Typical arguments I hear against communism and how I reply. Suggestions?

[Always Curious J]

Just wanted to share some of the common arguments against communism that I hear and some answers I give! Hopefully I can help some of you but I would also love for you guys to jump in and further elaborate!

Communism leads to dictatorship, just look at North Korea and China!
Usually I am discouraged when I hear this because if they knew anything about communism they'd know it's completely wrong. Communism is a classless and stateless society. Or at least a state run by the people. If I continue talking to them I explain that fact and explain that it is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This shows that just because a country says it is something doesn't mean actually is that something. Not to mention that those countries don't fit the definition of communism at all anyways.

Well communism is against human nature!
I won't get too far into this as it has been discussed numerous times here, however, my response is that all one needs to do is look around the world. Almost nothing connects all people. Hitler and Martin Luther King were both humans and should have "human nature" but I'll go out on a limb and say they were a tad bit different. Further more, just look at the diversity of cultures across the globe. "Human nature" isn't natural and depends on a multitude of variables, assuming it exists at all. The guy on Communist Daily explains it well.

Well the rich have worked for their money, you are just lazy!
Oh boy, this gets me worked up. Just look at the heirs of the Walmart founder Sam Walton. They will be richer than 99 percent of all the rest of the humankind without lifting a finger. They will inherit this wealth while the old man who worked all his life being exploited in a factory producing goods for society is left being a poor door greeter working for minimum wage at Walmart (irony). Back to a more general approach, look at who the rich are, athletes, pop stars, sons of CEO's, etc. Not exactly the hardest most stressful jobs. Even those who are wealthy business owners and "worked hard" have gotten rich exploiting workers. A society that rewards those who exploit others and not the actual workers is not one I like. And one that no one should like. Finally, no one makes so much money alone. The whole, or most, of society contributed and should reap the benefits!

Well in communism everyone is poor!
First off, let's look at this capitalist dominated world, millions upon millions maybe even billions living day to day, stuck in a cycle of poverty, not receiving enough money to feed their children. Quite frankly I'm sick of people looking at how to help the ever increasing amount of poor people (not that helping them is bad) instead of asking why the heck they are poor! Which brings me to the case of communism. We have, as Engles and Marx predicted, enough resources available to make scarcity a thing of the past, and to endlessly increase production. We have those resources to feed, cloth, house, educate, and care for everyone, all it would take is some cooperation and planning by the people for the people. Communism doesn't make everyone poor! It utilizes the resources to satisfy the needs of the people via the people planning!

I want to be able to do what I want when I get older, not what the anyone tells me!
Well then you must hate capitalism! Want to be an author? Too bad so sad you didn't pass standard tests so go work at fast food! Want to be a chef? Sorry no one is hiring, we need coal miners! And since you need the money you take what you get. In communism, not only do you have more of a choice to do what you want as you are not a slave of the paycheck, but due to increased productivity via planning and proper utilization of all available resources, you could retire at ages as low as 40 and spend your spare time doing enjoyable things for the benefit of society and culture, not for profit! In all honestly the chance of doing the job you actually want to in capitalism is extremely small. In communism, do the job you want and to help make the world better! Now maybe to keep life generally enjoyable you may have to do some jobs you don't find entirely pleasing, like serving food or cleaning schools, but you won't have to work 40 hours a week at a boring job you probably hate for more than half of your life just to survive like you do now! One last thing, your labor will be much more beneficial to you and society as a whole.

Well what if I want to go on vacation!
What if you want to go on vacation in a capitalistic society? You are at the mercy of the dollar. In communism, there are various ways to handle vacation. As user Macchine Box suggested to me in a thread, you could be allotted one long distance trip by air per year. A vast improvement for almost everyone. Another solution I thought of that could also deal with dirty jobs is; you can do community service type jobs for a certain amount of time and once you do it for X hours you'd be given the opportunity to go on vacation. This of course could be combined with Macchine Box's idea so everyone gets one trip a year, and can work to get more.

But I love freedom and democracy!
Well than you should love a system in which you choose what job you do, the objects produced, and various decisions such as that! No not capitalism, that is where you sell your labor to increase the capital of a few who then control your government and what things are produced in society! Why restrict democracy to the government? Bring it to the work place! And why stick to the "run by the rich" democracy of today? Let's bring true power to the people! Especially now, where the people are ever more connected, and voting easier than ever!

How come everyone leaves Communist countries but no one leaves America
Again, hate to sound like a broken record, but there are no communist countries. Let alone the fact that people are indeed leaving capitalistic countries including the U.S.

Well what about lazy people?/Whats the incentive to work!
I generally keep it as short as possible and explain that people could choose not to work, but the community would be less than ideal. Seeing that your labor would more directly improve the quality of the life of you and others would be incentive enough for most. Unlike today, where your only motivation is a paycheck most spend away within the first week. Along with this new motivation, social pressure from your coworkers, neighbors, and family would cause most to work. Continuing, depending on the community, some may impose rules on how much you have to work. Those who don't are encouraged to in different ways. Finally, people who refuse to work could be handled like sick and disabled. treated as a burden, but not one that is crippling to society. Before I end this point however, I'd like to mention that while I don't agree with the idea of "human nature," I do believe the desire to improve the world and work is inside almost all of us, crushed by the oppressive capitalist system.

Communism is a utopian concept and since utopia is impossible so is communism
They said flight was impossible. Buildings touching the clouds? Impossible. Walking on the moon? Impossible. Guess what, with determination and planning, humans are quite amazing, and are capable of most anything. Communism should be one of the easier goals!

All jobs aren't equally important, so they should'd be paid equally.
True in the fact that marketing jobs, bureaucratic jobs, CEO's, etc. aren't as important as teachers, doctors, janitors, farmers and so forth. But the first jobs I mentioned won't be necessary in a communistic society, and therefore would not be a problem. The other jobs however, are mostly all equally important in their own way. But, even if they weren't, they should still have access to the goods produced by society as they too try to better society. Now I almost forgot to mention money won't be necessary in communism so that part doesn't pertain.

Well you can say goodbye to your home in communism!
Here, the main misconception is that by private property many think communists mean homes and possession. However, the way I, and many communists interpret private property is that private property is factories, the resources of Earth, and generally the means of production. This would be collectively owned by all people. Personal property is your home, food, and general possessions. You would keep your personal property (for the most part) and private property would be abolished as it is how the burguesia oppress the people, exploit them, and cause a crisis from overproduction ever decade or so.

Well what about greedy people!
For this, I usually first break down what greed is. Speaking about natural selection, greedy individuals would survive times of scarcity due to their accumulated possessions, while the selfless ones would starve out. However, once scarcity is a a thing of the past, what would be the incentive to acquire more possessions than you need? If you know you will have bread tomorrow, why take 50 loaves today? Of course, it will have to be a gradual change, and a societal reformation must obviously occur so that people will be less paranoid and worried about shortages and crises which are mainly an effect of capitalism. Or one could go about it this way, which I certainly will, as user Clarksist said,
"Both of these (Greed and human nature) are answered fairly easily, but most communists who confront this come at it from the wrong angle. Most communists try to refute the idea of human nature as a hardwired fact and try to contextualize greed into a historical perspective. Neither of these are effect because they rely on vague abstractions and run counter to the logic that the person positing these arguments clearly believes wholeheartedly.

The trick, and this trick is true in almost any argument where you are actually trying to convince and not just pissing off liberals (not to say that there is anything wrong with a good liberal-baiting ), is to follow there logic and take it further than they do, and I think this is what Marx actually did.

It is precisely because people are so greedy and selfish and interested in their own material advantage that they cannot be trusted to privately run the economy in their own personal self interest. If everyone owns the means of production democratically, no one will allow anyone else to get in a position to exploit anyone else. That's just human nature. Everyone will be working to make their syndicate or soviet or worker's council produce more and gain more because they are, in the end, just looking out for themselves.

Marx's whole argument was that the proletarian revolution occurs because workers want more and can get more as a class by expropriating the expropriators."
__________________


Well, democracy is great, but wouldn't it give stupid people too much power?
This is one I'd especially like discussed as my answer to this usual isn't the best as it is something that indeed concerns me. However, in my opinion, since the goal of the community would be to better itself, education would be prioritized, and stupidity would generally be far less. Without the red tape, crazy tests, and private schools, (all caused by capitalism and burguesia ownership of the government) education could improve wildly.

What if a decision is split 50/50
Another one that I have trouble answering. Generally I say that decisions would be more straightforward in a communist society. However, I can really think of one clear solution, and that is to compromise.

Well that's what I have for now! Hope you took the time to read it and enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Before I end it though, I'd like to make clear the point of this post is to
1) Spark discussion 2) Hear some of the arguments against communism and the answers you guys give 3) To have some of my answers improved.
Thanks everybody!

[Red Nightmare]

I have found that most of the people who spend time coming up with these "arguments" against communism have no intention of actually changing their mind even when given satisfactory answers. Don't spend your time arguing with pro-capitalist shills, all you are accomplishing is unintentionally giving them credit by given them the time of day to listen to their shitty "arguments" in the first place. Just reach out to people who will are legitimately willing to listen and educate as much as you can and organize but don't waste your time trying to change the minds of willfully ignorant people, all you will accomplish is pissing yourself off.

[Red Nightmare]

It makes me sad that communism has been warped by capitalist propaganda and state capitalism into seeming like the opposite of what it actually is.

[Always Curious J]

I have found that most of the people who spend time coming up with these "arguments" against communism have no intention of actually changing their mind even when given satisfactory answers. Don't spend your time arguing with pro-capitalist shills, all you are accomplishing is unintentionally giving them credit by given them the time of day to listen to their shitty "arguments" in the first place. Just reach out to people who will are legitimately willing to listen and educate as much as you can and organize but don't waste your time trying to change the minds of willfully ignorant people, all you will accomplish is pissing yourself off.

Yeah I've figured that out the hard way. Usually I just walk away when people start spitting out nonsense, but sometimes people genuinely ask questions like these and thats who I try to help learn.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Pretty good! I like it! Gonna save this on my phone for future reference. Enjoy some rep! :D

[Comrade #138672]

I think it is not too hard to argue for Communism. The only problem is the scare tactics of opponents. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc. Even worse than Hitler!

[Nevsky]

That's a pretty solid list of counterarguments for the usual anticommunist points made by people in more casual debates. However, things can get a little more complicated when you find yourself in a more academic discussion, facing people who have real knowledge of economics/politics/philosophy. It can be quite difficult to discuss economics with a moderate, center-right type of person who knows what he/she is talking about, without looking like a dogmatic or utopian fool. Even after nearly 200 years, the best thing to do ist reading and understanding Marx critique of capitalist economy. Nobody can counter marxist theory as no one can deny that it's true and still appropriate to analyse today's financial crisis. They can only resort to the "Marx was right about capitalism but not about socialism" argument, which is very weak. The latter usually leads to the evils of "actually existing socialism", which you can always either justify by carefully explaining the historical circumstances surrounding it or by dissociating it from "pure" marxist theory (according to whatever tendency you subscribe to).

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

Communism leads to dictatorship, just look at North Korea and China!
Usually I am discouraged when I hear this because if they knew anything about communism they'd know it's completely wrong. Communism is a classless and stateless society. Or at least a state run by the people. If I continue talking to them I explain that fact and explain that it is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This shows that just because a country says it is something doesn't mean actually is that something. Not to mention that those countries don't fit the definition of communism at all anyways.

I have found this to be the biggest stumbling block when trying to discuss socialism with anybody. As soon as the word socialism is mentioned, people just think of the various dictatorships that have masqueraded under the banner of socialism. I think more damage has been done to socialism by these so called socialist states than any negative propaganda by capitalists.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's a pretty solid list of counterarguments for the usual anticommunist points made by people in more casual debates. However, things can get a little more complicated when you find yourself in a more academic discussion, facing people who have real knowledge of economics/politics/philosophy. It can be quite difficult to discuss economics with a moderate, center-right type of person who knows what he/she is talking about, without looking like a dogmatic or utopian fool. Even after nearly 200 years, the best thing to do ist reading and understanding Marx critique of capitalist economy. Nobody can counter marxist theory as no one can deny that it's true and still appropriate to analyse today's financial crisis. They can only resort to the "Marx was right about capitalism but not about socialism" argument, which is very weak. The latter usually leads to the evils of "actually existing socialism", which you can always either justify by carefully explaining the historical circumstances surrounding it or by dissociating it from "pure" marxist theory (according to whatever tendency you subscribe to).

Can you explain this further? How can we reply to something like that?

[Nevsky]

Can you explain this further? How can we reply to something like that?

Well the problem is that our society is fundamentally a liberal-capitalist and not a socialist one. Hence, people who actually study economics professionally are heavily conditioned by the mainstream economist's view on things; they technically know more about economics than any teenage communist who has never actually studied the subject, although they learn from a "wrong" perspective to begin with. You just need to make sure to give the the impression that you have a precise idea on (for example) why the financial crisis happens, how third world exploitation is connected to our high living standards, why capitalism is a flawed system which has to be ovetrown in the future, why the production means need to deprivatized and so on. As I said before, knowing "Das Kapital" and its critique of capitalism is vital for every communist, especially if you can translate it to our current problems.

[Always Curious J]

Thanks! I may edit some grammatical errors and add some things just so ya know!

[Always Curious J]

That's a pretty solid list of counterarguments for the usual anticommunist points made by people in more casual debates. However, things can get a little more complicated when you find yourself in a more academic discussion, facing people who have real knowledge of economics/politics/philosophy. It can be quite difficult to discuss economics with a moderate, center-right type of person who knows what he/she is talking about, without looking like a dogmatic or utopian fool. Even after nearly 200 years, the best thing to do ist reading and understanding Marx critique of capitalist economy. Nobody can counter marxist theory as no one can deny that it's true and still appropriate to analyse today's financial crisis. They can only resort to the "Marx was right about capitalism but not about socialism" argument, which is very weak. The latter usually leads to the evils of "actually existing socialism", which you can always either justify by carefully explaining the historical circumstances surrounding it or by dissociating it from "pure" marxist theory (according to whatever tendency you subscribe to).
Yeah I suppose I haven't been in any serious academic debates, so I have only heard these somewhat nonsensical points. Would one way to sound unlike a utopian fool be to explain it wouldn't happen over night and take a lot of changes both economically, mentally, and in society? And I am currently in the proceess of learning more about the faults of capitalism and hope to read up on Marx's problems with it.

[ComradeYoldas]

How come everyone leaves Communist countries but no one leaves America
Again, hate to sound like a broken record, but there are no communist countries. Let alone the fact that people are indeed leaving capitalistic countries including the U.S.


What about if the person says along the lines "If you hate capitalism so much, why don't you move to Cuba, or North Korea!" "And if you disagree with the choices, then he might say "Then why are you staying in America, if you hate capitalism so much?"

Somewhere along those lines

[Always Curious J]

What about if the person says along the lines "If you hate capitalism so much, why don't you move to Cuba, or North Korea!" "And if you disagree with the choices, then he might say "Then why are you staying in America, if you hate capitalism so much?"

Somewhere along those lines

Yes this is usually when I try to change subjects because they clearly don't understand. But if they are patient enough (usually not) I
1) explain how those countries aren't communist countries by a long shot
2) I don't have the means to get out.
3) I believe we can make it happen here
4) I'd rather not leave all my social relations such as family, friends, etc.
5) there isn't a communist country out there (yet)
Now or course I elaborate on those points but thats the just of it

[evermilion]

How come people leave communist countries? They don't. Capitalism is global. They're not escaping Marxism; they're escaping the peripheral of the profit centers of capitalist exploitation.

[Klaatu]

Well the rich have worked for their money, you are just lazy!
Oh boy, this gets me worked up. Just look at the heirs of the Walmart founder Sam Walton. They will be richer than 99 percent of all the rest of the humankind without lifting a finger. They will inherit this wealth while the old man who worked all his life being exploited in a factory producing goods for society is left being a poor door greeter working for minimum wage at Walmart (irony). Back to a more general approach, look at who the rich are, athletes, pop stars, sons of CEO's, etc. Not exactly the hardest most stressful jobs. Even those who are wealthy business owners and "worked hard" have gotten rich exploiting workers. A society that rewards those who exploit others and not the actual workers is not one I like. And one that no one should like. Finally, no one makes so much money alone. The whole, or most, of society contributed and should reap the benefits!

I like to use the "alone on a deserted island" argument against the defenders of the established wealthy capitalist class.
It goes like this: if you were alone on an island for the rest of your life, it would be completely impossible to be rich.
That's because you would have to spend your entire day, every day, looking for food /water, shelter/protection, etc
You would have no time at all for doing anything but your essential duties to ensure your own survival (think of "survivorman")
In fact, things like gold and diamonds would have zero worth to you. (Fresh water would actually be far more valuable!)

The point is that you would not be able to amass "great wealth" without the opportunity to EXPLOIT dozens of others.
And since you cannot ever have that opportunity, you could not possibly be 'wealthy' as long as you live on that island.
It takes a lot of worker bees, working very hard, to make one man rich.

[Always Curious J]

I like to use the "alone on a deserted island" argument against the defenders of the established wealthy capitalist class.
It goes like this: if you were alone on an island for the rest of your life, it would be completely impossible to be rich.
That's because you would have to spend your entire day, every day, looking for food /water, shelter/protection, etc
You would have no time at all for doing anything but your essential duties to ensure your own survival (think of "survivorman")
In fact, things like gold and diamonds would have zero worth to you. (Fresh water would actually be far more valuable!)

The point is that you would not be able to amass "great wealth" without the opportunity to EXPLOIT dozens of others.
And since you cannot ever have that opportunity, you could not possibly be 'wealthy' as long as you live on that island.
It takes a lot of worker bees, working very hard, to make one man rich.

That is an absolutely fantastic analogy of sorts. I hope you don't mind if I use it the next time I am discussing these topics with someone. It always seems to confuse people when I explain that it is simply impossible to become rich on your own, without exploiting others. Which I find horrendous. Hopefully this will help clear things up with them!

[Klaatu]

That is an absolutely fantastic analogy of sorts. I hope you don't mind if I use it the next time I am discussing these topics with someone. It always seems to confuse people when I explain that it is simply impossible to become rich on your own, without exploiting others. Which I find horrendous. Hopefully this will help clear things up with them!
Thank you, and please do use the analogy.

One other thing: most people think that there must be "rich job-creators" out there to "provide us with work." This is a farce. Anyone can create their own work --- for example, I do private tutoring for math/science students. (I am thinking of starting a co-op with fellow teachers) My brother does handyman work. He is his own boss. In fact, MOST people back in history HAVE worked for themselves (or with their family --- farming, etc) It is only in recent history has the exploitative über-wealthy capitalist been in charge of so many jobs --- and that is geting worse. (consider WalMart, for example, crushing a small mom-and-pop store and then hiring mom/pop to be low-wage greeters)

[Sudsy]

Here`s another great argument against communism: It`s a Jewish Atheist Illuminati Conspiracy controlled by Steven Speilberg and pro choice activists to kill the white race. I`m over exaggerating of course but I don`t think I`m that far off from the typical right wing conspiracy theorist. haha

[Always Curious J]

Here`s another great argument against communism: It`s a Jewish Atheist Illuminati Conspiracy controlled by Steven Speilberg and pro choice activists to kill the white race. I`m over exaggerating of course but I don`t think I`m that far off from the typical right wing conspiracy theorist. haha

I would be lying if I didn't admit this is fairly accurate :lol: Thats why I tend to stick with talking to more reasonable and open minded people. Not that all liberals are open minded and reasonable by a long shot, but I tend to stick to them as they are already left somewhat.

[Always Curious J]

Thank you, and please do use the analogy.

One other thing: most people think thatlese"rich job-creators" out there to "provide us with work." This is a farce. Anyone can create their own work --- for example, I do private tutoring for math/science students. (I am thinking of starting a co-op with fellow teachers) My brother does handyman work. He is his own boss. In fact, MOST people back in history HAVE worked for themselves (or with their family --- farming, etc) It is only in recent history has the exploitative über-wealthy capitalist been in charge of so many jobs --- and that is geting worse. (consider WalMart, for example, crushing a small mom-and-pop store and then hiring mom/pop to be low-wage greeters)

Hate to sound redundant, but thanks again! These will make it much easier to explain to people who have less knowledge about economics (I am no professor myself) and would like a short and simple explanation.

[Rugged Collectivist]

What about if the person says along the lines "If you hate capitalism so much, why don't you move to Cuba, or North Korea!" "And if you disagree with the choices, then he might say "Then why are you staying in America, if you hate capitalism so much?"

Somewhere along those lines

This attitude annoys me greatly. First off, people are right in asserting that those aren't communist countries, and that such a thing is by definition impossible. Second why does Mr. Hypothetical conservative have every right to influence the political direction of the country and I don't?

If someone tries to pull this shit on you, bring up the Cuban exiles. The same person who said "just move if you don't like it" will probably go on a tangent about how Cuba needs to be liberated from the commie oppressors so the exiles can return to their homeland.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Well what if I want to go on vacation!

Another way to answer this would be to say this:

A communist society would be more fraternal, people would have a large stake in their local environment and would probably want to improve it. As a result, vacations become redundant as the local area wouldn't have anything to push you away, to make you want to 'get away from it all'.

[evermilion]

I have found this to be the biggest stumbling block when trying to discuss socialism with anybody. As soon as the word socialism is mentioned, people just think of the various dictatorships that have masqueraded under the banner of socialism. I think more damage has been done to socialism by these so called socialist states than any negative propaganda by capitalists.

I wholeheartedly disagree. If anything, most states that have at least some history with socialism as a political endeavor tend to accomplish quite a bit for their people in terms of securing rights and increasing their standard of living. They've done a lot more for socialism as a political endeavor than have any ivory tower master debater.

The response to the anti-socialist assertion is that, socialist ideas or no, there has never been a "communist" country and "socialism" refers to a very specific stage in the development of human society. The world is capitalist. Where struggles with militarism and poverty arise, they are not the result of ideology; they are the consequence of existing outside of the most luxurious, profiting zones of capitalism.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

I wholeheartedly disagree. If anything, most states that have at least some history with socialism as a political endeavor tend to accomplish quite a bit for their people in terms of securing rights and increasing their standard of living. They've done a lot more for socialism as a political endeavor than have any ivory tower master debater.

The response to the anti-socialist assertion is that, socialist ideas or no, there has never been a "communist" country and "socialism" refers to a very specific stage in the development of human society. The world is capitalist. Where struggles with militarism and poverty arise, they are not the result of ideology; they are the consequence of existing outside of the most luxurious, profiting zones of capitalism.

There are no states that have had a history of socialism. You could argue that all states have accomplished rights for the working class, but this these reformist achievements have just helped to stabilise capitalism, and subdued the working class. Of course, improvements in conditions for the working class are welcome, but if reformism is used as a political tool, it just plays into the hands of the capitalists.

[evermilion]

There are no states that have had a history of socialism. You could argue that all states have accomplished rights for the working class, but this these reformist achievements have just helped to stabilise capitalism, and subdued the working class. Of course, improvements in conditions for the working class are welcome, but if reformism is used as a political tool, it just plays into the hands of the capitalists.

That's just empty posturing, comrade. Whatever improvements to their lives that can be won by the non-propertied classes may have a side effect of retarding radicalization, which is what I assume you meant by these "reformist" achievements having "stabilized capitalism," but the alternative would be to live in misery, waiting for the moment of revolution. Reform is not the same as reformism.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

That's just empty posturing, comrade. Whatever improvements to their lives that can be won by the non-propertied classes may have a side effect of retarding radicalization, which is what I assume you meant by these "reformist" achievements having "stabilized capitalism," but the alternative would be to live in misery, waiting for the moment of revolution. Reform is not the same as reformism.

OK, reform is good, reformism is a distraction from the ultimate aim of a socialist society. I guess the way to ensure that the working class do not get distracted from the ultimate aim of a socialist society is to ensure that the working class understand what socialism is. The proletariat needs to know that, even when reforms have been achieved, they are still being exploited under capitalism.

[rednordman]

Do people actually accept the 'its not really/wasnt communism' response? as in, does it make them view us any differently?

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

Do people actually accept the 'its not really/wasnt communism' response? as in, does it make them view us any differently?

I think it does. To a non socialist who doesn't know what socialism is, socialism = dictatorship

[Always Curious J]

Do people actually accept the 'its not really/wasnt communism' response? as in, does it make them view us any differently?

In my experiences, it honestly depends on who you're talking to. Many people that just don't know what socialism/communism is honestly think it's all about complete government control. And so far those people generally are interested in knowing what it actually is. On the other hand, there are some who blindly believe it is worse than Hitler no matter what, and the key is, they dont want to hear any different. For those people it really isn't much use as they will simply tune you out and then spit out some rhetoric they've hear on a conservative radio show or something.

[evermilion]

OK, reform is good, reformism is a distraction from the ultimate aim of a socialist society. I guess the way to ensure that the working class do not get distracted from the ultimate aim of a socialist society is to ensure that the working class understand what socialism is. The proletariat needs to know that, even when reforms have been achieved, they are still being exploited under capitalism.

And no one is telling you otherwise.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

I've been having a think about reforms and reformism. I guess that the fight for reforms in the workplace to benefit the working class is the remit of the trade union. If political parties/groups leave the fight for reforms to the trade unions, and focus on helping the proletariat to understand and want socialism, then this would prevent reformism diluting the political message.

However, I seem to have drifted off topic, which originally was how to respond to objections to socialism. :blushing:

[Klaatu]

... To a non socialist who doesn't know what socialism is, socialism = dictatorship

The ruling capitalist class wants people to think that way. They have a vested interest in demonizing socialism and keeping it unpopular.

But some of us can see right through that smoke, so to speak. :thumbdown:

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

The ruling capitalist class wants people to think that way. They have a vested interest in demonizing socialism and keeping it unpopular.

But some of us can see right through that smoke, so to speak. :thumbdown:

Exactly. The proletariat at the moment can only comprehend a capitalist society, and the capitalist class does its best to keep it that way. It remains for us to help others understand socialism, and to help the proletariat see through the smoke.

[Luisrah]

Well, I think there are a lot more arguments that could arise...

Money has existed for so much time, how do you expect for it to not be used anymore?

Do you really think countries will stop existing?!

Classes have always existed. There will always be poor and rich people.

[Marxaveli]

[B]Money has existed for so much time, how do you expect for it to not be used anymore?

Because a successful proletarian revolution in itself would make money obsolete in the long run. Money is a result of class based societies and in its modern form is a product of wage labor.


Do you really think countries will stop existing?!

Why not? Almost all socialists are anti-nationalist by default, since borders imply the existence of nationalism, and thus such a reactionary element would be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. If countries still exist, that means we are still living under capitalism.


Classes have always existed. There will always be poor and rich people

This argument is easily disproved with a little historical and anthropological investigation and knowledge. Class societies in fact, have existed for only a TINY percentage between the time modern humans first evolved and now. Besides, there was a time when people thought the world was flat, that it was the center of the universe, and that we would never walk on the moon. So much for those theories.

[Volderbeek]

I'll add more to this topic later but I really want to comment on this:




Well what about lazy people?/Whats the incentive to work!
I generally keep it as short as possible and explain that people could choose not to work, but the community would be less than ideal. Seeing that your labor would more directly improve the quality of the life of you and others would be incentive enough for most. Unlike today, where your only motivation is a paycheck most spend away within the first week. Along with this new motivation, social pressure from your coworkers, neighbors, and family would cause most to work. Continuing, depending on the community, some may impose rules on how much you have to work. Those who don't are encouraged to in different ways. Finally, people who refuse to work could be handled like sick and disabled. treated as a burden, but not one that is crippling to society. Before I end this point however, I'd like to mention that while I don't agree with the idea of "human nature," I do believe the desire to improve the world and work is inside almost all of us, crushed by the oppressive capitalist system.



Actually, this sounds worse than capitalism/money-based economy. At least there, you have a sort of privacy. In this, your neighbors are pressuring you to work more? I don't like the sound of that.

A better response, perhaps, is that capitalism has plenty of mooches and lumpenproles to go around; some make whole careers around it. If anything, a gift economy puts these types out of work so to speak.

[Always Curious J]

I'll add more to this topic later but I really want to comment on this:



Actually, this sounds worse than capitalism/money-based economy. At least there, you have a sort of privacy. In this, your neighbors are pressuring you to work more? I don't like the sound of that.

A better response, perhaps, is that capitalism has plenty of mooches and lumpenproles to go around; some make whole careers around it. If anything, a gift economy puts these types out of work so to speak.

When I say social pressures I don't mean they are forcing you to work or anything like that, but seeing all these people working as well as your family and friends asking or wondering why you just sit around would "pressure" you to work. Again, everyone could choose not to work, but the community would not be an ideal one. However, I honestly think that seeing more direct benefits of the job you do, being able to choose what job you want, and not being constantly worried about losing your job and not getting by would be enough incentive for most. With all that said I will certainly use the argument you made about putting these people "out of work."

[Lokomotive293]

They can only resort to the "Marx was right about capitalism but not about socialism" argument, which is very weak.

If Marx was right about capitalism, then he was right about socialism being its logical consequence. The only way to seriously argue that "Marx was right about capitalism, but not about socialism" and be logically consistent is to argue that "Humanity is doomed, we are all going to die." And, imo, that attitude is the hardest thing to deal with.


What about if the person says along the lines "If you hate capitalism so much, why don't you move to Cuba, or North Korea!" "And if you disagree with the choices, then he might say "Then why are you staying in America, if you hate capitalism so much?"

Somewhere along those lines

Possible responses:

1. Because this is my home
2. Because I care about the people that live here, which is why I stay here and fight for a better future for them
3. If Amurrica [or place where you live] was socialist, and you were still anti-commuist, would you leave?
4. [Only if you live in the US] Why didn't the founding fathers leave Amurrica if they hated it there so much?
5. Because there's not enough room in Cuba for all the communists of the world :grin:

[Volderbeek]

When I say social pressures I don't mean they are forcing you to work or anything like that, but seeing all these people working as well as your family and friends asking or wondering why you just sit around would "pressure" you to work.

Well, people that know you (family and friends) would just tell you to get off your lazy ass and work. :lol: You also explicitly mentioned neighbors, hence the privacy issue. I'm assuming "neighbors" is defined loosely here as well.


Again, everyone could choose not to work, but the community would not be an ideal one. If everyone chose not to work, society would collapse. The fact is, it's really not a choice. You need food, shelter, etc. The issue is how we organize to provide those things.

[Volderbeek]

Well, I think there are a lot more arguments that could arise...

Money has existed for so much time, how do you expect for it to not be used anymore?

Do you really think countries will stop existing?!

Classes have always existed. There will always be poor and rich people.

All three can be answered simply that things change. iPods had never existed before.

[Always Curious J]

Well, people that know you (family and friends) would just tell you to get off your lazy ass and work. :lol: You also explicitly mentioned neighbors, hence the privacy issue. I'm assuming "neighbors" is defined loosely here as well.

If everyone chose not to work, society would collapse. The fact is, it's really not a choice. You need food, shelter, etc. The issue is how we organize to provide those things.

When I said neighbors I was thinking like friends as I'm quite close with my neighbors. I had no intent to create a sense of no privacy my apologies haha. Now yes, if everyone decided not to work that would be quite an issue indeed. Hopefully people would be able to realize that and work. However, if they choose not to even when they realize this then some systems would surely need to be put in place. What these systems are and how they work I assume would vary depending on the community or area. They could be
A) A required amount of time you'd need to work every week or something. Of course the time would be much less than it is today due to increase in efficiency because of technology and more planning.
B) In the future there would be advanced enough technology to almost rid of the need for undesired physical labor.
Now obviously there needs to be MANY more ideas and systems, and I have seen very good discussions on this website which encourages me. Sorry for an confusion!

[Cerough]

This one is really one the biggest post I have never seen before it. The argues are so great. I like your chatting.:grin:

[Always Curious J]

This one is really one the biggest post I have never seen before it. The argues are so great. I like your chatting.:grin:

Thanks! I might add a few more quick ones if I can articulate my answers to them well!

[Luisrah]

All three can be answered simply that things change. iPods had never existed before.

You know very well that that will convince close to no one lol

[Clarksist]

Well communism is against human nature!

Well what about greedy people!

Both of these are answered fairly easily, but most communists who confront this come at it from the wrong angle. Most communists try to refute the idea of human nature as a hardwired fact and try to contextualize greed into a historical perspective. Neither of these are effect because they rely on vague abstractions and run counter to the logic that the person positing these arguments clearly believes wholeheartedly.

The trick, and this trick is true in almost any argument where you are actually trying to convince and not just pissing off liberals (not to say that there is anything wrong with a good liberal-baiting :grin:), is to follow there logic and take it further than they do, and I think this is what Marx actually did.

It is precisely because people are so greedy and selfish and interested in their own material advantage that they cannot be trusted to privately run the economy in their own personal self interest. If everyone owns the means of production democratically, no one will allow anyone else to get in a position to exploit anyone else. That's just human nature. Everyone will be working to make their syndicate or soviet or worker's council produce more and gain more because they are, in the end, just looking out for themselves.

Marx's whole argument was that the proletarian revolution occurs because workers want more and can get more as a class by expropriating the expropriators.

[Always Curious J]

Both of these are answered fairly easily, but most communists who confront this come at it from the wrong angle. Most communists try to refute the idea of human nature as a hardwired fact and try to contextualize greed into a historical perspective. Neither of these are effect because they rely on vague abstractions and run counter to the logic that the person positing these arguments clearly believes wholeheartedly.

The trick, and this trick is true in almost any argument where you are actually trying to convince and not just pissing off liberals (not to say that there is anything wrong with a good liberal-baiting :grin:), is to follow there logic and take it further than they do, and I think this is what Marx actually did.

It is precisely because people are so greedy and selfish and interested in their own material advantage that they cannot be trusted to privately run the economy in their own personal self interest. If everyone owns the means of production democratically, no one will allow anyone else to get in a position to exploit anyone else. That's just human nature. Everyone will be working to make their syndicate or soviet or worker's council produce more and gain more because they are, in the end, just looking out for themselves.

Marx's whole argument was that the proletarian revolution occurs because workers want more and can get more as a class by expropriating the expropriators.

Wow. I had never even thought of that, but that's brilliant! Socialism and Communism really are the perfect systems for a creature that is greedy. Why would you trust a small group of naturally greedy people to do what is best for the workers and society! However, If all workers worked collectively and all participanted in decisions than each would do what is best for themselves, which is too make their "business" better. And when "businesses" are sucessful in a socialist/communist society it benefits everyone, not just a small few! Again thanks for that! Would you mind if I edited my original post and included your quote as long as I gave credit?

[Clarksist]

Would you mind if I edited my original post and included your quote as long as I gave credit?

Of course! Happy to be of service. :)