High School Commie's Guide

[InquisitiveBeing]

Thanks for the reply! The theory of Communism is an amazing thing, but in practice it never seems to work as intended. Its not really a question of if a true communist society would be great, its a question of if a true communist society can be achieved at all. As rampant as greed and selfishness are in todays world, its hard to see how we could make it work.

[Dóchas]

Thanks for the reply! The theory of Communism is an amazing thing, but in practice it never seems to work as intended. Its not really a question of if a true communist society would be great, its a question of if a true communist society can be achieved at all. As rampant as greed and selfishness are in todays world, its hard to see how we could make it work.

it would work if it was given a chance. the fact that countries like america are against it is a big problem that we will have to deal with but nothing can stop us trying and getting people to view things differently!! ;)

[Chambered Word]

I do love this thread, and it's hilarious (while sad) to see fellow comrades having to argue past the stupidity of cappie students, teachers etc at their school who get screwed by the system and yet support the system fiercely. Here's the source of quite a few bitter laughs.

[liono4407]

Good, those are very good answers to very commonly asked questions.:)

[Manifesto]

Thank you RedStar only one of my friends and I are the only ones that aren't idiots tricked by capitalism at my school and are usually criticized for it.

[KremlinFriedChicken]

I have a question for the janitor - doctor debate.

In some countries there are people who pass by your house, pick up your trash and deal with them. The garbage men or whatever. In my country these people are paid by the government. So, last year, the garbage men of the capital went on strike and after two days, EVERYONE was begging them to go back to work!!! Because the city was getting insufferable FILTHY and many people were afraid that they would get sick...

These guys get like 1200 euros a month.

Now, imagine Hollywood doing the same thing in your country. Imagine actors going on a strike. What would be the cost? I don't think anyone's life would be in danger...

But how much are these guys paid? Or in my country, our actors and singers... In fact we have a lot of WHORES who want to become singers... And that is mainly because our porn industry is not big and they would not get a lot of money if they were to become pornstars so instead they become singers. So, who the fuck would care if these people were to go on strike? how much many do they earn?

Doctors going on strike would be very devastating. But garbage guys going on strike would be devastating as well.

So stop thinking about money. You don't eat money and you don't dress up or read with money. The point is the quality of life that you have. And both the doctor and the garbage guy SHOULD have the same quality of life.

[Dóchas]

I have one particular person who continually bothers me about taking part in the capitalist system. I try and inform him that it is a necessary evil at this point but he presses that I could go live in a communal area. What do you guys figure I should say to shut him up? (As far as his political views, he's a conservative who hides behind the label of libertarianism because he's ashamed of conservatism)

its pretty much impossible to live in a capitalist system without contributing to it in some way (even though we dont want to). if someone talked to me like that i would ask them to give me details of communes near me and see how many they come up with. id say they would come up with hardly any if any at all. i wouldnt really worry about it the guy sounds clueless.

[Faust]

Nobody at my school has a clue what communism is, if they know it's 'cause their rich conservative parents made us out to be something evil. =]

:hammersickle:

[amandevsingh]

Haha, heard that one Faust. Plus our schooling isn't exactly helping, including my teacher who denies evolution at every possible opportuinity :rolleyes:

[Faust]

Plus our schooling isn't exactly helping, including my teacher who denies evolution at every possible opportuinity

Lmao, ask him to give you some proof about creationism, XD

:hammersickle:

[amandevsingh]

Lmao, ask him to give you some proof about creationism, XD

ME: Why?
Teach: The bible says so.
ME: So? How does that change things?
T: Its gods word, how else could you explain Jesus' heroic deeds.
ME: How can you explain how no one could put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
T: :sneaky:

My mark dropped by 2%

[Kyrite]

My mark dropped by 2%

LOL :laugh:

[Manifesto]

There is not really proof for either theories.

[Unregistered]

ME: Why?
Teach: The bible says so.
ME: So? How does that change things?
T: Its gods word, how else could you explain Jesus' heroic deeds.
ME: How can you explain how no one could put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
T: :sneaky:

My mark dropped by 2%

Sounds like you have an absolutely retarded teacher.

[Manifesto]

Nobody at my school has a clue what communism is, if they know it's 'cause their rich conservative parents made us out to be something evil. =]

:hammersickle:
Same here dude.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Seeing as I haven't read all of the thread, this question could have come up. If it has just ignore this.

What do you all say when people tell you communism doesn't work/has never worked/is not practical, because that's the most common response I get and it's quite a general statement so it's hard to know what to say.

[Tjis]

Seeing as I haven't read all of the thread, this question could have come up. If it has just ignore this.

What do you all say when people tell you communism doesn't work/has never worked/is not practical, because that's the most common response I get and it's quite a general statement so it's hard to know what to say.

Ask them why. You really can't have a decent conversation when the person you talk to doesn't back their statements with arguments.

[austinallegro]

I'm a "High School Commie" in Britain too, I don't find anyone arguing directly aginst my politics more jokes about sharing my paper "equally amongst the peoples" (¬_¬) It did make me happy to see the look on the right-wing group in my Politics class (one has got a strange fixation with apartheid era South Africa) when we had a debate on Communism versus Capitalism and Communism was the victor. :laugh:

[Kyrite]

One thing that I am sick of people bringing up is Stalin and his rise to power. People keep trying to tell me that 'People will always want a leader' Or that 'Someone will always seize power'. Any comebacks to these same old critiques?

[SHEHATEME]

I work with young people around your age in the UK everyday and I would be so pleased if any of them asked the questions and raised the issues you have, it's good to know that you are out there. Never stop challenging your fellow students every time you do you strengthen your confidence in your beliefs and who knows you may even make some of them think twice about their pro capitalists views.

As for quick replys to their comments. speak using the passion you obviously have, your words will say what you feel beter than anyone elses,.

[Guevara-Castro]

Wow, these are some smart answers.. I have only recently become interested in Communism/Marxism through biographies on Fidel Castro or more importantly Che Guevara, an I'm always stumped by the doctor/janitor debate, but this will help alot. Thanks again

[Guevara-Castro]

i get 'Stalin was a communist' most times.

Hitler was a Christian, but that dosent make a difference either...

[Salabra]

I have been spending a great deal of time here over the last few days, revisiting my own girlhood, the arguments that I used to have with my peers, and the outright sanity of Marxist thinking, as opposed to the chaos of capitalism. A most worthwhile thread…

Again, this mandrill is making an integration of socialism and communism.
…even if it does slander mandrills!

LIE- You don’t have the right to own guns in communism.
Americans and firearms, hey? I really don’t see how this would be relevant in any other country, or how the author thought s/he could possibly use such an argument to convince the right-wingers of the NRA of the virtues of socialism.

So, in short, the USSR was not communist…
Wait, so that means we on the left had no obligation to defend the USSR in 1941, ‘cos, after all, it was “just another capitalist country”? *SNORT* What a jolly, imperialist-friendly person this author is! Or does s/he just not want to tell potential recruits that they might have had to actually oppose their own bourgeoisies? Isn’t this rather like scientologists not telling newbies about Xenu, the nasty alien, until they reach “Operating Thetan Level V”?

"socialism forces ppl to put society above themselves, while a truly free society allows to individual to chose"
…
i ran into that...can't get past it...
You have to start explaining to them what a bizarre and ideological concept “individualism” is. You could start by saying that “individualism” is basically “selfishness,” but I’m guessing that your average cappie adversary would see that as a “good thing.” You could then explain that the “rational,” “autonomous” “individuals” whom capitalism lauds may not be the best judges of their own interests (they may deceive themselves, for example, or have been so brainwashed by consumerist advertising that they bankrupt themselves trying to have the latest plasma TV). You could point out that egotistic “individuals” would never provide for public libraries or parks, or proper care for the sick, disabled, aged, children or any others who are unable to look after themselves. You could tell your interlocutor that elevating the “individual” and limiting the power of “society” to regulate that individual’s “freedom of choice” renders a society such as John Norman’s “Gor” not only possible but even ideologically “acceptable.” Finally, if your adversary is female, you could point out that most women spend most of their lives putting others’ needs above their own.

Plus, if communism is so dead, why bother mentioning it? Why do they spend all kinds of money on official propaganda books in the schools to scare people away from it if it is really dead? The bourgeoisie clearly perceive it as a threat, and therefore invest a lot of money, probably billions of dollars, to defend their system of exploitation.
Exactly!

Don't know if these arguments have been addressed in this thread:
One of those arguments I've gotten into about society and what needs to be done is that people say that anyone can get rich if they want to. If you work hard at school and get a good education you can become a lawyer earning approximately 600,000 a year. In Norway perhaps this could be true, considering education is up to high school is pretty much free and some is covered by scholarship by the state.
Also another argument is that a lot of rich people are self made and that they have stayed up all night working their asses of, so why shouldn't they have the money that they have earned?
So they pretty much also said that if you want to get rich you have to work hard.
Counter argument: Plenty of people work day in day out and struggle to get food on the table, they work hard and they will never be rich.
Countering the counter-argument: What made them get a job as, for example, a cleaner? They must have not cared about their education.
See my “4th of July” blog post.

Capitalism is not in itself supportive of sexism, homophobia, racism and other non-economic discrimination. Its apologetes could theoretically support movements or institutions which are characterised by such tenets, but modern liberal capitalism is - while imperialist - yet not hostile to women, homosexuals or minorities in themselves.
Why do women, on average, STILL earn less than men in capitalist societies? Why do they own less of the world’s property and do most of the world’s work? Why are they still mainly concentrated in poorly-paid jobs at the bottom of the employment heap? Why is sexual harassment still acceptable in many occupations, if not to “keep us in our place”? Why is homosexuality “despised,” unless it threatens the bourgeois family, channel of property for the “upper classes” and channel of “discipline” and “obedience to authority” for the proletariat? Why are minorities constantly used as sources of cheap labour, on the one hand, and, on the other, used to divert proletarian anger away from exploitation by capitalists?
(Yes, that’s just off the top of my head — I would obviously expand on this if I were to write an “ABC of Socialism”)

Why would 14 nations invade Russia to keep the war going? Even given that they were successful how would they expect this strategy to be achieved, by forcing the Russian army to fight on against the Germans? Hadn’t they overthrown the Tsar and the Kerensky government so as not to fight the war.
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who demanded "this child must be strangled in its crib" or words to that effect. You belittle the work done by Trotsky in organising the Red Army from as Lenin said “out of nothing.” His use of the old imperialist military officers as specialists was a master stroke It would be a good idea if you would read any of his works on the Civil War, they are not a bang bang history, they outline the Marxist principles that enabled the Red Army to be brought together and by being victorious save the revolution.. Do you know over a millions Red Army soldiers died during the civil war and wars of intervention.
In 1919 The British occupied Murmansk. The British and the United States occupied Arkhangel and the Japenese, occupied Vladivostok. Did these imperial powers just decide to give up, hand back these important conquests to the Bolsheviks who had finished capitalism in Russia for good and whose leader Lenin was talking openly about the World Socialist Order on the very day that took place.?
Well said — the foreign Intervention in the Revolution/Civil War is often not mentioned by cappies (they probably are rather ashamed of this episode in their histories). You’ll get the odd one, however, and your refutation was superb!

Now more than ever, we need to raise the alternative of communist revolution to the choices presenting themselves in the world right now.
Indeed!

Do you not sit the state exams of Australia, the HSC isn't it? How could a class assignment which involves a presentation to the class and questions from the teacher go towards your final English grade and stop you getting into university?
Sounds like you're bullshitting to me??
It depends where he lives. In Australia, education is a state responsibility — most states have an equivalent to the HSC (Higher School Certificate), but in many jurisdictions, some consideration is given to ongoing academic performance in assessing a student for further education.

I work with young people around your age in the UK everyday and I would be so pleased if any of them asked the questions and raised the issues you have, it's good to know that you are out there. Never stop challenging your fellow students every time you do you strengthen your confidence in your beliefs and who knows you may even make some of them think twice about their pro capitalists views.
As for quick replys to their comments. speak using the passion you obviously have, your words will say what you feel beter than anyone elses,.
You have put this brilliantly!

[Propaganda]

" Wheres the incentive to begin new companies, and where would the money come from? and Where would the incentive be to pay for the beginning of a company if the workers working for you would be getting the same amount of money, minus the possible debt of beginning the company"

I have to admit, that stumped me...

[ArrowLance]

" Wheres the incentive to begin new companies, and where would the money come from? and Where would the incentive be to pay for the beginning of a company if the workers working for you would be getting the same amount of money, minus the possible debt of beginning the company"

I have to admit, that stumped me...

The incentive is; if we need the product, if we want the product, we will make the product.

As for paying for it, the answer is the same. The problem is that sentence implies that one person (or a group) will be paying for it and then the workers will just come. In reality, the workers found the company. There is little risk in doing so other than unemployment for a short period of time.

Also, in a communist society i would hope that the founding of new industries would not be such an easy function. We don't need a billion little unneeded industries.

[☭World Views]

What is the most thorough way to discredit these 6 myths?

"Corporations and trans-national companies give people in 3rd world countries jobs and if they left the people would starve to death. Corporations should be able to inject money into the region to put people to work."

"Why do communists defend the lazy people? Capitalism gives equal opportunity for everyone. All you have to do is work hard and go to school"

"The USA military should stay in the Middle East to fight terrorists before they come here and kill us"

"No other country has done so much good in the world(in reference to the monetary aid the USA gives to people who defend their capitalist interests)"

"Thank the military for protecting your right to free speech"

"The USA is justified in supporting right wing dictators such as Pinochet, Somoza, Suharto, Batista, the Shah, and Saddam in the cold war because they defended the free market from populist dictators"

[Nwoye]

"Corporations and trans-national companies give people in 3rd world countries jobs and if they left the people would starve to death. Corporations should be able to inject money into the region to put people to work." Actually if they left and stopped using the United States to enforce their interests on foreign governments then the popular movements in those countries that support land reform and democracy would be able to flourish and the countries would be able to develop.


"Why do communists defend the lazy people? Capitalism gives equal opportunity for everyone. All you have to do is work hard and go to school"Just tell him to rent an apartment in detroit and live there for ten days, and he'll disregard this argument.


"The USA military should stay in the Middle East to fight terrorists before they come here and kill us"Violence has risen drastically since our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also mention that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban didn't even operate in Iraq until we invaded, and that these "terrorist" groups are basically now non-existant in Afghanistan. Also tell them to define "terrorism" in a way which doesn't describe what the US has been doing in Central and South America for over a century.
"No other country has done so much good in the world(in reference to the monetary aid the USA gives to people who defend their capitalist interests)"Al Qaeda and the Taliban give significant amounts of money to muslim charity groups in the middle east. If that doesn't excuse their crimes (which it doesn't), then it doesn't excuse the United States of theirs. Besides, much of the aid the United States gives is tied to various policies or programs that are conceived to promote american economic interests. The US has been using the IMF and the World Bank to push debt onto poor and developing countries, which they will then excuse as long as that country gives in to various demands. For example, the US will say "we will forget about your $25 million of debt, if you privatize your public water system and put it under control of this american company."
"Thank the military for protecting your right to free speech"And then thank it for the purging of reds during the McCarthy era, and then for corporate oligarchies controlling the media, and then for massive propaganda programs to manipulate our "free speech" and then for using violence to suppress popular anti-establishment protests.


"The USA is justified in supporting right wing dictators such as Pinochet, Somoza, Suharto, Batista, the Shah, and Saddam in the cold war because they defended the free market from populist dictators"this is so unbelievably stupid that I think you should just never talk to anyone who uses this argument.

I hope that helped.

[☭World Views]

That helped a lot. I haven't had much time for study lately. Thanks.


Although I hope someone can still help me with the last one. Believe it or not, there is a neo-liberal/conservative alliance student group here that actually teaches that.

[ArrowLance]

That helped a lot. I haven't had much time for study lately. Thanks.


Although I hope someone can still help me with the last one. Believe it or not, there is a neo-liberal/conservative alliance student group here that actually teaches that.

Just punch him in the face and tell him he's an idiot. Other than that, I don't see what you can do.

[Nwoye]

That helped a lot. I haven't had much time for study lately. Thanks.


Although I hope someone can still help me with the last one. Believe it or not, there is a neo-liberal/conservative alliance student group here that actually teaches that.
well those names they rattled off were absolutely brutal dictators, who basically killed anyone who didn't disagree with their policies. If someone supports them, then they are quite simply an irrational human being who does not deserve to be spoken with. If you actually want to disprove them, you could just ask why what Pinochet did was okay and why what Stalin or Pol Pot did was not. If they say "those guys were dirty reds" then say "so you support murder and violence in order to support your political ideals, but no one elses?" if they answer yes, then that basically makes them a terrorist (a terrorist being someone who uses violence and fear in order to achieve political or ideological goals).

[☭World Views]

I have a friend that infiltrated himself into the group in question. He asked them to repeat their rationality for supporting right wing dictators. Here is what they said.

"Supporting dictators in the cold war were a necessary evil, the alternative was a communist or fundamentalist dictatorship! This is especially true when we speak of Suharto, we could not let the domino theory come true. Papa doc was a gangster that fought communism in Haiti..."

"...furthermore; poor countries must not be allowed to have democracy until after they develop. If they act in interest of the people instead of capital development the country would be in shambles and a communist dictator would come to power. The dictators we support are a necessary evil to develop. Once they became a democracy and adopt our re-adjustments we will not fight them. In the Philipines..."

"Thanks to our interventions; Argentina, India, and Iran before their Islamic-fascist dictatorship are better off. Israel is a thriving democracy in the Middle East."

"China and Vietnam are moving away from communism and are accepting capitalism"

" I cant wait till the Empire building ideas come back to the world. Third world countries plagued with problems should be gratefull that we allow them to even exist. If it were up to me Id reduce the world nukes by dropping them on wastefull peices of land that for some reason belive they have the right to exsist but cannot truly fend for themselves."


Some of these points seem easy to refute. The group clearly doesn't know what communism is, and they still use the domino theory. But I want to make sure I'm on the right track. What would be your reaction to the above claims?

[Nwoye]

well they're working under the false assumption that America's foreign policy during the Cold War had anything to do with humanitarian concerns for the spread of communism. I don't know if you've read 1984, but it perfectly illustrates the conflict between the US and the USSR that took place during the Cold War. The Soviet Union was systematically spreading its influence all over the world, and their infiltration into the political systems of various underdeveloped countries was a major cause in the spread of Stalinism ("communism"). The United States recognized that if these underdeveloped countries (which are sources for cheap labor for american corporations) fall to communism, then american business is going to suffer. So they developed the policy of "protecting the world from the spread of communism" to justify their foreign intervention - in reality, it was "protect foreign american capital from labor movements". And we can see this in plenty of instances, like Chile, Vietnam, Guatemala, etc.

In this span of time we supported various oppressive dictators (Pinochet) and violent groups (Mujahideen) for the simple reason that they were fighting against "communism", or more specifically, labor movements. In Guatemala for example we overthrew a democratically elected reform candidate (Jacobo Arbenz Guzman) on the false premise that he was tied to the USSR. He was in the process of a land reform program which would have benefitted the massive peasant population when the coup began, and after he stepped down the US instituted a right-wing dictator who proceeded to abandon the reform project and throw the country back into poverty, which remains today. The point is, the americans supported regimes that were just as and probably more disastrous then the "communist" ones they were supposedly protecting these countries from.

Second of all, the concept of intervening in other countries' business just because we disagree with their government's policies runs contrary to any belief in self-determination or national autonomy. I mean, if our rational for invading a country is saving them from socialism, then is a socialist country allowed to invade us to save us from capitalism? Going by the imperialist rationalization, yes. But of course, the people of any given country or region have the right to choose the government or society they want, whether it be communist or capitalist or anarchist or whatever.

[☭World Views]

Cool.

How about these:

"Capitalism is the best system for generating wealth for yourself"

"Capitalism protects the rights of the individual"

"Private property is a pre-requisite of a free society"

"Everytime communism is attempted, it turns into a one party totalitarian state where the govt. controls everything"

"What happens if I fall and break my leg? Will I starve to death?"

[Nwoye]

"Capitalism is the best system for generating wealth for yourself"If by "yourself" you mean factory owners or bankers. This is a really vague argument, so if someone tries to go at you this way you have to ask them to expand on what they mean - make them actually say what they mean and back it up with a coherent argument.

"Capitalism protects the rights of the individual"It protects the rights of the rich individual. This kind of statement is indicative of a misunderstanding of the relationship between negative and positive liberty. The people who say stuff like this think that as long as you're not by law restricted from doing something, like starting a business, then you can do it (negative liberty). Of course, this ignores the fact that people must have positive liberty (physical ability, wealth, circumstances, etc) to do really anything. And capitalism is what regularly restricts positive liberty and forces people into positions of wage slaves.

"Private property is a pre-requisite of a free society"I'll leave this one to The Communist Manifesto:

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

<snip/>

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor.

"Everytime communism is attempted, it turns into a one party totalitarian state where the govt. controls everything" Another really vague argument. Ask them to expand on this. most people don't know anything about the USSR or Mao's China or whatever, so they'll probably end up talking out of their ass.

Also, this is a topic that requires an extensive amount of research, and one where you're going to have to formulate your own opinion through study. I give my opinion on the matter but that would mean you had a bias and unfair perspective on the situation. You're on your own here.

"What happens if I fall and break my leg? Will I starve to death?" under capitalism yes. Under communism if you weren't in too much pain you could do administrative jobs or jobs that don't take physical activity. If you were completely incapacitated you could take your time and recover, and your medicine, healthcare, and food would be provided for you (there is no more scarcity remember). You'd be fine.

[☭World Views]

Thanks.

For the lolz; what choice of words can I use to thoroughly embarrass this imperialist apologist?

"
Yes damn that American Empire!

We've done nothing but go around the world expanding our empire.

Like the time when we turned Japan & Germany into states.

We then invaded Korea & made them a state too.

Then Cuba & Vietnam. Then came Lebanon, Saudi Arabia & Israel.

Soon Iraq & Afganistan will be states also.


(Hey wait a minute???? None of that stuff ever really happend!!!)

Damn!!!

We REALLY suck at this "imperialism" bit."

[Manifesto]

Hey my friend says this is communism "the government takes farmers corn that they try to sell, and they give the farmer only some corn that he is allowed to eat, he gets no money" what are some responces I could use against this?

[cccplikai]

I come from China, I would like to make it clear that China is not a socialist country, in spite of the Chinese Communist propaganda so, but my country has abandoned the road of socialism!
Belief in communism, in China, now the eyes of the 80's is an alternative ！:(

[Salabra]

Cool.

How about these:

“Capitalism is the best system for generating wealth for yourself”

The little girl that still dwells within me is saddened that such selfishness is considered a “virtue” — the adult woman that I now am will sardonically point out that there are millions of people in your own country who work 30 hours each day just to TRY to make ends meet, and who will never be “wealthy,” while there are a very few who have more wealth than they can possibly use in ten lifetimes. Ask these luminaries how many plasma TVs, high-powered cars, yachts and beachside houses they actually need. And then tell them this joke:

The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.”

The American then asked, “Why didn’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?”

The Mexican said, “With this I have more than enough to support my family’s needs.”

The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, and then stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and I can help you. You should spend more time fishing, and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor. Eventually opening your own cannery, you would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you will run your ever-expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But how long will this all take?”

To this the American replied, “Twenty or thirty years.”

“But what then?” asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions? Then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”


“Capitalism protects the rights of the individual”

Again, which individuals? As someone once said “Freedom of the Press is an admirable principle — if you happen to own a printing press,” or to quote Anatole France, “The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges.”

What “rights” does an “individual” have who has to sell their labour power to those who own the means of production — yes, they have the “right” to try to sell their labour power to another employer, but there may be no other employer in that locality, or no other employer willing to pay more (of course, I know that, under capitalism, every employer will try to minimize “the costs of production,” one of the main ones being labour power — I’m just giving you a reply to a common capitalist claim that “the worker is ‘free’ to seek better conditions”).

What rights” does an “individual” have when they don’t have the money for decent education or health care?


“What happens if I fall and break my leg? Will I starve to death?”

Sedrox has it right. Most people in your country don’t have adequate health care right now. Even bourgeois journalists like Bill Maher know this, as he writes in The Huffington Post on 24 July (New Rule: Not Everything in America has to Make a Profit):

And finally, there’s health care. It wasn’t that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that’s good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they’re run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the US today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They’re not hospitals anymore; they’re Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America’s largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it’s not a right, it’s a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they’re always pushing the Jell-O.

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like “recision,” where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you’ve been paying into your plan for years.

But, of course, Maher suffers from myopia — the “Republican attitude to health care” is endemic to US capitalism itself.


Thanks.

For the lolz; what choice of words can I use to thoroughly embarrass this imperialist apologist?

Yes damn that American Empire!
…
We REALLY suck at this "imperialism" bit."[/I]

Imperialism doesn’t always involve “army boots on the ground” — it’s just as often economic and cultural.

[☭World Views]

This is such a good thread. :laugh:

How about this one?

"What is good for the corporations is ultimately good for all of us. They provide the people jobs, both here and in 3rd world countries."

I already know that if the imperialistic forces left; then the popular forces in poor countries could democratically come to power, promote land reform, and become egalitarian. What else can be said to counter?

[bosgek]

This is such a good thread. :laugh:

How about this one?

"What is good for the corporations is ultimately good for all of us. They provide the people jobs, both here and in 3rd world countries."


It is a good thread. Let's try yours.

Starting with assuming that a corporation is steadily growing for 45+ years and never had to fire anybody (just try to name 5 of these multinationals to see that it isn't real).

I just deleted a long plea on how much better the communist society is for the worker. But it's much more simple:

Corporations (in it's most basic form) don't care about you, your family, the 3rd world or the environment, they only care about making money for their investors (the capitalists). So what happens when there is an opportunity to make more profit? They corporation will take it, even if it's a disaster for the workers and their families, the economy, the environment or the community.

That is capitalism: no care for anything but profits.

[MetJeBrood]

Just for fun, i'm gonna act like my dad, how he would reply as a true capitalist

Corporations (in it's most basic form) don't care about you, your family, the 3rd world or the environment, they only care about making money for their investors (the capitalists).

Back in the old industrial days that was the case, but now in modern day capitalism, companies pay millions of taxes, and provide a living to even more people..
So you can say there bad but without them you wouldn't have food, or do you want to go back to old commie russia have no food neither freedom of speech and still work in a crappy factory but then state owned..


^
|
That's my dad :(

So what to you say to that..

[bosgek]

Don't blame dad, if I grew up under a system that worked for me, I wouldn't complain either.
As I was saying: "a cooperation in it's most basic form". I know companies that are exactly as described and companies that even send paid employees to go help out in developing countries when there is a shortage of orders. The difference between "good" and "bad" corporations is usually who makes money from the profit and nearly every corporation with shareholders are "bad" companies. Corporations where the boss is the owner are usually different, as he's involved with the people he works with. That's some background.

To reply: even if corporations are "good", the system isn't. When the economy is all happily growing, it would work and everybody would benefit. But the reality is, that sometimes the "difficult" choices must be made to keep the company profitable. This means that the investors lay off workers, stop sponsoring sports, development aid etc. or sell / merge the company all together. Usually: the further the corporation's owners are from the workers, the easier those choices are made.

Therefore, we should start a new system of producing the stuff we need. The supply chain of the Soviet Union wasn't effective, but this is a problem we can deal with. The lack of freedom is different: that means the revolution has failed, because when it was successful, there wouldn't be a state. Without a state, there is no holding you back to say whatever you want.

[Calmwinds]

I am about to enter my senior year of high school in two days, and I would prefer it if I could defend the entirety of the revolutionary left. Now, I am going to get a US government teacher that is quite religious and though I do not know his exactly political ideology I am pretty sure he is against a communism that he does not know much about.

I think he was originally sympathetic to the idea of communism, but I remember him saying this. "Communism sounds great, I mean everyone gets everything, but what's the point? What if you want more? I really want better for myself."

I think the problem is a derivative of an abstract of the "people are greedy[though not really]". But I think this can be defined as a misinterpretation of the ideas of

1.Equality. "We all sit with the same clothes, the same house, all in the same way"
2.Not understanding the idea of social mobility. [I am actually quite unclear about this]
but I do not understand where exactly you can "go to" if everyone is equal. Actually I think 2 might be wrong.

Any responses to his concern? I feel it is vital to win over a teacher in a classroom, because here it is generally thought that teachers are always superior in thought.

[ZeroNowhere]

Generally I find it more effective to generally ditch the 'equality' rhetoric (this isn't the French Revolution, after all), and focus more on the fact that socialism is the abolition of class society. Once that much is done, and it is explained exactly what this means, I don't see how something based on 'wanting better for oneself' can still stand. Of course, one could also bring up labour credits and so on if one advocates them (I do, you may not), so that people who do more labour can get more 'luxury goods' (and basic necessities over a certain point, such as the electricity for a swimming pool), whereas people who don't do any labour could just do with basic necessities (food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, etc). If one is fine with the latter, then fine, but since the former would be necessary for carrying out most hobbies and such, that should be good enough motivation. And, of course, if you really want better for yourself (presumably meaning more wealth), why would you become a teacher, of all things?

[Calmwinds]

What do you suggest then, to use instead of equality rhetoric. I can see 'equality' as a straight deduction from the abolition of classes though. Also, do you think it is wise to point out the problems of our government when the time presents itself?

tl;dr what is a good method of presentation

[ZeroNowhere]

What do you suggest then, to use instead of equality rhetoric.Well, explanation, I suppose. What use do you wish to put it to? That is, what exactly do you want a suggestion on in the context of your overall argument?

Hopefully I put my question clear enough.

On 'equality' as a straight deduction from the abolition of classes, sure, feel free to show how the class system at present creates large amounts of inequality, etc. However, due to the Chinese whispers on socialism through the decades, it has come to be associated with wanting to give everybody the same stuff, etc, parodied by having everybody have the same face and so on. So too much emphasis on equality would make it quite a lot easier for people to just fit things into their own perspectives of what communism is. And, of course, one's aim in presenting communism nowadays is to shake people out of their previous notions of it, and present the abolition of classes as the actual abolition of classes, rather than simply new rulers, higher taxes and so on. There's also an inherent ambiguity when it comes to references to 'equality', in that it's a rather vague term. Of course, when one speaks of inequality, it's fairly obvious what one is talking about when you're referring to poverty and so on. However, what would 'equality' be in opposition to that, everybody having the same amount of stuff, everybody having the same stuff, etc? So yeah, if you're going to do something in that line, make sure that you are mostly very explicit about what you are proposing. Though I, personally, would focus on the absence of what Allen Woods (the one who didn't write 'Reason in Revolution') calls 'nonmoral goods', so health, self-actualization, and so on, in that line of argument. Also try to give a class analysis preceding that if you're planning to give one (which you probably should, since I can't imagine much hope debating people on it using the income class theory, due to the fact that it focuses on amount of money rather than the social relations which one is criticizing, one could call it fetishism in Marx's sense), so that you can't be confused for having an income class theory and hence be arguing for higher taxes and so on. So yeah.

Anyways, on the problems of the government, what exactly do you have in mind? It could be a good idea to do so, but not in a way that distracts from the main argument.

[☭World Views]

lol how about this one?

"The means of production belong to private individuals, the people that "work the hardest". This motivates workers to produce more because one day they might be in control of the means of production if they work hard enough. "

[Drace]

"The means of production belong to private individuals, the people that "work the hardest". This motivates workers to produce more because one day they might be in control of the means of production if they work hard enough. "

Individuals owning the means of production has a negative effect on others.
And your asking people to be motivated to do more evil?

[☭World Views]

Refute this:

" Capitalism has raised the standard of living of billions of people. Nothing can survive without capitalism! The free market is the truest expression of human nature."

[Drace]

" Capitalism has raised the standard of living of billions of people. Nothing can suwithout capitalism! The free market is the truest expression of human nature."

This is very dumb. Its 3 different arguments written in 3 statements, leaving no room for supporting details. Thus, all you would have to do to refute this is make the exact opposite of the statement and it would be just as logical :rolleyes:

" Capitalism has not raised the standard of living of billions of people. Anything can survive without capitalism! The free market is not the truest expression of human nature."





Capitalism has raised the standard of living of billions of people

Under slavery, conditions improved as well. These improvements don't have to be credited to capitalism.

Plus, you can still make the argument that even if it has, communism will surpass capitalism's achievements.


The free market is the truest expression of human nature.

Quite the dumbest statement I ever heard.
The free market hasn't always existed.

[bailey_187]

Refute this:
[I]
" Capitalism has raised the standard of living of billions of people.

Well, yes, it did*, no one is denying that. But Socialism (In USSR, China, Albania) has raised living standards are faster levels.

*maybe not billions

[Velkas]

Capitalism has raised the standard of living of billions of people
Capitalism may have raised the standard of living for some, but it has made life terrible for the vast majority.

[☭World Views]

Is this a talking point against capitalism or not?


If capitalism is so successful, why is the USA trillions of dollars in debt? By any measure, trillions of dollars in debt amounts to colossal failure. Why is just about every market-based country millions, billions, or even trillions of dollars in debt?

[Unregistered]

I am in the equivalent of high school in the UK and I find that whenever people come out with anti communist stuff I just ask them if they know who Karl Marx was and what he wrote about.
No-one knows so I say how can they put down communism if they have no idea about the basics of it.

Always an easy way to shut them up

[☭World Views]

Someone thinks that Hilter was a socialist...

"NAZI is an acronym for the German slang used in the 1930's for Hitler's Party. They called them NS'rs. Short for National Socialists. NAZI = NSDAP. In German defined as (National Socialist German Workers Party) The D stands for Deutchland (German) and Arbeiter = Worker. Hitler was a Democrat and a Socialist. Thanks for being confused and for me clearing it up for you."

I said "just because someone says they are something doesn't make it true. North Korea calls itself a democratic republic, how credible is that?"

Is there anything else I should say?

[bailey_187]

Someone thinks that Hilter was a socialist...

"NAZI is an acronym for the German slang used in the 1930's for Hitler's Party. They called them NS'rs. Short for National Socialists. NAZI = NSDAP. In German defined as (National Socialist German Workers Party) The D stands for Deutchland (German) and Arbeiter = Worker. Hitler was a Democrat and a Socialist. Thanks for being confused and for me clearing it up for you."

I said "just because someone says they are something doesn't make it true. North Korea calls itself a democratic republic, how credible is that?"

Is there anything else I should say?

Hitler did things like cut corporation tax, abolosh minimum wage - hardly socialist policies. Also, the standard of living for German workers fell under Hitler.

Hitler's turning point to the rise to power was the Dusseldorf speech in which he convinced industrial capitalists to support him.
He was supprted by Henry Ford and the Krupp's, a famous Germany capitalist family - would these capitalists be supporting a socialist?

Michael Parenti has lots of good work on this.

[☭World Views]

Why do some capitalist sympathizers include hunger deaths in their "death toll" caused by "communism".

What is the correct way to respond?

I know that using a comparative analysis, capitalism and imperialism have caused far more hunger deaths, but there must be a better response. I don't think the famines can be blamed on communism.

[bailey_187]

Why do some capitalist sympathizers include hunger deaths in their "death toll" caused by "communism".

What is the correct way to respond?

I know that using a comparative analysis, capitalism and imperialism have caused far more hunger deaths, but there must be a better response. I don't think the famines can be blamed on communism.

You seem to have answered your own question?

Anywhere, if the communism death toll comes up, Ludo Martens offers a good response

"How did our bankers and captains of industry from London and Paris create their industrial base? Would their industrialisation have been possible without the looting of the gold and silver from the Indian kings, looting that was accompanied by the extermination of 60 million American Indians? WOuld it have been possible without the monstrous bloodbath carried out in Africa? i.e. the slave trade. UNESCO estimates African losses at 210 million. Would our industrialisation have been possible without the colonialisation that turned whole peoples into prisoners into prisoners in their own countries?
Those who industrialised that little corner of the earth europe on the basis of millions of native deaths are now telling us that Bolshevik repression against the propetier classes was an abomination?"

"If Soviet industrialisation did have to effected by means of a repression of the 5% who happened to be rich and/or reactionary, it is also true that capitalist industrialisation was born by the same well heeled 5% against the whole of the working masses of their own countries and the oppressed countries"

[rosa_rot]

Here's one my dad uses all the time (don't know if it's been mentioned already, but I was a bit to lazy to go through 30 pages):

"Anyone who's not a socialist when they're aged 20 have no heart, and anyone who still are socialists when they are 40 have got no brain."

I never found an answer more sophisticated then "BS"...maybe one of you can think of a better one...

[ZeroNowhere]

Here's one my dad uses all the time (don't know if it's been mentioned already, but I was a bit to lazy to go through 30 pages):

"Anyone who's not a socialist when they're aged 20 have no heart, and anyone who still are socialists when they are 40 have got no brain."

I never found an answer more sophisticated then "BS"...maybe one of you can think of a better one...
"Very profound. :rolleyes:"

[bailey_187]

Here's one my dad uses all the time (don't know if it's been mentioned already, but I was a bit to lazy to go through 30 pages):

"Anyone who's not a socialist when they're aged 20 have no heart, and anyone who still are socialists when they are 40 have got no brain."

I never found an answer more sophisticated then "BS"...maybe one of you can think of a better one...

say "can we stop using stupid sayings and actually argue the point?"

[☭World Views]

"If the working class were in charge, where would they go for work? The working class are the drones of the industrial revolution replaced daily by mechanzation. The working class are the dumbest of the dumb that a society will import if necessary. Without employers, the working class would cease to exist"

One of the beautiful things about capitalism is the ability to become one's own boss. If you find capitalism reprehensible and morally wrong I can only assume you've never worked for yourself. Aside from the funds it generates for society it's a pretty neat thing to do for oneself and one's family. It gives me great freedom to donate my services FOR FREE to those who cannot afford them and it gives me time to spend with my family because I arrange my schedule. So, sir, I have to disagree with your ideas on morality. If I am donating medical services to the poor I am very moral, and the capitalism that allows me to run my business is the platform from which it springs. It works for me, sorry it doesn't work for you and my definition of a good shower is that water flows, not dribbles, out of a spout. Only in the USA. God bless America. Long live Capitalism. Go back to one of those places where there is only one cup in the vending machine and defend its wobbly political/governmental ideology.

One last comment and then I really need to sleep ... early Americans worked for THEMSELVES. Their homestead WAS their business. It provided the goods and the early settlers provided their own services. When they figured out they could barter and purchase goods and services elsewhere, free trade began. And here we are, the bread basket of the world. WE FEED THE WORLD. This is morally reprehensible ? What is YOUR definition of moral ? Yes, there are unscrupulous people out there who want to dominate and control ... they are everywhere and they will play out their agenda regardless. Laws can protect us from those types and from those organizations. Be that as it may, life is not perfect and one cannot achieve "perfect safety" from tyranny. One can only fight it when it occurs. But there is nothing you can say to convince me that free market trade is "morally wrong" and that socialism is better. GO LOOK AT RUSSIA. No money. Inferior quality everything. Housing shortage. Crumbling infrastructure. Corruption everywhere. his is morally correct ? Re: egalitarian society ... the USA is as close as it gets, until we evolve into a much kinder, gentler species. By the way, to an American "egalitarian" does not mean you take my hard earned dollar and give it to someone who doesn't want to work, so we both have fifty cents. To protect against victimization there are laws in place to protect our elders, our women, our children, minorities. The law of the land reflects its moral status.


lol

[mykittyhasaboner]

^Wow.

[☭World Views]

I already responded to the person who said that. I calmly pointed out that the problems plaguing people that he was talking about wouldn't exist if capitalism didn't completely **** them over in the first place.

And that the slave traders in the Middle Passage and Carnegie used the same arguments he did.

I also pointed that he was not really working for himself, that the state doesn't protect the people's interests, that throwing money at the problem does not excuse the crimes of capitalism, and that capitalism can never be equal because the capitalists steal, and that it is the communist and not the capitalist that says "those that don't work don't eat"

[☭World Views]

I'm surprised that the "Sweatshops give the people in 3rd world countries much needed jobs and wages; without the sweatshops the people would quickly starve to death" argument fallacy hasn't been discussed in this thread.

[FloridaCommunist]

I'm surprised that the "Sweatshops give the people in 3rd world countries much needed jobs and wages; without the sweatshops the people would quickly starve to death" argument fallacy hasn't been discussed in this thread.

Go on...

[rosa_rot]

yeah, right...doesn't even the dumbest person on earth see the irony in this sentence?
But, supposing that capitalism symathizers are even dumber than this...
"If you would understand the slightest bit about history, you would know what certain oh-so-admired-by-you philosophers made up, because the sweatshops of the 18th and 19th century were in the mid of Europe, and your unlucky ancestors worked in there (thank god they didn't starve to death...thanks to the nice capitalists): the human rights. THey're written in the us-american constitution, in every European one and in the one of the UN. And, if you can read, there is a sentence about dignity of the human being. And, how much dignity does a 10 years olf child own while seaming your 3 dollars t-shirt and your 200 dollars nike-sneakers? Yeah, guessed right, not a bit. And now you are telling me about much needed jobs and wages, you biased bigoted bastard!?"

Here is one I came across in a discussion in my politics lesson:

I talked about how people can be educated to solidarity while working together for the society, and someone said "there are always people who don't want to work, so you can't educate them...and since you always talking about freedom and justice, there you go with your socialist society", and I answered that for sure, people will have to work and if they deny it, they would have forced to do it till they learned it, and my teacher said "So, you are supporting labour camps and gulags"
:mad:

[rosa_rot]

and he first outlawed the KPD, then the SPD and then he sent all communists and socialists to the KZ.

[Shinigami]

In communism, what would stop one person from trying to take advantage of the collectively owned resources and depleting them? For example, if someone tries to buy many things he doesn't need, but wants, from a store and tries to keep them to himself? I'm not sure how best to put it.

How do communists feel about the tragedy of the commons?

How do communists feel about the idea of panarchy?

I'm really a beginner, sorry.

[bailey_187]

In communism, what would stop one person from trying to take advantage of the collectively owned resources and depleting them? For example, if someone tries to buy many things he doesn't need, but wants, from a store and tries to keep them to himself? I'm not sure how best to put it.


When theres a free water fountain in a public place to drink from, do people turn up with buckets to fill up with water? Do people fight eachother to use the fountain? No, because you know that when you need, the water will still be there.
If someone did try to fill up buckets with the free water, people would stop them.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

A lot of people seem to not understand that Anarchism isn't an ideology which doesn't believe in a transition towards Communist society. It does. This resource is helpful in outlining a post-revolution plan of organisation:

http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/site/syndic/aftertherevolution.htm#factors

[tehpevis]

I'm a junior in high school, and I've got comrades with me. I'm almost always under the impression I may be one of the few who really understands my ideology, but as with many things, I could be wrong.

[A.R.Amistad]

Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?

Why not? If there were no janitors, housekeepers, sanitation workers, what would happen? You'd either have to do all that clean-up yourself or things would get filthy, germs would breed, you'd get sick and die.

As a matter of fact, death rates started to decline in the second half of the 19th century...when medicine was still mostly quackery. Why? Because major European cities started building sewer systems and people stopped living in their own shit.

It should also be noted that wage leveling is not an immediate goal of socialism. In the first stage of socialism, before communism, there will be differences in wages, but no one will be extremely poor nor extremely rich. Living standards will be equal, but not wages until wages completely dissapear. Remember, socialism is not "make everyone the same" its "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

[CELMX]

I'm a junior in high school, and I've got comrades with me. I'm almost always under the impression I may be one of the few who really understands my ideology, but as with many things, I could be wrong.

Lucky!
Dude, how do you get people to agree with you? Barely anyone agrees with me. usually get replies with "that doesn't work."
maybe i'm only getting shit because i'm a freshman...:(

or maybe i need to look deeper on these topics...

[Tjis]

Lucky!
Dude, how do you get people to agree with you? Barely anyone agrees with me. usually get replies with "that doesn't work."
maybe i'm only getting shit because i'm a freshman...:(

or maybe i need to look deeper on these topics...

The "that doesn't work" reply is deeply ingrained in people's minds. The ruling class nearly have a monopoly on information, since they own pretty much all major media outlets. So it's your voice against all that. Even if your arguments are completely logical and irrefutable, many would still not accept it.

But what you could do is at least make others aware of classes. Explain the daily experiences you and your classmates go through from a class perspective. Question out loud why you have to go to school for years, just to spend the rest of your life working for some boss. Also, discuss current events like the current wars and the economical situation, and how they affect you and your classmates from a class perspective that your classmates can relate to.

When they are open to the idea that there are classes, and that they are part of the exploited class, they'll probably also be open to the idea of a society in which we aren't exploited.

[bailey_187]

Lucky!
Dude, how do you get people to agree with you? Barely anyone agrees with me. usually get replies with "that doesn't work."
maybe i'm only getting shit because i'm a freshman...:(

or maybe i need to look deeper on these topics...

There are two roads to go down to respond to the "it doesnt work" argument.

1) Study the actual experiences of Socialism (in the USSR, China, Cuba) and the economic and social achievements of this and the higher economic growth rates they achieved than most capitalist nations so you can explain, with facts why the argument that "it doesnt work" is proven entirely wrong by history.

2) Throw any attempt at Socialism in the past out the window, condemning them as "not reeal socialism" and try to resort to wishy-washy theoretical arguments about how it could work

[tehpevis]

Lucky!
Dude, how do you get people to agree with you? Barely anyone agrees with me. usually get replies with "that doesn't work."
maybe i'm only getting shit because i'm a freshman...:(

or maybe i need to look deeper on these topics...

I was introduced to Socialist ideas in my freshman year; since then I've gained a decent number of comrades, but we're still quite the minority. Apparently, I had some fucking Charisma back in 9th grade, most of which has worn off by posting on forums rather than debating in person (I believe).

[Che a chara]

What the fuck?

Surely thats wrong, surely each should get a wage in proportion to the labour they put in, and the value of their work.

The doctors work is clearly more valuable, therefore should receive a higher wage.
ITs a bullshit capitalist myth that says everyone gets a same wage



Classes arise from being able to purchase and own means of production.

If labor is indeed the source of value, and someone exerts more labor than average and is commensurately rewarded, no one was exploited in the process. If someone's job is extremely dangerous or stressful, maybe they should be paid higher wages. It would have to be decided democratically though.

I am also of the opinion that certain jobs should be paid more, e.g. doctor/nurses, emergency services (accountable police, fire brigade etc) if not, where would the incentive be for anyone to go to any of these jobs ? there would be no motivation for those who just might be interested.

Some might say that it builds some sort of class above the other workers, but if they are already getting a high wage in a classless society, would there really be a difference ?

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

I was talking about socialism, capitalism, and democracy with my parents last night. My thesis was that capitalism is less compatible with democracy than socialism. My parents had the following arguments:

1) Capitalism is democratic because workers can become "shareholders" who can vote on corporate policy; also, workers can choose to be employed only by benevolent capitalists.
2) Socialism doesn't provide people with an incentive to work.
3) Socialism treats everyone the same instead of rewarding harder-working people.
4) Socialism leads to a police state to keep people from treating others as inferiors.

[bailey_187]

1) Capitalism is democratic because workers can become "shareholders" who can vote on corporate policy; also, workers can choose to be employed only by benevolent capitalists..

How many shares can a worker afford really though? The Capitalists will always have more share and therefore more power.
I think there was a famous case where small share holders were kicked out of a share holder meeting because they opposd something. I have seen something like that mentioned twice so someone on here may be able to expand on this.




2) Socialism doesn't provide people with an incentive to work.
.

Always the first argument that gets bought up. Socialism is not about everyone being paid the same.

Here is what Comrade Stalin had to say on the matter


"These people evidently think that socialism calls for equalization, for levelling the requirements and personal, everyday life of the members of society. Needless to say, such an assumption has nothing in common with Marxism, with Leninism. By equality Marxism means, not equalization of personal requirements and everyday life, but the abolition of classes, i.e., a) the equal emancipation of all working people from exploitation after the capitalists have been overthrown and expropriated; b) the equal abolition for all of private property in the means of production after they have been converted into the property of the whole of society; c) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to the work performed (socialist society); d) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to their needs (communist society).
Moreover, Marxism proceeds from the assumption that people's tastes and requirements are not, and cannot be, identical and equal in regard to quality or quantity, whether in the period of socialism or in the period of communism."

"To draw from this the conclusion that socialism calls for equalization, for the levelling of the requirements of the members of society, for the levelling of their tastes and of their personal, everyday life -- that according to the Marxist plan all should wear the same clothes and eat the same dishes in the same quantity -- is to utter vulgarities and to slander Marxism."

"Bourgeois writers are fond of depicting Marxist socialism in the shape of the old tsarist barracks, where everything is subordinated to the "principle" of equalization. But Marxists cannot be held responsible for the ignorance and stupidity of bourgeois writers."

In socialism people are paid according to their work. If you work more or do a more valuable or dangerous job etc then you are paid more. e.g. in USSR Coal miners were very well paid as job is dangerous and not very nice.
Lenin said "Those who do not work, neither shall he eat" - where is there no incentive in this lol? In Capitalism you can not work and get away with it e.g. live of inheretence, interest or other parasitic things.



3) Socialism treats everyone the same instead of rewarding harder-working people. .

You should read marx - Critique of the Gotha Programme and Lenin - State and Revolution (last few chapters) for more on this. Also, Lenin addressed this issue in "How to Organise Competition":

"Bourgeois authors have been using up reams of paper praising competition, private enterprise, and all the other magnificent virtues and blessings of the capitalists and the capitalist system. Socialists have been accused of refusing to understand the importance of these virtues, and of ignoring "human nature". As a matter of fact, however, capitalism long ago replaced small, independent commodity production, under which competition could develop enterprise, energy and bold initiative to any considerable extent, by large- and very large-scale factory production, joint-stock companies, syndicates and other monopolies. Under such capitalism, competition means the incredibly brutal suppression of the enterprise, energy and bold initiative of the mass of the population, of its overwhelming majority, of ninety-nine out of every hundred toilers; it also means that competition is replaced by financial fraud, nepotism, servility on the upper rungs of the social ladder.
Far from extinguishing competition, socialism, on the contrary, for the first time creates the opportunity for employing it on a really wide and on a really mass scale, for actually drawing the majority of working people into a field of labour in which they can display their abilities, develop the capacities, and reveal those talents, so abundant among the people whom capitalism crushed, suppressed and strangled in thousands and millions."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/25.htm

Even forgetting all this, a simple look at Socialism in practice in the USSR, China, Albania, East Germany etc shows this statement to be false



4) Socialism leads to a police state to keep people from treating others as inferiors.

Well, assuming this is in reference to the perceived large police and secret police apparatus in past Socialist countries, that isnt for the large amounts of police but rather to thwart sabotage and attempts of counter-revolution (Usually funded by the Capitalist states)
Even so, the "police states" are exagerated. In the city of Prague for example, there are more police now in Capitalism than there was in the days of Socialism
Less was spent per capita on Policing in Socialist East germany than Capitalist West Germany (and that includes East German secret police but not West German secret police as the numbers are not known so West Germany spent even more)

[Salabra]

1) Capitalism is democratic because workers can become "shareholders" who can vote on corporate policy;

Which merely give workers a share in rapacious capitalism, whose logic demands that they exploit their former peers in order to maximize the profits of the enterprise in which they hold shares.


...also, workers can choose to be employed only by benevolent capitalists.

*Snorts* And if there is only one capitalist enterprise where they live? Or the enterprise for which they work, or the 'benevolent capitalists' for whom they wish to work, shut up shop and move to another town, state or country?


2) Socialism doesn't provide people with an incentive to work.

I always remember the reply to this in my first primer of socialism (avidly consumed when I was about 10), Huberman & Sweezy's Introduction to Socialism. The authors relate the story of Christopher Scholes, who actually invented the typewriter, but sold his patent to Remington for a pittance. H&S pointed out that few had ever heard of Scholes, but most had heard of Remington, because that name was on most typewriters - the implication being that Scholes did his work because he enjoyed it, not for the 'incentive' of profit.

[Kayser_Soso]

Why do some capitalist sympathizers include hunger deaths in their "death toll" caused by "communism".

What is the correct way to respond?

I know that using a comparative analysis, capitalism and imperialism have caused far more hunger deaths, but there must be a better response. I don't think the famines can be blamed on communism.


They use hunger deaths to inflate body counts, and they do that because their main argument against Communism is that it "KILLED LOTS OF PEOPLE!" Of course when you compare it to capitalism they will say that numbers don't matter, unless you have a case where the number is lower on the capitalist side, for example, if you are comparing the Soviet Union to Chile under Pinochet, or to the number of leftists imprisoned and killed in the first Red Scare in the US. If the capitalist country has a lower body count, THEN numbers matter. If they are pointing out that "Stalin killed more than Hitler"(PROTIP: No, he didn't actually), then numbers matter because he's WORSE THAN HITLAR!!!111ONEONE. If you point out that this is actually absurd and doesn't take into account that Hitler's high death toll had a lot to do with his deliberate policy of trying to exterminate entire nations, they will say that these things don't matter.

In other words, mitigating circumstances matter when a pro-capitalist or apologist says they matter, and otherwise they don't.

Starvation under socialist regimes is akin to Stalin or Mao rolling through the countryside mowing people down with a Tommygun while chewing on a cigar. In other words, someone starves or dies earlier than usual during a famine for any reason- Communism KILLED them.

Millions starve under capitalism thanks to capitalist laws and schemes- that's just unfortunate. Donate some money or something.

[Kayser_Soso]

I'm surprised that the "Sweatshops give the people in 3rd world countries much needed jobs and wages; without the sweatshops the people would quickly starve to death" argument fallacy hasn't been discussed in this thread.

In many countries those who ended up working in sweatshops were once subsistance farmers working their own plots of land.

[Thirsty Crow]

Here's one my dad uses all the time (don't know if it's been mentioned already, but I was a bit to lazy to go through 30 pages):

"Anyone who's not a socialist when they're aged 20 have no heart, and anyone who still are socialists when they are 40 have got no brain."

I never found an answer more sophisticated then "BS"...maybe one of you can think of a better one...
OMG! It's a version of the (in)famous creed regarding the process of growing-up and becoming mature.
In this instance, we have an equation maturity= rational compromise-making, as well as making peace with the world and its horrors since we "know" that nothing serious can be done. Voltaire's "We are all just attending to our little garden" is the final outcome.

I suggest you tell your dad that maturity excludes closing our eyes before the horrors produced by the current political and socioeconomic system.

[Drace]

1) Capitalism is democratic because workers can become "shareholders" who can vote on corporate policy; also, workers can choose to be employed only by benevolent capitalists.Capitalism, democratic on an economic scale? The fact that 1% of the population own 50% of the wealth should be enough here.

Workers don't own shares. I think there was a study which found most people don't have a single stock. And even if they did, its no where going to be enough to have a say in the company. Thats just ridiculous, the people who the shares are the greedy capitalists who will do anything for profit.


2) Socialism doesn't provide people with an incentive to work.Work or die is the incentive in any society which is not capable of magically producing anything.
The only incentive in capitalism that exists is to get rich. The profit motive is dangerous.

-It creates ecological waste of resources including the billions of shit created no one needs and the consumerist culture.
-Exploitation including cutting down working conditions, wages, etc.
-Imperialism including the US intervention of Nicaragua, Cuba, Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Haiti, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Siberia, Kosovo, and more. Oh no but of course it was done for democracy...
-Inefficient use of resources. 30,000 people are starving to death each day. Thats over 10 million a year, 100 million each decade!

More people have died due to the capitalist and US's profit motive than communism has been alleged of killing!
And it is ridiculous how they will try to say the profit motive is good. It encourages competition but very brutal one indeed!



3) Socialism treats everyone the same instead of rewarding harder-working people.Socialism lets workers control the means of production, where they are free to earn the full fruit of their labor.
Under capitalism, who are the hard working people? The capitalists? Those who peruse a college education? Capitalism has made a struggle just for survival.


4) Socialism leads to a police state to keep people from treating others as inferiors.Lol?


"Anyone who's not a socialist when they're aged 20 have no heart, and anyone who still are socialists when they are 40 have got no brain."Thats not an argument, that's just a slander. Just say the opposite of that and your just as correct, given the lack of reason provided.

Anyone who's not a capitalist when they're aged 20 have no heart, and anyone who still are capitalists when they are 40 have got no brain.

Done

[Kayser_Soso]

OMG! It's a version of the (in)famous creed regarding the process of growing-up and becoming mature.
In this instance, we have an equation maturity= rational compromise-making, as well as making peace with the world and its horrors since we "know" that nothing serious can be done. Voltaire's "We are all just attending to our little garden" is the final outcome.

I suggest you tell your dad that maturity excludes closing our eyes before the horrors produced by the current political and socioeconomic system.


Very good. One should point out that maturity is developing a social consciousness, empathy, etc., whereas children are selfish and self-focused.

[Chambered Word]

I'm surprised that the "Sweatshops give the people in 3rd world countries much needed jobs and wages; without the sweatshops the people would quickly starve to death" argument fallacy hasn't been discussed in this thread.

Not the smartest argument but I can understand how it would pose an obstacle. However:

1. This is somewhat true, however there is nothing stopping the companies improving the working conditions in sweatshops and increasing wages for their workers. Instead they choose to exploit them, which pretty much defeats the argument that we should be glad those heroic corporate white knights have come in and given jobs for everyone. PROTIP: This can also kinda be used to address that 'hurr poor man never gave anyone a job' argument.
2. As was stated before, those people used to have jobs doing something else which was probably more productive for their community before the capitalists came in. It's not like Third World countries were useless and starving before us heroic Westerners came in and gave them a chance of employment.


Haha, remind me of a 'discussion' I had last year with a conservative english teacher.


*after reading animal farm*

"..and THATS why communism fails"

Me: "you know that farm animals dont actually talk or hold any sort of social structure, right?"

"Haha, it has nothing to do with animals, it can be applied to humanity, Next week will be reading another brilliant Orwell classic "1984..."

Me: "George Orwell was a socialist"

Teacher: "Umm no he wasent haha, *class laughs at me*"

Me: "Umm yes, he was a democratic socialist and wrote a book about the anarchist communities during the spanish civil war, we should read that as well"

Teacher: "Sorry its not in the cariqulium..moving on..."

Derp. That is all.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I'm posting this here because it's a bit of an ignorant question.

Communism is stateless, right? So why does there seem to be so much emphasis on 'the state' in talk about communism? Is the idea of everything being done for The Party and The State just Western propaganda left over from films mocking Soviet Style Communism? And what about so-called 'communist states'? Would it be more accurate to call them 'socialist states' (if anything)? Is there such a thing as a communist state, or is it a contradiction?

[Kayser_Soso]

I'm posting this here because it's a bit of an ignorant question.

Communism is stateless, right? So why does there seem to be so much emphasis on 'the state' in talk about communism? Is the idea of everything being done for The Party and The State just Western propaganda left over from films mocking Soviet Style Communism? And what about so-called 'communist states'? Would it be more accurate to call them 'socialist states' (if anything)? Is there such a thing as a communist state, or is it a contradiction?

You don't create Communism from nothing. We have been living for hundreds of years under capitalist relations, wage labor, higher pay for mental labor, etc. Underneath that we still have many social relations or elements of social condition which may go back even further, for example, the tendency of women to marry a man who is a provider.

All of these ingrained ideas take time to struggle with and eliminate over time. The first step is to deal with the new property relations is to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the laws, courts, constitution, regulations, military, etc. are slanted in favor of the majority, the workers, as opposed to certain previously privileged classes such as intelligentsia, technical workers, or politicians(this class should really be virtually eliminated anyway).

[Chambered Word]

You don't create Communism from nothing. We have been living for hundreds of years under capitalist relations, wage labor, higher pay for mental labor, etc. Underneath that we still have many social relations or elements of social condition which may go back even further, for example, the tendency of women to marry a man who is a provider.

All of these ingrained ideas take time to struggle with and eliminate over time. The first step is to deal with the new property relations is to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the laws, courts, constitution, regulations, military, etc. are slanted in favor of the majority, the workers, as opposed to certain previously privileged classes such as intelligentsia, technical workers, or politicians(this class should really be virtually eliminated anyway).

How about Stalinists and Maoists? Do they want to keep the state, or dismantle it after the transition from socialism to communism?

[#FF0000]

How about Stalinists and Maoists? Do they want to keep the state, or dismantle it after the transition from socialism to communism?

You can't have communism with a state, so yes, they want to dismantle it eventually.

[Chambered Word]

You can't have communism with a state, so yes, they want to dismantle it eventually.

Under a dictatorship, can't the leader just decide they'd rather hold onto power?

[mastershake16]

Hello, I'm a Junior in high school and am currently doing a lot of research into politics.
I love debating and politics offers me a great chance to, so I begun to do some more researching. I just recently watched a biopic on Che Guevara and it has given me the desire to further educate myself about Communism/Socialism. So, I want to be as informed as possible so I do not sound like a fool when I debate my side about Communism, although I am not claiming to be Communist because I currently do not know enough to make that decision.

So, I have a few questions, some have already been asked, but I am dying for more clarification.

1) Wages.
Could someone explain, using an example, how wages are determined?
I honestly believe a Doctor should be paid more, even if it is a little.

2) What about people who want to be filmmakers or musicians? How do they
promote their films/songs or get paid?

3)What determines your job, and how long you work each day?

4) What are the main differences between Lenin's , Trotsky's , and Marx's versions of Communism? (The tendencies next to people's names on the forum)

5) Can you go to any University you wish and study anything?



Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated!
I really have a strong desire to learn as much as I can.
Also anyone have an easy to understand first book that gives me the basics?

[CELMX]

So, I have a few questions, some have already been asked, but I am dying for more clarification.

1) Wages.
Could someone explain, using an example, how wages are determined?
I honestly believe a Doctor should be paid more, even if it is a little.

In a post-revolution society, there would be no wages. The goal of communism is to achieve a moneyless, classless, society. No one needs money, for you just take what you need.



2) What about people who want to be filmmakers or musicians? How do they
promote their films/songs or get paid?


again, no pay. They can make posters about their bands, films, whatever. They don't need money to do that. You just need the resources. You could ask a friend skilled in graphic design to advertise. A common mistake many people make is making money and resources the same thing.


3)What determines your job, and how long you work each day?

You work as long as you wish. You can get whatever job you like. The possiblities are endless, and you have the ability, the resources, the type of society to make your dreams possible. That is the beauty of communism.


4) What are the main differences between Lenin's , Trotsky's , and Marx's versions of Communism? (The tendencies next to people's names on the forum)

I don't know much, but from my understanding, Trotsky believes in permanent revolution, and Lenin believes you can skip the stage of imperialism. Marx just believed in basically the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a violent revolution. Marx's documents are very open to interpretation, which lead to people like Lenin and Trotsky.


5) Can you go to any University you wish and study anything?

Yes. :) You can study whatever the hell you want, without being pressured into one subject you absolutely hate because of the money system. And more would be educated in a communist society, for you don't need to be a richie richie to go to college and afford it. Everyone can go to a University, if they wish to.
(which is happening to me now. My parents are like, be a doctor, be a surgeon, make $$$ :cursing:)




Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated!
I really have a strong desire to learn as much as I can.
Also anyone have an easy to understand first book that gives me the basics?


Communist manifesto?:D
Marx for Beginners by Rius
Reading List for Beginners (http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-list-beginners-t112763/index.html)thread is pretty useful.

Good luck on your endeavors!:)

[mastershake16]

Wow, that was amazing! Almost exactly what I was looking for.

Just a few more questions


1)So, how would people get the resources they need to make a film?
Or get actors?
The distribution of the film? Publicity?

I would like to go a little deeper into the no money system.

2)How do you just acquire things? Go to a store and say Ill take 50 hot dogs for free?
How are the hot dogs made without money?

3)If you can determine how long you work, what makes you work at all?
What do you get if you work a 12 hour day, opposed to 30 minutes?

4)EDITED: In Socialism, what/who determines wages? And if you spend money on something, where does that money go?

Thanks again, I'm really excited :D
Quick response too!!!

[CELMX]

hehe, i know, i'm a speed demon ;)

[mastershake16]

Now use your speed to further inform me! hehe

[CELMX]

1)So, how would people get the resources they need to make a film?
Or get actors?
The distribution of the film? Publicity?

The film makers would call the people that make sets, make costumes, etc. and they would give him costumes, provide sets, etc. You get the point. As I said, for publicity, this person can make posters, post info online, mail advertisements out to people, or ask someone else to advertise for him.


I would like to go a little deeper into the no money system.

2)How do you just acquire things? Go to a store and say Ill take 50 hot dogs for free?
How are the hot dogs made without money?

Money does not make things. You cannot eat money. The hot dog guy would call the man who makes sausages, calls the guy who makes bread, etc. If you take more than you need, society would probably look down on you, and probably warn you. If you refuse to listen, then you would probably be sent to some sort of labor camp (not as bad as it sounds), or some other form of punishment that is beneficial to the wrong-doer, instead detrimental like prisons in our society now.


3)If you can determine how long you work, what makes you work at all?
What do you get if you work a 12 hour day, opposed to 30 minutes?

You work out of joy. People are not inherently lazy. The creation of a communist society would allow for automated machines to take care of most unwanted work, for example, machines that run factories instead of workers. Nothing stops you from working 12 hours, 30 minutes, whatever.



4)EDITED: In Socialism, what/who determines wages? And if you spend money on something, where does that money go?

Socialism, fyi, is the transition state between capitalism and communism. There would probably be a government. The wage system would probably be similar to one in a capitalistic society, however, the amount of taxes paid would differ greatly. The people with higher wages would obviously pay more taxes, and the poor would pay less. Slowly, the gap between rich and poor narrows. The money would go to the government, and the government in turn distributes the money evenly to people. Though, I think you should get others’ side of the story, for socialism is very broad. Sometimes, people use it interchangeably with communism or anarchism. And sometimes people claim that it is the transition between imperialism and communism. And that transition stage can be VERY different, depending on if you talk to a trotskyist, leninst, whatever.



Thanks again, I'm really excited :D
Quick response too!!!

Awesome! Hehe, my first victim, just kidding. This stuff gets really interesting. Revleft might ban me for this, but I would recommend reading not only books from leftist perspectives, but a huge range as well, so you can choose what you like best.:)
Sorry for the slow response this time :( I was kinda busy.

[Drace]

Its rather hard to look into the future and see how things will be run.
Capitalism I'm sure seemed quite imaginary from someone's viewpoint during feudalism.
Marx never really wrote about how a communist society would look like and discussed very little of it.

I suggest that before you go to preach people about how great communism, you first learn the oppression of capitalism.

[mastershake16]

Yeah, like I said I'm not sure if I'm a Communist yet or not.
I just want to learn as much as I can, because to make a decision before I know what it's truly about would be silly.

So,
You work out of joy. People are not inherently lazy. The creation of a communist society would allow for automated machines to take care of most unwanted work, for example, machines that run factories instead of workers. Nothing stops you from working 12 hours, 30 minutes, whatever.

If you don't work, do you get sent to a labor camp?
Why would anyone work when you can just chill out all day and make movies or something? There are no minimum hours or anything required?

I know you said work will be "fun" but I can't understand that. Even if work is less demanding, you want to do things that are more fun. What if EVERYONE wanted to be an artist? Nothing would get done. Is there anything to prevent this?

Clarify punishment please. Gun to the head?

If I had to work an 8 hour day 5 days a week and then do whatever I wish without worrying about supporting my family, I would be perfectly fine with that.


Also, I REALLY want to debate against a friend of mine who pretty much is Mr.Capitalism. I mean, when you think of a Republican image in your mind, he fits it perfectly. He openly speaks about politics in class, and the class I have with him is Spanish haha So, I am wondering if anyone has some good argument points or counter-points against his extreme capitalist views?

I'm really sorry for all the questions... :(
The answers just open up more questions hehe
BUT, I am slowly learning.

[CELMX]

If you don't work, do you get sent to a labor camp?
Why would anyone work when you can just chill out all day and make movies or something? There are no minimum hours or anything required?

If you don't work, you will definitely NOT get sent to a labor camp (from MY defintion of communism, which is council communsim). However, again, this can very greatly between Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and many other "isms" of communism. Sure, you could chill all day, why not? As I said, I think most labor would be automated in a post-revolutionary society. People inherently hate boredom. Most likely, someone would devote their lives to medicine, mathematics, whatever.


I know you said work will be "fun" but I can't understand that. Even if work is less demanding, you want to do things that are more fun. What if EVERYONE wanted to be an artist? Nothing would get done. Is there anything to prevent this?

not EVERYONE wants to be an artist. Seriously, don't you observe different interests among different people. And when you say "nothing would get done"...what nothing are you talking about? Necessaties would be dealt with easily. Again, automated labor.


Clarify punishment please. Gun to the head?

hehe..no. "Punishment" maybe means a rehab program, or a program where people are asked why they did what they did, and given further education about whatever they did, and about this society. Not real punishment at all, I think.


If I had to work an 8 hour day 5 days a week and then do whatever I wish without worrying about supporting my family, I would be perfectly fine with that.

Sure, you can do that if you like. Others might not. It's up to you how long you work, which days you work, what job you do.



Also, I REALLY want to debate against a friend of mine who pretty much is Mr.Capitalism. I mean, when you think of a Republican image in your mind, he fits it perfectly. He openly speaks about politics in class, and the class I have with him is Spanish haha So, I am wondering if anyone has some good argument points or counter-points against his extreme capitalist views?

Cool, someone who loves debating just as much as me! Hehe, so he's mr. capitalism, I'm Mrs. Anarchism in all my classes :p. What arguments does this guy make?



I'm really sorry for all the questions... :(
The answers just open up more questions hehe
BUT, I am slowly learning.


That's really quite fine, ask away! You should of seen me when I first stumbled upon these subjects...I learned really really slowly, and felt very embarrassed at all my questions. I know how you feel. Remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question.

hope this helps:thumbup1:

[Tablo]

If you don't work, you will definitely NOT get sent to a labor camp (from MY defintion of communism, which is council communsim). However, again, this can very greatly between Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and many other "isms" of communism. Sure, you could chill all day, why not? As I said, I think most labor would be automated in a post-revolutionary society. People inherently hate boredom. Most likely, someone would devote their lives to medicine, mathematics, whatever.Wrong. If you do not work and provide for the community then you will be denied goods and services. If you don't work, then you don't eat. At least in my view of how a Communist society would operate. Obviously in the future when almost all labour is automated this would be different.

[Manifesto]

If you don't work, then you don't eat. At least in my view of how a Communist society would operate.
Thats just what Lenin said isn't it?

[Shinigami]

Wrong. If you do not work and provide for the community then you will be denied goods and services. If you don't work, then you don't eat. At least in my view of how a Communist society would operate. Obviously in the future when almost all labour is automated this would be different.

This is what I've always imagined. What I figured mastershake was referring to, was work that couldn't be automated, cleanup jobs (janitors) and such. There would still be motivation to work.

[mastershake16]

The automated labor is very interesting.



Well, I casually brought up Communism (as casually as possible haha)

Basically, what he said was....

A)People on the streets don't have jobs because they have disabilities. Not because they are stuck in poverty.

B) Health Care is terrible. He kept giving examples of people waiting hours and hours for just to see a nurse when they had broken bones or something. Apparently he Aunt was skiing in Canada, broke her leg, and waited in line for 6 hours before she saw a nurse, then the nurse sent her home and the doctor called 3 weeks later saying to come in for a cast. Her leg had begun to heal incorrectly they they had to re-break it before they could put a cast on it. He also kept mentioning some documentary where some guy faked a broken arm, and came in with a hidden camera to show the ridiculous lines and waiting periods.

3)If no one has to work, nothing would get done.

4) There is no freedom of speech or you'll get shot or "taken care of"
Which got me interested, would Communism allow us to be radicals and give us the rights to have extremely different views? As we do now under the American government.

5) He said he likes the ideas of Socialism but it'll get corrupted EVERY TIME because there will always be greedy people who exploit the system.

6) Then he began to lecture me on how Castro murders people who speak out, and how people cannot get adequate health care.


Soooo.... I basically need some ammo to take this kid down.

To Tsukae: What types of Communists believe that you must work? Marx? Trotsky? Lenin?

To Shinigami: What is this motivation? How do we become motivated?

[Shinigami]

Well, like in Tsukae's vision of communism, I would think that people need to work, they need to give to society, or society wouldn't give to them. Work that couldn't be automated would be rotated around members of society, like, it's your turn to take care of something every month or so, depending on the population of the commune. If you decide not to, the other members of the commune would not give you anything. That's your motivation, it's quite similar to motivation to work in a capitalist society, I think. I think everyone's basic needs like healthcare, shelter, food, education, etc. would/should be given for free (as in, you wouldn't need to work in order to get them) but it really depends upon that specific commune's rules.

[Tablo]

Thats just what Lenin said isn't it?
Errr, pretty much. Despite my dislike for Lenin and his leanings I do find that a good quote for use in debates when people say that no one will work and everyone will be lazy.

[Drace]

A)People on the streets don't have jobs because they have disabilities. Not because they are stuck in poverty.This only explains, and poorly too, the poverty in rich nations like the USA. But globally, 80% of the population makes under $3 a day. Is 80% of the population disabled?

Poverty exists because of the poor distribution of wealth and little money is being spent on social programs that benefit us all. 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth.


B) Health Care is terrible. He kept giving examples of people waiting hours and hours for just to see a nurse when they had broken bones or something. Apparently he Aunt was skiing in Canada, broke her leg, and waited in line for 6 hours before she saw a nurse, then the nurse sent her home and the doctor called 3 weeks later saying to come in for a cast. Her leg had begun to heal incorrectly they they had to re-break it before they could put a cast on it. He also kept mentioning some documentary where some guy faked a broken arm, and came in with a hidden camera to show the ridiculous lines and waiting periods.It is terrible. Was it suppose to be an argument against all social health programs? Well its much better in other countries like Canada, and even in socialist Cuba.


3)If no one has to work, nothing would get done.Of course as long as material products are needed, work is mandatory. Were not saying no one would have to work.


4) There is no freedom of speech or you'll get shot or "taken care of"
Which got me interested, would Communism allow us to be radicals and give us the rights to have extremely different views? As we do now under the American government.Your viewing communism as very systematic. Read my last post again. Communism does not seek to force social and economic rules upon society, so such a question is irrelevant. It only seeks to place the means of productions (things which produce things) into the hands of workers to be owned commonly. What a communist society does regarding this is not of our concern.

And the American government has actually several times violated the constitution whenever freedom of speech has gone in opposition to it. Many union labor leaders and communists were arrested during the early 20th century.


5) He said he likes the ideas of Socialism but it'll get corrupted EVERY TIME because there will always be greedy people who exploit the system.He doesn't seem to be very Republican if he even considers socialism as good then lol.
Well creating a system that thrives on exploitation surely isn't a solution either.

But to humor him, that argument could have been used for keeping feudalism. Since people are too greedy and authoritative, then in a capitalist society they will enslave others and create a feudalistic rule again.


6) Then he began to lecture me on how Castro murders people who speak out, and how people cannot get adequate health care.
Cuba has one of the best health care systems in the world, and surely the best of its capitalistic neighbors.

Here's a good site with facts and statistics on Cuba.
http://www.cubatruth.info/

Click on the links under Stats and comparisons and check them out. Socialism has rather made much good of Cuba.

Also go to Cuba Q&A and read the "Q. What about human rights in Cuba?"
The "Other facts" is also worth checking out".

[Montes]

Socialism, fyi, is the transition state between capitalism and communism.

Is this your analysis from the perspective of a communist? I, admittedly knowing very little about the subject, thought that socialism is a general term for egalitarian society. Seeing as anarchists are also socialists, would they consider socialism to be a stepping stone to communism?

[Drace]

Is this your analysis from the perspective of a communist? I, admittedly knowing very little about the subject, thought that socialism is a general term for egalitarian society. Seeing as anarchists are also socialists, would they consider socialism to be a stepping stone to communism?Socialism's definition seems to be much mismatched.
It can sometimes be used interchangeably with communism.
But socialism is used usually as the transition state from capitalism to communism where a state still exists. Communism would be the stateless society where the e.

All communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. Anarchists oppose this socialist stage.

[mastershake16]

Drace thanks a lot for the reply.
That link is great!
Lovin the truth!

You said health care is terrble though....then a sentence later you say its better in Canada and Cuba?
I was talking about Canada, or that's where the story took place atleast.

[Drace]

Oh I was referring to the US health care.
Canada's I hear is much better.

And well Cuba is able to use its resources on health care much more efficiently but no doubt US hospitals are better.

[CELMX]

Socialism's definition seems to be much mismatched.
It can sometimes be used interchangeably with communism.
But socialism is used usually as the transition state from capitalism to communism where a state still exists. Communism would be the stateless society where the e.

All communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. Anarchists oppose this socialist stage.

Yes, I definitely agree. I was just referring to socialism in marx's view, which is the transition stage to communism. However, many people use socialism, not only interchangeably with communism, but with anarchism as well, which is frequently seen in Bakunin's works, and many others.

And I have a question for you, I understand that anarchists oppose this socialist stage, which is a fundamental difference between anarchism and communism, but then why do anarchist authors of the 19th century use socialism interchangebly with anarchism? The most famous quote by bakunin, which has socialism in it, is "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

[Drace]

And I have a question for you, I understand that anarchists oppose this socialist stage, which is a fundamental difference between anarchism and communism, but then why do anarchist authors of the 19th century use socialism interchangebly with anarchism? The most famous quote by bakunin, which has socialism in it, is "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

I actually don't know much about anarchist theory so I am the wrong person to ask.

But like I said though, there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of socialism and it sometimes is used interchangeably.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, I definitely agree. I was just referring to socialism in marx's view, which is the transition stage to communism. However, many people use socialism, not only interchangeably with communism, but with anarchism as well, which is frequently seen in Bakunin's works, and many others.

And I have a question for you, I understand that anarchists oppose this socialist stage, which is a fundamental difference between anarchism and communism, but then why do anarchist authors of the 19th century use socialism interchangebly with anarchism? The most famous quote by bakunin, which has socialism in it, is "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
Because it was not used differently from 'communism' until around Lenin's time. So, for example, Marx and Engels didn't differentiate between the two as regards societies. They did differentiate between 'communism' and 'socialism' as movements in their early days, in order to distinguish themselves from the utopians and many "so-called 'socialists'", as Engels, I believe, put it.


Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide spread, the most international production of all socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California.

Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class [petit-bourgeois] movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.-Engels, Preface to the Commie Manifesto

They referred to the transformation of society from capitalism to communism not as 'socialism', but rather 'revolution'.

[CELMX]

Because it was not used differently from 'communism' until around Lenin's time. So, for example, Marx and Engels didn't differentiate between the two as regards societies. They did differentiate between 'communism' and 'socialism' as movements in their early days, in order to distinguish themselves from the utopians and many "so-called 'socialists'", as Engels, I believe, put it.

-Engels, Preface to the Commie Manifesto

They referred to the transformation of society from capitalism to communism not as 'socialism', but rather 'revolution'.

Thanks!
But one of my questions is, why is socialism used interchagably with anarchism?

[mastershake16]

So, what can you say in Cuba? Do they have complete freedom of speech?
Will you be arrested for saying " I hate Fidel and Socialism" ?

Mr.Capitalism says if you even mutter something against Fidel, you're shot.

I also presented him and a few other people with facts from that awesome website (TRUTH FTW) and people were shocked and surprised, and I realized how little people knew or thought they knew about Cuba. Of course though, as I had people re-thinking their opinions about Cuba, Mr.Capitalism was like " Oh, well they have those good stats because the government over there does not provide accurate data and they lie about their medical statistics and stuff".....

Is there a way to PROVE that they are true?

Also, why are hosptials in the U.S better?

What exactly does the U.S Embargo do?

[Kayser_Soso]

So, what can you say in Cuba? Do they have complete freedom of speech?
Will you be arrested for saying " I hate Fidel and Socialism" ?

Mr.Capitalism says if you even mutter something against Fidel, you're shot.

I also presented him and a few other people with facts from that awesome website (TRUTH FTW) and people were shocked and surprised, and I realized how little people knew or thought they knew about Cuba. Of course though, as I had people re-thinking their opinions about Cuba, Mr.Capitalism was like " Oh, well they have those good stats because the government over there does not provide accurate data and they lie about their medical statistics and stuff".....

Is there a way to PROVE that they are true?

Also, why are hosptials in the U.S better?

What exactly does the U.S Embargo do?

There are ways you can go to Cuba and have a look for yourself. The main problem with Cuba is difficulty in getting resources to run the infrastructure. In the past the USSR would supply them with oil and they didn't need to worry about that.

As for freedom of speech, I was at a Cuban embassy recently and I can say that when you consider the stereotype of what officials for "Communist countries" should be like, I can say that you would never think there was anything abnormal about these people. It was as laid back as an evening over a friends house.

[mastershake16]

A Cuban embassy is a lot different than being a regular citizen in some big city.
Embassy's don't have the same rules as the actual country do they?

[Kayser_Soso]

A Cuban embassy is a lot different than being a regular citizen in some big city.
Embassy's don't have the same rules as the actual country do they?

Yes but if we follow the typical right-wing stereotype of Communist governments, we should expect an even more rigid regime, and of course all the embassies are supposed to be bugged you know.

[mastershake16]

Ah, alrighty, so you CAN disagree with the government openly?

[Drace]

So, what can you say in Cuba? Do they have complete freedom of speech?
Will you be arrested for saying " I hate Fidel and Socialism" ?I don't know about the level of freedom of speech in Cuba, but its fucking ridiculous to say your shot for uttering anything anti-socialist, as if every person is assigned a personal spy, and each spy another spy.


I also presented him and a few other people with facts from that awesome website (TRUTH FTW) and people were shocked and surprised, and I realized how little people knew or thought they knew about Cuba. Of course though, as I had people re-thinking their opinions about Cuba, Mr.Capitalism was like " Oh, well they have those good stats because the government over there does not provide accurate data and they lie about their medical statistics and stuff".....

Is there a way to PROVE that they are true?The statistics are not presented from the Cuban government. They come from renowned organizations like the World Bank and Unicef (which confirmed Cuba has 0% malnutrition in children recently) and even the CSI.

These are the same organizations that gather data from all over the country. Cuba's government has no part in it. And a repressive state like North Korea also tends to score badly on these things.


Also, why are hosptials in the U.S better?Because the US has a population of 300 million, has about 100x more land, and has a GDP of 14 trillion while Cuba's is 108 billion.

Ultimately, it has a lot more resources to spend on hospitals. So of course they are going to be much larger, nicer, and better. Though, about 50 million Americans do not have any health care insurance at all.


What exactly does the U.S Embargo do? Alot.
Good read on it.
http://links.org.au/node/1315

I read it and quoted what I found important, and put them here.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/expect-after-embargoi-t125599/index.html?t=125599

Check that out instead if you don't want to read the whole article.


According to very conservative figures, the direct harm inflicted on Cuba as a result of the embargo, until December 2008, surpasses 96 billion dollars, a figure that would reach 36 thousand 221 million dollars, if the calculation were to be made using today’s value of the US dollar. It is not difficult to imagine the progress Cuba would have been able to achieve and how much progress has been denied it if it hadn’t been for these 50 years of being submitted to this brutal economic war.

Btw, if you have AIM, I'd love to help you out there.

[Chambered Word]

I also presented him and a few other people with facts from that awesome website (TRUTH FTW) and people were shocked and surprised, and I realized how little people knew or thought they knew about Cuba. Of course though, as I had people re-thinking their opinions about Cuba, Mr.Capitalism was like " Oh, well they have those good stats because the government over there does not provide accurate data and they lie about their medical statistics and stuff".....

What a ridiculous fucking argument. Why don't you ask him how he doesn't know the US isn't lying about it's statistics? :laugh:

Cuba hasn't been known to fabricate data as far as I know.

Who is Mr Capitalism by the way? Someone you're arguing with in real life?

[ELoether]

Redstar, I have a hard time getting through to people who spew the same rhetoric over and over, how would you respond to the following arguments?


Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!

Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, "worked hard" and "got rich". Then he died. His three kids are now worth over 12 billion dollars each!

How hard did they work, climbing out of their mama's birth canal and all?

The Walton family need never lift a finger again...their fortune will grow inevitably.

When her parents die, Bill and Melinda Gates' little girl is going to be one of the richest individuals on the planet...did she work really hard for that money?

There are now hundreds of members of the Rockefeller family...all of whom are wealthier than 99% of all Americans...did they work "really hard" for their inheritances?.

So? Is it fair that some people are born into wealth and privilege while others are born into poverty? Of course not, but how does the Walton family inheriting $12 billion affect me? Bill Gates' daughter becoming one of the wealthiest individuals in the world through no action of her own does not take money out of my pocket or prevent me from making money in anyway. So, is it unfair? Hell yeah, but why would I care?


Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?

Why not? If there were no janitors, housekeepers, sanitation workers, what would happen? You'd either have to do all that clean-up yourself or things would get filthy, germs would breed, you'd get sick and die.

Every person who makes a genuine contribution to society deserves a living wage...an income sufficient to live with dignity.

Yes, everyone who contributes to society deserves a living wage and should be provided with the means to support themselves and their family. However, that does not necessitate equal pay for all jobs, or even for all people performing the same job. If people could choose between (1) driving around town throwing trash in the back of a truck or (2) spending 8 more years in school after graduating from HS and going into massive debt to become a doctor, why would anyone put themselves through the hell of Med school? On the same line, if I could sit behind a desk, do the bare minimum and leave at 4:30 on the dot every day and get paid the same salary as the person who works 12 hours a day, why would I ever put in effort?


We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.

Where do you think riches come from? Do they fall out of the sky?

You cannot create wealth out of thin air. The wealth that society as a whole produces is finite...a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone else's pocket. Behind every rich person stand hundreds or thousands or even millions of poor people...losers in the capitalist casino

This point I disagree with myself. Analyzing a "snapshot" of the economy at any single point is a worthless exercise as you are forced to base your conclusions on the perception of a stagnant system, where the "pie" can only be divided into so many pieces. The reality is that our economy is a very dynamic system that allows for the possibility of that "pie" to grow (i.e. the creation of wealth) through labor and innovation. The post that points out that our economy is not a zero-sum system is correct, when I receive my paycheck on Thursday I will not be taking that money out of someone else's pocket, but taking my slice of the "pie" for the labor I contributed to growing it.

[Drace]

So? Is it fair that some people are born into wealth and privilege while others are born into poverty? Of course not, but how does the Walton family inheriting $12 billion affect me? Bill Gates' daughter becoming one of the wealthiest individuals in the world through no action of her own does not take money out of my pocket or prevent me from making money in anyway. So, is it unfair? Hell yeah, but why would I care?There is a limited amount of wealth in the world. It affects you in the way that wealth could be part of yours. It creates a monopoly that does not allow other corporations to be able to compete.
Bill Gate's 60 billion could also be put to use for much better things.
And fairness also has the moral attribute of it, which if you deny, there's nothing I can do about it.

I suppose it won't directly affect you, but it is indeed unjust. You must be totally void of emotions to pass such failure of justice as nothing. A nuclear bomb on Iraq wouldn't affect me at all either, but wouldn't you be concerned?

[ZeroNowhere]

Thanks!
But one of my questions is, why is socialism used interchagably with anarchism?
In this case, 'socialism' is used to mean collective ownership of the means of production, as otherwise 'freedom' is only privilege and injustice, or that's what seems to be meant, anyhow. The main point being the view that socialism is necessary for anarchy to exist, or somesuch.

[Chambered Word]

So? Is it fair that some people are born into wealth and privilege while others are born into poverty? Of course not, but how does the Walton family inheriting $12 billion affect me? Bill Gates' daughter becoming one of the wealthiest individuals in the world through no action of her own does not take money out of my pocket or prevent me from making money in anyway. So, is it unfair? Hell yeah, but why would I care?

It perpetuates exploitation, as they can either use some of that money as capital to invest in a business buying labour. Or they can sit around being useless and leeching off society while the rest of us work for a wage. That $12 billion should be spread around to those who actually need it, not some spoiled brat who hasn't worked a day in their life.

If that doesn't make you pissed off, I don't know what will.



Yes, everyone who contributes to society deserves a living wage and should be provided with the means to support themselves and their family. However, that does not necessitate equal pay for all jobs, or even for all people performing the same job. If people could choose between (1) driving around town throwing trash in the back of a truck or (2) spending 8 more years in school after graduating from HS and going into massive debt to become a doctor, why would anyone put themselves through the hell of Med school? On the same line, if I could sit behind a desk, do the bare minimum and leave at 4:30 on the dot every day and get paid the same salary as the person who works 12 hours a day, why would I ever put in effort?

I'd rather be a doctor than a trash collector. Do you want to have a good job just for the money? Don't you think medicine is a more interesting and less dull line of work than refuse collection? Doesn't some kind of respect come with such a job?

You and everybody else will earn all the money you need to live a good life under socialism. If you just want to earn more than someone else, that's your problem.

You should also consider that in a planned economy the wages will be set by the governing body, so to be fair and objective everybody earns the same.

[mastershake16]

Comrade, he is a friend of mine who argues with me.
I just want to hit him so badly.

I can't wait to tell him that Unicef and World Bank actually take the statistics.

1) Who are the leaders in Socialism? Will there be a dictator like Fidel?

2)I was reading that people won't get the same pay, but the highest wage will only be 3x higher than the lowest, or something along those lines. I am wandering, does everyone agree with this? If not, what group does? ( I mean like Marxists and all them)

Are there any other argument points I can expect or any general myths he might bring up that I can debunk?

[Decolonize The Left]

1) Who are the leaders in Socialism?

The people.


Will there be a dictator like Fidel?

Not necessarily, it depends on what tendency you are dealing with. Anarchists would say no, as would Left Communists. Stalinists and Leninists would say yes.

All would argue that, for the most part, Fidel was not a dictator.


2)I was reading that people won't get the same pay, but the highest wage will only be 3x higher than the lowest, or something along those lines. I am wandering, does everyone agree with this? If not, what group does? ( I mean like Marxists and all them)

Everyone does not agree with that. If you are referring to socialism as a transition stage to communism (an idea which many disagree with), then there may be wages, though given that the working class possesses the means of production, they would no longer be wages as we understand them.

Most agree that within a communist society, money would cease to be a medium of trade (from each according to ability, to each according to need) and hence wages wouldn't exist.


Are there any other argument points I can expect or any general myths he might bring up that I can debunk?

Read through the thread, there are many. Hope that helps.

- August

[Drace]

1) Who are the leaders in Socialism? Will there be a dictator like Fidel?

Depends what you mean by socialism. If you mean socialist states like the USSR and Cuba, then it would be the leaders. Though this is generally not what leftists aim for, but instead a more democratically controlled state to lead to communism.
In true communism though, no, there won't be dictators. The means of production would be owned by the people.

And again, if you got AIM this will be easier

[mastershake16]

AIM? haha that is wicked old.

I can download it if you want... but do you have Steam?

[Chambered Word]

Comrade, he is a friend of mine who argues with me.
I just want to hit him so badly.

I can't wait to tell him that Unicef and World Bank actually take the statistics.


:lol:

I'd really love to see his face when you tell him.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Under a dictatorship, can't the leader just decide they'd rather hold onto power?
That's why genuine Communist Parties have built-in systems to prevent infiltrators to rise to power.
The CPSU didn't have that, that's why the traitor Gorbachev came to power.

[mastershake16]

Alrighty I have been reading this http....://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch07.htm.

It has made sense so far, with the help of many friendly people on the IRC.
I am at a snag though and I don't know why I can't understand it.

How do wages rise and fall? It says that if the owner is making more money, the wages decrease. The profit and wages are inversely related.

If the owner makes more, why would the wage go down? If anything, I would think it would go up.

Need some clarification please.

Thank you.

[Drace]

If the owner makes more, why would the wage go down? If anything, I would think it would go up.

The owner makes more money because the wages go down.

[mastershake16]

It's that simple?

"Real wages may remain the same, they may even rise, nevertheless the relative wages may fall. Let us suppose, for instance, that all means of subsistence have fallen 2/3rds in price, while the day's wages have fallen but 1/3rd – for example, from three to two shillings. Although the worker can now get a greater amount of commodities with these two shillings than he formerly did with three shillings, yet his wages have decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist."

What is this saying then?

[mastershake16]

Wow. Mr.Capitalism.

We were talking ( about American Imperialism) and he said that the Native Americans signed off all their lands, which voided their right to it. So slaughtering 10 million Natives was "justified" because they were on our land.

Oh, and I brought up McKinley and the Philippine's.
APPARENTLY, they were a "threat" and wanted to join our enemies side.
The 500,000 civilian casualties were justified because they were not "innocent".

Of course, at the end of every BS reply he gave, were the common phrases of "You are just plain ignorant" or if he wanted to mix it up "How dumb must you be?" was sprinkled in.

Oh, and according to his...well I would say sources but he didn't have any, but my statistics were "grossly inaccurate".

It would seem every fact I give out is "inaccurate"
And when I give an example of how we are imperialistic, that country was a "threat".

And he ended the conversation by saying:
"I dont have time for your ignorance.Maybe later"

[Tablo]

Wow. Mr.Capitalism.

We were talking ( about American Imperialism) and he said that the Native Americans signed off all their lands, which voided their right to it. So slaughtering 10 million Natives was "justified" because they were on our land.

Oh, and I brought up McKinley and the Philippine's.
APPARENTLY, they were a "threat" and wanted to join our enemies side.
The 500,000 civilian casualties were justified because they were not "innocent".

Of course, at the end of every BS reply he gave, were the common phrases of "You are just plain ignorant" or if he wanted to mix it up "How dumb must you be?" was sprinkled in.

Oh, and according to his...well I would say sources but he didn't have any, but my statistics were "grossly inaccurate".

It would seem every fact I give out is "inaccurate"
And when I give an example of how we are imperialistic, that country was a "threat".

And he ended the conversation by saying:
"I dont have time for your ignorance.Maybe later"
At that point I would say you need to attack the very integrity of his argument. He can not say he is right and deny your sources when he has none of his own.

[Drace]

Dont worry master, he was crying in the inside.

[mastershake16]

How can you try to defend the killing of millions?

What should I say when people say "Communism isn't possible. It won't work"?

So. damn. conservative. haha

[Drace]

What should I say when people say "Communism isn't possible. It won't work"?

"Why?"

[mastershake16]

How do I explain that it WILL work?

[Tablo]

You should start by asking them why they think it won't work and refuting their reasons.

[Drace]

Well they probably haven't given it any thought themselves.

But heres an argument...people are rational. If a communist society was able to provide everyone a better life, then it would be the rational choice.
Even if people are self interested and only do things for their own benefit they would cooperate in a communist society for their own good.

[mastershake16]

The owner makes more money because the wages go down.

I still need some help on this.

There are NO other factors deciding wage fluctuations?

Here is the paragraph

"Real wages may remain the same, they may even rise, nevertheless the relative wages may fall. Let us suppose, for instance, that all means of subsistence have fallen 2/3rds in price, while the day's wages have fallen but 1/3rd – for example, from three to two shillings. Although the worker can now get a greater amount of commodities with these two shillings than he formerly did with three shillings, yet his wages have decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist. The profit of the capitalist – the manufacturer's for instance – has increased one shilling, which means that for a smaller amount of exchange values, which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of exchange values than before. The share of capitals in proportion to the share of labor has risen."

[Drace]

Wages and profit is inversely related since the worker's wage is paid from the capitalists pocket - thus lowering the capitalist's profit.
If the workers earn less, the capitalist keeps more of his money.

This is a quite simple statement.


"Real wages may remain the same, they may even rise, nevertheless the relative wages may fall. Let us suppose, for instance, that all means of subsistence have fallen 2/3rds in price, while the day's wages have fallen but 1/3rd – for example, from three to two shillings. Although the worker can now get a greater amount of commodities with these two shillings than he formerly did with three shillings, yet his wages have decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist. The profit of the capitalist – the manufacturer's for instance – has increased one shilling, which means that for a smaller amount of exchange values, which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of exchange values than before. The share of capitals in proportion to the share of labor has risen."

Here he explains that if the prices of goods fall by a bigger amount than the rate of the wages, the worker's wage will increase in purchasing power, but yet the capitalist will still profit by the wage decrease. And thus "his wages have decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist."
I don't know about this part
"which means that for a smaller amount of exchange values, which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of exchange values than before. The share of capitals in proportion to the share of labor has risen."

You might want to make a thread on this. More people will see it.

[Chambered Word]

Wow. Mr.Capitalism.

We were talking ( about American Imperialism) and he said that the Native Americans signed off all their lands, which voided their right to it. So slaughtering 10 million Natives was "justified" because they were on our land.

What a flimsy excuse.


Oh, and I brought up McKinley and the Philippine's.
APPARENTLY, they were a "threat" and wanted to join our enemies side.
The 500,000 civilian casualties were justified because they were not "innocent".

I don't know much about this, but they obviously shouldn't have been in the Philippines to start with.


Of course, at the end of every BS reply he gave, were the common phrases of "You are just plain ignorant" or if he wanted to mix it up "How dumb must you be?" was sprinkled in.

Oh, and according to his...well I would say sources but he didn't have any, but my statistics were "grossly inaccurate".

It would seem every fact I give out is "inaccurate"

Don't fuck around with this guy, comrade. Tell him to give you a source or get lost.


And when I give an example of how we are imperialistic, that country was a "threat".

Perhaps you should inquire further. "Which country?" "How were they a threat?" etc, so you can kick the shit out of more of his arguments. :cool:


And he ended the conversation by saying:
"I dont have time for your ignorance.Maybe later"

Pot calling the kettle black. :laugh:

[mastershake16]

Alright.
So today I really found out how ignorant some people are.

1)A girl called Mr.Capitalism "Communist" and I laughed and then asked why?
She said because he is like a dictator and is evil.....

2)After discussing Communism (I have a question further down) a girl asked if I was Communist. I said "Well, What is Communism? Because if you don't know it's pointless for me to tell you."

She literally said "I don't know. It's just something bad."


ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS!??!?!!?!!?!
wow. I was physically feeling ill after that class.


Here's my question to you all:

Q: How can I explain Communism will work when they say "Someone will corrupt it"?
Before Feudalism became Capitalism, I bet people said that the Nobles will just rise to power again and take serfs right? So, I explained that to Mr.Capitalism and he asked who will make sure no one will rise up? What force? What can I say that CANNOT be turned into "Oh well that's oppression"?


I was stuck....

Other than that, I had him beat. My teacher sides with him on the corruption part, and I am determined to explain why it will not get corrupted.

Thank you!



P.S. I forgot to add, during class the word "ignorancia" was used in an example to show how to use the subjunctive Spanish.
In a typical Republican manner Mr.Capitalism exclaimed "Why are you using that word Ms.suchandsuch? Are you trying to call someone ignorant? *COUGH* BILL (me) *COUGH*

Very mature.

[CELMX]

Q: How can I explain Communism will work when they say "Someone will corrupt it"?
Before Feudalism became Capitalism, I bet people said that the Nobles will just rise to power again and take serfs right? So, I explained that to Mr.Capitalism and he asked who will make sure no one will rise up? What force? What can I say that CANNOT be turned into "Oh well that's oppression"?

There might be someone corrupt, however, there will be enough people to put that one "evil" person down. Just as if there were many communes, one commune decides to be "imperialist" and is a dictatorship, then all the communities surrounding it will destroy this dictatorship. I'm sure that there will never be a corrupted majority. If there is enough masses to rise up in a revolution, there will be enough masses to settle down the insanity of one, or a small minority, of people that want to have total control.

Damn, your class and school sounds ignorant. Mr. Capitalism is fail and makes terrible arguments.

Keep up the awesome arguments...defeat that cappie pig!

:)

[Kayser_Soso]

There might be someone corrupt, however, there will be enough people to put that one "evil" person down. Just as if there were many communes, one commune decides to be "imperialist" and is a dictatorship, then all the communities surrounding it will destroy this dictatorship.

Or it joins with others because it happens to have natural advantages and then kicks the others' collective asses.



I'm sure that there will never be a corrupted majority.


Yes, this rarely happens. Certainly not in Germany.

[mastershake16]

Alright, how do they "destroy" them?
Army?

Also I expressed my opinion about Cuba to my history teacher, and we were talking about voting and I said that in Cuba over 90% of the people vote, and in America it's less than 50%. all he said was "The government pays votes or offers "incentives" for them to vote. Is this true? He also told me we will be covering Cuba in-depth next semester so I REALLY need all the info I can get about Cuba because I'm sure he will call me out.

He said he's going to say the truth and that I should "Wear a rubber suit" haha

[Antiks72]

Wow. Mr.Capitalism.

We were talking ( about American Imperialism) and he said that the Native Americans signed off all their lands, which voided their right to it. So slaughtering 10 million Natives was "justified" because they were on our land.

Oh, and I brought up McKinley and the Philippine's.
APPARENTLY, they were a "threat" and wanted to join our enemies side.
The 500,000 civilian casualties were justified because they were not "innocent".

Of course, at the end of every BS reply he gave, were the common phrases of "You are just plain ignorant" or if he wanted to mix it up "How dumb must you be?" was sprinkled in.

Oh, and according to his...well I would say sources but he didn't have any, but my statistics were "grossly inaccurate".

It would seem every fact I give out is "inaccurate"
And when I give an example of how we are imperialistic, that country was a "threat".

And he ended the conversation by saying:
"I dont have time for your ignorance.Maybe later"

Only the Indians did NOT sign off their lands. Whites actively diseased, shot, and pushed them off.

[mastershake16]

I think he is referring to the "treaties" that the Native Americans couldn't even read... They just signed them.

[Kayser_Soso]

Alright, how do they "destroy" them?
Army?

Also I expressed my opinion about Cuba to my history teacher, and we were talking about voting and I said that in Cuba over 90% of the people vote, and in America it's less than 50%. all he said was "The government pays votes or offers "incentives" for them to vote. Is this true? He also told me we will be covering Cuba in-depth next semester so I REALLY need all the info I can get about Cuba because I'm sure he will call me out.

He said he's going to say the truth and that I should "Wear a rubber suit" haha

Forgive me if you already mentioned this before, but has this teacher even been to Cuba? Because I know people who have been there and work closely with the Cubans- I could ask them some questions about these. From what I heard, most socialist countries had mandatory voting, which is why members of remaining Communist parties in Eastern Europe for example still turn out in record numbers(at least the older ones). Before he tries to whomp you with the compulsory voting, know that Australia also has this law.

[Zanthorus]

Q: How can I explain Communism will work when they say "Someone will corrupt it"?
Before Feudalism became Capitalism, I bet people said that the Nobles will just rise to power again and take serfs right? So, I explained that to Mr.Capitalism and he asked who will make sure no one will rise up? What force? What can I say that CANNOT be turned into "Oh well that's oppression"?

Just say the state/workers councils. If he says that it's oppressive just remind him who usually stops all the uprisings under capitalism.

[mastershake16]

Please, ANY information on Cuba from people who have been there would be greatly appreciated, and no he has not been.

Who are the "state/workers councils" and what would they do? Shoot the people?
How are they elected?

[Kayser_Soso]

Please, ANY information on Cuba from people who have been there would be greatly appreciated, and no he has not been.

In that case you can question on that. If you could make it easier for me, just list your most basic questions here and I will forward them to my contacts.

It's not exactly representative, but I spent some time in a Cuban embassy recently and it was incredibly laid back. You'd never think: "HOLY SHIT! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT BUILDING OF A COMMUNIST COUNTRY!!!"



Who are the "state/workers councils" and what would they do? Shoot the people?
How are they elected?

State workers councils are most likely organs of local government. Many socialist countries had councils which handled local issues or issues in the workplace.

[Zanthorus]

Who are the "state/workers councils" and what would they do? Shoot the people?
How are they elected?

I'm not too sure on my knowledge of workers councils but from what I do know they arose during the 1905 russian "revolution" and again in the 1917 february revolution as well as during the German november revolution. How they were formed I don't know, but I would imagine it was something like one council per workplace.

They would deal with the troublemakers in whatever way seemed suitable at the time. I guess killing them would be an option in many cases during the inital stages of a communist revolution. Once reaction started to die down less extreme measures could probably be taken.

[Kayser_Soso]

I'm not too sure on my knowledge of workers councils but from what I do know they arose during the 1905 russian "revolution" and again in the 1917 february revolution as well as during the German november revolution. How they were formed I don't know, but I would imagine it was something like one council per workplace.

They would deal with the troublemakers in whatever way seemed suitable at the time. I guess killing them would be an option in many cases during the inital stages of a communist revolution. Once reaction started to die down less extreme measures could probably be taken.

I highly doubt that workers councils handled matters like executions or criminal matters save for the most trivial. I am sure that those which exist in Cuba don't deal with such matters.

[mastershake16]

Alright. Thanks a lot guys!

Here are some questions for now.

1) How is the voting process carried out and are there "incentives"?
2) Can you speak out against the government openly?
3) Can anyone be elected, even a Capitalist?
4) With an average wage of 20$ a month, how can anyone even buy anything?! (like cellphones or cars)
5) How does the wage system work? Is there a max cap?
6) How are the living conditions? Why is everything outdated? like 50 yr old cars..."Yank Tanks"
7)How are the hospitals ACTUALLY? (I've seen both extremes, great and terrible.)


8) Any general info that most Americans do not know that your contacts would like to share that they feel is important.


Zan, thanks! I think that should be sufficient to explain why they could keep control.
And the people who usually take care of things here is the National Guard, right?

[Zanthorus]

I highly doubt that workers councils handled matters like executions or criminal matters save for the most trivial. I am sure that those which exist in Cuba don't deal with such matters.

Ah well I don't know much about the history like I said :)

But I do know some types of communist advocate workers councils as the basic form of working class power.

[mastershake16]

Okay, so the question is still to be answered...

Who puts down the rebellions?

[Kayser_Soso]

Okay, so the question is still to be answered...

Who puts down the rebellions?

I forwarded your questions to a comrade who has been to Cuba and works closely with them.

As for rebellions, there haven't really been that many, save for a CIA-backed insurgency in the Oriente province(IIRC) shortly after the revolution and I believe after the Bay of Pigs invasion. In Castro's My Life, he said that the army assembled a force of volunteers to hunt the insurgents- which were quickly mopped up. Castro said that volunteers were used as a matter of principle, because he considered it a bad idea to use conscripts for that kind of work.

[mastershake16]

So who will stop uprisings when a country is communist is what I'm asking.

[Kayser_Soso]

So who will stop uprisings when a country is communist is what I'm asking.

Well first of all you try to prevent uprisings from happening by providing the means to bring up grievances and providing justice, services, products, etc. If an uprising somehow breaks out, it is best to use volunteers to put it down. The west made many attempts to start insurgencies throughout the socialist world, behind the Iron Curtain and in places like China, Korea, and Vietnam. In all places they failed to do so because the insurgents they inserted could not find support amongst the population, even in remote areas.

[Drace]

4) With an average wage of 20$ a month, how can anyone even buy anything?! (like cellphones or cars)

Since much is subsidized by the state, many services are handed out free. Cubans are guaranteed a house, health care, food, and education.

Their gas bills are just about 8-16 cents a month, electricity 20-28 cents, telephone is 24-32 cents.

In many other Latin American countries the wages are no better but yet they do not enjoy these things.

[Kayser_Soso]

Ok shake, here are some answers to your questions from my friend who works with the Cubans. Forgive some of the grammar as English is not her native language.

There aren't any 'incentives' in the election process. I haven't been in Cuba during the elections, but I heard the process in detail from the voters. I think Cuba is the only country that is close to the ideal of real democracy. The elections are realized in several steps. People start to determine their candidates from their small districts. Actually there are permanent organizations in each district where people discuss their problems and national affairs together. When the elections time comes, they hold meetings to determine their candidates. Each citizen has the right to propose a candidate and express her reasons verbally. Then the candidates are voted. These organizations have the authority to monitor the members of local assemblies. The members regularly submit reports to those organizations.

The members of the assemblies of the smallest administrative units to the national parliament are elected by direct votes of the Cuban citizens. For local parliaments the age requirement to be elected is 16. For national level, it is 18. You don’t need to be a member of the Communist Party in order to be a candidate. Cuban citizens have the right to recall their representatives in the parliament in any time. The parliamentarians are not professionals; they are not paid for their membership. The elections are conducted in complete privacy during voting and complete transparency during counting process. A small detail is that the school children carry the responsibility to monitor the election process.

However, there is something more important than the election process itself. Different from the bourgeois democracies where the political participation is limited to the elections, in Cuba citizens involve in politics every moment. Cuban society is an organized society at every level, from the neighborhood organizations to the trade unions, student and women federations. State-society relation is defined differently. Comunist party takes all serious decisions at the end of an extensive discussion process in all social organizations. Generally, the party proposes a text that includes an assessment of the political and economic situation and expresses the plans. This text is discussed in thousands of meetings throughout the country. From each meeting, amendments are sent. All of them are taken into consideration by the party.

To criticize openly government policies is possible in Cuba. And people criticize I think more than neededJ. Cuban government never hides the crucial deficits of the country. It behaves self-confidently about the problems. One of our friends who went to university in Havana witnessed how a student gave a harsh criticism to the minister of foreign affairs Felipe Perez Roque two years ago. The student said that the government failed to solve chronic problems of country and alleged the US blockade. When I was in Cuba just after the first may celebrations, I saw a news on Granma. It was about a worker’s placard on which is written ‘Down with bureaucracy, Long live worker’s state’. I think, it is a little bit unmerciful because the problem of bureaucracy in Cuba in comparison to capitalist world is as a child play. And government never denies there is a problem bureaucratization and they actively struggle against it. In Cuba to oppose and to organize against the socialist regime is forbidden. There are some counterrevolutionary groups financed by US whose activities can not be evaluated within the frame of constructive criticism. Their energies are directed to destroy the socialism in the country. This is not a problem of democracy. The regime has to protect itself.

The term capitalist is not a legitimate social category in Cuba. There aren’t people who define themselves as ‘capitalist’. We know that there are private enterprises in agriculture where labor exploitation is evident; this is not unknown to the government, and not uncontrolled. In tourism, Cuban government involves in partnerships with foreign investors. The existence of rich Cubans who work in touristic enterprises with high salaries is evident. But none of the Cubans are investors in those enterprises. It is important to see that Cuban government is not in desire of opening a space for market relations. The hardships in economy have forced to do so, especially during ‘special period’ after the collapse of the socialist block.

4) With an average wage of 20$ a month, how can anyone even buy anything?! (like cellphones or cars)

It is difficult for a Cuban to obtain a private car or cellphone with the current level of the wages. With the exception of those who can obtain these things due to their work requirements, Cubans have to find a way to create a resource. It can be either a relative abroad or some extra jobs within the system. Neither cellphone nor car is central to maintain one’s life. Other necessities for a decent life can be bought with the subsidized prices. Cuba is a society where the hardships are collectively undertaken. The problem is not about the poverty of people, it is the poverty of the country which is something directly related to US blockade. The government tries to increase living standards without spoiling much the principle of equality. The limitations for obtaining cellphones were not related to security concerns but to the concern about equality. Since 2007, the wages have been gradually increasing. Cuba works to improve its technological infrastructure and create mechanisms to provide cellphones to the citizens as they do for other electronic items.


5) How does the wage system work? Is there a max cap?

I don’t have a clear idea of how the wage system works, but I know that there were complaints about the inadequacy of wage differentiation. The average wage differences of skilled and unskilled labor are not so high. To find the difference between Raul’s salary and monthly earning of an unskilled worker would be a good check. I am sure the difference is in our terms only a detail. As far as I know, they are opening the wage gap a little bit with the new measures in economy. To avoid the inefficiency which is most crucial problem about work process, they implement a system of incentives which will mean ‘to each according to her contribution’.

6) How are the living conditions? Why is everything outdated? like 50 yr old cars..."Yank Tanks"

Cubans prefer to use the term ‘blockade’ instead of ‘embargo’. US prevent not only the economic exchanges of American citizens with Cuba, but also of third countries that have economic ties with US. If for instance a medical company in Switzerland who imports a material from US sells something to Cuba, US immediately sanction that company. So, Cuba is poor, very poor. Here where you concentrate is of great importance. Cubans do not live in a misery; on the contrary they have a decent life in spite of all hardships. They have adequate food, education, health care, access to communication technologies, transportation and everything for normal life without any luxury. When I was in Cuba, I went to student dorms to meet with people, Cubans or students from the region. When I asked a Haitian boy if he is happy to be in Cuba, he asked me how one can be unpleasant to live in such a country where everything is so abundant. So it is nonsense to compare Cuba with the countries like ours where a part of the society can have extravagant lives. Compare Cuba with the capitalist satellites in Latin America or in any other part of the world which have similar economic capacities and resources with Cuba.

7)How are the hospitals ACTUALLY? (I've seen both extremes, great and terrible.)

I don’t need to answer this question. I think I adequately answer the situation. Nothing changes if I present here most reliable evidences about the perfectness of Cuban health system. Cuba is in a relentless struggle. Health system is one of the areas that Cuba is especially assertive, but I am sure that in Cuba there are health centers where we can not endure to stay even a moment. For me this fact can not overshadow the success of Cuban health system. To examine the attention of authorities about preventive medicine, the variety of surgical operations that can be conducted in Cuba, the inventions in bio-technology would be sufficient to understand this. Cuba doesn’t have to be perfect because it is a socialist country.

[mastershake16]

Great post!
Why did your contact leave Cuba though?
Or is she from somewhere else and just traveled there?

[Kayser_Soso]

Great post!
Why did your contact leave Cuba though?
Or is she from somewhere else and just traveled there?

She's not Cuban, she just traveled there. But because of her politics she didn't go there as just a tourist.

[mastershake16]

Was Castro capitalist when he first took over Cuba?
I've been told he was for a very small time before going more socialist.

The overwhelming population in my school doesn't believe Communism can work.
Most think its too idealistic and could never actually happen. So to be honest, I'm pretty discouraged right now because I feel its lost its fire to me.It feels like I'm taking on the world trying to even explain it in a basic way to anyone. I am going to try to learn more about Socialism because it's probably more realistic. :(

[Drace]

It feels like I'm taking on the world trying to even explain it in a basic way to anyone. I am going to try to learn more about Socialism because it's probably more realistic.

"communism advocates the public ownership of property"
Response: "What! So I can just come in your house and live there?"

[Invincible Summer]

Was Castro capitalist when he first took over Cuba?
I've been told he was for a very small time before going more socialist.

The overwhelming population in my school doesn't believe Communism can work.
Most think its too idealistic and could never actually happen. So to be honest, I'm pretty discouraged right now because I feel its lost its fire to me.It feels like I'm taking on the world trying to even explain it in a basic way to anyone. I am going to try to learn more about Socialism because it's probably more realistic. :(

Don't become a social democrat on us!

And don't let these people discourage you - it's quite noble of you to go to school and try to convince everyone that communism is the future, but just because they're not accepting doesn't mean you too need to give up on your beliefs.

And at the risk of sounding a bit ageist, I'm not sure most high school students (I'm assuming you're in high school) really strive to understand politics at a deeper level, especially something like Communism, which is taught as being "just wrong." Elementary and High schools (at least from my experience) don't really teach critical thinking and are generally socialization tools for ruling class ideas and norms, so I'd be surprised if students became more and more critical about the capitalist system on their own... I don't even remember my history/social studies teachers mentioning "capitalism" as an ideology. I think they just said that communists were "against the Western style of life and freedoms" or some bullshit like that.

To be honest though, most of us spend lots of time trying to explain the very same principles of communism to all sorts of people, generally with little result. We have to be patient and press on, not give up and settle for less.

Also, I find it really ironic that capitalist apologizers will claim that communists just kill all their rivals/opponents as if they were barbarians, when the capitalists themselves back bloody coups and insurgencies all over the world.

[Kayser_Soso]

Was Castro capitalist when he first took over Cuba?
I've been told he was for a very small time before going more socialist.

The overwhelming population in my school doesn't believe Communism can work.
Most think its too idealistic and could never actually happen. So to be honest, I'm pretty discouraged right now because I feel its lost its fire to me.It feels like I'm taking on the world trying to even explain it in a basic way to anyone. I am going to try to learn more about Socialism because it's probably more realistic. :(

While Castro claims in his memoirs that he had always been a Marxist, the revolution in Cuba did not take on a very Marxist nature until it became apparent that the US was opposing it. There was a Communist party in Cuba before the revolution, and during the revolution they always aided the 26 July Movement.

[Drace]

There was a Communist party in Cuba before the revolution, and during the revolution they always aided the 26 July Movement.

Though the communist party supported the dictator Batista.


Communists attacked the anti-Batista opposition, saying Grau and others were "fascists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)", "reactionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary)" and "Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism)".

:thumbup1:

[Kayser_Soso]

Though the communist party supported the dictator Batista.


:thumbup1:

At what time though? During the revolution they supported the 26 July Movement as I said. Prior to his seizure of power in the early 50s, Batista had played a progressive role against the previous dictator.

[mastershake16]

Hey thanks for the encouraging comments Rise.

I went into school today and continued a conversation with a kid who hates communism
And after about an hour I started breaking him down and I feel like he's soooo close to
Atleast accepting communism, which would be an achievement for me. I pretty much explained
Egverything and there's only one thing that stops him from accepting it.

Communism will always be corrupted. Everyone says this and its the only thing I. Can't explain
Well enough to prove it will. I really need help on this.

Also if someone will accept the use of money and some form of leader or council is that
Democratic socialism?

Thank you

[Chambered Word]

Hey thanks for the encouraging comments Rise.

I went into school today and continued a conversation with a kid who hates communism
And after about an hour I started breaking him down and I feel like he's soooo close to
Atleast accepting communism, which would be an achievement for me. I pretty much explained
Egverything and there's only one thing that stops him from accepting it.

Communism will always be corrupted. Everyone says this and its the only thing I. Can't explain
Well enough to prove it will. I really need help on this.

Also if someone will accept the use of money and some form of leader or council is that
Democratic socialism?

Thank you

Well, you could ask them to prove it for a start. Or you could tell them that capitalism will always be corrupted. :lol:

I'm not sure about the use of money but under socialism we will probably have leaders and councils, depends what kind of leader/council you mean. But once we have sorted out the former capitalists, reactionaries and fascists we will make the transition to communism, where there will be no state.

[Drace]

Communism will always be corrupted. Everyone says this and its the only thing I. Can't explain
Well enough to prove it will. I really need help on this.

Well, ask them why they think that.



Also if someone will accept the use of money and some form of leader or council is that
Democratic socialism?

The use of money would most probably be attributed with Market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism).

[mastershake16]

I have asked them that!
And EVERYTIME they say, " Oh well when Russia tried Communism, Stalin took power, so why wouldn't that happen again? Someone like that would rise up again"

[Drace]

And EVERYTIME they say, " Oh well when Russia tried Communism, Stalin took power, so why wouldn't that happen again? Someone like that would rise up again"

Republics failed many times too. France had a series of revolutions which were very bloody but monarchy was restored each time.

You cant simplify history like that.

[Chambered Word]

I have asked them that!
And EVERYTIME they say, " Oh well when Russia tried Communism, Stalin took power, so why wouldn't that happen again? Someone like that would rise up again"

Russia didn't 'try communism'. The Bolshevik Party (later the Communist Party under Stalin) already had power, so the country was not actually socialist to begin with. There was no socialism or communism to corrupt.

[Kayser_Soso]

Russia didn't 'try communism'. The Bolshevik Party (later the Communist Party under Stalin) already had power, so the country was not actually socialist to begin with. There was no socialism or communism to corrupt.

This is a dangerous gambit that the clever anti-Communist can easily exploit. First off, it assumes that socialism must be someone's ideal society otherwise it isn't socialism at all. The inevitable result of this is that people start to shy away from the brutal realities of revolution and class struggle. It also assumes that the actions of the Bolsheviks or Stalin were A: intentional, as though they were just plain evil, B: made with the benefit of the hindsight we have now or made in a vacuum without being influenced by the situation on the ground at the time, and C: that other ideas would have worked or would have been better(which is usually speculation, and in a lot of cases far worse results could have happened).

First of all, the astute anti-Communist need only repeat the response that Mastershake is talking about: Oh SURE!! You say YOUR interpretation of socialism is better! But in a chaotic revolutionary scenario, what's to stop another Bolshevik clique of monsters from taking power?! Or worse?!

There is also the appeal of a movement that causes dozens of revolutions in the name of socialism, yet according to certain folks(not going to name names) actually had nothing to do with socialism. This basically is telling the worker, who has enough problems already, that socialism is like this ultra-delicate butterfly, where a few deviations suddenly destroy it entirely until the results have nothing to do with socialism at all. The worker, who for all his problems with capitalism, is at least surviving(and often times somewhat comfortably) under the present system, might rightfully conclude that it is not worth risking his or her neck for something so fragile and elusive. Indeed, capitalism is not so fragile. Regulated or lassaiz-faire, it "works" in the sense that in endures and keeps rolling. Any theory so pure, so delicate, cannot hope to wrestle with capitalism. Idealistic notions of socialism based on idealistic concepts or ambiguous ideas tend to paint themselves into a corner.

[mastershake16]

So what exactly do I say?
and how did the Bolsheviks differ from Communists?

[Kayser_Soso]

I have asked them that!
And EVERYTIME they say, " Oh well when Russia tried Communism, Stalin took power, so why wouldn't that happen again? Someone like that would rise up again"

I wanted to write this last night but didn't have time...

First off, I know that via a forum, there is no way I can write this without sounding patronizing or perhaps discouraging, so I have to say straight away that this is not my attention. But from the sound of things, you seem to be doing a lot of proselytizing about Communism. Maybe this isn't true, since none of us knows how frequently you are discussing these issues with someone. I want to give some advice from my experience, because I tried to dive into Marxism way too early back when I was about 15-16, got totally confused, and basically was chasing rabbits down holes for about seven years until a cold shock finally caused me to rethink everything I thought I knew and reevaluate Marxism-Leninism which I had abandoned during that previous period. Of course that happened to me for various other reasons but the relevant point is that in my high school Commie days, I was zealous and passionate, but woefully ignorant.

It is good that you are on here asking all these questions. As far as I know this board didn't exist in 1998, among other resources that were a big help for me down the road. That being said, there is a lot to learn before "preaching the gospel" so to speak, and rushing into things means that you are going to have a lot of cappy apologists and anti-Communists tripping you up, especially in front of others. It takes time not only to learn the theory, but also to gain experience with the various propaganda ploys that will inevitably be used against you. It's best to learn those arguments from browsing forums, listening to the radio, reading publications, etc. rather than getting blindsided by them when speaking in a group of people, or worse, in some kind of informal or formal debate.

What you are doing here, asking all these questions, is definitely the right start and you should continue, but I am just urging caution before running back to the school with these fresh answers in hand, telling everyone who will listen and some that won't. This can also lead to burn-out syndrome. Lastly, remember the phrase "nobody speaks louder than the convert"- many people are put off by constant discussion of politics- I'm not saying you do this, I only know what can be read here. As a strategy, I recommend primarily striving to develop a charismatic and attractive personality- because it is a fact that people will listen more attentively to such a person, and consider their ideas more readily. And in this case, you need not even provide all the answers for them- instead encourage them to do their own research. Saves you the work.

[Chambered Word]

This is a dangerous gambit that the clever anti-Communist can easily exploit. First off, it assumes that socialism must be someone's ideal society otherwise it isn't socialism at all.

If the workers don't have control of the means of production and themselves, it's really not socialism...


First of all, the astute anti-Communist need only repeat the response that Mastershake is talking about: Oh SURE!! You say YOUR interpretation of socialism is better! But in a chaotic revolutionary scenario, what's to stop another Bolshevik clique of monsters from taking power?! Or worse?!

I would then say 'the workers, their guns and their knowledge of history and Marxism'.


There is also the appeal of a movement that causes dozens of revolutions in the name of socialism, yet according to certain folks(not going to name names) actually had nothing to do with socialism. This basically is telling the worker, who has enough problems already, that socialism is like this ultra-delicate butterfly, where a few deviations suddenly destroy it entirely until the results have nothing to do with socialism at all. The worker, who for all his problems with capitalism, is at least surviving(and often times somewhat comfortably) under the present system, might rightfully conclude that it is not worth risking his or her neck for something so fragile and elusive. Indeed, capitalism is not so fragile. Regulated or lassaiz-faire, it "works" in the sense that in endures and keeps rolling. Any theory so pure, so delicate, cannot hope to wrestle with capitalism. Idealistic notions of socialism based on idealistic concepts or ambiguous ideas tend to paint themselves into a corner.

There's nothing 'idealistic' about the workers seizing the means of production for themselves. The inevitability is that if a supposedly socialist regime is not democratic, it's not socialism.

[Kayser_Soso]

If the workers don't have control of the means of production and themselves, it's really not socialism...

Wrong.




I would then say 'the workers, their guns and their knowledge of history and Marxism'.

And they would say "how do you know?"




There's nothing 'idealistic' about the workers seizing the means of production for themselves. The inevitability is that if a supposedly socialist regime is not democratic, it's not socialism.

Again, this is idealism. You may work toward that goal but the rigors of revolution force you to accept measures that contradict those ideals, if only temporarily.

[Chambered Word]

Wrong.

Um...what?


And they would say "how do you know?"

Not a bad point actually, but I would expect the workers to be class conscious enough by the time we have a revolution.


Again, this is idealism. You may work toward that goal but the rigors of revolution force you to accept measures that contradict those ideals, if only temporarily.

There is a definition of what is and isn't socialism. We can accept that we tried and didn't complete the goal, but that's not to say we call undemocratic regimes 'socialist' and give up altogether.

[Kayser_Soso]

Not a bad point actually, but I would expect the workers to be class conscious enough by the time we have a revolution.

And they weren't class conscious in Russia and half-a-dozen other places? Do you think the average workers didn't play their own role in creating their own oppression in many ways?




There is a definition of what is and isn't socialism. We can accept that we tried and didn't complete the goal, but that's not to say we call undemocratic regimes 'socialist' and give up altogether.

If anything that violates some idealistic definition of socialism is cast away as something opposite of socialism, people would be justified in rejecting the idea in favor of something more reformist.

[Chambered Word]

And they weren't class conscious in Russia and half-a-dozen other places? Do you think the average workers didn't play their own role in creating their own oppression in many ways?

I really don't know. I think many of them were just following their leader, to be honest.


If anything that violates some idealistic definition of socialism is cast away as something opposite of socialism, people would be justified in rejecting the idea in favor of something more reformist.

I didn't say we should cast it away as 'opposite' of socialism. I said we should accept that it did not quite reach socialism and continue our struggle.

[Kayser_Soso]

I really don't know. I think many of them were just following their leader, to be honest.

Actually many of them were acting out of petty-self interest, which will inevitably. As for leadership however, one can make the argument that in many ways, Stalin's acquiescence to the cult of personality built up around him is summed up in his quote, "the people need a Tsar", a comment on Russia's historic culture in which a central leader played a major role. Stalin himself loathed this cult of personality, as is evidenced by many quotes, but not only did he lack the power to do anything about it(and made numerous quotes against it, one of them turning out to be prophetically true), but he felt that he had no choice and this was an act of submitting to what he believed the masses were looking for. Incidentally in the short term this worked, but I am more in favor of the approach of a figure like Mustafa Kemal, who challenged the traditions of his people far more radically, deliberately trying to uproot backward beliefs and tendencies(ironically Mustafa Kemal is subject of a cult of personality).



I
I didn't say we should cast it away as 'opposite' of socialism. I said we should accept that it did not quite reach socialism and continue our struggle.

I say socialism was reached, that it was not ideal, but in most cases it was far better for the people in whose countries it existed, both before their revolutions and in many cases, after. Socialism is a process.

[mastershake16]

Soso I completely understand where you are coming from and after reading my posts it certainly does appear to be that way.

This is what happens.

I don't go around screaming "Go Communism!" nor do I personally bring it up.
The only time I say ANYTHING is when Mr.Capitalism says something politically that is directed at me.
The reason he knows that I try to research Communism is because whenever he says something I play Devil's advocate pretty much, and that day I tried to defend Communism.

So
No, I don't go around handing out flyers about something I know nothing about.
No, I don't bring up politics every second I can, because that annoys the hell out of me when kids do that.
No, I do not claim to even know ANYTHING about Communism
YES, I do know that trying to convert everyone I see is stupid and I haven't tried converting ANYONE. Just inform them to the best of my ability if they ask. All I try to do is get them thinking on their own and question things.

The reason I ask these questions from a "What do I say" perspective is because
a friend wanted to know more and he has a bunch of questions and I try to answer them. I told him to come here and ask but he doesn't own a computer and he wouldn't go THIS far I don't think. So, when he has questions I ask them on here or if says something that I can't explain I ask it here as well. We are both trying to learn, but I'm the one on this forum asking questions for BOTH of us.

Also, I think on one of my first posts I said I am trying to learn about Communism, and that I am currently not a Communist. I have told Mr.Capitalism that I don't have a specific "party" or anything at the moment, because I'm just searching around and trying to decide on my own instead of just going with what my parents believe.

I hope this clears some things up, but thank you for being honest!


EDIT: Oh and "As a strategy, I recommend primarily striving to develop a charismatic and attractive personality- because it is a fact that people will listen more attentively to such a person, and consider their ideas more readily. And in this case, you need not even provide all the answers for them- instead encourage them to do their own research. Saves you the work."

This is going to come off really bad but

I would say I'm pretty "popular" I guess and I am very charismatic. We discuss religion a lot (private Catholic school) and people listen and I don't have to
tell them to do their own research. Public speaking is definitely a strong point of mine, and to be completely honest I rather speak to 100 than to 1 because I love the pressure and I love getting a reaction.

[Kayser_Soso]

That's good to know. Like I said, it's hard to really understand what someone does in real life from forum posts, and sadly there was no way to frame my post in this medium of the internet so that it doesn't come off as at least slightly patronizing. Good luck with your quest for knowledge. Actually your questions prompted answers from that comrade which have been very useful to me as well.

[Chambered Word]

So what exactly do I say?
and how did the Bolsheviks differ from Communists?

The Bolshevik Party were a group of revolutionaries led by Vladimir Lenin who seized power around 1917-18 in Russia and created the Soviet union. A 'communist' is simply somebody an advocate of communism. If you mean the Communist Party, the Party in the Soviet Union was the Bolshevik Party after Stalin renamed it (and had a lot of the original Bolsheviks killed).

[Kayser_Soso]

The Bolshevik Party were a group of revolutionaries led by Vladimir Lenin who seized power around 1917-18 in Russia and created the Soviet union. A 'communist' is simply somebody an advocate of communism. If you mean the Communist Party, the Party in the Soviet Union was the Bolshevik Party after Stalin renamed it (and had a lot of the original Bolsheviks killed).


Obviously if you are in the original party, you should be exempt for the rest of your life from any accountability. Let's not forget that Stalin was himself an "old Bolshevik" as well.

[mastershake16]

Is that sarcasm? haha

And you said the country was never socialist, but if the Bolsheviks were in power....
How does that make sense? I thought they were communist.

[Chambered Word]

Is that sarcasm? haha

And you said the country was never socialist, but if the Bolsheviks were in power....
How does that make sense? I thought they were communist.

Well, they called themselves communists at least. There's alot of debate about whether the USSR was really communist or not. I'm not sure to be honest, but I certainly don't admire it.

[#FF0000]

Well, they called themselves communists at least. There's alot of debate about whether the USSR was really communist or not. I'm not sure to be honest, but I certainly don't admire it.

The history of the USSR is a pretty complicated thing but no matter what one thinks of it, I think it's intellectually lazy to just say "LOL IT'S NOT SOCIALISM".

[mastershake16]

Care to explain your view on it please?

[Tyrlop]

this is how we will archive communism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqslefrOQtQ

[Kaze no Kae]

What the fuck?

Surely thats wrong, surely each should get a wage in proportion to the labour they put in, and the value of their work.

The doctors work is clearly more valuable, therefore should receive a higher wage.
I agree that wages should be in proportion to the labour put in (out of what's left after all absolute needs have been met regardless, of course - the necessities of life are an absolute right and should not be contingent on anything), but a doctor doesn't necessarily work harder than a janitor, and certainly not to an extent which would justify the actual difference in pay.

And payment according to the value of a task (which roughly equates to the demand for it, so you're basically advocating a market wage system) is not the same as payment according to the work needed to complete it, so you're contradicting yourself.


If...someone exerts more labor than average and is commensurately rewarded, no one was exploited in the process. If someone's job is extremely dangerous or stressful, maybe they should be paid higher wages. It would have to be decided democratically though.
Well said, but not the same as differences in pay deriving from differences in the percieved value of the job done - the same pay scales (based, as said, on the amount of exertion, stress, danger, etc etc involved) should apply to anything which has been democratically decided is useful to the community, regardless of how useful it happens to be.


But they (the capitalists) are, in a twisted way, creating wealth when they invest their money.
Hmm... no. What's actually happening when capitalists 'create' wealth by investing money, is the materials aquired through that investment are turned by the labour of the workers into something more useful (or something for which there is more 'demand'), and then the capitalists expropriate the wealth created by that process.

[Shinigami]

I need a little help arguing with this guy:

(I was claiming that there was more income equality in a co-op then in a normal capitalist business)


Most co-ops work in a manner that distributes decision-making power over an elected board and offer some type of compensation to members when profits are up or there is money left over. Income is still determined by the production ability of individual members. A farmer that has the capital and equipment to plant and harvest 1,000 acres of land makes considerably more money than a fellow co-op member with only 100 acres to plant.

Bill Gates did not sit on his rear, magically invent a product, and then hire legions of wage slaves to "churn out" his products.
His labor was the many years that it took to create the products that the people who work for him should be thankful for, as well as the hundreds of millions of people that use his products on a daily basis, yourself included. These people would not have the jobs and products that they do if it were not for Bill Gates.
Gates worked for decades to create, refine, and market the products that are the result of his own labor.

The people that work for Microsoft corporation are not bound by the company- they are free to find other jobs if they wish. They are also free to invent a product and form a corporation of the type of their choosing. The fact of the matter is that not many people are capable or interested in doing this, and they lie in a bed of their own making by your argument.

The workers do reap the fruits of their labor. It's called a paycheck.

[Kayser_Soso]

Most co-ops work in a manner that distributes decision-making power over an elected board and offer some type of compensation to members when profits are up or there is money left over. Income is still determined by the production ability of individual members. A farmer that has the capital and equipment to plant and harvest 1,000 acres of land makes considerably more money than a fellow co-op member with only 100 acres to plant.

This depends mainly on what the board decides, but I think its safe to assume that people wouldn't want to enter into cooperatives with such inequality unless absolutely necessary.



Bill Gates did not sit on his rear, magically invent a product, and then hire legions of wage slaves to "churn out" his products.

Yes, he kinda did.



His labor was the many years that it took to create the products that the people who work for him should be thankful for, as well as the hundreds of millions of people that use his products on a daily basis, yourself included. These people would not have the jobs and products that they do if it were not for Bill Gates.

If he is American, inform him that he might not be living there today were it not for the Mongol invasions, which opened up trade between China and Europe again, thus creating a demand for Eastern products which in turn spurred the need to find another route to the East once the Ottomans closed off the main land route. So he better not talk shit about Ghengis Khan, who did FAR more labor than Bill Gates ever did.

The point is, that had Gates not invented Microsoft, someone else would have. Remember that Steve Jobs had already began the path along the development of the PC.



Gates worked for decades to create, refine, and market the products that are the result of his own labor.

His labor was small compared to those who did the actual work.



The people that work for Microsoft corporation are not bound by the company- they are free to find other jobs if they wish.

And they had better, since Microsoft uses many temp workers to save on benefits. But finding another job assumes there are other jobs to find.



They are also free to invent a product and form a corporation of the type of their choosing. The fact of the matter is that not many people are capable or interested in doing this, and they lie in a bed of their own making by your argument.

Right, not many people are interested in becoming rich in a capitalist society.



The workers do reap the fruits of their labor. It's called a paycheck.

The paycheck is decidedly far lower than the value they actually create, either the value of the goods or services.

[mastershake16]

I've read Wage Labour and Capital and the Communist Manifesto...

Any other suggestions?

[Shinigami]

His labor was small compared to those who did the actual work.


Is there a way that this can be measured, or just explained more in-depth? What would I say if he were to disagree?



The paycheck is decidedly far lower than the value they actually create, either the value of the goods or services.

How is "value" measured? I don't know anything about the labour theory of value.

[Kayser_Soso]

Is there a way that this can be measured, or just explained more in-depth? What would I say if he were to disagree?

Well the easiest way is pointing out that Microsoft sells commodities, and Bill Gates does not personally manufacture them in anyway. You can have great ideas all day, but until someone actually turns it into a product you have nothing.




How is "value" measured? I don't know anything about the labour theory of value.

There are a number of resources that explain this to varying degrees of complexity. Here is a good one:

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

[syndicat]

Bill Gates did not sit on his rear, magically invent a product, and then hire legions of wage slaves to "churn out" his products.
His labor was the many years that it took to create the products that the people who work for him should be thankful for, as well as the hundreds of millions of people that use his products on a daily basis, yourself included. These people would not have the jobs and products that they do if it were not for Bill Gates.
Gates worked for decades to create, refine, and market the products that are the result of his own labor.

Bill Gates's company got its start by buying up an operating system, DOS, that other programmers had devised, and then marketing it to IBM and other companies. Gates became CEO of a company. CEOs do not do the design and coding work, cut CDs, manage the download websites etc. Workers do that. When Bill Gates retired from active management, he no longer did work there at Microsoft but still was entitled to suck down a large "return" on his stock ownership and other investments.

Most of the people on the Fortune 400 were people who inherited a fortune to start out with.

And whether Gates would do so well depended to a large extent on being at the right place at the right time with his particular products. In other words, luck. But luck doesn't merit any reward. Capitalism is like a big casino. If you're lucky you win big, the others are losers. Why should we organize social life that way?



The people that work for Microsoft corporation are not bound by the company- they are free to find other jobs if they wish.

Legally, yes. But the capitalists have a relative monopoly of ownership of means of production needed to make a living. Most people are forced to rent their time to their companies. They are forced to do so because if they don't seek a job, the consquences will be dire...you lose your apartment because you can't pay the rent, you have no way to get food, etc. If the consequences of not doing something are dire, then you're forced to do that. So workers are forced to seek jobs with capitalist firms. And being forced to put yourself under a boss regime that imposes decisions on you is hardly "freedom."



They are also free to invent a product and form a corporation of the type of their choosing.

Most working class people live paycheck to paycheck. how can they set up their own business? It would take years of scrimping to get a stake together, and not everyone has the skills to do it because they aren't taught the skills. Moreover, the markets in the fields where small businesses can be formed can only support so many small businesses. A neighborhood can only support so many nails parlors or coffee houses or bars.

And even when people can start up their own business, this only means that now they become bosses and can exploit others. It doesn't end the regime of subordination of workers to bosses.



The workers do reap the fruits of their labor. It's called a paycheck.

But a large part of the value they create is scarfed up by owners of the company, simply for the "act" of owning.

[mastershake16]

Hello
I have another question, sorry :(
I know someone who was born into poverty and worked extremely hard in school and
Then went to medical school and got a scholarship to go because she couldn't afford it.
She's now a dental hygienist with a nice salary.

Doesn't this prove that hard work can get you a good job and be able to support a family?
Those who work hard but can't afford college can get scholarships and financial aid.

[syndicat]

okay, so this person has worked her way up from the lower to the upper part of the working class. This does not eliminate the fact that workers are subordinate to bosses and exploited by owners of businesses, including medical and dental practices. We do not say that the class system is some rigid cast sructure. People move around. But for the most part people born in the working class die in the working class. And even if they can become capitalists, that doesn't show we're free. That would be like arguing that slavery could be abolished if some of the slaves got to be freed and own other slaves. In that case the institution of slavery continues. (In fact in the early days of slavery in Virginia there were free blacks who owned slaves, and even in some cases owned white slaves, i.e. indentured servants.) But there was still slavery.

[mastershake16]

Let me play devils advocate please...

We need bosses to run our companies, and I don't have a problem with my boss!

I believe if you work hard, like I did, you can rise up and become your OWN boss and make your OWN business. If you don't work hard, you don't deserve what I have and you should work harder. I'm fine with my boss, because I get paid a fine salary and if you don't work hard why should I pay for you to do nothing?

Again, not my views!!! Please don't ban me!
I just want to see answers to these questions/statements from a Communist perspective.

[Kayser_Soso]

Let me play devils advocate please...

We need bosses to run our companies, and I don't have a problem with my boss!

I believe if you work hard, like I did, you can rise up and become your OWN boss and make your OWN business. If you don't work hard, you don't deserve what I have and you should work harder. I'm fine with my boss, because I get paid a fine salary and if you don't work hard why should I pay for you to do nothing?

Again, not my views!!! Please don't ban me!
I just want to see answers to these questions/statements from a Communist perspective.


First of all, you can go out and do extra work, save money, or do something like that in order scrounge together some investment capital or at the very least achieve some higher standard of living. The thing is though, that you are also limited to various opportunities and obstacles- for example, to save your money you need a job of course, and it doesn't help if you are laid off. The thing is these opportunities and obstacles are subject to the system, and those who have power in that system are the big capitalists. That's the short answer basically.

As for bosses- we really don't need them. In fact there are entire industries of executives who are basically useless, and only necessary in a capitalist system. For example, many consultants would become redundant because when you aren't screwing the workers over left and right, there is no need for some guy to tell the boss how to keep the employees happy with nonsense like employee of the month or casual days.

[mastershake16]

Again, not my views:

Who will lead the workers then? We need someone to organize our efforts.

Well, I made my own opportunity. I created it with my hard work and determination.
Those who have crappy jobs I feel bad for but we need them for our society.

I give a lot of money to charity, so why can't we just give more to charity?

[Chambered Word]

Again, not my views:

Who will lead the workers then? We need someone to organize our efforts.

Depends on what strand of revolutionary leftism you adopt. Left communists tend to focus on building worker's councils to organize the proletariat. Marxist-Leninists like the idea of a 'vanguard party' that will lead the revolution. I'm sure someone else could elaborate more on this and tell us about the different ideas across the board.


Well, I made my own opportunity. I created it with my hard work and determination.
Those who have crappy jobs I feel bad for but we need them for our society.

And this is precisely why they deserve the same opportunity and rights as everyone else. We need people to work in traditionally low-paying jobs. If a working job is there, it's probably for a reason. Society requires workers in all different fields and of all different skill levels for it to function properly.


I give a lot of money to charity, so why can't we just give more to charity?

We could solve more problems practically and on a much larger scale if we dismantle the capitalist system altogether instead of attempting to reform it (through personal charity, for example). Charity will feed and clothe some people, but I seriously doubt it will ever be a strong enough force to give the majority of disadvantaged people the opportunity they need to become self-reliant.

[Kayser_Soso]

Again, not my views:

Who will lead the workers then? We need someone to organize our efforts.

Well, I made my own opportunity. I created it with my hard work and determination.
Those who have crappy jobs I feel bad for but we need them for our society.

I give a lot of money to charity, so why can't we just give more to charity?

1. You didn't make the opportunity. If you worked extra hard at some job, that job had to be there to begin with, and that is based on factors outside of your control.

2. Some jobs will always be less desirable than others, but we can compensate for that with benefits, free education, paying the full value of their work, and so on.

3. Plenty of money is given to charity every year. Notice how we still have problems- big problems? The thing is- capitalism NEEDS people to be impoverished. If everyone has a decent, stable lifestyle, then the system won't work.

[Stateless]

Who will lead the workers then? We need someone to organize our efforts.The workers.


Well, I made my own opportunity. I created it with my hard work and determination.
Yes people who own farms and control the agricultural business are so dam clever for thinking up the idea that people need food.
It is irrelevant how they came to be owners of their businesses.
It makes no less exploitative and harmful.

Would allowing a few peasants to become nobles make feudalism any better of a system?
Do you know how much effort it took Hitler to get into power?

People of course be awarded for harder work, but becoming a CEO's is useless and oppressive to society.


I give a lot of money to charity, so why can't we just give more to charity? Unless if the all the capitalists decided to donate most of their money, then no.

[cska]

btw, as far as the Bill Gates creating products that everyone enjoys argument goes, we would actually be better off without Microsoft. The only reason the crappy Windows OS is used so widely is that it has a monopoly on the market... Any other OS would be better if all the programs would run on it. Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, you name it, its better than Windows.

[Kayser_Soso]

btw, as far as the Bill Gates creating products that everyone enjoys argument goes, we would actually be better off without Microsoft. The only reason the crappy Windows OS is used so widely is that it has a monopoly on the market... Any other OS would be better if all the programs would run on it. Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, you name it, its better than Windows.

It seems to me that when it comes to software, free, general license programs always seem to be the better option.

[Uppercut]

I'm the only Marxist in my school as well. We have a ton of rich kids here and just the other day, while I was in the school guidance department, a mother walked in to withdraw her student.

"I sent my daughter to school to get an education, not so the rich kids can make fun of her."

I was glad to hear her take action. She pointed out she's just going to cyber school her. I think that's a good idea, IMO.

Anyway, back on topic: the other revolutionary leftists in my school are anarchists. They really don't like the fact that I defend Lenin and Mao and from right-wingers, I get the usual capitalist arguments (human nature, incentive, doesn't work, etc. etc.) Most people at my school know I'm a marxist and I get sanctioned for it from teachers, students, etc, etc. I'm currently running for school representative to see what they do. I do have some supporters but not many. In fact, I've lost a few friends close to me just because of my views on property/the state, human nature, etc. It really sucks, especially when I get accused of "dogmatism".

[Manifesto]

What do you reply to people that say Socialism takes care of people too much like for example when they say "Russia is in bad condition now because the people were so used to the government taking care of them they did not know what to do when it was gone" or something like that.

[Uppercut]

I tell them that makes no sense because the USSR put a strong emphasis on communal responsibility. Take collective farming, for example. One was required to produce as much food as possible in order to sell the produce at a cheap price, to feed the population, and to use it for export. For this to be successful, a conscious effort must be put forth to truly help your village/community, as well as take care of the individual.

Along with that, I state that individuals were strongly encouraged to join the party in socialist countries. That way, they can take part in local governance and actively debate policies and issues. And finally, the USSR had a ton of organizations that their citizens could join (trade unions, komsomol, young pioneers, sports clubs, literature circles, guilds, etc, etc.)

So I wouldn't blame socialism for Russia's current state. That really doesn't make any sense.

[syndicat]

It's necessary to distinguish real socialism from fake socialism. Statist socialism (as in old USSR) does generate dependency. But authentic socialism is run through democratic popular participation and organs of popular power...workplace assemblies & councils, neighborhood assemblies & councils, grassroots congresses, etc. So under an authentic, democratic socialism the people themselves run things, and this encourages a sense of personal and collective responsibility.

[Uppercut]

It's necessary to distinguish real socialism from fake socialism. Statist socialism (as in old USSR) does generate dependency. But authentic socialism is run through democratic popular participation and organs of popular power...workplace assemblies & councils, neighborhood assemblies & councils, grassroots congresses, etc. So under an authentic, democratic socialism the people themselves run things, and this encourages a sense of personal and collective responsibility.

Well I'm not saying the USSR was perfect but there was a lot of grassroots participation through the local soviets and comrade's courts. But at the same time, there were needless layers of bureaucracy in the upper levels.

Mao seemed to expand on the grassroots elements of the USSR and limit the powers of high-ranking bureaucrats. He still had his place secured, but the people as a whole had the majority of power in their hands. Just look at the Cultural Revolution. Students, workers, and cadres worked together to shake up the old structure and progress further towards communism. The power of the Red Guards surpassed that of the PLA, police, intellectual elitists, and in most cases, the party itself.

[Kayser_Soso]

It's necessary to distinguish real socialism from fake socialism. Statist socialism (as in old USSR) does generate dependency. But authentic socialism is run through democratic popular participation and organs of popular power...workplace assemblies & councils, neighborhood assemblies & councils, grassroots congresses, etc. So under an authentic, democratic socialism the people themselves run things, and this encourages a sense of personal and collective responsibility.

Could you cite a working example of this "real socialism"?

[ponyfang]

Could you cite a working example of this "real socialism"?
UK, They are socialist i suppose.

[Chambered Word]

UK, They are socialist i suppose.

The UK is capitalist.

[Vendetta]

UK, They are socialist i suppose.

Wait, what?

[RedAnarchist]

UK, They are socialist i suppose.

Maybe you're confused because Labour still seem to be considered socialist, but the UK is nowhere near socialist. In fact, the gap between the rich and poor is now larger than it was back in the 1970s - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8481534.stm. Not to mention the fact that the UK government willingly helps the US further their imperialistic goals in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Kuppo Shakur]

As a high school senior, I personally find that it is worthwhile to educate fellow students on such matters. Although, when it comes to firmly grounded, right-wing fox-watchers, waggling my eyebrows and giving them a hearty punch to the arm usually has the exact same (null) impact on their thoughts as these fine statements.

[Rousedruminations]

Capitalism murders millions every year through exploitation, starvation, pauperism, malnutrition in 3rd world countries, the apparent rift between the rich and the poor getting bigger all over the world, the legalization of greed,the homelessness internationally, the utter recklessness when it comes to our natural resources (big monopolies and corporations reluctant to use renewable energy to protect and preserve the environment because it would be thus more EXPENSIVE for them) and the imperialistic wars that it initiates overseas for the greater wealth of affluent CEO's who are already WEALTHY. If a very rich capitalist (CEO) has 52 rooms in a house, and he only has two kids, why THE HELL WOULD HE NEED 52 ROOMS WHEN HE ONLY NEEDS 4 or a maximum of 5 ? yet most people put this under the carpet, and tolerate it .. its ludicrous and preposterous.. (that clearly doesn't make sense to me)...The only reason why people are oblivious to the effects of capitalism is because it happens progressively and gradually (if not slowly) and some of it is unreported by the bourgeoisie media and the Capitalists who control it (Rupert Murdoch). To combat it most capitalist donate their philanthropy by giving 20 % of their income to charity. Bravo i say ! yet not everyone would make such an altruistic or selfless move. Hence the reason why a safety net is needed !, Thus it becomes quiet absurd when you can see that we still tolerate people's greediness' yet we find murder/rape fiercely intolerable. Both go under the same umbrella of a ' sin ' an act that shouldn't be committed as portrayed by many of the different religions around the world ? but i guess not all of us wants to save people who are less well off than us .... why we act like this is beyond the moral humane grasp of human beings in general ?... instead selfishness and greediness is tolerable (legalized) in many conservative, republican, evangelical and capitalist circles :confused::cursing::mad:.... surely an alternative is needed !

[bailey_187]

UK, They are socialist i suppose.

No, we are not

[mastershake16]

alright, another question.

What is going on in Venezuela right now?
Explain to me about what reforms are going on...

Is it good/bad?

[Uppercut]

As a high school senior, I personally find that it is worthwhile to educate fellow students on such matters. Although, when it comes to firmly grounded, right-wing fox-watchers, waggling my eyebrows and giving them a hearty punch to the arm usually has the exact same (null) impact on their thoughts as these fine statements.

omg I know this guy! He's one of my closest comrades (despite being an anarchist)

[Belisarius]

i got into an argument today with a flemish nationalist who is quite good at rhetoric, so he's quite difficult to argue against (luckily he always says that he knows more than he actually knows, i can win then by using knowledge he doesn't understand, but doesn't confess to misunderstand :D ). here are his arguments:
1) communism is dead, since nobody votes for communist parties anymore.
2) communism will always be totalitarian and dictatorial
3) why don't you then donate your own money to the poor?
4) then why are you (by which he actually means my parents) rich?
5) you would just give all money to some Moroccans who refuse to work and keep the real workers poor
6) communism in one state is just impossible, so your actions are futile (i actually agree with the first part of this sentence)
7) then why did you stop lending me your textbook for latin after i (purposely) forgot it for two weeks?

the arguments aren't in themselves so difficult to refute, but the point is that i want to argue against him while everyone keeps understanding what i'm saying (i tend to use difficult jargon and long speeches to which he then stops to listen) and he is then backed up by everyone at the table (we eat at noon with approximately 7 or 8, so it's quite difficult to answer them all at the same time). so any help with answering to these arguments shortly without using jargon(, since then i've won without him knowing, what's actually quite dull)?

[Chambered Word]

1) communism is dead, since nobody votes for communist parties anymore.

Not everyone bothers to vote for a party. We want to overthrow parliamentary democracy, not work within it.


2) communism will always be totalitarian and dictatorial

Silly assertion with no evidence at all.


3) why don't you then donate your own money to the poor?

Alot of us donate money to charity. We also fight for people's rights. And obviously charity alone will not end exploitation.


4) then why are you (by which he actually means my parents) rich?

Self explanatory.


5) you would just give all money to some Moroccans who refuse to work and keep the real workers poor

Who are these 'Moroccans who refuse to work'? Sounds like a myth. And no, we won't give money to people who are simply lazy. If you are able to and don't work, you don't receive a share in the fruits of labour.


6) communism in one state is just impossible, so your actions are futile (i actually agree with the first part of this sentence)

I agree with the former statement, but this doesn't mean it's futile.


7) then why did you stop lending me your textbook for latin after i (purposely) forgot it for two weeks?

wat


the arguments aren't in themselves so difficult to refute, but the point is that i want to argue against him while everyone keeps understanding what i'm saying (i tend to use difficult jargon and long speeches to which he then stops to listen) and he is then backed up by everyone at the table (we eat at noon with approximately 7 or 8, so it's quite difficult to answer them all at the same time). so any help with answering to these arguments shortly without using jargon(, since then i've won without him knowing, what's actually quite dull)?

Sounds like he's just trying to inflate his own ego.

[Belisarius]

"7)" is kind of an insider: i study latin with this guy and last year he "forgot" his book for two entire weeks. of course i told him after a while to piss off and use his own book. when he posed that question i answered that being a commie doens't mean being a naive idiot to which he answers:" yes, but communism can't possibly work", to which i answer:" Why not?" and then we just get a yes-no-argument without an outcome. so i try to avoid getting to this and to prove him wrong on the spot, which i fail to do without not being understood anymore.

indeed he tries to inflate his ego :D, but just taking him on that is a bit too easy i think.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

1) communism is dead, since nobody votes for communist parties anymore.

Movements throughout history be they nationalist, liberal Communist or even fascists both had there high points and low points some of the most widely accepted ideologies today were at times reduced to nothing more then debating clubs only to rise to power forty years later.



2) communism will always be totalitarian and dictatorial

Only if the working class fails to depart from the traditional way of organizing society with power in the hands of a few with any democratic aspects implemented to facilitate the rule of the powerful rather then be the base of society's running.



3) why don't you then donate your own money to the poor?

Because Communism is not about having the same amount of X as the guy next door its about power relations basically.



4) then why are you (by which he actually means my parents) rich?

Because I can.



5) you would just give all money to some Moroccans who refuse to work and keep the real workers poor

Well no , since Communism is about mutual aid those who refused to help would probably find themselves on the arse end of economic benefits.


6) communism in one state is just impossible, so your actions are futile (i actually agree with the first part of this sentence)

Surely Communism merely needs an area large enough for it to be self sufficient , and don't forgot that successful revolutions spread ridiculously quickly.



7) then why did you stop lending me your textbook for latin after i (purposely) forgot it for two weeks?




Because I am not a political system and you are an arse.

[HEAD ICE]

I just had this told to me on Facebook. First I really don't understand what his point is, maybe I'm misreading or reading to much into it. Anyways, anyone have a response?

This is him responding to me saying "Those who use, own":

"Then there's no fucking point in anyone investing, which means there's no fucking capital to begin with. All Marxists are just as blind and stupid as you are when it comes to this one obvious point."

[Kayser_Soso]

I just had this told to me on Facebook. First I really don't understand what his point is, maybe I'm misreading or reading to much into it. Anyways, anyone have a response?

This is him responding to me saying "Those who use, own":

"Then there's no fucking point in anyone investing, which means there's no fucking capital to begin with. All Marxists are just as blind and stupid as you are when it comes to this one obvious point."

Tell him to go to any school of business or bank and say there's "no point in investing capital."

Seriously though, you don't have to have an answer for every argument. When an argument is that stupid, there is little you can say to change the mind of the one who made it.

[Chambered Word]

I just had this told to me on Facebook. First I really don't understand what his point is, maybe I'm misreading or reading to much into it. Anyways, anyone have a response?

This is him responding to me saying "Those who use, own":

"Then there's no fucking point in anyone investing, which means there's no fucking capital to begin with. All Marxists are just as blind and stupid as you are when it comes to this one obvious point."

There is capital. It is produced by the workers so we can produce more goods and services which is, you know, a part of daily life and essential so we humans do not starve to death, die of disease and receive an education etc. Surpluses are reinvested by planners for the benefit of everybody.

But like Kayser said, you don't need to keep arguing with someone who's clearly nuts.

[AK]

Not everyone bothers to vote for a party. We want to overthrow parliamentary democracy, not work within it.
True, you can't overthrow the current system whilst working within the confines of the current system.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is capital. It is produced by the workers so we can produce more goods and services which is, you know, a part of daily life and essential so we humans do not starve to death, die of disease and receive an education etc.Um, no, there isn't capital in socialism, that's why it isn't called capitalism. As was more or less pointed out here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm).


However, capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social production relation, belonging to a definite historical formation of society, which is manifested in a thing and lends this thing a specific social character. Capital is not the sum of the material and produced means of production. Capital is rather the means of production transformed into capital, which in themselves are no more capital than gold or silver in itself is money. It is the means of production monopolised by a certain section of society, confronting living labour-power as products and working conditions rendered independent of this very labour-power, which are personified through this antithesis in capital. It is not merely the products of labourers turned into independent powers, products as rulers and buyers of their producers, but rather also the social forces and the future [? illegible] [A later collation with the manuscript showed that the text reads as follows: "die Gesellschaftlichen Kräfte und Zusammenhängende Form dieser Arbeit" (the social forces of their labour and socialised form of this labour). — Ed.] form of this labour, which confront the labourers as properties of their products.
Capital also is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois relation of production, a relation of production of bourgeois society. The means of subsistence, the instruments of labor, the raw materials, of which capital consists – have they not been produced and accumulated under given social conditions, within definite special relations? Are they not employed for new production, under given special conditions, within definite social relations? And does not just the definite social character stamp the products which serve for new production as capital?
How then does a sum of commodities, of exchange values, become capital?

Thereby, that as an independent social power – i.e., as the power of a part of society – it preserves itself and multiplies by exchange with direct, living labor-power.

The existence of a class which possess nothing but the ability to work is a necessary presupposition of capital.

It is only the dominion of past, accumulated, materialized labor over immediate living labor that stamps the accumulated labor with the character of capital.

Capital does not consist in the fact that accumulated labor serves living labor as a means for new production. It consists in the fact that living labor serves accumulated labor as the means of preserving and multiplying its exchange value.

[Chambered Word]

Um, no, there isn't capital in socialism, that's why it isn't called capitalism. As was more or less pointed out here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm).

My bad, I didn't mean it in that sense. I mean the equipment needed for production.


"Then there's no fucking point in anyone investing, which means there's no fucking capital to begin with. All Marxists are just as blind and stupid as you are when it comes to this one obvious point."

What this capitalist moron is trying to say is that because there's no point in anyone investing there will be no capital. My point is that we don't need investors because of how socialism works.

[alkateeb]

what about a pay grade, one thats based off of the difficulty, danger, and of course the amount of education to do your job?

[rosa_rot]

î think there are many different opinions about this question, it is a basic one. should a engineer earn the same wage as a farmer and so on...
my opinion is this: every being has certain needs that have to be met: food, shelter, work, education, the possibility to participate in social and cultural life, personal freedom and, yes, a certain amount of luxury (special and not allday things, NOT expensive, rare stuff). there might be individual differences concerning certain needs, but in general, everyone needs pretty similar things. so there is no sense in giving someone more goods than to his neighbour, isn't it. Envy is not a natural human instinct, as some claim, but a personality disorder created in and by the class society.
some say it's injust that a well-educated and an uneducated should have the same...but WHY? because the well-educated has richer parents, a bigger brain or better luck? isn't this the reason why the uneducated should have the same...nature might have given him worse conditions, so society has to compensate it a bit.
the only working society is the one without envy and hatred, and the only way to reach this is for everyone to live under similar and just conditions.

[CartCollector]

Envy is not a natural human instinct, as some claim, but a personality disorder created in and by the class society.

Do you have any sources to back this up? Like a sociological study of an envyless society?

[Ligeia]

A free market system creates freedom since everybody can make their own choices(voluntary exchanges) and competition rises quality standards.

How do you best refute this?

[Chambered Word]

How do you best refute this?

Ask them if it actually works in practice. If they say yes, laugh at them scornfully and walk away because someone so ignorant won't be swayed by mere words.

Ironically capitalists like to say that communism doesn't work in practise when it has never been tried and capitalism has produced so much more failure to provide for everyone when applied in real life.

[Ligeia]

Ask them if it actually works in practice. If they say yes, laugh at them scornfully and walk away because someone so ignorant won't be swayed by mere words.

Ironically capitalists like to say that communism doesn't work in practise when it has never been tried and capitalism has produced so much more failure to provide for everyone when applied in real life.
But what about those that think, that there's no real capitalism since there's no free market completely whithout government intervention? Hence no freedom (according to them)?

[CartCollector]

But what about those that think, that there's no real capitalism since there's no free market completely whithout government intervention? Hence no freedom (according to them)?

Ask them whether they really believe that a market without government intervention is worth it. Remind them that preventing property from being stolen, making sure that businesses don't commit fraud, and making sure food, water, and drugs are clean and what they are labeled as are all examples of government intervention, and all of these efforts have to be funded by taxes. Were there no government nor taxes but still capitalism (that is to say Anarcho-capitalism), you can bet that people would steal, commit fraud, and try to pass off sugar pills as real drugs. This would hurt the poorest people: sure, the super rich might be able to afford security systems to protect their property, and inspectors to make sure what they buy is legit, but what little the poor own is fair game for anyone who can take it, and they have no protection from frauds. Where is their wonderful free utopia in all of this? If they tell you the poor deserve their fate in this scenario, then you now know why they think the way they do: basically, they hate the poor.

Also ask them about how free Somalians are, because Somalia has had a market without government intervention for quite some time now. We all know how well Somalia's economy has been doing and how much people love living there.

[Chambered Word]

But what about those that think, that there's no real capitalism since there's no free market completely whithout government intervention? Hence no freedom (according to them)?

Ask them how laissez-faire capitalism worked in history. ;)

[RED DAVE]

But what about those that think, that there's no real capitalism since there's no free market completely whithout government intervention? Hence no freedom (according to them)?Tell them they are out and out wrong. There has always been government intervention in capitalism. The capitalist states have always been part and parcel of the capitalist system. That's why what we call "economics" was originally called, by Marx and others, "political economy."

From the Elizabethan time in England, when capitalism began, the state has always been an institution for the development and regulation of capitalists and by capitalists. Even the so-called welfare state was developed by capitalism to soften some of its worst aspects.

RED DAVE