Any good deconstructions of anti-communist obscurantism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm talking about the Anti-Communist shit that's been circulating around the western world (and indeed the entire world) ever since the first British readers of Marx misquoted and propagandised socialist movements as Fascist, damaging or evil.

Key things are the comparance of countries such as the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea and Dem-Kampuchea, the dichotomy between Communism and 'democracy', the ever prevalent human nature idea that Communism cannot work, etc.

I mean, these arguments have spawned themselves century after century, and all require a very in-depth, or should I say, topic derailing discussion and explaination of each. Surely someone in the past hundred years wrote some quick notes about how to shut these arguments down quickly and easily while still staying on point with your original goal of roping in potential lefties.

I honestly think that the two big obstacles that have faced the far-left for decades has been both the lack of advertisable presence (maybe not the correct word) and the utter obfuscation and perversion of their positions and ideals by propaganda.

[ВАЛТЕР]

If you're looking for debunking some of the most commonly used anti-communist statements. "Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton isn't a bad start. It's not a difficult read and I often recommend it to liberals interested in Marxism, since they usually get stumped by these arguments.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If you're looking for debunking some of the most commonly used anti-communist statements. "Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton isn't a bad start. It's not a difficult read and I often recommend it to liberals interested in Marxism, since they usually get stumped by these arguments.

Yes, read that book. It's awesome. I mention it almost anytime I debate socialism or communism. I found an (illegal) pdf copy of it online, so just Google it and you should find it soon enough. :)

[kashkin]

I found Phil Gasper's edition of The Communist Manifesto to be quite helpful as well. There is a small section at the start that gives a brief description of common criticisms and how they are wrong.

However Gasper is an anti-Stalinist, so if you are a M-L, etc then take it with a pinch of salt.

[prolcon]

I got a good one.

"You know communism won't work, right?"
"Eighty percent of the world lives in extreme poverty. Yeah, capitalism's really blowing it out of the water."

And then when they inevitably say "But true capitalism has never been tried!" find a less shitty person to hang out with.

[Lowtech]

debates regarding capitalism really follows the model creationists use. They want to drop a concept or phrase you've never heard before to.make you appear uneducated. Or to keep the conversation within the scope of a market economy.

Economics does not require a market. Markets inheriently are not concerned with value and therefore cannot tell you the value of anything.

specific observation of capitalism is powerful and prolcon illustrates it perfectly:
I got a good one.

"You know communism won't work, right?"
"Eighty percent of the world lives in extreme poverty. Yeah, capitalism's really blowing it out of the water.instead of letting them tie you up in semantics and garbage arguments based on the paradigm of a market economy, make them defend concepts like consentration of wealth, artificial scarcity, plutocratic class, the fact that the rich produce nothing (they don't work) or they consume so much more than they produce that they are mathematically equivalent to a non working person. Etc.

-human nature/incentive
Humans don't require money to understand the merit of thier deeds

-the rich create jobs

Need creates jobs

-demand equates to need

Demand is actually echange value stimulated by comercialism/marketing

-markets are the most efficient means for resource allocation.

building a few predetermibed models of chairs and puting them on display in the hope people will buy them is not efficient resource allocation.

-the entrepreneur is needed for his organizational skills

This is to imply superiority and that the entrepreneur's role is somehow a part of a practical hierarchy. This is false. His role is an abstract that depends on social constructs to alienate the worker from the organizarional process to fascilitate retention of value the entrepreneur has not produce himself.

-subjective concepts/ subjective value

"subjective" is used as a capitalist bullshit catch all word.

value is based on a commodity's physical ability to meet a social need minus it's material cost of production. If the cost to produce is more than the commodity's material benefit, its design must be improved or discarded all together.

When they say something is subjective what they mean is that something is enumerated or measured or given value based on it's context and on how it is utilized within a social construct. Essentially to say it is worth what society says it's worth.

However society does not dictate the physical process of economics which is the processing of resources into usable commodities and peoples necessity to participate for thier own survival and need to socialize.

The problemwith capitalism is that it has perverted and degenerated this simple process into producing vast social inequality.

The job of an advocate of a marketless economy or "communism" is to demonstrate there is no mathematical or economic validity for a plutocratic society.