punches about Marxism and Communism..

1. Why do you think you can except your self from the crimes of Stalin, Mao and the Khemer Rouge? Didn't they some way or an other belief in Marxism and its Theories?

2. Was there anything about Marx’s ideas that made them especially susceptible to “betrayal”? Or is this the question we are not supposed to ask???

3. There has never been a humane communist regime. Marxism is inherently totalitarian. It recognizes no moral limits on the state. It’s the most convenient ideology for aspiring tyrants; it also retains its appeal for intellectuals, who have proved equally skillful at rationalizing abuses of power and at exculpating themselves.

[The Jay]

1. I can do so for the same reason that you can exempt yourself from the Spanish Inquisition (if they're Christian) or those same people (if they're atheists).

2. That's a stupid question.

3. Point out communist communes that "work". Then point out that the other bit wasn't a question, but, rather, a baseless series of assertions.

[L.A.P.]

Laugh, and then say "your intellectual cock must feel huge right now. did a girl/guy reject you at the party or something?"

[Positivist]

Expalin that liberty as expressed in a capitalist society isn't very free at all unless accompanied by substantial wealth. Say that you are only as free as your wallet permits you to be.

Housing, employment, consumer choices are all dictated by your access to wealth which is alwys initially a mere product of inheritance, which the inheritor has nothing to do with. Use as an example that many (most?) people do not have sufficient funds to attend college forcing them to enter into significantly lower paying professions, and those who do attend college are almost always bogged down by so much debt that interests payments dominate their "free" consumption for the whole of their youth, preventing them from saving a substantial amount of funds to improve their economic position later in life.

[citizen of industry]

Just draw the class line. Do I believe in the freedom to exploit labour, privately appropriate the products of social labour? No. The working class doesn't have the freedom or liberty to do anything except sell our labour power like a draught horse for the means of substinance. The workplace is totalitarian, and we have no choice but to submit if we want to survive.

Does Marxism force people? Yes, it forces private property out of the hands of the totalitarian ruling class against the force of the state and liberates it for the good of mankind, and liquidates the state. It is done forcibly.

Ask them where they get their morals from, god?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In addition to the explaining how "freedom" and "liberty" are loaded words with subjective meaning, I think you should just break their jaws and be done with it.

Also, explain how any system must be 'totalitarian' to survive. Capital is 'totalitarian'. It simply means 'different'.

Then, if you feel like attacking their views, go into market centralization trends that would require a monopoly of force to maintain 'free' markets, which contradicts their non-aggression principle. You can also go into how following the 'non-aggression principle' is precisely against your interest in a society with no accountability.

Also, cite the period in New York history when fire departments were private and acted more like gangs than public servants.

[Камо́ Зэд]

The state naturally arises as a means of defending property. If one believes that individuals have a right to own property in the form of means of production, then one believes that the state serves a valuable purpose.

[Ocean Seal]

Don't answer and don't waste your time.

[R_P_A_S]

One thing that confused me about their arguments is how they say the state is the problem.. But Ron Paul always talks about allowing States to do their own things.. WTF?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Troll them. Say that the only reason we previously failed was because Stalin and Mao didn't kill enough people.

Now on to the questions (serious face):

Everytime they bring up the word "freedom' respond with Lenin's classic line: "Freedom for who to do what?". Let them explain themselves, and bring up workers rights. As they seem big on employers rights but disregard the people who actually create the wealth.

1: I can exempt myself from their "crimes" the same way you can exempt yourself from the crimes of the US, UK, Spain, and every other imperialist power. Didn't they in some way or another believe in capitalism and its theories?

2: No idea is more susceptible to "betrayal" than another. Also, if we are going to get into that, capitalism has betrayed the people of this world on more than one occasion. Sending them into wars to die for some rich man, leaving them in poverty because laying them off or firing them was more profitable. The list goes on.

3. No such thing as a "communist regime". Marxism is in no way authoritarian. The goal is to smash the state and frankly we have a far more realistic method of doing it than you. Actually, capitalism is the preferred ideology of tyrants, as it benefits them the most. Capitalism functions a hell of a lot better for the people in power when there is a totalitarian system to crush workers rights. Capitalism is slavery, as the best slave is the one that thinks he is free.

[Thirsty Crow]

First question was: Do you believe in freedom? In Liberty?Right here the dynamic duo reveal themselves as quasi-religious people. How does one believe in liberty? Surely the point is to examine a concept and its relation to that it refers to in concrete practice.


Men being able to move as they wish, do as they wish with out force?
They hold a naive and most of all, abstract notion of freedom.
For example, the freedom to exploit labour power is something I will not advocate. In fact, I'm all for its eradication. But since they have set up the frame in such an abstract way, any advocacy of preventing someone from doing as she wishes is equal to "Force" and thus you could turn the tables on them - ask them whether you should be free to beat the shit out of them with no consequences.



Marxism Forces people! There's no way around it. We don't believe in that.


Yeah, it does force people not to continue with the practice of exploitation of labour power by a minority of capital owners. But the point is that the agent of this forcing is not some abstract "Marxism" or Stalin, Mao or what have they, but rather the revolutionary working class. No amount of bourgeois moral precepts should stop us from using force in such a way.


I said.. Do I believe in Freedom and Liberty? How vague.. I never really got a word out.. they were just taking the debate to their corner and hitting me with the typical punches about Marxism and Communism.. Don't debate obnoxious fucks who only wish to scream at you. But still...let's go through these "points".

1. Why do you think you can except your self from the crimes of Stalin, Mao and the Khemer Rouge? Didn't they some way or an other belief in Marxism and its Theories?Ridiculous. As if there was some spiritual, metaphysical bond between communists and Khmer Rouge (nice touch). Yeah, you didn't participate in these acts, and hopefully wouldn't advocate such acts. Though, of course, the point is to understand these in a critical and materialist fashion, and not to fall into a moral outrage.



2. Was there anything about Marx’s ideas that made them especially susceptible to “betrayal”? Or is this the question we are not supposed to ask???

That's actually a good question.
I'd say that the point of uncompromising revolutionary attitude, thought and action is really susceptible to betrayal in certain concrete conditions (primarily that of significant state repression), not to mention the influence of these (e.g. the Civil War, imperialist invasion re Bolsheviks) on the ideas and theories.



3. There has never been a humane communist regime. Marxism is inherently totalitarian. It recognizes no moral limits on the state. It’s the most convenient ideology for aspiring tyrants; it also retains its appeal for intellectuals, who have proved equally skillful at rationalizing abuses of power and at exculpating themselves.
There has never been a humane communist regime, therefore Marxism is inherently totalitarian. The glaring idiocy is obvious.

First of all, no definition of terms is provided. I could very well blatantly contradict them and claim that USSR represented a "humane" regime, due to my manipulation of the parameters of debate which hadn't been laid bare.

Another thing, the connection between the practices of these regimes and Marxism is left entirely unexplained. If you were to argue that Marxism is inherently totalitarian, then you would first a) have to define the scope and kind of things/works you take to constitute "Marxism" and "totalitarianism" b) if we're talking about texts, then obviously you'd have to meticulously demonstrate and prove your hypothesis by reference to the said works, and their relation to totalitarianism.

Of course these dimwits can't and won't do any such thing.

[rti]

Everytime they bring up the word "freedom' respond with Lenin's classic line: "Freedom for who to do what?". Let them explain themselves, and bring up workers rights. As they seem big on employers rights but disregard the people who actually create the wealth.


I found it extremely useful phrase, they can never logically define what they mean by freedom if you ask enough intelligent questions.

Because to be honest we are not free as lolbertarians would like to point it, we are all bound by natural laws and we all share common environment we all need to survive that cant be divided.