High School Commie's Guide

[Orange Juche]

If communism and socialism are so great, then why are all socialist countries living in dire poverty?

They were even worse off before they had socialism. Places like Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing.

There's really only one semi-socialist country left -- Cuba -- and if you want to compare it with some place, compare it to Jamaica or the Dominican Republic or even Costa Rica...places where many (most?) people still live like it was 1850!

To play the devil's advocate - "they were even worse off" is a gigantic straw-man. Someone making the statement "why are they so poor" may very well not deny that things got better, but better doesn't always mean "good" or even "okay." They would want to know why the conditions were/are the way they were/are. I don't think this answer really helps, it's just a diversion tactic.

[Orange Juche]

True, you can't overthrow the current system whilst working within the confines of the current system.

I agree that we shouldn't rely on the ballot box as the method of abolishing capitalism, but that doesn't mean voting is entirely useless and can't bring at least some benefits to the workers.

Personally, I vote. Only for progressive candidates (almost always the Green Party). Third parties have influenced social policy in the United States in history, and though I don't see it changing the whole system over, if it means we get single payer universal health care or a living wage quicker, I can't see any good reason not to vote.

[Lenin77]

Grand contributions comrades! These have helped me bash the ignorant masses into mild revolutionaries. However, there are a few who keep bringing up the human nature arguement. I have tried several of the examples on this thread and they are not working. Some just firmly believe that humans are selfish from birth and that there is no way to fix this, it's just the way things are. I bring up the native americans and how they worked together and I know that that time period lasted for a long while, but they keep coming up with it. I pointed out that in evolution, beings are physically and mentally affected by their environment and that society is our environment, I told them that according to this basic Darwinism that Marxism could work. Then they said well we don't completely believe in Darwin's theories either. GRRRR! How is that even possible? To say that humans are selfish by nature and then deny how nature works? Please help me educate these unenlightened capitalists to get them on the side of our revolutionary cause.

They also don't see how it would be implemented in large cities and, in effect, the world. I told them that all of the communities would be interconnected by how they worked and trade would be set up, but they wouldn't digest this either.
Thank you comrades.

[CartCollector]

Then they said well we don't completely believe in Darwin's theories either. GRRRR! How is that even possible? To say that humans are selfish by nature and then deny how nature works?
You should ask them what they believe human nature comes from then. If they say "well God makes people" then you should ask them why God would make people that are naturally selfish when He hates selfishness. If they pin it on the Fall of Adam and Eve (a convenient scapegoat for a lot of theological problems Christian creationists have) then you have your work cut out for you in a religious debate. A good place to start is to point out that Adam and Eve had no idea what death was since it didn't exist, so how could they fully understand the consequences of their actions?

Also you can show them videos from these playlists. Even if you don't need to show them, I recommend you watch them, because they're informative and fun to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#grid/user/126AFB53A6F002CC
http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#g/c/AC3481305829426D

[Lenin77]

But suppose they take a more scientific approach to answering: Where does human nature come from? And they take examples from animals. Also, what about implementing communism worldwide and in larger settings in general?
Thank you comrade.

[Lenin77]

Well, i think I may have found my answer to the human nature question. I decided it would be wise to share it with my comrades. It's called behavioral genetics, the debate is which contributes to human behaviour/nature? Natural genetics and birth? Or social interactions and experiences? One psychologist was asked what contributes to human nature? natural birth or social interactions and experiences, (In other words Theoretical Genetics and Religion vs Marx and other philosophers)? To which he replied: "Which contributes to the area of a rectangle? the length or the width?" So both play an equal role in human nature(according to him anyway). So both parties in the arguement are correct. This does go against evolution somewhat, to say that genes are given and that's that. Since there is some evidence on genetic mutations and such. According to both evolution and Marx, humans can change from being greedy with time and education/experiences and adapt accordingly. People in capitalist systems have adapted to this greedy mentality. Thus, they can adapt without it, to survive and be happier, they must. Obviously both are correct t an extent. I hope this helps to win in your arguements comrades.

[Chambered Word]

If we couldn't learn and change, we'd all be complete fucking morons. It's kind of obvious, isn't it? :confused:


These have helped me bash the ignorant masses into mild revolutionaries.

Er, ok. Are you a Marxist-Leninist or a Leninist?

[Cpotts]

I agree that we shouldn't rely on the ballot box as the method of abolishing capitalism, but that doesn't mean voting is entirely useless and can't bring at least some benefits to the workers.

I understand your reason for saying that, but a revolution would cause much civil unrest for Capitalists who were overthrown. Would it not? If we did win through an election wouldn't that leave the public happier?


Cpotts :hammersickle:

[CartCollector]

I understand your reason for saying that, but a revolution would cause much civil unrest for Capitalists who were overthrown. Would it not? If we did win through an election wouldn't that leave the public happier?
The problem, at least for the US, is described here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MSchreader/11
Here's the most important part:


Elections can play a role in [the process of changing the law for the better], but that can't be the be-all-and-end-all of the work. The fact is that the American political system is set up to stop such a peaceful, Constitutional takeover from happening. You could have the strongest, most popular avowedly socialist political party mount the strongest challenge in a general election year (e.g., 2012), and the most you can accomplish is taking control of half of the federal government (the White House and House of Representatives; the Senate and Supreme Court would remain firmly in the hands of the capitalist parties and class), and from one-third to one-half of each of the state governments (the state legislatures and maybe a few governorships or elected state supreme courts; again, the rest would remain firmly in the hands of the capitalist class and its parties).

And then there's even the question of whether or not such candidates-elect would be allowed to take their seats, or would be denied their victory by the rump regime.

Most important for our purposes, though, is the fact that, in spite of such a sweeping gain, the polarized government, far from bringing the armed forces of the capitalist state -- the cops, courts, prisons and military -- such a division would free them to act in their own interests or, more likely, the interests of the newly (albeit partially) dispossessed capitalists. This is the Allende Scenario, and how Chile ended up with two decades of fascist rule under Augusto Pinochet.

At best, it would take two to four years (two to three election cycles) to oust enough of the old capitalist politicians from power to place an ostensible socialist party in control of the established political levers of society. And in that time, there is little doubt in my mind that the armed forces of the state -- the armed enforcers of "law and order" -- would stage a coup to restore the status quo. Unless you have something more than elections to rely on for achieving political power, unless elections are seen as a tactic and not a general strategy, there will be blood, unfortunately.

[Marxist Idealist]

I completely agree with that, the military would overwhelm the Revolutionaries. We have to sneak it past the general public and the government by a leader who will not back down to the Republicans like Obama is doing. Instead of the Tea Party people speaking louder than we are, we need to speak louder than them. We will be crushed if we don't get an "Evolutionary" into the White House and other branches of the government. Good luck Comrades.

I don't really know if that had anything you were talking about, but I just needed to get that out of me.

[ZombieGrits]

I think coming to power through elections is the only way that a socialist government in the uS would have a chance of not being crushed. If an insurrection was started, then the cappies could just say the same things about us that they do about rebels in other countries: that they're only in it for their own power, that they coerce the people into supporting them, that they're terrorists, etc. and just like that public support would go down the toilet

However I think the scenario in CartCollector's post is also very plausible. A balance would need to be struck between a revolutionary movement and a political party, to fight on all fronts if you get my drift

[Velkas]

I think coming to power through elections is the only way that a socialist government in the uS would have a chance of not being crushed. If an insurrection was started, then the cappies could just say the same things about us that they do about rebels in other countries: that they're only in it for their own power, that they coerce the people into supporting them, that they're terrorists, etc. and just like that public support would go down the toiletAgreed, but the problem with that is that the government of the United States has a structure intentionally devised to stop the masses from taking control and keeping the capitalists in power. And it has worked for over 200 years.
I don't know how the US could become socialist... Massive changes would need to occur before it could.

[CartCollector]

I don't know how the US could become socialist... Massive changes would need to occur before it could.
Massive changes? Like what? We have to start somewhere.

Anyways, on the subject of strategy, Daniel De Leon came up with a strategy that I like because it attacks many different fronts simultaneously and has potential to work in the US as well. That strategy is to vote socialist candidates into office while holding a general strike across the country. This weakens the two main sources of the capitalists' power (government and economy), making it difficult for them to reestablish their rule. The biggest problem with this strategy is that it's over 100 years old and it's never been attempted. From what I've heard it's because De Leon was very dogmatic and would reject people from his party because of trivial things, making it hard to build a large front. The other problem is that sometimes social democrats will try and stop revolts from happening, like Germany's SPD did in the 1910s, 20s, and 30s. And strikes on their own are hard enough to organize without being nationwide.

Another idea I had was to try at all times to turn the capitalist class against itself. The capitalists do this to us all the time through racial, sexual, national, and religious discrimination, not to mention through differences in pay and control over the workplace. Why not do it back to them? Divide and conquer. The only problem is, how?

[Velkas]

Massive changes? Like what? We have to start somewhere.We need more support, for a start. We need to teach people that a statist, capitalist society is not only unnecessary, but harmful. The idea that it is necessary is what sustains it. Without that, it is nothing.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I go to school with a LOT of rich kids, who naturally are always reading books on
business and how to get rich fast.

Problems, of course, come up all the time between myself (the only Marxist in school!) and the hordes of righties I confront sporadically in debates.

Well, there's your problem. What's the point of trying to convince someone he's going to be eaten alive someday by the insurgent proletariat, and that this will be a triumph for humanity and progress? "You're fucking doomed, Poindexter!"

Doesn't really matter what facts you marshall on your side. That's just not a message well-matched to the audience.

[Ztrain]

Truthfully most of my fellow students equate communism with authoritarianism,therefore making it impossible to argue with them.:( :3:hammersickle:

[Ztrain]

Truthfully,I have noticed that the greatest enemy of the poor is lack of education.I live in the ghetto and most of the people here know nothing of communism. smart poor people have less opportunities to speak,while smart rich people can get their point out easily:star::marx::che:

[CartCollector]

You could try bringing up Marxist ideas without mentioning that they're Marxist. For instance, you could try explaining primitive accumulation, which is basically how capital has a tendency to centralize in a few hands, and small businessmen get bought out and become salaried workers as this happens, making the economy dominated by a small elite. Later on, workers are forced to work more and more for less and less as capitalists compete to stay ahead. See if you can get them to agree to that. Then look for other Marxist ideas that you could try to get them to agree with without mentioning their source. Once you've done that, tell them the ideas that you think can solve these problems, again not mentioning the source or their name. If they agree with you on the solutions, then you can mention their source.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Socialism does not mean that everyone earns exactly the same wage.
There will still be a rather small difference between the wages of doctors and janitors.
But since education (including universitary) is free under Socialism, there will still be much students for becoming doctor.
Most doctors did NOT become doctor for the money, and those who did should be obliged to hang a board at their door notifying their patients, so they can go and seek a better one, who actually cares about his patients:p

[Uppercut]

Most doctors did NOT become doctor for the money

My thoughts exactly. My mother used to be an x-ray tech and most of the doctors I know personally don't really care much about sallary, so long as they still have enough to get by on and live a happy life.

Of course, I've tried explaining that to libertarians, and my argument just gets ignored, and they usually try to change the topic. Haha, sorry. I've been on a "libertarian rant" these past few days.

[silvermtn37]

i am still wondering about socialism and communism, just letting you know! But wouldn't a doctor in the USA live more comfortably and be richer than anyone under communism or socialism?

[TheJungle]

i am still wondering about socialism and communism, just letting you know! But wouldn't a doctor in the USA live more comfortably and be richer than anyone under communism or socialism?

That's what Marxism is about. We're not trying to be "richer than", we're trying to be equitable. For a while, under Socialism, a doctor's pay would be based on the people (emphasis on the people) democratically deciding the value of their work. This would last for a while until we hit Communism, where there is no money. People work as much as they can, and take what they want. This happens once we have enough of everything to go around.

[silvermtn37]

That's what Marxism is about. We're not trying to be "richer than", we're trying to be equitable. For a while, under Socialism, a doctor's pay would be based on the people (emphasis on the people) democratically deciding the value of their work. This would last for a while until we hit Communism, where there is no money. People work as much as they can, and take what they want. This happens once we have enough of everything to go around.
If people work as much as they WANT, what is limiting them from not working at all? If there is no money in communism, how will one nation trade with another? Just by the value of the item of trade? Who decides that? If no currency exists in this communist society, why would one work? And the obvious answer is because that person is working for the benefit of the society and working for the whole and not the individual, but honestly people don't buy that. There will be some people out there that don't care about anyone else except themselves; not just rich, white, bourgeois people, but workers too.

I'm just throwing ideas out here...

[CartCollector]

But wouldn't a doctor in the USA live more comfortably and be richer than anyone under communism or socialism?
That's why China, Cuba, and other Communist Party ruled states have restrictions preventing people from leaving without the Party's approval.

[Thirsty Crow]

If people work as much as they WANT, what is limiting them from not working at all? If there is no money in communism, how will one nation trade with another? Just by the value of the item of trade? Who decides that? If no currency exists in this communist society, why would one work? And the obvious answer is because that person is working for the benefit of the society and working for the whole and not the individual, but honestly people don't buy that. There will be some people out there that don't care about anyone else except themselves; not just rich, white, bourgeois people, but workers too.

I'm just throwing ideas out here...

1) First of all, you should realize that it is not a natural fact of life that human beings need an external motivational factor, that is, coercion, to work. That's what the idea of communism is about; if the division of labour is abolished (still, there would be jobs requiring high levels of professional skill; but that does not in any way amount to the division as we witness it in our time), and if the people as a community are granted ownership of the means of production and access to democratic institutions (such as worker councils, neighbourhood councils), we could expect an entirely different culture generating different outlooks. And that means that the pattern of personal motivation would change.

2) I expect that trade between two communist regions would be undertaken on the principle of "charity" - you need something, we can produce it in quantities beyond our ability to consume, here you go. Or there can be trade in which the second party donates something else that the first party lacks.

3) What does currency have to do with work? One would work because the essence of work would change. One would work because he/she could work, and because communism presupposes a high level of social awareness. So, granted that this level is fairly achieved during the transitory "socialism", people would realise the benefits of their own work for the community as a whole, but they would also face shorter working hours and significantly much more time for their personal pursuits and desires.

4) Yes, there will always the all sorts of people, but the crucial point is that the existing mode of production and the ideological superstructure that keeps it in constant reproduction is one very important source of encouraging extremely selfish behaviour, which in fact is a prerequisite sometimes for mere survival (and this in turn leads us back to the capitalist mode of production). Again, it is crucial to comprehend that individual patterns of behaviour are just as much socially as biologically determined, and during the course of history these patterns have been more or less intentionally produced and/or destroyed by those who wield economic, social, and political power. It is absolutely crucial to abolish this trend.

[Warboy99]

I have a question. If you're arguing with someone over Communism, then they realise they have no idea what they are talking about and they just keep saying "no,no,no,no,no". What are you suppose to do?

[Thirsty Crow]

Just walk away...?
Or fire away with as equally swift "why not why not why not" :)

No, really, in some cases arguing and convincing the other person is absolutely meaningless. I don't think that anyone should consider herself/himself the conversationalist saviour of mankind and keep debating with obviously irrational individuals.

[Warboy99]

You got it.:cool:

[Redswiss]

The problem, at least for the US, is described here:
Here's the most important part:

I wouldn't put that beyond the USA; However, how would they go about actually combatting the 'threat'? False-flag actions, planted evidence, I guess?

In this case - I am a nonviolent person - there must be blood, I see. There seems to be no other possibility.

[ZeroNowhere]

The biggest problem with this strategy is that it's over 100 years old and it's never been attempted. From what I've heard it's because De Leon was very dogmatic and would reject people from his party because of trivial things, making it hard to build a large front.
Technically, I don't think that this is particularly true. There was a split, but this was preceded by an attempt to take over the Party through force, and done voluntarily, rather than De Leon simply randomly getting pissed off and chucking people out. On the other hand, one major problem was DL getting thrown out of the IWW, and eventually the post-DL SLP becoming somewhat abstentionist, and allegedly authoritarian in around the 60s or so.

Nonetheless, I believe that the IWW and such have also suffered a fall in popularity, so it may not be directly related with the SLP's behaviour.

[Burn A Flag]

Too bad school is already out, I could have used these in my debates. I mean, I personally understand why socialism is a good thing, but sometimes I find it hard to respond to things like " I don't want my money to go to poor and lazy people." I mean, that just shows how avaricious, immoral, and stupid that person is, and it's hard to come up with a coherent response to an incoherent statement.

Thanks for this guide.

Some people actually seems to listen to my arguments, and then that can occasionally lead to me being unable to produce anything.

However, the most debating I do is with the hardcore capitalists, so it becomes more of a heated argument than me explaining my political views.

[Shinigami]

A work crew boss knowing which parts of the project were of the most critical importance as far as time dependence of resources, speed of ordering different materials from suppliers, and the interlocking requirements of different parts of the construction (sheetrock must be up after roof, electricity after plumbing, etc.). You could educate the workers on all these things, but it would take literally hours a day and dramatically slow down production. It's faster and more efficient to have one person know and dispense that knowledge to the rest of the crew, and then incentivize the crew to respect the leader and the leader to respect the crew.

It's the first example I could think of. Coaches on sports teams, coordinators between engineering and sales departments, and venue owners mediating between the tech department and visiting performers also come to mind under similar conditions.

Need some help arguing with this, I (think I) know the general gist of the way the reply should go, but I don't really know how to construct a convincing argument.

[Chambered Word]

Need some help arguing with this, I (think I) know the general gist of the way the reply should go, but I don't really know how to construct a convincing argument.

I would think that the 'work crew boss' who knows everything about the project is probably just a worker put in charge of a project. If not, then there is no reason why he/she can't be in a socialist society.

[IslamicMarxist]

Here is a good answer to all of that.

"Yes you are right. Capitalist nations are far more wealthy", than continue, "But here is where you are wrong, the only way, and I say ONLY WAY that a capitalist being or nation can be wealthy, is that the FREEDOMS are being SACRIFICED by another NATION or MASS.

[Shinigami]

This guy was using an analogy involving a guitar;



I own a guitar. I can play this guitar. I cannot exploit people using this guitar.
So, according to my understanding of what you're saying, I have a "right" to this guitar; that is, someone else can't just waltz in and take it from me. Good so far.
But what happens when I lose interest in this guitar (maybe I stop playing, maybe I want a better one)? Without a monetary system I can't sell it (for money). So do I just give it to someone? That would put me at a loss. Do I revert to a barter system? This would mean that I would only give the guitar to someone who could give me something that I wanted in return, and who also wanted it. What if such a person could not be found? Do I just put it in the attic to collect dust? That would be wasteful.
The only real and effective solution that I can see to this problem is for there to be a medium of exchange (money). I can trade my guitar for it, because I know that everyone else will be willing to trade their possessions for it.
What issue do you take with this simple and efficient system?

and then added this;


If we're going with the example that I still want to play guitar, but want to play a different (perhaps better) guitar, then the situation is more complicated. My current guitar is still a great source of wealth for me (that is, it is still very useful to me), however, I deem that a different guitar would be a greater source of wealth to me. So now I've given away the guitar, resulting in a great loss of wealth for me. I now set out to find someone who will give me the guitar I am searching for. But what if such a person is not to be found? No one else is handing out a free guitar (at least, not the one I want). So what now?

I'm having trouble explaining how exactly the guy would go about getting a particular type of guitar he wanted if it wasn't already being produced in his community.

He's also brought up "So you're saying that I should just walk into Gibson Guitar Co-op and demand a guitar? For what? No one has money anymore, so I can't give them that. Do you expect them to just give it to me? Free of charge? I am utterly and completely lost in this idealistic world you're constructing.

If someone has a good response for this, or an article explaining it, or something of the type, that'd be great.

[Chambered Word]

He's also brought up "So you're saying that I should just walk into Gibson Guitar Co-op and demand a guitar? For what? No one has money anymore, so I can't give them that. Do you expect them to just give it to me? Free of charge? I am utterly and completely lost in this idealistic world you're constructing.

Communities could democratically decide how much of what gets produced and you could just take your share from that accordingly.

If we had progressed to a point where we can produce enough, indeed one could just take a guitar.

If you wanted to give a guitar to someone else in exchange for something, I doubt there would be a problem with that. To make this easier community swap meets or something of the sort could be held.

You should explain that socialism is where the workers decide how to run society, so everyone will make these decisions together. It's not some utopian blueprint for a future society to be administered top-down by a party or committee. If he honestly thinks the free market is the only way that goods can be distributed then I'm afraid he is already deluded out of his mind.

[MarxSchmarx]

A work crew boss knowing which parts of the project were of the most critical importance as far as time dependence of resources, speed of ordering different materials from suppliers, and the interlocking requirements of different parts of the construction (sheetrock must be up after roof, electricity after plumbing, etc.). You could educate the workers on all these things, but it would take literally hours a day and dramatically slow down production. It's faster and more efficient to have one person know and dispense that knowledge to the rest of the crew, and then incentivize the crew to respect the leader and the leader to respect the crew.

It's the first example I could think of. Coaches on sports teams, coordinators between engineering and sales departments, and venue owners mediating between the tech department and visiting performers also come to mind under similar conditions.Need some help arguing with this, I (think I) know the general gist of the way the reply should go, but I don't really know how to construct a convincing argument.

So in other words, the proponent of this argument thinks dictators and dictatorships are a good thing.

[Aloysius]

This could prove useful, what with me being an incoming freshman this year.
Thanks for this.

[Kayser_Soso]

So in other words, the proponent of this argument thinks dictators and dictatorships are a good thing.

This isn't a good counter-argument, because often times dictators don't actually know more than the people they are ordering around. Witness many of Adolf Hitler's military decisions, or Mussolini's entire career(I want 1,000 Italian dead so I can sit at the negotiation table. Yeah buddy, you got WAY more than that).

A better argument is that while leaders may be people specialized or trained to do things, their authority should not be arbitrary. Their authority must be based on performance and subject to democratic control and criticism.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

This guy was using an analogy involving a guitar;



and then added this;



I'm having trouble explaining how exactly the guy would go about getting a particular type of guitar he wanted if it wasn't already being produced in his community.

He's also brought up "So you're saying that I should just walk into Gibson Guitar Co-op and demand a guitar? For what? No one has money anymore, so I can't give them that. Do you expect them to just give it to me? Free of charge? I am utterly and completely lost in this idealistic world you're constructing.

If someone has a good response for this, or an article explaining it, or something of the type, that'd be great.
The key flaw in his argument, I think, is the wealth argument. Why couldn't he give it away and get another one? In a post-scarcity society there would be no concept of 'loss' or 'gain' (or so I hope). Everything would be freely available - you would have what you need and could get your hands on what you want.

Newish here, so I could be completely off the mark.

[Kayser_Soso]

The key flaw in his argument, I think, is the wealth argument. Why couldn't he give it away and get another one? In a post-scarcity society there would be no concept of 'loss' or 'gain' (or so I hope). Everything would be freely available - you would have what you need and could get your hands on what you want.

Newish here, so I could be completely off the mark.

It's important to understand that most of us will not live long enough to see a post-scarcity society.

[ourhandsaretied]

Nice work Redstar, although most high school students I come across do not even know what Capitalism is, let alone Communism. There is no economics class and the History class deals mainly with irrelevent crap.

The most common arguments that i recieve are:



Well, Human nature is not something that you can define easily, it changes according to a society's material conditions.

Also "Human nature", which im sure you basically equate to Greed only exists as long as the insentive for it exists, if money does not exist, what is there to be greedy over?



There is no such thing as a "Communist state", it is a contradiction in terms.

Communism means a classless stateless society and as such the states which existed in the USSR and China were not communist, but rather a version of state capitalism not altogether different to the west.



Hopefully this thread will be able to help other socialist struggling through the High School "education" system.
Hmm, surely communism is only stateless once it has reached its internationalist conclusion, where people aren't split by the arbitrary barriers that are nation states. At the beginning, were a country to adopt socialist practises, it would surely be a state, would it not?

[Kayser_Soso]

Hmm, surely communism is only stateless once it has reached its internationalist conclusion, where people aren't split by the arbitrary barriers that are nation states. At the beginning, were a country to adopt socialist practises, it would surely be a state, would it not?


It would be a state, but a different kind of state. Instead of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, where the laws, statutes, rights, and so on favor the majority rather than the minority. For example, things like a right to shelter, food, and health care would be enshrined in law.

[Reznov]

Ah, but who decides those things?

Under capitalism, the market decides...with disastrous consequences for most people.

Presumably under a Leninist-Trotskyist version of "socialism", the party would decide...and, naturally, it would reward itself most generously.

As long as money exists at all after the revolution (hopefully a very brief period), it is prudent to pay everyone pretty close to the same amount; little harm would be done (people would still want to be doctors) and much evil averted (wage inequality generates a psychology of elitism...and, if continued long enough, will lead to a new ruling class).



Some questions I have encountered,

How do you know the "Party" wont rewad itself with more money? And how do you know it wont favor its own companies, organizations, leagues, unions etc... with stronger links to the party?

Why should a Doctor have to work as hard as 6 years and then have a Janitor who just decides to start working as one be earning the same wages?

- Words from a fellow classmate of mines

[Reznov]

It would be a state, but a different kind of state. Instead of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, where the laws, statutes, rights, and so on favor the majority rather than the minority. For example, things like a right to shelter, food, and health care would be enshrined in law.

Also, I have used this and the response was this, "How do you explain North Korea?"

[Kayser_Soso]

Also, I have used this and the response was this, "How do you explain North Korea?"

North Korea rejected Marxism officially, I believe in the early 21st century. In the 90s it re-branded its ideology as "Juche", and back-dated this ideology all the way to the beginning of their struggle for liberation. Juche is not Marxism, neither is Songun, their "army first" ideology. But for all its faults, remind them that North Korea wasn't born in a vacuum, and there are many external reasons why North Korea is what it is today. Do some deep research into the history of Korea and you will see that were it not for US intervention in Korea, there never would have been a division, and there would probably not be a "fortress state".

[Kayser_Soso]

Some questions I have encountered,

How do you know the "Party" wont rewad itself with more money? And how do you know it wont favor its own companies, organizations, leagues, unions etc... with stronger links to the party?

Obviously you are going to get many answers about this- as some insist that there should be no party whatsoever. I for one disagree, but I believe that the party should be forced to compete with civic organizations(essentially along the lines of Stalin's thought, which ultimately never materialized as he wished), and that its members need to embody the example of the most advanced worker- they should devote more time to the advancement of socialism despite normal working hours, and do this without expecting rewards. In other words, they should go above and beyond the call of duty.

The party needs to establish conditions conducive to socialist production and then continually back out of government and social life, being involved only in military matters, issues of foreign trade, education, and media.

Ok now the question of corruption, in general- this kind of corruption can and does happen in every state now. You might ask- why is the possibility of this kind of corruption suddenly more alarming than what already goes on daily in bourgeois politics? It doesn't totally answer that question- the real answer having to do with checks and balances and learning from past mistakes, but it is an important stepping stone. I often find that when faced with the prospect of Communism, people tend to get overly worried about things which exist under capitalism yet don't bring society to a collapse. For example, people suddenly get overly concerned with "lazy" people, as though we would pay them to be lazy, or as though there aren't external reasons for laziness, reasons which might be eliminated after the end of capitalism.

Also, keep in mind we want to move away from money and commodity production in general.



Why should a Doctor have to work as hard as 6 years and then have a Janitor who just decides to start working as one be earning the same wages?

- Words from a fellow classmate of mines

A doctor in the US will inevitably pay in some way for his education. Aside from those lucky enough to get a full-ride scholarship from mommy and daddy(who would find themselves expropriated in a revolution anyway), one way or another they will work to put themselves for school or for the sake of their social life. In a socialist economy, education is free, and a stipend can be provided to students. This education is an amalgamation of various products of labor- the dorms, the teaching, the library and other facilities. All of this provided to the student seemingly totally free. Thus he cannot say "I worked my ass off to get this diploma", other than what he achieves via study.

This also does not mean that the janitor would be making more money. Socialism means moving toward a system where people are paid the full value of their work, with deductions for the social welfare(which comes back to them anyway in the form of products and services). If the doctor's work produces more value than that of the janitor, he will get more "credit"(not money). Moreover, even if all labor is compensated the same based on time, it is inevitable that the doctor spends more time engaged in useful labor. He will inevitably get more credit based on that alone. Then again, maybe one day Mr. Janitor will decide to take advantage of the free education system.

[Ztrain]

Ive given up tryinng to explain marxism to the people in my school..I think we should take the rage to Israel and try to create and independent socialist Palestine

[Kayser_Soso]

Ive given up tryinng to explain marxism to the people in my school..I think we should take the rage to Israel and try to create and independent socialist Palestine


Why Israel in particular?

[HammerAlias]

I have intimidated my teacher into calling the Soviet's version of "communism", state capitalism. He aroused a debate and he lost. :cool:

[Apoi_Viitor]

I have intimidated my teacher into calling the Soviet's version of "communism", state capitalism. He aroused a debate and he lost. :cool:

When I was a sophomore, my US History teacher called the implementation of police state measures "communist". When I asked him what that had to do with communal ownership, he responded by saying communism is an ambiguous term, and it can mean anything totalitarian. Suffice to say, that was his first and last year teaching at our school.

[Garret]

Japan is always argued against me as a "Capitalist success" story. Any help?

[#FF0000]

Japan is always argued against me as a "Capitalist success" story. Any help?

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor.

The entire rest of the world is a dismal Capitalist tragedy.

[HippieCommie]

I get; "If i am unwilling to redistribute my wealth the government will lock me up. Thats Coercive totalitarianism!"
:confused:

[Kayser_Soso]

I get; "If i am unwilling to redistribute my wealth the government will lock me up. Thats Coercive totalitarianism!"
:confused:

If you take something and don't pay for it, you will be locked up. People who don't like paying taxes are basically trying to steal. They use roads, libraries, infrastructure, etc., they believe they are protected by cops, soldiers, firemen, etc. Those things cost money. That is what taxes are. Believe me, what you are facing here is a lead-up to a classic libertarian anti-tax argument.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor.

The entire rest of the world is a dismal Capitalist tragedy.

Also, Japan received massive financial/reconstruction assistance after WW2 from the U.S. government as part of the plan for capitalist encirclement of the USSR/China.

[Sixiang]

I'm sure this has already been asked many times, and I have read a little bit about it, but I want to get a little more clarification on it.

Today in my Government & Politics class, there was a debate going on. First, my teacher told us to write down what we thought the purpose and roles of governments are. Obviously, this is not very easily answered. So, she tried to help us by listing some things and asking how we feel about them. The first one that was listed, and thus the first we discussed, was "Poverty", which basically became a discussion about how much the government should get involved in helping those that are impoverished and how much they should leave to people themselves. My teacher is a pretty openly right-wing conservative, and she was being ironic by responding to other conservatives' remarks by saying common arguments of liberals (or at least, what conservatives think liberals believe) in a sarcastic tone. She said something like "Well, why don't we just help out everyone and let everyone have a fair share of everything." To which many people retorted that "Socialism can never work in America." That has it's own problems, but one thing that one person said was "In a socialist system, there is no incentive to move up. Everyone would just get lazy and no one would want to be doctors or anything." I've heard this argument a lot. Do you guys have anything to say in response to it?

I've heard people say similar things along those lines that basically socialism would make people not interested in pursuing jobs that require intense study and work, and that everyone would become lazy and just take the easy jobs because everyone would make the same amount of money. I usually am able to come up with a few little rebuttals about minor points that bring up, but I find a hard to responding to this overall idea. I guess my response is that people are already lazy under capitalism, anyway. And as far as the whole "doctors" thing, I think that a lot of doctors become doctors for more reasons than just making money. Most people I've talked to that go into pre-med in college do so because they want to "save lives" and what not. Also, doesn't Cuba (or maybe it did at one time) have a huge number of doctors that work for free in third world countries? Kind of interesting... (regardless of what Raul may be doing to Cuba recently)

Sorry for the long post. I get very, very wordy.

edit: One more thing. Somebody said, "The lower class today lives like the middle class did in the 1950's." They argued that that is somehow a viable support of Capitalism. Basically saying that American Capitalism is the reason why the "standard of living" has gone up. I think my teacher said something like, "Our free market has helped to make the standard of living better for everyone else." I think that has to do with that whole Reaganomics "wealth trickling down" thing. Any response to that?

[wes_865]

Re: the doctor argument -- I would never want a doctor taking care of me who is solely motivated by money. I want their heart to be in the right place - as someone who initiates care for the sick and leads teaches them to the proper way to care for themselves so they don't end up in worse condition. I feel that most doctors' primary motivation is more intrinsic than your fellow classmates would think. At least I'm sure that most doctors start out being intrinsically motivated, and only have a limited motivation from money. I may be wrong here, too. :)

So to answer your question, people would be drawn to what they have a knack for, or a passion for, which in the long run places people doing the job they want. In fact, socialism would make it easier for those with a certain passion to study their primary subject as they pleased, whereas in current society, students must worry about their funding, student loans growing uncontrollably, and other factors that would be minimal or not present in a socialist society.
If memory serves me correctly, there may be a bit more discussion along these same lines towards the beginning of this thread.
Good luck.

[Sixiang]

Re: the doctor argument -- I would never want a doctor taking care of me who is solely motivated by money. I want their heart to be in the right place - as someone who initiates care for the sick and leads teaches them to the proper way to care for themselves so they don't end up in worse condition. I feel that most doctors' primary motivation is more intrinsic than your fellow classmates would think. At least I'm sure that most doctors start out being intrinsically motivated, and only have a limited motivation from money. I may be wrong here, too. :)

So to answer your question, people would be drawn to what they have a knack for, or a passion for, which in the long run places people doing the job they want. In fact, socialism would make it easier for those with a certain passion to study their primary subject as they pleased, whereas in current society, students must worry about their funding, student loans growing uncontrollably, and other factors that would be minimal or not present in a socialist society.
If memory serves me correctly, there may be a bit more discussion along these same lines towards the beginning of this thread.
Good luck.
That's a good point, and what I've basically come to the conclusion of as well. I do know people that did not or will not pursue their real career dreams because they simply cannot afford to go to college to do so. I imagine that having free education would drive people to go into whatever they want.

However, at the same time, what would happen to the jobs that are less glamorous but need to be done? Should everyone take turns doing these jobs while they still are able to purse the other ones?

[Jeremiah Dyke]

Redstar, i'm not sure you can historically say that Sam Waltons kids' wealth will continue to grow simply because they are worth multiple billion. Though you right that they will never need to work in their lifetime, nor probably will their kids, grandkids, etc. The point i want to make is that wealth tends to leave the wealthy from generation to generation becasue they become lazy. For example, look at Forbes richest 400 today in comparison to 20 years ago, only 44 people remain. Look at the S&P 500 richest companies of today and 1970, only about 150 still remain.

I could be wrong though, any thoughts?

[∞]

I have intimidated my teacher into calling the Soviet's version of "communism", state capitalism. He aroused a debate and he lost. :cool:

I did the same to two teachers...one now calls it "their form of socialism." and the other calls it "Soviet Communism", I'll get him to drop the communism part, just you wait. Even though I tried to convince them it was Bolshevism, but idk, I guess they can't pronounce it.

[HammerAlias]

I did the same to two teachers...one now calls it "their form of socialism." and the other calls it "Soviet Communism", I'll get him to drop the communism part, just you wait. Even though I tried to convince them it was Bolshevism, but idk, I guess they can't pronounce it.

My teacher has difficulty pronouncing bourgeoisie and proletariat..:rolleyes:

[∞]

My teacher has difficulty pronouncing bourgeoisie and proletariat..:rolleyes:

My last teacher couldn't pronounce Nietzsche.

[Apoi_Viitor]

God damnitt, not the old doctor argument....

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/inhabitants_per_doctor.jpg

[Medvyet]

I'd just like to say that reading this thread has been intensely helpful to me as a high-schooler, young worker and budding communist.
I've heard most of these arguments and whenever I can't answer one on my own, it turns out it's already been answered by someone else. Just more proof that there's not much you can say against communism that hasn't already been disproven.
And that's why we're communists. Because most of the time we're right. :D

[DWI]

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor.

The entire rest of the world is a dismal Capitalist tragedy.
Not really, the 'economic freedom' actually correlates pretty well with GDPPC:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/e/e2/20090215144510%21GM_-_Countries_by_Economic_Freedom_Index.png

Justice in distribution is of course a different question.

[Sexy Red]

Wow. The link at the bottom is now up for sale. How ironic.

[Vagelis Papatheodorou]

Hey i maybe be the only commie in my high school but look I made everyone in my class like communism.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

However, at the same time, what would happen to the jobs that are less glamorous but need to be done? Should everyone take turns doing these jobs while they still are able to purse the other ones?
There are a lot of views on this. Though the eventual goal is to get rid of these jobs, that may not happen for a while. Personally, I am of the opinion that work no one wants to do could be made into a sort of public service (i.e. you do a certain amount of time before you get a permanent job).

[Ligeia]

How is efficiency defined in capitalism and how would it be defined under socialism/communism?
And how is an "achievement society" defined or even justified in capitalism?
Isn't it about the more money you make the more you should get? So which kind of "achievements" are meant anyway?
What about the so called "incentives to work or for innovation"?
How are they defined in capitalism and how justified are they? How would they look like under socialism?
Who distributes goods in capitalism and who or how would this look like under socialism?
Those are just some questions I gathered from an economics-lecture at the university. Much of those things were just spilled out as facts.
E.g. efficiency and innovation are best possible in capitalism.

[Сталин]

Nice work Redstar, although most high school students I come across do not even know what Capitalism is, let alone Communism. There is no economics class and the History class deals mainly with irrelevent crap.

The most common arguments that i recieve are:



Well, Human nature is not something that you can define easily, it changes according to a society's material conditions.

Also "Human nature", which im sure you basically equate to Greed only exists as long as the insentive for it exists, if money does not exist, what is there to be greedy over?



There is no such thing as a "Communist state", it is a contradiction in terms.

Communism means a classless stateless society and as such the states which existed in the USSR and China were not communist, but rather a version of state capitalism not altogether different to the west.



Hopefully this thread will be able to help other socialist struggling through the High School "education" system.
The USSR and PRC are not communist?:huh: Then am I in the right place here?

[Jazzhands]

The USSR and PRC are not communist?:huh: Then am I in the right place here?


Along with [the classes] the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquity, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe.

This is what communism is, from the co-author of the entire foundation of communist thought. The USSR and PRC never reached this phase, obviously, because they existed as states. The PRC is now an emerging capitalist superpower. It's one of the most capitalist nations on earth, if we look at capitalism in terms of the relationship between oppressed and oppressor classes and their relationship to the means of production.

[L.A.P.]

I just read this to my mom who is a liberal and she now declares she hates capitalism!:D

[Property Is Robbery]

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

Are you being serious?

[learningaboutheleft123]

Hi, Im starting to look into left wing politics at the moment and I would like to ask a question. In a communist states, are everyone paid the same amount in jobs or are you paid according to the knowledge and ability you have ? and regarding universities, I know that mostly rich kids go to oxford or cambridge and its about who you know and not what you know, in a communist or socialist society, does it become what you know ? and not who you know ?

Thanks.

[Tjis]

Hi, Im starting to look into left wing politics at the moment and I would like to ask a question. In a communist states, are everyone paid the same amount in jobs or are you paid according to the knowledge and ability you have ? and regarding universities, I know that mostly rich kids go to oxford or cambridge and its about who you know and not what you know, in a communist or socialist society, does it become what you know ? and not who you know ?

Thanks.

Hi,

First, I feel obliged to say that a communist state is an oxymoron. A communist society means a classless and stateless society of equals. States that are often called communist, like the USSR for example, considered themselves to be on the way to communism, but not there yet.

Second, social and economic relations in a communist society would be drastically different from those in a capitalist society. Most importantly, all means of production would be the communal property of all of society, and by extension, so would the produced goods be. Therefore there would be no commodity exchange as in a capitalist society, because private property is a neccesity for that. Instead, produced goods are distributed to whoever needs them.
In such a society, money serves no function. Everyone can get what they need, no matter what kind of work they do. Nobody would be materially rewarded more than others, because that would simply make no sense in a communist society.

Regarding places of learning, I imagine that in a communist society these would take a different form than the universities today, since today universities are mostly aimed at training skilled workers and educating the children of the bourgeoisie to rule. In a communist society, places of learning would be democratically controlled by its participants, and by extension it'd focus on what its participants needed. What will be needed by people in a future communist society when all material needs are taken care of can't really be foreseen though.

[learningaboutheleft123]

thanks for that man, I associate myself more with right wing politics, but I understand that without the working class, countries would not be able to function, which is why im trying to see if I'm a socialist or not.

[learningaboutheleft123]

and also, for everyone on here, i'd like to know what attracts you to communism, why do you believe its the best form of politics ? (im not an undercover righty by the way) im just keen to know.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

and also, for everyone on here, i'd like to know what attracts you to communism, why do you believe its the best form of politics ? (im not an undercover righty by the way) im just keen to know.


Well to put it simply i feel it is the most COMPASSIONATE form of politics and as the intelligent species that we are the dog-eat-dog style politics of capitalism just seem so primitive and selfish

[Burn A Flag]

Personally, if you examine capitalism in our world right now, it's not terribly efficient at all. I could see how you might belive it is if you live in a first world country and there isn't much evidence of poverty around you and your community. However, in the world there is SO MUCH pain and misery because of the exploitation and neglect capitalism has brought upon humanity. Even in first world countries like the USA, the amount of housing foreclosures increases while homelessness increases. The inefficiency of the system is being even more exposed. Things in capitalism are overproduced for profit while necessary things are not being produced for people who need it because it is not profitable. Basically, the capitalist system keeps resources hostage and distributes them based on a profit basis. Therefore someone who is poor generally stays poor because they have little capital and therefore cannot accumulate more capital without having any to begin with. Also, just about every war is a product of capitalism in some way or another. Throughout history just about every atrocity can be blamed on capitalism in some way.

[jsov]

and also, for everyone on here, i'd like to know what attracts you to communism, why do you believe its the best form of politics ? (im not an undercover righty by the way) im just keen to know.

I might disagree with some of my comrades here. First, Communism is not so much a form of politics as it is a process of history. I would not be so harsh as some here who claim that "every atrocity can be blamed on capitalism." Certainly capitalism promotes a divisive class society that rewards an elite few at the expense of the proletariat. On the other hand, capitalism has been a major advancement over feudalism. Indeed, without capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie, there would be no revolutionary proletariat.

The proletariat are the revolutionary class - the only class able to bring us to a classless society. That alone is sufficient reason to be a Communist (Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, etc). It is the opportunity to create a society based upon true egalitarianism. We can have a world where no small group owns a vast majority of the means of production. We could have a world where every adult has a decent job and every family has a decent standard of living. This has never been achieved by humanity and the only thing standing in our way are the many years of bourgeoisie social norms and capitalist economics that people simply accept as truth. It will take a true revolution - but it will most certainly be worth it.

[#FF0000]

Not really, the 'economic freedom' actually correlates pretty well with GDPPC:

Correlation isn't causation, though, and there are a ton of factors in play when it comes to why these countries run thing the way they do.

And, once again, hardly a single country on that map is not Capitalist.

[DavidX]

Here is another way of looking at it.

Problematize and think critically about their views instead of trying to own an entire ideology after a reading a few books. you can discuss and express general orientations and sentiments with your friends, but for the rest, identify yourself as a marxist only so far as some particular tangible idea that you can articulate and express with full knowledge and conviction. -something wrong in your life or some suffering that you know, or that they probably know.

You don't necessarily have to defend the entire left field of thinking wholesale. a commmited engaged leftist shouldn't have to resort to one liners to dismiss detractors, Your desire to think, interrogate, and reevalute history as a leftist should be precisely your effort to learn and deal with these things on a one to one basis.

however i will leave you on a less positive note, with this quote from oscar wilde.

"Most personalities have been obliged to be rebels. Half their strength has been wasted in friction. Byron's personality, for instance, was terribly wasted in its battle with the stupidity, and hypocrisy, and Philistinism of the English. Such battles do not always intensify strength: they often exaggerate weakness. Byron was never able to give us what he might have given us. Shelley escaped better. Still, even in Shelley the note of rebellion is sometimes too strong. The note of the perfect personality is not rebellion, but peace."

[Kayser_Soso]

Here is another way of looking at it.

Problematize and think critically about their views instead of trying to own an entire ideology after a reading a few books. identify yourself as a marxist only so far as some particular tangible idea that you can articulate and express with full knowledge and conviction. -something wrong in your life or some suffering that you know, or that they probably know.

You don't necessarily have to defend the entire left field of thinking wholesale. a commmited engaged leftist shouldn't have to resort to one liners to dismiss detractors, Your desire to think, interrogate, and reevalute history as a leftist should be precisely your effort to learn and deal with these things on a one to one basis.

however i will leave you on a less positive note, with this quote from oscar wilde.

"Most personalities have been obliged to be rebels. Half their strength has been wasted in friction. Byron's personality, for instance, was terribly wasted in its battle with the stupidity, and hypocrisy, and Philistinism of the English. Such battles do not always intensify strength: they often exaggerate weakness. Byron was never able to give us what he might have given us. Shelley escaped better. Still, even in Shelley the note of rebellion is sometimes too strong. The note of the perfect personality is not rebellion, but peace."






Beautifully written. As a young man I went through a sort of evolution of ideology and politics, and because I was always so passionate and so enthusiastic, I seemed like the type of person to bounce from one ideology to the next. The Catholics have a saying that goes thusly: "Nobody speaks louder than the convert." Passion in my case was a big liability.

Eventually through more experience and knowledge I learned to take a long time researching something and looking at it critically before I started running around "showing off" my new beliefs. Of course part of this was the inevitable result of age and maturity, considering that I had been ideological/political from the age of 11.

Like you said, one needs to be able to form coherent arguments rather than repeating one-liners. That's what conservatives do.

Again, great post.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

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

Hehe... This is plainly untrue. In a true communist society, people are paid according to work! Not labor value... but work. Regardless of individuals respective intellects and abilities, a janitor can very well put in the same amount of work towards society as a doctor. Yes, the doctors work could be considered of higher quality, but both are necessary, both contribute equal man hours, and both contribute what they can to society.

So long as individuals work according to their ability, they receive equal pay in Communist society.

Why be a doctor, you may ask? Simple... society encourages it, pressures individuals who are capable into doing it. In fact, being lazy would be frowned upon in socialist or communist society just like incest is frowned upon in many countries today. It is a question of societal conditioning.

True equality can only come about when social and economic class-divisions are eliminated, and so wage discrepancies must be eliminated as well.

This would happen over time, of course.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

"if Communism is so great how come it failed and if capitilism is so shit how come no one has overthrown it yet"

I hate this one!!!!

Perhaps because Communist nations are coming out of nothing and attempting to establish a new, more equitable way of life while thousands of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world are fighting to take it down so that they can maintain their own greedy and indulgent lifestyles.

Perhaps because Capitalism is willing to crush all opposition with an iron fist (an iron fist that is composed of massive militaries, nuclear weapons, and long-standing oppressive policy)...

[Sixiang]

My government teacher in class recently: "As the rich get richer, the quality of life goes up for everyone." -and- "The quality of life in America is so much better than the rest of the world is because of capitalism." -and- "There are no poor people in America like there are in the third world."
And another student: "The richer the rich are, the better off the poor are."

Any rebuttals in response to these? Other than the fact that they are complete idiocy, does anyone have any sort of snappy comebacks in response that won't take me hours of explaining?

I did point out that the only reason why the wealthiest nations in history were as wealthy as they were was because of imperialism upon third world countries. The same goes with the US. In response to that, my teacher said that "third world countries are poor because they don't have any laws that protect property and because all of the benefits go to the ruling class." I said "Just like America..." That was when the argument ended, but today she still said the things I quoted at the beginning of the post. To put it simply, she is a Tea Party loving right-wing Christian conservative. She believes in that "Gospel of Wealth" garbage. Very much a Carnegie and Rockefeller fan.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

My government teacher in class recently: "As the rich get richer, the quality of life goes up for everyone." -and- "The quality of life in America is so much better than the rest of the world is because of capitalism." -and- "There are no poor people in America like there are in the third world."
And another student: "The richer the rich are, the better off the poor are."

Any rebuttals in response to these? Other than the fact that they are complete idiocy, does anyone have any sort of snappy comebacks in response that won't take me hours of explaining?

I did point out that the only reason why the wealthiest nations in history were as wealthy as they were was because of imperialism upon third world countries. The same goes with the US. In response to that, my teacher said that "third world countries are poor because they don't have any laws that protect property and because all of the benefits go to the ruling class." I said "Just like America..." That was when the argument ended, but today she still said the things I quoted at the beginning of the post. To put it simply, she is a Tea Party loving right-wing Christian conservative. She believes in that "Gospel of Wealth" garbage. Very much a Carnegie and Rockefeller fan.

Having dealt with two very conservative teachers for my history and government classes in high school I can give you a few pointers. First, statistics. Point out that the USA has a shittier GINI coefficient than many countries in Latin America (GINI measures inequality, the higher the number the worse the inequality). Next, mention that GDP is a terrible measure of wealth because it gives no insight into it's allocation and may only indicate large natural resources or a lingering hegemony left over from when the rest of the world was plastered flat by a war we took advantage of to become the pre-eminent imperialist power. Then, a quick examination of health statistics. Point out that several "third world nations" (btw, a nation is just a group of people sharing culture, a state is a defined geographic area within a which a government exercises its sole legal authority to legitimate coercion, explain that to her too) have better life expectancy, healthcare costs, infant mortality, sanitation and water access, and any number of other indicators of "modern civilized society". It is then possible to move on to the fact that the unemployment rate is currently over 20% while most of the rest of the world is "recovering" and that when the people were hurting, the government chose to save the wealthiest Americans and leave the rest to fend for themselves. Point out that the US Constitution is never enforced in regards to personal liberties but the rights of the propertied classes to amass as much wealth as they wish via the exploitation of as many people as they wish is held sacrosanct. Point out that dissidents in the US who voice support for the humanitarian crises in Palestine are rounded up by the FBI and taken before Grand Juries merely for voicing outrage at the plethora of human rights violations perpetrated by Israel and the US. Point out that there is still a law on the books within the US which would allow the government to put any anti-war protester in jail for opposing the US government. Point out that the African-American population makes up less than fifteen percent of the US population but about fifty percent of the prison population, that conviction rates are higher for black defendants than white, that sentencing is almost twice as harsh for black defendants than whites, that a black defendants is almost twice as likely to receive the death penalty.

Lay all this knowledge on them, and you may one day have the honor of being affectionately called "commie" by your government teacher.

[M42-AEK]

I think coming to power through elections is the only way that a socialist government in the uS would have a chance of not being crushed. If an insurrection was started, then the cappies could just say the same things about us that they do about rebels in other countries: that they're only in it for their own power, that they coerce the people into supporting them, that they're terrorists, etc. and just like that public support would go down the toilet

However I think the scenario in CartCollector's post is also very plausible. A balance would need to be struck between a revolutionary movement and a political party, to fight on all fronts if you get my drift

You can't come to power through elections, there are far too many blockades in place to prevent leftists (outside of the dog and pony show democrats you see spewing crap) from coming to assume any higher office. Guerrilla warfare on the other hand is entirely reasonable, and like Che Guevara said the three fundamental lessons to the conduct of revolutionary movements in America are:

1. Popular forces can win a war against the army.
2. It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection foco can create them.
3. the countryside is the preferred location for fighting.
:che:

btw anyone get sick of the defeatist attitudes of pseudo intellectuals, particularly online. we just spend this time squabbling amongst ourselves when we could be doing things locally, go get to know your neighbors, in general, eventually you could start some in-depth conversations with them about this stuff and develop these ideas amongst people, instead of just gossiping away on the internet where you have no identity and the only people who see what you think are those who stumble upon a page in a forum - sorry for this rabble :rolleyes:

[Sixiang]

Having dealt with two very conservative teachers for my history and government classes in high school I can give you a few pointers. First, statistics. Point out that the USA has a shittier GINI coefficient than many countries in Latin America (GINI measures inequality, the higher the number the worse the inequality). Next, mention that GDP is a terrible measure of wealth because it gives no insight into it's allocation and may only indicate large natural resources or a lingering hegemony left over from when the rest of the world was plastered flat by a war we took advantage of to become the pre-eminent imperialist power. Then, a quick examination of health statistics. Point out that several "third world nations" (btw, a nation is just a group of people sharing culture, a state is a defined geographic area within a which a government exercises its sole legal authority to legitimate coercion, explain that to her too) have better life expectancy, healthcare costs, infant mortality, sanitation and water access, and any number of other indicators of "modern civilized society". It is then possible to move on to the fact that the unemployment rate is currently over 20% while most of the rest of the world is "recovering" and that when the people were hurting, the government chose to save the wealthiest Americans and leave the rest to fend for themselves. Point out that the US Constitution is never enforced in regards to personal liberties but the rights of the propertied classes to amass as much wealth as they wish via the exploitation of as many people as they wish is held sacrosanct. Point out that dissidents in the US who voice support for the humanitarian crises in Palestine are rounded up by the FBI and taken before Grand Juries merely for voicing outrage at the plethora of human rights violations perpetrated by Israel and the US. Point out that there is still a law on the books within the US which would allow the government to put any anti-war protester in jail for opposing the US government. Point out that the African-American population makes up less than fifteen percent of the US population but about fifty percent of the prison population, that conviction rates are higher for black defendants than white, that sentencing is almost twice as harsh for black defendants than whites, that a black defendants is almost twice as likely to receive the death penalty.

Lay all this knowledge on them, and you may one day have the honor of being affectionately called "commie" by your government teacher.
:lol: I've already been called "ultra-left", a supporter of "direct democracy", a "liberal", and "anti-rich" by her and my classmates (all of which are terms that they think are basically synonymous with communism, anarchism, socialism, and a big bad dictatorship). I think I'll be able to take that fine.

Thanks for those stats, by the way.

[Kestrel_194]

Redstar, I know how you feel. I used to ask my classmates what socialism was and they would reply with,
"Isn't, like, talking or something?"
Stupid cappies.

[Angryawakeyouth]

I am a more recent commie with a lot of influence from my good friend. It all began with our mutual love of Che. But that is neither here nor there. I was wondering if anyone knew a good way to introduce friends of mine to me being communist without it seeming forced or contrived. Thanks. Also any good one liners for pesky (dumb) republicans?:)

[Catmatic Leftist]

I am a more recent commie with a lot of influence from my good friend. It all began with our mutual love of Che. But that is neither here nor there. I was wondering if anyone knew a good way to introduce friends of mine to me being communist without it seeming forced or contrived. Thanks. Also any good one liners for pesky (dumb) republicans?:)

I suggest going down to the basics with people you are trying to convince. Examine their basic assumptions about society, wealth, class, etc. Phrase arguments in the form of questions so that they will engage in critical thinking. This shows them that you respect their point of view and that you are actively listening to them; both are key ingredients to creating an atmosphere of a marketplace of ideas instead of two people trying to smash each other's heads in. Also, this demonstrates your own mastery of Marxism and that your ideas are deeply formed and that you aren't just some angsty adolescent punk trying to be rebellious. Try to do this with "pesky dumb republicans" as well.

[thuytinhblue]

hey , but y think about this:rolleyes::crying:

[Tablo]

This thread is way over 500 posts...

[MarxSchmarx]

This thread is way over 500 posts...

There was a decision made some time ago to leave it as a sort of legacy thread.

[norwegianwood90]

I was presented with the "freeloader problem" today. The idea, I was told, is that communism can only work in small settings because the familial and communal ties would prevent people from failing to work (something similar to the Amish or Jehovah Witness concept of shunning). On the "large scale" (I was not told what this precisely meant), communism would not work. I was told that the system would basically fall apart: Person A decides they do not want to work. Person B, who continues to work, sees Person A not performing any labor. Person B believes they (themselves) are supporting more than their fair share (that is, picking up the burden caused by the absence of Person A). Person B is upset by this and decides they, too, will not work. This influences Person C, and continues--presumably, ad infinitum. This, I was told, is why communism cannot work on the "large scale."

[-Cuba95-]

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


If there were to be no sanition system then all the equipment that these doctors that you say have a higher "value" use i would be practically pointless. Fora simple example after every operation performed in a hospital the sheets have to be cleaned and sterlized and prett much everthing else that was in tht room. so if there were no janitor t clean up after the mess all the M.D lt behind all sorts of bacterium and germs would be spread to the next patient in need. Everyon n the medial feild is viewed as family from the janitor who make $25,000 a year to the M.D making $300,000 a year. so the "value" is the same....

[tobbinator]

Ok, I am in high school currently and we just started the topic of the Cold War in History. Almost everyone in my class immediately associates Communism with a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea, the problem is, this is being reinforced by my teacher actually teaching us that it is. My objections are largely ignored, so what can I do to help these cappies actually understand what communism actually is? Instead of how it's taught by the cappie teachers?

[RedMarxist]

cappies? what does that even mean?

Anyways,

Well in class, what I'd do(I'm also in high school) is get in to a debate with my teacher(start by asking her/him a question). Maybe say something like, "but why is communism totalitarian as you say it is?", and then listen to her response. If it does not please you, counter with something smart like "But in the Manifesto Marx advocated democracy"

Your cRappie teacher will be stumbling for a response.

[agnixie]

I was presented with the "freeloader problem" today. The idea, I was told, is that communism can only work in small settings because the familial and communal ties would prevent people from failing to work (something similar to the Amish or Jehovah Witness concept of shunning). On the "large scale" (I was not told what this precisely meant), communism would not work. I was told that the system would basically fall apart: Person A decides they do not want to work. Person B, who continues to work, sees Person A not performing any labor. Person B believes they (themselves) are supporting more than their fair share (that is, picking up the burden caused by the absence of Person A). Person B is upset by this and decides they, too, will not work. This influences Person C, and continues--presumably, ad infinitum. This, I was told, is why communism cannot work on the "large scale."

If the freeloader problem applied, capitalist countries would all have collapsed long ago. Upper class people of leisure were always pretty common, and yet these systems did not fall apart due to the freeloader problem.

[agnixie]

Ok, I am in high school currently and we just started the topic of the Cold War in History. Almost everyone in my class immediately associates Communism with a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea, the problem is, this is being reinforced by my teacher actually teaching us that it is. My objections are largely ignored, so what can I do to help these cappies actually understand what communism actually is? Instead of how it's taught by the cappie teachers?

There's at least two options in this context
a) Nepal
b) point out that Juche has largely divorced socialism and people are not sure what it is anymore.
I'm sure others will find more.

I wouldn't recommend pointing out the corporatist tendencies of Juche, because then you'll get the "fascism is socialism herp derp" idiots all over you.

[Lunatic Concept]

Simply point out how ridiculous land ownership and private property is, or point out that the death toll for capitalism is far greater than that of socialism, as the deaths thing is the main thing associated with how "evil" it is.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/useful-statistics-capitalism-t147686/index.html?t=147686&highlight=Capitalism+death+toll
This kinda things useful.:)

[Red Future]

Ok, I am in high school currently and we just started the topic of the Cold War in History. Almost everyone in my class immediately associates Communism with a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea, the problem is, this is being reinforced by my teacher actually teaching us that it is. My objections are largely ignored, so what can I do to help these cappies actually understand what communism actually is? Instead of how it's taught by the cappie teachers?

Same !! Alongside the other picees of adive throw in facts that only a Communist will be aware of such as China finally eliminating famine under the CCP , The excellent healthcare sustems of the soviet bloc and also if the Communist states were so bad why do people in the ex Eastern Block want them back ?? This is useful

[RedMarxist]

wait, wait. People want the Warsaw pact nations back!?! I mean I guess they had there merits. Reading up on Albania they had excellent health care there and 99% literacy rate(or so they claimed), as did most Eastern European communist nations. Yet, what about the human rights abuses? What about the totalitarian nature of some of the governments, again, such as Albania. They wern't truely free either as they were under the thumb of the USSR.

Please clarify why Eastern Europe had it better then the west

This is not a flame post, I'm just mystified why you'd make such a statement. Can you back it up with cold, hard facts that many people want it back?

Anyways, I'd not use that one if I were you in your class OP. Maybe you could use Albania as an example(excellent healthcare, end of the blood feud, 99% literacy rate) and back it up by saying how shitty it is under capitalism(lesser literacy rate, blood feuding...again, and a lame health care system). Yet please, don't say "Most people want it back". Just. Don't. That is a blanket statement. Find a poll somewhere(you can) and back it up with this % of people want it back, compared to this % who don't.

[agnixie]

wait, wait. People want the Warsaw pact nations back!?! I mean I guess they had there merits. Reading up on Albania they had excellent health care there and 99% literacy rate(or so they claimed), as did most Eastern European communist nations. Yet, what about the human rights abuses? What about the totalitarian nature of some of the governments, again, such as Albania. They wern't truely free either as they were under the thumb of the USSR.

Please clarify why Eastern Europe had it better then the west

This is not a flame post, I'm just mystified why you'd make such a statement. Can you back it up with cold, hard facts that many people want it back?

Anyways, I'd not use that one if I were you in your class OP. Maybe you could use Albania as an example(excellent healthcare, end of the blood feud, 99% literacy rate) and back it up by saying how shitty it is under capitalism(lesser literacy rate, blood feuding...again, and a lame health care system). Yet please, don't say "Most people want it back". Just. Don't. That is a blanket statement. Find a poll somewhere(you can) and back it up with this % of people want it back, compared to this % who don't.

It's not so much "had it better than the west" as "had it better than under neoliberal crisis capitalism". Also I'm pretty sure the zogists had already suppressed the blood feud (one of the few good things they did... well okay and secularizing the country) and that Albania was not a warsaw pact nation (or it may have been only for a time, I forget exactly when it became China's westernmost outpost).

[RedMarxist]

I can't see Eastern Europe becoming communist again, nothing short of a bloody revolution. If it did happen, I really hope state atheism isn't violently enforced like it was in the Warsaw Pact.

[ZeroNowhere]

Really, it's not even worth discussing communism in class. Explaining communism properly requires a fair bit of theoretical explanation as a prerequisite. Class comments and such generally go more along the lines of oral debate in general, namely cheap one-upmanship and a thorough lack of any real content. At most one will possibly be able to set forward a utopian socialist position, and even then probably quite weakly; weakly not due to any deficiency of debating skills, but rather because oral debate is by itself generally deficient.

[mastershake16]

My honest advice. Don't be an outspoken Communist who has to rub it in everyone's face, like wearing little hammer&sickles/Che stuff, unless you don't want any girls to talk to you and don't want normal people to take you seriously.

Its the truth, so embrace it. Wait till college.

[RedMarxist]

I'm in high school right now and have a question. When you get to college, are there communist groups you can join that participate in campus strikes and stuff like that that you can join? How hard would it be to form your own? Is it frowned upon by college students in general and/or college administrators(I'll bet it is)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

During the course of my time in night school,I had a teacher who idolized Che Guevara,and a teacher who came from Ireland, who sympathized with socialism (her entire family were socialists).Both were/are pro-labor,pro-queer,and anti-conservative.So,I have had a couple of interesting instructors. lol

[Agent Ducky]

Your teachers sound cool. I have some teachers like that too... =]

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Your teachers sound cool. I have some teachers like that too... =]

Cool! I was surprised when my teacher said she idolized Che...it was like a total blindside.Same with the other one having a family full of socialists...usually my instructors usually keep their personal lives private,but lately I have had wonderful opportunities to see them on a slightly deeper level.

The "Che lover" and I,connect quite well...definitely the best teacher I have had yet.Always amuing to hear them lecture the class on leftists politics.:cool:

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The best teacher I had in high school taught my A.P. European History class with a class pyramid from start (year 900 or so) to finish (class ended at post-WWI). He helped show the rise of the bourgeoisie, which had originally started as a minor growth on the pyramids side, and it really helped explain the French, and especially the Russian Revolution. We touched on Marx and socialism too obviously (with the forerunners, of course) and that helped people under the idea of classes and communism. I never really appreciated it until later on. Having class-analysis and consciousness is crucially important for a European history class, and anyone who doesn't focus on class struggles on the subject isn't giving the full story of history.
No, he wasn't a radical. He was just an honest, good teacher (left-wing, but not as far as us)

[The dane]

I've got a fast answer for ya! "Shut the fuck up you selfish bastard!:laugh:

Trust me... it works

[Agent Ducky]

I've got a fast answer for ya! "Shut the fuck up you selfish bastard!:laugh:

Trust me... it works

If we did that to all cappies we would never get anyone on our side... =/

[Rafiq]

Depends which colleges. And I can promise college administrative officials won't be pleased.

[Broletariat]

If we did that to all cappies we would never get anyone on our side... =/

Material conditions tend to get a lot more people on our side than good arguments.

Though you're right it's not a very effective tactic.

[H-man]

RedStar 2000

You said the kids at your school make the following statements

-Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!
-Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?
-We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.
-Communism is dead!
-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living
in dire poverty?

Well even though you have gotten some pretty amazing answers so far, Id just like to give my opinion as I am in a similar situation. So anyone can get rich if they work hard enough. Tell that to the Chinese people who make Ipods :P. Is it fair to pay a doctor as much as a janitor? Well its not a janitor sits on his ass all day, he spends it cleaning up your shit, so why shouldnt he? We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want. Well the reality of the situation is, not everyone has that freedom, only the upper crust of society can indulge in the luxuries of wealth. 20 million kids a year die of starvation, and this idea of the American dream, that if you work hard enough you can get rich, its all a materialist idea that the upper class made so that the lower classes work hard so they benefit from it. Communism is dead. Can an idea really die? And according to Marx, Communism will one day be implemented world wide without needing to be forced. Note that socialist countries like Sweden have the highest quality of living indexes on the planet, more than the USA or any other capitalist police state. I hope that you use this knowledge you have gained against the capitalists in your school. They dont understand these ideologies or the differences between them, all they care about is how much money is in their pocket, no matter how many suffer for them to gain it. Just remember that and good luck to you comrade.

[SJBarley]

Absolutly brilliant, perfect answers to educate the idiots. I'm in the English equivilant of High School and I know of only one other Leftist in the city (personally not in general as I'm sure there and alot of educated people here) and these will proove invaluable

[Jesus-was-a-socialist]

Have you considered ignoring them? Jesus ignored his enemies and as a result gained much success, both economically and ideoligically

[Agent Ducky]

Have you considered ignoring them? Jesus ignored his enemies and as a result gained much success, both economically and ideoligically

Economically? Jesus wasn't economically successful.

[Kyle Edwards]

Hi can someone help me i am a communist but i dont kno what type of communism to follow or can someone help me with the theory of marxism-leninsm

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Hi can someone help me i am a communist but i dont kno what type of communism to follow or can someone help me with the theory of marxism-leninsm

Take a look in the groups and look in the tendencies section. There you will see a whole list of different schools of thought within left wing politics.

[p0is0n]

If we did that to all cappies we would never get anyone on our side... =/
Yeah god forbid we don't get the brat kids on our side!

Punch the trash and spit them in their bloody and broken face. Class pride.

[Agent Ducky]

Yeah god forbid we don't get the brat kids on our side!

Punch the trash and spit them in their bloody and broken face. Class pride.

Not all of them are rich though. Some of them aren't rich but are just really misinformed....

[cu247]

Hi there, it's not really a rebutal I need, but more of a question I am asking myself and that might come one day. And sorry if it has been asked, but I'm new on the forume and I don't really wanna read 44 pages :)

How would a communist country acquire the goods it cannot produce itself?
i.e. Canada wants bananas or something of the such.

[Zav]

Hi there, it's not really a rebutal I need, but more of a question I am asking myself and that might come one day. And sorry if it has been asked, but I'm new on the forume and I don't really wanna read 44 pages :)

How would a communist country acquire the goods it cannot produce itself?
i.e. Canada wants bananas or something of the such.
Excellent question! Actually bananas are grown as far north as Iceland in greenhouses, so they can probably grow most places in Canada. Instead, suppose Ethiopia has a famine. Under Capitalism, Ethiopia cannot afford to import food nor can it afford the technology to grow food more efficiently, and the nation starves. In a Communist world, these people would be shipped food from the nearest place with a surplus, Egypt perhaps, simply because it is needed. Of course, in Communism, there are no nations, and the starving can go elsewhere or utilise the modern technology previously out of reach.

[cu247]

Thanks a lot. Since tomorrow is monday and I'm the official communist kid of my school even though I'm fairly new to it, I'll probably have more questions then.
:)

[Bronco]

Ok so I've been browsing these boards for a while and there's a few issues I have with the arguments below.


Short answers to dumb questions:

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?

Capitalism is a big casino; for every huge winner there are tens of millions of losers...and work (hard, easy, or non-existent) has very little to do with it.

Doesnt really refute the argument does it? I'm not necessarily saying that the claim is correct, but the answer is fairly irrelevant. Just because some people didnt work hard to be rich doesnt mean everyone who is rich didnt work hard, that's a ridiculous conclusion to draw.

It would be better to point out the difficulties that many face in terms of social mobility, and how it's not so simple just to work hard and "be rich"



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.

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


Do you really need to ask "Why not?" at the start of this reply. It's fairly obvious that doctors are paid more than janitor's because: a) they are in far lower in supply and b) because the job is far more skilled. Of course janitor's are important but that doesnt detract from the fact that it is a job requiring a very low level of skill and training, whereas it is incredibly hard to be a doctor of high standing and your doctor is typically someone who has invested a hell of a lot in pursuing his career.

I agree with the last sentence, every person does deserve a decent wage, but that is not the same as everyone having an exact equal wage. Are Communists not against wage labour anyway?



a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone else's pocket.

That logic is flawed at best




If communism and socialism are so great, then why are all socialist countries living in dire poverty?

They were even worse off before they had socialism. Places like Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing.


That's not true at all, Russians lived in a far greater state of fear and repression under Lenin & then Stalin, than they did under Tsarism, and Russia's economy was showing signs of modernisation, look what War Communism did



It's true that capitalism has been restored in Russia and China -- which is where that "communism is dead" stuff comes from. But that didn't happen because people wanted it to...there were objective material conditions that caused that to happen.


Oh right, because people were just loving life under Stalin and his successors

[Broletariat]

Doesnt really refute the argument does it? I'm not necessarily saying that the claim is correct, but the answer is fairly irrelevant. Just because some people didnt work hard to be rich doesnt mean everyone who is rich didnt work hard, that's a ridiculous conclusion to draw.

It would be better to point out the difficulties that many face in terms of social mobility, and how it's not so simple just to work hard and "be rich"


The reply is meant to demonstrate that hard work =/= success by giving a counter-example.





That logic is flawed at best

Actually that part is completely correct.





That's not true at all, Russians lived in a far greater state of fear and repression under Lenin & then Stalin, than they did under Tsarism, and Russia's economy was showing signs of modernisation, look what War Communism did



Oh right, because people were just loving life under Stalin and his successors

I usually don't care for USSR discussions, but this is some handy information.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PO3GwtIrsnAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=on%20an%20average%20day%20in%20the%20soviet%20u nion&hl=en&ei=k_PeTPLKN8Gs8AaXpqzSDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union

In Russia, free-market reform resulted in…

GDP falling by by 54%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Industrial Production falling by 60%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Consumer Spending falling by 38% in one year.
(Parenti 1997, "Blackshirts & Reds")

Poverty increased from 2% in 1989 to 23% in 1998.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Child poverty increased to 50%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

[Bronco]

The reply is meant to demonstrate that hard work =/= success by giving a counter-example.

I understand that but it isnt a particularly good way of refuting the statement because it's not particularly relevant to it. Whether or not some people who are rich did or didnt work hard means nothing, the point you should be making is that no, not "anyone can be rich", that's a fallacy. As it is you wouldnt really leave them feeling any less sure of their argument



Actually that part is completely correct.
[quote]

How is it? As was mentioned on the first page of this thread, our economy today is not a zero-sum one, it doesnt always follow that for someone to make a dollar someone else is losing out on one





[quote]
I usually don't care for USSR discussions, but this is some handy information.

[have to remove links]

In Russia, free-market reform resulted in…

GDP falling by by 54%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Industrial Production falling by 60%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Consumer Spending falling by 38% in one year.
(Parenti 1997, "Blackshirts & Reds")

Poverty increased from 2% in 1989 to 23% in 1998.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Child poverty increased to 50%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

So are you saying that Russia is worse off now than it was when it was the USSR? Perhaps it is, I dont know, it's difficult to get accurate figures & it's not something I'm especially knowledgable of but in any case, I was comparing the USSR to the last days of Tsarism. I'm not convinced that the October Revolution was beneficial to the country at all

[Agent Ducky]

Capitalists always throw at me "Yeah but where is the motivation for people to go through years of medical school if they're going to get paid the same," etc. "I would get PISSED if I went through years of engineering school just to get paid the same as someone who works as a secretary straight out of high schoo." how do I make them realize that "everyone getting paid the same salary" isn't what communism is....

[Broletariat]

I understand that but it isnt a particularly good way of refuting the statement because it's not particularly relevant to it. Whether or not some people who are rich did or didnt work hard means nothing, the point you should be making is that no, not "anyone can be rich", that's a fallacy. As it is you wouldnt really leave them feeling any less sure of their argument

I'm not really going to disagree here.



Actually that part is completely correct.


How is it? As was mentioned on the first page of this thread, our economy today is not a zero-sum one, it doesnt always follow that for someone to make a dollar someone else is losing out on one zero-sum economy is just a snapshot of the economy in any given moment. At any given moment, a dollar in their pocket is a dollar out of yours. There are only X number of dollars in the world right now. If someone else has a dollar, that's one dollar you CAN'T have.





So are you saying that Russia is worse off now than it was when it was the USSR? Perhaps it is, I dont know, it's difficult to get accurate figures & it's not something I'm especially knowledgable of but in any case, I was comparing the USSR to the last days of Tsarism. I'm not convinced that the October Revolution was beneficial to the country at allI am QUITE sure Russia is much worse off today than before the collapse. Russia today is run by the mob and has rampant neo-nazis as far as I understand.

[Broletariat]

Capitalists always throw at me "Yeah but where is the motivation for people to go through years of medical school if they're going to get paid the same," etc. "I would get PISSED if I went through years of engineering school just to get paid the same as someone who works as a secretary straight out of high schoo." how do I make them realize that "everyone getting paid the same salary" isn't what communism is....

By telling them that? Also be sure to point out the transformation of what "work" is under Communism. Since life is guaranteed under Communism, what people "work" at will be more of a hobby of theirs.

[Agent Ducky]

By telling them that? Also be sure to point out the transformation of what "work" is under Communism. Since life is guaranteed under Communism, what people "work" at will be more of a hobby of theirs.

Yeah, but they don't listen to me. Obviously their preconceived notions of what communism is must be superior to those of someone who has actually committed herself to learning about the ideology. Thanks for the work part though :D

[Broletariat]

Yeah, but they don't listen to me. Obviously their preconceived notions of what communism is must be superior to those of someone who has actually committed herself to learning about the ideology. Thanks for the work part though :D

If they're that caught up in propaganda, I'd recommend either not bothering or not using the C word.

[Desperado]

Capitalists always throw at me "Yeah but where is the motivation for people to go through years of medical school if they're going to get paid the same," etc. "I would get PISSED if I went through years of engineering school just to get paid the same as someone who works as a secretary straight out of high schoo." how do I make them realize that "everyone getting paid the same salary" isn't what communism is....

Point out that medics are ripped off by capital - they are paid less than they should be because of capitalism. If equality also means more then it's far more easy to sell. The point isn't between labour and labour (although the labour aristocracy is unjustified), it's between labour and capital. They will surely agree that people shouldn't get money for buying and selling stocks and leaving their investments grow.

Other than this there's the natural left wing arguments that most people can't choose to be a medic because of their economic situation, upbringing, schooling, and that many of the people who work the "hardest" (cleaners, sweatshop workers) or have jobs that are the most "responsible" (bus drivers - one wrong move and you've killed over 30 people) are paid the worst.

[cu247]

The one thing I get the most is:
"Communism is great in theory, but I could never work in the real world, it's utopian."
And then it becomes a debate on wether or not human nature can be changed and I am always stumped because it's kind of a "your word against mine" situation since I don't have any example to prove that human nature isn't fixed in time.
I'd be glad if you could help out

[Broletariat]

The one thing I get the most is:
"Communism is great in theory, but I could never work in the real world, it's utopian."
And then it becomes a debate on wether or not human nature can be changed and I am always stumped because it's kind of a "your word against mine" situation since I don't have any example to prove that human nature isn't fixed in time.
I'd be glad if you could help out

If it couldn't work in the real world, certainly they could tell you WHY.

This of course should be contrasted with Capitalism. Would you call all the misery and suffering that happens under Capitalism evidence that Capitalism "works?"

You could point out changes in human mating patterns, views on homosexuality, views on religion, how cultural norms have changed etc.

[ColonelCossack]

If im not mistaken Norway and Sweeden are socialist. Finland and Denmark too possibly. The UK is a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism and its doing quite well.
They are social democracies... a lot like the menshaviks. They're quite far from socialism, and the UK is even further. Trust me, I live there... the tories (conservatives) are currently carrying out the largest EVER attack on the welfare state. Just because a country nearly has a mixed economy doesn't make them nearly socialist.

[Stortebeker]

If somebody invents something and builds a company around that idea, why should he get paid the same as an ordinary worker?
How would intellectual contributions be rewarded in a Communistic society?

[cu247]

If somebody invents something and builds a company around that idea, why should he get paid the same as an ordinary worker?
How would intellectual contributions be rewarded in a Communistic society?

Tell them that without the ordinary worker, their idea can't go into realisation. The workers are as important as the person who had the idea. Also, in a capitalist economy, if someone has one brilliant idea that makes them rich, they just watch as the money comes in while the workers do all of the job.

[Smyg]

They are social democracies... a lot like the menshaviks. They're quite far from socialism, and the UK is even further. Trust me, I live there... the tories (conservatives) are currently carrying out the largest EVER attack on the welfare state. Just because a country nearly has a mixed economy doesn't make them nearly socialist.

We've never even come close to socialism here in Sweden, believe me.

[Tjis]

If somebody invents something and builds a company around that idea, why should he get paid the same as an ordinary worker?
Good ideas don't make money. Just cause you have a good idea doesn't mean you have the money and time to build a company around it. If you work 40 hours a week in an exhausting job, when are you going to spend time on your company? If you make just enough to get by, or to live reasonably comfortable, what money are you going to use to invest in that company?

Companies are seldomly built by people with good ideas. They are built by people with a big bag of money who use people with good ideas to provide them with a plan for profit. Someone can be the dumbest oaf ever, but if they have enough money to invest then they'll never go hungry. And someone can be the brightest mind of our generation, but without investors they're still stuck in a wage earning job or unemployed just like the rest of us.

Also, when a company is started around a good idea, it is not the idea that is creating the value, but the people who work at transforming the idea into a sellable commodity. Customers don't want to buy car designs, they want to buy cars. Cars need to be assembled and the people who do that assembling are wage earners, not the company owners who receive the profit in the end.

Let's assume that developing a great idea takes you one month of full-time labor. Why should this entitle you to the value created by your employees for years to come, while only paying them a wage for THEIR full-time labor?



How would intellectual contributions be rewarded in a Communistic society?
Before capitalism was around, the natural sciences were a hobby of the rich. They were not rewarded to do research, they did it because they wanted to understand the world around them.
Also, much technological development is not the result of someone seeking external reward for their efforts, but more the result of someone seeking to make their life a bit easier.

It is only recently that scientists are primarily trained in order to sell their labor-power to the highest bidder, to research that which the capitalists expect will generate a nice profit in the future. A communist society will not continue this practice. Intellectual contributions will once again serve to lighten our own work and to better our own lives. That by itself is a reward.
And of course, people who bring great advances to science (the likes of Einstein) will be remembered and praised for centuries to come, just as they are right now. That too is a reward.

[ColonelCossack]

well .... in the once decent words of Winston Churchill" It was the Soviet Union who knocked the heart out of the Germans" ... America only intervened in western Europe when the war was already turned in the allies favour

The soviet union defeated 90% of the German forces.

[Stortebeker]

How would occupations like a janitor, or a cable guy be paid?
They don't produce anything, but they make a contribution to society.
How would their wage be determined? Should it not be determined by whoever they are doing the service for?
How will wages be paid? Will all the money be put into a central bank and distributed according to how much work every citizen has put in after every month or so?

[Wubbaz]

How would occupations like a janitor, or a cable guy be paid?
They don't produce anything, but they make a contribution to society.
How would their wage be determined? Should it not be determined by whoever they are doing the service for?
How will wages be paid? Will all the money be put into a central bank and distributed according to how much work every citizen has put in after every month or so?

Hey Stortebeker,

These questions are being asked by many people, and noone can give any good answer. Since we are incredibly far from a Communist society, such speculations remain as being mere, well, speculations. There is no set way of doing things in a Communist society - is is constantly on the move, even more dynamic than Capitalism and in a constant development. Since the people will have the say in Communist societies, they will decide through voting (or something else) how such issues should be solved.

Untill we finally reach Communism, solutions to these issues remain as being purely idealistic. However, this does not mean that we cannot have ideas about solving these issues, even though we are still living under Capitalism. I think you should ask yourself - "how would I solve these problems?".

A cheap way of getting out of an argument with a cappie when arguing the issues you have asked us about is to say that "Well, how should I know? If you asked a Feudal munk how Capitalism would work, do you think he could give any reasonable answer?". After this you could propose your own ideas, while mentioning that these ideas are your own and not some global rule of Communism.

Hope this helped. :-)

[Tjis]

The major idea of socialist revolution is to place society under control of the working class, not the capitalists. Whatever happens afterwards depends on the will of the working class.

Our current society is democratic in name only. Every so many years we get to vote about who gets to make some minor decisions, but the majority of our lives is not controlled by this at all. It is controlled by the fact that from 9 to 5, 5 days a week people have to sell their labor-power in order to survive. We have no say in how or work is structured, or what is being produced, or how it is distributed, even though it is us (the working class) that does all the work. Socialist revolution is about seizing the means of production for the working class, so that those that do the work get to decide about these important aspects of our lives, instead of such things being decided by the capitalists.

[Stortebeker]

Thanks for the answers, but one question remains.

For jobs like a janitor or a cable guy, doctor, etc that don't necessary produce anything, how will they be paid? Since they don't really produce things in the same way a factory worker.

[hail_to_che69]

i have a random question, would it be a bad idea to start a young communists meeting in my school? there are like 12 of us who want to do it but wonder if it might be a bad idea (lots of facists and other such anti communists)

[Wubbaz]

i have a random question, would it be a bad idea to start a young communists meeting in my school? there are like 12 of us who want to do it but wonder if it might be a bad idea (lots of facists and other such anti communists)

What kind of fascists? The "we-hate-the-red-and-beat-them-up" fascists? Or just the more "softcore" fascists? If there is no threat of violence, I say go for it. The faster the working class organize, the better, and 12 seems is a lot of people for a start-up group!

[Property Is Robbery]

i have a random question, would it be a bad idea to start a young communists meeting in my school? there are like 12 of us who want to do it but wonder if it might be a bad idea (lots of facists and other such anti communists)
Actual fascists?

[Stortebeker]

Sorry for posting so much, but I'd like to get an answer for this question:


How would occupations like a janitor, or a cable guy be paid?
They don't produce anything, but they make a contribution to society.

[Tjis]

How would occupations like a janitor, or a cable guy be paid?
They don't produce anything, but they make a contribution to society.

This question is hard to answer because currently being paid means selling your labor-power to someone else for a wage. This relation itself is to be abolished in the revolution.
Instead, since the means of production are collectively owned by the working class, what is to be produced, how much is to be produced and who should be entitled to it become decisions that can be made democratically by each and every worker, including the janitor and the cable guy, if those jobs still exist even, because the allocation of work comes under our control as well. Existing jobs could become part of other jobs or become obsolete and be replaced by new kinds of jobs.
So how would a janitor or cable guy get rewarded for their labor? In the same way as all other workers, as has been decided by all workers. I imagine it'd be something like free access to everything we can sustainably make abuntantly available (food, clothes, housing and medicine at least hopefully), and rationed access to other things.

[Thirsty Crow]

So how would a janitor or cable guy get rewarded for their labor? In the same way as all other workers, as has been decided by all workers. I imagine it'd be something like free access to everything we can sustainably make abuntantly available (food, clothes, housing and medicine at least hopefully), and rationed access to other things.
Do you have any idea what kind of a political structure is simply neccessary in order that a rationing system may exist?
But maybe you've expressed yourself badly. Do you mean, by "rationed access", renumeration based on labour time?

[Dahut]

Has anyone compiled all of these into one document by the way??

[The Idler]

I will consolidate them into the Consolidated FAQ shortly.

[Tim Cornelis]

The rationing of goods simply means certain goods of which a shortage exists (whatever goods these may be) will still be distributed for free, but a democratically (possibly consensus) selected limit will be established. Say, for example eggs are not available in abundance people will be 'rationed' 1 egg rather than how much they need.

[Thirsty Crow]

The rationing of goods simply means certain goods of which a shortage exists (whatever goods these may be) will still be distributed for free, but a democratically (possibly consensus) selected limit will be established. Say, for example eggs are not available in abundance people will be 'rationed' 1 egg rather than how much they need.
Two points:

1) eggs are not a good example since it is an absolute imperative to develop the means of agricultural/food production once the workers' revolutionary government is established

2) any system of rationing does not support the tendency towards direct rule of the proletarians themselves; in this sense, I think that renumeration based on labour time (the famous labour vouchers) represents a more flexible mechanism of distribution.

[Ben Barton]

I just want a quick comeback to this one, one that won't take too long to say.

"Communism doesn't work"

the most obvious one but it gets me sometimes because i have to explain for ages and they usually cut me off way before i have finished. thanks!

[Catmatic Leftist]

I just want a quick comeback to this one, one that won't take too long to say.

"Communism doesn't work"

the most obvious one but it gets me sometimes because i have to explain for ages and they usually cut me off way before i have finished. thanks!

If they're going to be this obtuse, then you should find a way to put the burden of proof on them instead of you; make it so they make the initial positive claim, because then they have to provide all the proof to back their assertions while you only have to respond to his arguments.. That way, you can watch them squirm in their chair explaining and explaining away and you can just sit there and debunk and pick apart all of the logical inconsistencies in their argument. :laugh:

[Die Rote Fahne]

i have a random question, would it be a bad idea to start a young communists meeting in my school? there are like 12 of us who want to do it but wonder if it might be a bad idea (lots of facists and other such anti communists)
Do it anyways.

They attack you, you then go to the administration and get some fascists booted out of school. If the administration does nothing, ACLU all the way.

Anyways, yes. It's a great idea to spread awareness amongst students.

[Dimitri Molotov]

I don't really have a specific question, but I have a problem that frequently ticks me off. There is quite a handful of leftists in my school, the majority of us are Anarcho Communists. We have about 7 Anarcho-Communists, 2 Marxists-in-training, 1 Anarcho-Socialist (He is a socialist who we just haven't convinced that full blown Communism is the way to go, he wants very limited capitalism, but I like him because he has actual opinions of his own.) 4 or 5 Socialists, And 4 Anarchists (Not sure of their economic views, but one of them my good friend Cody does have a slight liking for Mao despite being an Anarchist.)

These are the real leftists in my school, and they all pretty much look to me for advice and I like talking to them frequently about politics and world history. My teachers pretty much blame me for the sudden spike in the leftist population in the sophomore class. There is actually so much of us in our grade that the candidates running for class president the past year or two have had to mention us in their speech and have been trying to appeal to us specifically. It kind of makes me giggle when they mention us in their speeches, because there is enough of us now where if they don't reach out to us they might actually lose. We are still a minority by far, but we are a good 1/3 of our grade, and probably a good 1/12 of the whole school. Of course the candidates who appeal to us still don't get our votes because the vast majority of our group replies to the ballot by writing ":blackA: VOTING CHANGES NOTHING :blackA:" on the paper instead of an actual name. One year we decided write "Fidel Castro" for our nominee, just to see how many votes we could get, and the teacher who counted it actually told us Castro came in first place but since he wasn't a legitimate choice they picked the kid who came in second for the President XD.

But anyways, here is my problem that irritates me. There is a number of kids at my school who will walk around like "Yay Communism!" but then say something like "burn the Jews" or something completely preposterous like that, or the kids who walk around drawing :reda: all over the place and just talk about how laws are stupid and school is stupid because they don't want to learn they just want to smoke and do whatever they want. These kids aren't the actual Communists and Anarchists, they are the kids doing it just because it is a trend, and it embarrasses me because I am seen as the main face of the leftists in my school by the teachers and other kids, and when, for instance, a teacher will get into a debate or argument with one of these kids they have no idea what to say. They have never read the Manifesto, they probably can't even spell Marx and if you ask them who Mao Zedong or Vladimir Lenin are they would probably say its a type of noodle. What do you guys think about my predicament?

[Mettalian]

My comrades and I were 'debating' a kid in my anthro class who saw my homemade hammer and sickle patch on my backpack, and my comrade's :blackA:. He just kept asking me why my comrades and I weren't all dressed the same if we were 'commies'. Face, meet palm.

[Dimitri Molotov]

Haha, wow. My debates go allot like that too, I really wish some of the arguments I got into were of relevance to something or bore some kind of intellectual value, but it is usually something like patches haha. I have a similar story about patches. . .

I have this pair of ripped up black jeans I decorated that I like to wear with my punk jacket, and one of the home made patches I have on it below my hammer and sickle patch is a crossed out swastika, and it is very obviously crossed out in bright red ink. Well I was walking through the lobby and these kids probably 2 or 3 years older than me were sitting at a table and they were like "Why do you have a swastika on your leg?" And I was like "Can you tell it is crossed out?" because I wasn't sure if he was legitimately colorblind, and he was like "Yeah but it's still a swastika! You damn nazi commie, go back to China." and I was like "You are a fucking idiot, go home and watch some more Glenn Beck." That is about the extent of the intelligence of the people I debate with at my school. :sleep:

[Agent Ducky]

Yeah I hate debating with stupid people. And stupid people who say they're communist/anarchist just to be cool are just as bad.... There are several of those at my school. They picked up on communism from me but don't really know anything. Lol @ Fidel Castro for school president.

[Pioneers_Violin]

.....
But anyways, here is my problem that irritates me. There is a number of kids at my school who will walk around like "Yay Communism!" but then say something like "burn the Jews" or something completely preposterous like that, or the kids who walk around drawing :reda: all over the place and just talk about how laws are stupid and school is stupid because they don't want to learn they just want to smoke and do whatever they want. These kids aren't the actual Communists and Anarchists, they are the kids doing it just because it is a trend, and it embarrasses me because I am seen as the main face of the leftists in my school by the teachers and other kids, and when, for instance, a teacher will get into a debate or argument with one of these kids they have no idea what to say. They have never read the Manifesto, they probably can't even spell Marx and if you ask them who Mao Zedong or Vladimir Lenin are they would probably say its a type of noodle. What do you guys think about my predicament?

Being the Poster Child is tough.
You will probably get all of the blame for any action that these wannabes take. If not directly as in being arrested or disciplined, then indirectly as "Guilt by Association".
Either way, you accomplish nothing by taking the rap for their actions.

My best advice for what it's worth:

Remember at all times that you are a member of a group that many people seek to destroy or discredit.

Disassociate from the wannabes as much as possible. Try to make sure that their troubles stay with them and are not attributable to you.

Make sure that yourself and your real comrades are consistent and reliable in your message and presentation.
Help each other learn.
Make sure that your friends can spell "Marx" and all of you know your literature and history as much as possible.

Do this and your group will be distinctly separate from the "wannabes".

If you successfully distinguish yourselves, more people will probably want to join you. Be careful! If you haven't yet, you will learn soon enough about people that smile to your face and stab you in the back.
Set some standards for those who wish to join you and be very choosy about who you associate with and confide in.

[Rafiq]

"Communism doesn't work"

the most obvious one but it gets me sometimes because i have to explain for ages and they usually cut me off way before i have finished. thanks!

The best thing to do is agree with them, and then point out mathematically why capitalism can't work, and why we need to look for solutions.

(The solution will always be communism btw).

[Dogs On Acid]

The best thing to do is agree with them, and then point out mathematically why capitalism can't work, and why we need to look for solutions.

(The solution will always be communism btw).

If you agree it doesn't work then you would sound hypocritical (if they already know your communist that is).

[Brettsworld]

if these kids are already rich, why are they bothering to read books about how to get rich? seems rather redundant to me, but Capitalists always are

[Dogs On Acid]

if these kids are already rich, why are they bothering to read books about how to get rich? seems rather redundant to me, but Capitalists always are

Greed? It's something that most of us on the left don't share with them, or at least don't feel it as much.

[Lokomotive293]

How do you reply to people who say "Socialism doesn't work - Look at Greece"? I've been coming across this a lot lately, and really, I don't get the point of that argument. Why would anyone think Greece is socialist?

[Dogs On Acid]

How do you reply to people who say "Socialism doesn't work - Look at Greece"? I've been coming across this a lot lately, and really, I don't get the point of that argument. Why would anyone think Greece is socialist?

Same reason they think Obama is Socialist :rolleyes:

Disinformation.

[cheguvera]

very informative

[Binh]

How do you reply to people who say "Socialism doesn't work - Look at Greece"? I've been coming across this a lot lately, and really, I don't get the point of that argument. Why would anyone think Greece is socialist?

It's run by a "socialist" party, PASOK. Their argument is that Greece is screwed because it pays its workers too much and the government spent way too much money on health care, etc.; the truth is that corporations and capitalists pay almost no taxes, so the debt/deficits are a result of that, not run away spending.

[amitgwb]

thanks for sharing

[Thirsty Crow]

It's run by a "socialist" party, PASOK. Their argument is that Greece is screwed because it pays its workers too much and the government spent way too much money on health care, etc.; the truth is that corporations and capitalists pay almost no taxes, so the debt/deficits are a result of that, not run away spending.
And why the hell should we tolerate the system which undergoes a crisis when we have wages that afford us a slightly higher standard of living and access to basic services like healthcare?

[Aloysius]

All of you with a shit-load of leftists in school are lucky as hell. I'm one of about 4 far-leftists I know.

[Seresan]

4 far leftists? I was the only LEFTIST in my civics class back when I was in grade 10! I'd be happy if I just have one fellow leftist that I knew of.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Yea, I wish I had fellow leftists when I was at school. It was no fun seeing fascists running rampant around the school beating the shit out of minorities; I didn't want to do anything because they outnumbered me and the school administration did nothing about it.

[Thirsty Crow]

4 far leftists? I was the only LEFTIST in my civics class back when I was in grade 10! I'd be happy if I just have one fellow leftist that I knew of.
I was the only one even mildly politicized in high school (not a revolutionary leftist, mind you) in which almost no one gave two shits about politics.

[Dogs On Acid]

I was the only one even mildly politicized in high school (not a revolutionary leftist, mind you) in which almost no one gave two shits about politics.

Unfortunately the youth resorts to Apathy.

[ComradePonov]

It's run by a "socialist" party, PASOK. Their argument is that Greece is screwed because it pays its workers too much and the government spent way too much money on health care, etc.; the truth is that corporations and capitalists pay almost no taxes, so the debt/deficits are a result of that, not run away spending.


Bingo


And the irony is that these pigs ask the workers to withstand cuts in health care, education, social security, and other necessities of life, just so the rich don't experience a raise on their taxes.

[Binh]

And the irony is that these pigs ask the workers to withstand cuts in health care, education, social security, and other necessities of life, just so the rich don't experience a raise on their taxes.

It's not just about taxes -- they don't want Greece to default on the loans from German and French banks. God forbid banks go under when they make bad investments!

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Really informative thread. Thanks redstar2000 for posting,it really helped me increase my knowledge.

[cheguvera]

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.


unfortunately every body cant become doctors or lawyers even if they have the same talent & desire. Therefore every human being deserve same quality of life.On the other hand money greed driven social-economic culture will not benefit civilization.It is aggravating class different created on the basis of wealth.We should be able to understand thinking ,desire, social respect of every human being as equal.This concept is the only valid one in highly advanced human society.Too much money driven economic policies will shorten the life of this smal earth.

[RedAtheist]

Some people I know are social democrats but none of them claim to be supporters of revolution (apart from the people in the socialist party I'm associated with.)

I've come across many objections. Here are the questions and objections I've heard and come up with (in what I view as their strongest form.)

Green = me playing devil's advocate

I'll start with the ones about socialism in general

1. Is socialism any different to completely nationalising the economy? If we were to nationalise the economy, doesn't the government generally run things inefficiently, since it has nothing to compete against?

2. I know this one is cliche and you've all probably heard it many times before. Humans are too self-interested, corrupt and lazy to make socialism work. I would add that they are programmed to be this way by evolution (ie. the most self-interested people would be more likely to survive)

3. Wouldn't a planned economy limit people's freedom to choose their occupation/what they consume?

4. Socialism discourages independence. It will create a society where people will have to rely on the government for everything and won't be able to get anything for themselves. This will not only make them feel disempowered, but give the government complete power over them.

These next few relate to attempt made by people/governments to create socialism

5. Every country that attempts to create socialism, has failed to provide a decent standard of living for its people (eg. Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) Again I'm sure you're all probably very familiar with this argument, but I haven't heard a good answer to it.

6. Some people point to Venezuela as an example of socialism succeeding, but isn't Hugo Chavez more of a reformist than a genuine revolutionary socialist? Is there any difference between what he is doing and what a social democrat would do if one were to come to power?

7. Another response is that socialist who have caused great harm to their people aren't true socialists (eg. Stalin). But socialists can't seem to agree on which countries/people are socialists and which aren't (eg. some people support Stalin, some support Castro/Cuba, while others oppose Cuba). It seems that there is no common notion of what socialism is and there is no way to tell whether a country is socialist or not other than by one's own subjective preferences.

8. The Bolsheviks seem to be widely supported among socialists, but they killed millions in the civil war and through the implementation of war communism. Why is it that so many revolutionary socialists support them? Can one be a revolutionary and not support them or would they be missing something crucial?

These objections relate to the socialist critique of capitalism

9. Isn't the exploitation of workers necessary to meet demand (ie. the capitalists would not force their workers to produce more than what people wanted, so aren't the consumers actually exploiting the workers)? Isn't it necessary for factories to be efficient and for surplus value to be created so that it can be stored or reinvested into production? If the full product of their labour is not returned to the working class what is the point of socialism?

10. Hasn't capitalism enabled countries like West Germany and South Korea to become wealthy while their socialist counterparts (East Germany and North Korea) have failed miserably. (I'm not implying that any of you support North Korea, but it's hard to tell what socialists advocate these days, see Q. 6)

11. The Marxist analysis of history and capitalism suggests that our thinking (and hence our actions) is determined by our economic conditions/the society we live in. If this understanding were correct it would mean that people had no freewill and hence no personal responsibility for what they did. For example, a murder would claim that because of their impoverished conditions they had no choice but to kill someone. This would make it possible for people to get away with anything.

These next ones relate to the use of revolution to create socialism

12. Marx stated that socialist revolutions would need to happen in industrialised countries first, but these countries (eg. America and Europe) are very wealthy because of capitalism and will not attempt to do away with it through revolution. If anyone did attempt revolution they would be be able to defeat the police and military of a first world country

13. A violent revolution/civil war would destroy the economy making it impossible to create socialism.

These are two are to do with the foreign relations of socialist countries

14. If the revolution does not spread beyond one countries (or gets suppressed in other countries), the one new socialist countries would not receive economic support or be able to trade with any other countries. This would serious wreck the economy.

15. Wouldn't a socialist country be pressured to spend large amounts of money on it's military since there are capitalist countries which might want to invade it?

Sorry if I sound a little harsh, I'm just trying to be throughly scientific in my approach, being critical of what I'm told. :) I became an atheist a few years ago and have no desire to return to the religious way of thinking.

Hopefully I can get some strong rebutals. Is it okay if I play devil's advocate on this thread from now on, if I feel people's responses are weak?

P.S. These are only my objections to socialism. I have even more for communism.

[Seresan]

Well, I think I have rebuttals for at least the of them...

2) Since when is self-intrest natural? Without people to farm your food, make your clothing, build your house, pave your roads, etc. you would be hopeless. You rely on people every day, so you may as well respect them.

5) No one ever said that Russia or China were perfect. The conditions are different every different place and every different time. Socialism requires the proper resources, and Russia and China were lacking some of those at the time.

8) You seem to forget that the White Army killed plenty of people, too. All countries kill in war. I'm not saying it was good, but it was required to stay in power. The end justifies the means, but only if there is something to justify the end. I admit that Stalin was a jerk, but that was never in THE PLAN. The Bolsheviks were fighting for the greater good.

[Kamos]

I can't answer 1 in a way that would convince a reactionary and question 2 has been answered well enough above.


3. Wouldn't a planned economy limit people's freedom to choose their occupation/what they consume?

As if this weren't the case in the free market system.


4. Socialism discourages independence. It will create a society where people will have to rely on the government for everything and won't be able to get anything for themselves. This will not only make them feel disempowered, but give the government complete power over them.

Sounds like capitalism.


5. Every country that attempts to create socialism, has failed to provide a decent standard of living for its people (eg. Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) Again I'm sure you're all probably very familiar with this argument, but I haven't heard a good answer to it.

Bad decisions, too little advance towards a better socialist society, failure to spread the revolution. In addition, these countries practiced bureaucratic centralism instead of democratic centralism, thus alienating the proletariat in whose name they were fighting.


6. Some people point to Venezuela as an example of socialism succeeding, but isn't Hugo Chavez more of a reformist than a genuine revolutionary socialist? Is there any difference between what he is doing and what a social democrat would do if one were to come to power?

Chavez isn't a reformist, he's certainly a revolutionary. That, or someone acting like one (yeah, probably the latter). The difference between the revolutionary and the reformist is which system he chooses to pursue: capitalism or communism.


7. Another response is that socialist who have caused great harm to their people aren't true socialists (eg. Stalin). But socialists can't seem to agree on which countries/people are socialists and which aren't (eg. some people support Stalin, some support Castro/Cuba, while others oppose Cuba). It seems that there is no common notion of what socialism is and there is no way to tell whether a country is socialist or not other than by one's own subjective preferences.

Welcome to the sectarianism of the far left. Socialism does have something in common in the view of every revolutionary: there are no class differences. (And a few more, but I cba to think them up right now.)


8. The Bolsheviks seem to be widely supported among socialists, but they killed millions in the civil war and through the implementation of war communism. Why is it that so many revolutionary socialists support them? Can one be a revolutionary and not support them or would they be missing something crucial?

Yeah, you're missing the "white terror" part of the whole thing. War communism was necessary due to the geopolitical situation of the era; the problem was that the Soviet Union went in the wrong direction afterwards.


9. Isn't the exploitation of workers necessary to meet demand (ie. the capitalists would not force their workers to produce more than what people wanted, so aren't the consumers actually exploiting the workers)? Isn't it necessary for factories to be efficient and for surplus value to be created so that it can be stored or reinvested into production? If the full product of their labour is not returned to the working class what is the point of socialism?

We have enough resources. Efficiency? Bah. It's the capitalist system that's using our resources inefficiently, wasting them to entertain the rich, or just wasting them period.


10. Hasn't capitalism enabled countries like West Germany and South Korea to become wealthy while their socialist counterparts (East Germany and North Korea) have failed miserably. (I'm not implying that any of you support North Korea, but it's hard to tell what socialists advocate these days, see Q. 6)

Poverty was/is pretty severe in the capitalist countries while even the poorest socialist countries had a good social security system, free healthcare, etc. Capitalists try to showcase the middle class as the success of their system, but not everyone can be middle class, no matter what anyone says. Take the GDP statistics and such with a grain of salt.


11. The Marxist analysis of history and capitalism suggests that our thinking (and hence our actions) is determined by our economic conditions/the society we live in. If this understanding were correct it would mean that people had no freewill and hence no personal responsibility for what they did. For example, a murder would claim that because of their impoverished conditions they had no choice but to kill someone. This would make it possible for people to get away with anything.

Err, what? Of course people have personal responsibility for what they do, where did you get this BS? Also, yeah, while most poor criminals tend to resort to petty theft instead of murder, your example is otherwise valid - which is a strong incentive to eliminate poverty, and class differences after that.


12. Marx stated that socialist revolutions would need to happen in industrialised countries first, but these countries (eg. America and Europe) are very wealthy because of capitalism and will not attempt to do away with it through revolution. If anyone did attempt revolution they would be be able to defeat the police and military of a first world country

It's not the "countries", but their working class (and those who defect to them), that does the revolution. There is no wealthy country in the sense that every country has a large mass of poor people who can barely get by, if that. Also, if in your last sentence, you wanted to say "would not be": the military and police forces of the whole world amount to a few billions. The working class of the world amounts to billions. Any questions?


13. A violent revolution/civil war would destroy the economy making it impossible to create socialism.

Economies can be rebuilt; if the whole world is under the dictatorship of the proletariat economic strength is irrelevant; revolutions only destroy the economy if there is a strong "white" resistance, which is indicative of a weaker revolution, so the better the revolution, the better the aftermath. Take your pick.

These are two are to do with the foreign relations of socialist countries


14. If the revolution does not spread beyond one countries (or gets suppressed in other countries), the one new socialist countries would not receive economic support or be able to trade with any other countries. This would serious wreck the economy.

That's why socialism in one country is impossible. If this happens anyway, the lone socialist country must do everything to spread socialism, while also providing a role model by rapidly socialising the economy. However, the successful revolution is likely to come only when approx. half of the world rises up successfully at least, and probably more.


15. Wouldn't a socialist country be pressured to spend large amounts of money on it's military since there are capitalist countries which might want to invade it?

Diplomacy doesn't work that way anymore. If the country has no good reason to go to war, it will be very unpopular at home. See the example of Vietnam: couldn't the American juggernaut have easily swept aside the Vietnamese communists and created a capitalist satellite in place? Probably, but due to the anti-war sentiment, in part, they were forced to make peace. In addition, the revolution will be secured not through military might alone; the working classes of the capitalist countries are the key. Look at it this way: capitalism is going to fall, that's certain. The question is, how soon.[/QUOTE]

[CommunityBeliever]

1. Is socialism any different to completely nationalising the economy? If we were to nationalise the economy, doesn't the government generally run things inefficiently, since it has nothing to compete against?

Why would the irrational forces of the market (or "competition") ever lead to efficiency?

In reality it doesn't work that way. For example, as long as the Soviet Union was around there was persistent economic growth, but now look at what has happened since they returned to the irrational forces of the market.


2. I know this one is cliche and you've all probably heard it many times before. Humans are too self-interested, corrupt and lazy to make socialism work. I would add that they are programmed to be this way by evolution (ie. the most self-interested people would be more likely to survive)Humans are a highly social animal. They are inclined to work together in groups (e.g to protect on another from foreign predators).

Things like greed only arose in the last 12,000 years with the formation of private property and the sedentary lifestyle. We lived in primitive communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism) for much longer then that and all the examples of modern communism (the Paris commune, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, etc) are further demonstrations of the communal nature of man.


3. Wouldn't a planned economy limit people's freedom to choose their occupation/what they consume?A planned economy doesn't involve controlling people's personal lives.


4. Socialism discourages independence. It will create a society where people will have to rely on the government for everything and won't be able to get anything for themselves. This will not only make them feel disempowered, but give the government complete power over themSocialists do not believe in controlling people's personal lives.


5. Every country that attempts to create socialism, has failed to provide a decent standard of living for its people (eg. Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) Again I'm sure you're all probably very familiar with this argument, but I haven't heard a good answer to it.The decent living standard that is provided for people in countries like the U.S, Canada, and Europe, is the result of imperialism and the killing of millions of people in the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, etc.

These imperialist countries profit off of the exploitation of the third world, and as a result, almost five billion people are denied a good living standard in the third world countries. Under socialism everybody will given a good living standard, not just those lucky enough to be born in first world countries.

But the first world countries are far from perfect themselves, and due to capitalism millions of poor people are denied health care, food, water, and shelter. Homeless people, for example, are abundant even in first-world countries that are full of wealth.

In socialist countries, such as Cuba, everyone is ensured a good living standard that is as good as the state can allow. People are given medical care, food, water, homes to live in, an education, and even a job, which is stupendous when compared to the capitalist countries.

Communist China is another good example of socialist success - it is has brought more people out of poverty then anyone else in history and at least in the Mao era, everyone was ensured a good living standard and thanks to the barefoot doctors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_doctor) people in the rural areas were getting health care for the first time ever, but then when China got taken over by anti-communist revisionists (Deng Xiaoping) and brought capitalism back into the country, then the good living standard was eliminated.


6. Some people point to Venezuela as an example of socialism succeeding, but isn't Hugo Chavez more of a reformist than a genuine revolutionary socialist? Is there any difference between what he is doing and what a social democrat would do if one were to come to power?

Hugo Chavez is a leftist and an anti-imperialist and for that he deserves enormous praise. His leftist programs have been quite successful in Venezuela, however, I wouldn't say he is really a revolutionary communist.


7. Another response is that socialist who have caused great harm to their people aren't true socialists (eg. Stalin). But socialists can't seem to agree on which countries/people are socialists and which aren't (eg. some people support Stalin, some support Castro/Cuba, while others oppose Cuba). It seems that there is no common notion of what socialism is and there is no way to tell whether a country is socialist or not other than by one's own subjective preferences.There is a way to determine what socialism is and it is the worker's control of the means of production. To what extent that applies to a specific country should be examined.


8. The Bolsheviks seem to be widely supported among socialists, but they killed millions in the civil war and through the implementation of war communism. Why is it that so many revolutionary socialists support them? Can one be a revolutionary and not support them or would they be missing something crucial?Communist revolutions are violent, however, they are a natural reaction to capitalist exploitation. If we put an end to capitalism then we can put an end to war and violence as well.


9. Isn't the exploitation of workers necessary to meet demand (ie. the capitalists would not force their workers to produce more than what people wanted, so aren't the consumers actually exploiting the workers)? Isn't it necessary for factories to be efficient and for surplus value to be created so that it can be stored or reinvested into production? If the full product of their labour is not returned to the working class what is the point of socialism?The consumers are not exploiting the workers, the capitalists are. If unemployment increases increases because of the loss of consumer demand that isn't going to help matters at all because unemployment isn't at all desirable for the workers.

Futhermore, factories should be efficient, however, there is no reason they should have their surplus value exploited by capitalists.


10. Hasn't capitalism enabled countries like West Germany and South Korea to become wealthy while their socialist counterparts (East Germany and North Korea) have failed miserably. (I'm not implying that any of you support North Korea, but it's hard to tell what socialists advocate these days, see Q. 6)No that is not the case. How well is capitalism working in the African countries?

Uneven distribution is a universal law of capitalism which means some countries (such as West Germany) will succeed well the others don't and that might even entail being more successful then neighbouring socialist countries.


11. The Marxist analysis of history and capitalism suggests that our thinking (and hence our actions) is determined by our economic conditions/the society we live in. If this understanding were correct it would mean that people had no freewill and hence no personal responsibility for what they did. For example, a murder would claim that because of their impoverished conditions they had no choice but to kill someone. This would make it possible for people to get away with anything.The murderer had no choice but to kill that person, but that doesn't mean he can get away with it because the justice system shouldn't suddenly shut itself down because of determinism.


12. Marx stated that socialist revolutions would need to happen in industrialised countries first, but these countries (eg. America and Europe) are very wealthy because of capitalism and will not attempt to do away with it through revolution. If anyone did attempt revolution they would be be able to defeat the police and military of a first world countryThe fact that socialist revolutions didn't happen in the wealthy imperialist countries was explained by later thinkers which is why Marxism is extended by some to become Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.


13. A violent revolution/civil war would destroy the economy making it impossible to create socialism.People can recover from the damage from the violent conflicts.


14. If the revolution does not spread beyond one countries (or gets suppressed in other countries), the one new socialist countries would not receive economic support or be able to trade with any other countries. This would serious wreck the economy.Hopefully then the revolution will happen across the world, which isn't an unreasonable expectation since globalisation has made us all deeply interconnected.


15. Wouldn't a socialist country be pressured to spend large amounts of money on it's military since there are capitalist countries which might want to invade it?Indeed it would, that is part of the inevitable conflict between socialism and capitalism and that is necessary for social progress.

[Wubbaz]

1. Is socialism any different to completely nationalising the economy? If we were to nationalise the economy, doesn't the government generally run things inefficiently, since it has nothing to compete against?


This objection implies that the socialist state would have to compete on a market for commodities and that the production would be planned in a "USSR"-style, centralized, bureaucratic fashion.

The major difference between socialist production and capitalist production, is that of producing for profit or producing whatever people need. This is another thing that exposes the irrationality of the capitalist mode of production:

If a capitalist could find more profit in producing straw-hats than he could find in producing bread, he would produce straw-hats.

This is absurd, considering how many people in the world lose their life from hunger each year. In the socialist mode of production, we would produce to satisfy the needs of everyone before we start producing the less needed products. In other words, bread before straw-hats. This also means that in socialism, there is no competition for profit


2. I know this one is cliche and you've all probably heard it many times before. Humans are too self-interested, corrupt and lazy to make socialism work. I would add that they are programmed to be this way by evolution (ie. the most self-interested people would be more likely to survive)

There is no, widely accepted scientific evidence that humans are inherently greedy, altruistic or any other trait. In my opinion, humans can be all sort of stuff - however, it is our society that defines what personal traits would be the most significant. In capitalism, greed is worshipped as it means profit for the capitalists. In socialism, altruism would be the defining personal trait for everyone.


3. Wouldn't a planned economy limit people's freedom to choose their occupation/what they consume?

Not at all. A planned economy basicly means a economy that is controlled on a democratic basis and that it produces to satisfy the needs of people. Socialism is not about controlling the lives of people - it is about giving people more freedom to do whatever they want. I can't see how socialism would decide what occupation you are to pick.


4. Socialism discourages independence. It will create a society where people will have to rely on the government for everything and won't be able to get anything for themselves. This will not only make them feel disempowered, but give the government complete power over them.


Again, socialism is not about controlling people's lives. It is about abolishing private property and letting everyone have influence on the economy, political decisions and the production. You would rely on everyone else, just like you are doing in capitalism, to get your products. I don't know what you mean by "not able to get anything for themselves", but remember that there is a difference between private property and private possesions. Socialists only seek to aboholish property, not possesions.


5. Every country that attempts to create socialism, has failed to provide a decent standard of living for its people (eg. Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) Again I'm sure you're all probably very familiar with this argument, but I haven't heard a good answer to it.

Yes, so far no country has been able to create true socialism. It would be foolish to try and talk around that fact. Though, I must say that during the so-called "socialist" regimes of these countries, the lives of the ordinary worker has increased considerably. I believe that the USSR, China and Cuba have the world records in improving the standard of lives for the general populace. However, these countries were/are by no means truly socialist and they had some major problems - I think you know what problems I am talking about here (Suppresion, torture and the like).


6. Some people point to Venezuela as an example of socialism succeeding, but isn't Hugo Chavez more of a reformist than a genuine revolutionary socialist? Is there any difference between what he is doing and what a social democrat would do if one were to come to power?

Well, to be honest, I do not know that much about Chavez. I would call him a reformist socialist or something along those lines. He is slowly bringing Venezuela towards some kind of socialism. A social democrat would never nationalize so many industries as Chavez did. A social democrat believes in the capitalist mode of production with a human face. Chavez is much more to the left than that, I think.


7. Another response is that socialist who have caused great harm to their people aren't true socialists (eg. Stalin). But socialists can't seem to agree on which countries/people are socialists and which aren't (eg. some people support Stalin, some support Castro/Cuba, while others oppose Cuba). It seems that there is no common notion of what socialism is and there is no way to tell whether a country is socialist or not other than by one's own subjective preferences.

That is the the biggest curse of the left as of today - so many different views on socialism that we can't sit down and agree on a unified strike. However, an easy way to determine if a country is socialist or not is to ask this question:

"Are the means of production controlled on a democratic basis?"

If the answer is no, it is not socialism.

I will answer more questions once I have the time. :)

[Seresan]

Question that I'M more likely to get:

1: What is communism, anyways?

2: Aren't communists evil?

3: Why do you believe in killing millions of people?

4: COMMIES OPPOSE FREEDOM! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!


Yaaaay. Uneducated mindless right-wing baffoons!

[RedMarxist]

Question that I'M more likely to get:

1: What is communism, anyways?

2: Aren't communists evil?

3: Why do you believe in killing millions of people?

4: COMMIES OPPOSE FREEDOM! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!


Yaaaay. Uneducated mindless right-wing baffoons!

responses to tell those right-wing morons who think they know everything there is to know about Communism.

#1(in relation to your first question): It's a stateless, classless society in wherein everyone works for societies interest, as opposed to under Capitalism, wherein everyone works for their own individual interest

#2: If I was evil then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'd be in my secret volcano lair building a missile with which to blow up the White House with, in order to establish a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

#3: Rather silly to suggest that I, as in "I" in the sense of an individual, would condone the murder of millions upon millions of innocent people. The USSR, the PRC, Cambodia, etc, were all unique historical examples in which, coincidentally mass murder materialized in, perpetrated by petty dictators and/or tyrants. Just because Pol Pot or Mao killed a bunch of his own people, according to your logic I therefore justify it, as if you already knew what I was thinking? what!?!

#4: The Bourgeoisie oppose freedom. Lets all off the Bourgeoisie's heads and party like its 1793.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Question that I'M more likely to get:
3: Why do you believe in killing millions of people?

Saying that Communism killed millions is like saying that dogs can fly. Communism killed a total of 0 people.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Question that I'M more likely to get:
1: What is Communism anyways?

2: Aren't communists evil?

If they ask you again,

1: It is the best democratic system that has worked in the 20th perfectly and thanks to communism, the first man was sent to space.It would work perfectly in a society that is willing to revolute for it.

2:Yes.Commies are bastards who love to kill and torture animals.I don't see any reason for them to live.No,seriously tell them that "I don't think people who are true democrats are evil".

My point is that these fail anticommunist questions that right wingers do are totally stupid.

[Maka93]

Hi all, my first post on here but having a discussion with my friend, and put across to me :

"But then harder workers can't be promoted and will have less motivation cos they're earning the same amount as shabby workers"

I'm trying to explain the loss of the classes and alike and how that the workers would be in control of the means of production, haven't dared say that doctors and janitors would be earning the same since it should turn into a state of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sort of situation.

[RedMarxist]

explain to your friend that under Socialism(the transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism), two completely different jobs(janitor and a doctor) would not equal the same amount of pay.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" means just that. The doctor will get payed more as he works harder no doubt then the janitor. I guess you could argue the janitor works just as hard, but from a technical standpoint the doctor is working harder as his job is more of a challenge and requires more stress-filled work.

Yet I'd imagine that under Socialism the wages would no doubt be slightly higher for both occupations, to make it more equal, but that does not matter for what your asking.

Good luck in making your friend look foolish. :)

[Yugo45]

3: Why do you believe in killing millions of people?

That's silly.. How can communism kill anyone? First of all, it's not a person so it can't directly kill anyone. Second of all, does it say anywhere in the, for example, The Communist Manifesto "Kill millions of people"?

By same logic, we should all ban America because, by some estimates, it has killed 114 million Native Americans.

In fact, the retarded saying "Communism has only killed 100 million people, let's give it another chance!" would be as retarded as someone saying "Democracy has only killed 114 million people, let's give it another chance!" It's ignorant as fuck.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Question that I'M more likely to get:

1: What is communism, anyways?

2: Aren't communists evil?

3: Why do you believe in killing millions of people?

4: COMMIES OPPOSE FREEDOM! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!


Yaaaay. Uneducated mindless right-wing baffoons!



1: Communism is a stateless, classless society which functions to favor the many over the few. In a truly Communist state, there would be no concentration of wealth, or the working for hours on end just to put food on the table. Communism would result in everyone doing a fair amount of work and a fair amount of leisure.

2: Communists are not evil. Communists work for a far more fair and just world. Capitalists are far more evil and make the poor and working class fight over bread crumbs while they sit atop their thrones.

3: I do not believe in killing millions of people. Where would you get that idea from?

4: Communists fight for freedom, Capitalists oppose it and are even willing to show their teeth to prove it (brutal police action against protestors, bombings of sovereign nations, etc.) Capitalism has resulted in the death of millions of people world wide. Everyday a child starves to death while a CEO flies in his jet to some island resort.

[RedMarxist]

the BBC just said that 46 MILLION Americans are in poverty. What does that say about Capitalism?

it says it is a sick, f----- up system that should be, but won't unless we try, swept away for good.

I want everyone to know-nothing will ever occur if you don't strive for it. This is especially important if you, like me, are still in High School.

We, the tiny yet radical Left, have to, MUST, strive for an end to Capitalism. If we do this, we can accomplish BIG gains in a small period of time.

But to do that we must EDUCATE the masses-all classes, not just the working class. We must work amongst the poor and the more fortunate in society and convince them that a land of plenty is possible. that land of plenty is Communism.

Education is a WEAPON. It's more powerful then guns or bombs. The ruling elite-don't want you to know what Socialism is-they tell us Obama is evil for being one-that public universal healthcare is bad.(not that I support Obama nor that I think he is a real Socialist)

They want to keep us down. Its why the Slaves were forced not to learn to read or write-because knowing those two things could lead to a massive slave rebellion-an uprising.

Well then, we must teach the masses what Communism and Socialism are. So that they can one day stage an uprising against the system that keeps 46 million Americans in deep poverty.

[El Louton]

Brilliant! Very useful!

[Seresan]

We, the tiny yet radical Left, have to, MUST, strive for an end to Capitalism. If we do this, we can accomplish BIG gains in a small period of time.

We need to organise more. Plans. All that I see even in the best of places are people with potential complaining.
I propose we start now.

The situation in America is almost ready for a revolution, but no revolutionary groups have even started putting out effective propaganda! We need to cleanse the name of Communism, tell the masses why this system isn't working, and when the situation is at it's peak, lead the revolution.
From Canada I'm seeing none of that going on, which means that the politically ignorant in America are seeing even less.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That's silly.. How can communism kill anyone? First of all, it's not a person so it can't directly kill anyone. Second of all, does it say anywhere in the, for example, The Communist Manifesto "Kill millions of people"?

By same logic, we should all ban America because, by some estimates, it has killed 114 million Native Americans.

In fact, the retarded saying "Communism has only killed 100 million people, let's give it another chance!" would be as retarded as someone saying "Democracy has only killed 114 million people, let's give it another chance!" It's ignorant as fuck.

Your repeated use of the word "retarded" in such a derogatory manner disturbs me.

[Le Libérer]

In fact, the retarded saying "Communism has only killed 100 million people, let's give it another chance!" would be as retarded as someone saying "Democracy has only killed 114 million people, let's give it another chance!" It's ignorant as fuck.
This is a verbal warning for using discriminatory language. Next time you will received an infraction.

[freethinker]

Why did the U.S.S.R production decline in the 70's/80's
I know Krustev had the Soviet Economy expanding and then all of the "fools" threw him out over the humiliation of the Cuban Missie Crisis
(which in my opinion was actually a victory for the USSR) ie: Cuban Independence Guaranteed, NATO missiles removed from Cuba

[Cheif45]

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

No, they shouldn't. That would mean they have more money, as in, they're a class higher than everyone else, Communism is a CLASS-LESS system, Everyone is the same and working for the same goal.
Dealwithit.jpg

[Le Rouge]

What i heard yesterday : Communism itself is a good idea. But the state will always steal most of the money from workers making them poor.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What i heard yesterday : Communism itself is a good idea. But the state will always steal most of the money from workers making them poor.

Times like this where I wanna yell at people,"read a damn book!" ...honestly,the ignorance of people.:laugh:

[Yugo45]

This is a verbal warning for using discriminatory language. Next time you will received an infraction.

Sorry :(

[RedMarxist]

There is no revolutionary mass workers party for the simple fact that Communism has and always will be immature in America, unless the far left rolls up its sleeves and gets to work.

It is lines like this from Bachman: "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."

"If you look at FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, this is really the final leap to socialism," she said. "But we all know that we could turn this around and we can turn this around fairly quickly. We're still a free country."

THIS is what we are up against. The far right crazies who think Socialism is evil. SOCIALISM PEOPLE!

And it isn't even revolutionary socialism she is scared off. Its reformist socialism!


I'm so sicked of living in this screwed up world, taking shit from my parents, and being told to sit there and accept it.

I will not accept being a wage slave for the rest of my life. Hell, I cannot even get a job in this economy as a teenager. that is messed up!

I look around and I hope, HOPE, that the revolutions in the Phi., India, and Nepal can shed new light on Communism, that it will cause a revolutionary chain reaction across Asia and inspire revolutions around the whole world. In my time it could.

I look around and see the horrible things that these corporations are doing and merely wish it would stop.

I look towards Marxism-Leninism fir guidance.

I look towards the teachings of Karl Marx and Engels for guidance.

I look around and hope to one day give myself the task of leading the Proletarian masses to victory. We should all strive to do just that.

[Zav]

THIS is what we are up against. The far right crazies who think Socialism is evil. SOCIALISM PEOPLE!

And it isn't even revolutionary socialism she is scared off. Its reformist socialism!

I'm so sicked of living in this screwed up world, taking shit from my parents, and being told to sit there and accept it.

I will not accept being a wage slave for the rest of my life. Hell, I cannot even get a job in this economy as a teenager. that is messed up!

I look around and I hope, HOPE, that the revolutions in the Phi., India, and Nepal can shed new light on Communism, that it will cause a revolutionary chain reaction across Asia and inspire revolutions around the whole world. In my time it could.

I look around and see the horrible things that these corporations are doing and merely wish it would stop.

I look towards Marxism-Leninism fir guidance.

I look towards the teachings of Karl Marx and Engels for guidance.

I look around and hope to one day give myself the task of leading the Proletarian masses to victory. We should all strive to do just that.
Two words: Direct Action.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have noticed that there are a few people in my area which enjoy Che Guevara.First one of my older english teachers loved him,and next one of my co-workers at the bottle redemption place liked him (and thought that Mao honestly tried to do good in China) and when I was in my college class I wore my Che Guevara sweatshirt and several of the students complemented me on how cool it was.

I wonder how many other people in my area enjoy leftist people's personality cults.

[Mythbuster]

I have noticed that there are a few people in my area which enjoy Che Guevara.First one of my older english teachers loved him,and next one of my co-workers at the bottle redemption place liked him (and thought that Mao honestly tried to do good in China) and when I was in my college class I wore my Che Guevara sweatshirt and several of the students complemented me on how cool it was.

I wonder how many other people in my area enjoy leftist people's personality cults.

Maybe you could join them up as a leftist organization...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Maybe you could join them up as a leftist organization...

No,they both have full time jobs,are among the older populace who have commitments and one of them I only knew for a coupe shifts from the bottle place.

My teacher,however,does have potential despite being only a progressive.

[Mythbuster]

No,they both have full time jobs,are among the older populace who have commitments and one of them I only knew for a coupe shifts from the bottle place.

My teacher,however,does have potential despite being only a progressive.

Ah that stinks. At least you still gave them in your area to connect with.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Ah that stinks. At least you still gave them in your area to connect with.

My teacher anyway but not the woman at the bottle redmep place.I was only there for a couple days than left.lol

[Mythbuster]

My teacher anyway but not the woman at the bottle redmep place.I was only there for a couple days than left.lol

The bottle redemption work sounds no fun...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The bottle redemption work sounds no fun...

It wasn't any fun at all, but work isn't suppose to be fun so that was to be expected.What really set me off was my coworkers constant smoking while they worked;it wasn't a very big place so no matter where you where the smoke was forcing its way into your lungs.

With school starting up I would have had to quit anyway but still I didn't think a little bit of money was worth the possibility of getting cancer from their second hand smoke.

[El Louton]

Saying that Communism killed millions is like saying that dogs can fly. Communism killed a total of 0 people.

Well not strictly true... people died fighting for communism! Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution etc...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well not strictly true... people died fighting for communism! Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution etc...

Fighting for ideals is different than the concept killing you :p

[El Louton]

Fighting for ideals is different than the concept killing you :p

Ok Mr. Smartie Pants! I agree it is. But I thought the people who died for communism deserved a mention too!

[ColonelCossack]

There is no revolutionary mass workers party for the simple fact that Communism has and always will be immature in America, unless the far left rolls up its sleeves and gets to work.

It is lines like this from Bachman: "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."

"If you look at FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, this is really the final leap to socialism," she said. "But we all know that we could turn this around and we can turn this around fairly quickly. We're still a free country."

THIS is what we are up against. The far right crazies who think Socialism is evil. SOCIALISM PEOPLE!

And it isn't even revolutionary socialism she is scared off. Its reformist socialism!


I'm so sicked of living in this screwed up world, taking shit from my parents, and being told to sit there and accept it.

I will not accept being a wage slave for the rest of my life. Hell, I cannot even get a job in this economy as a teenager. that is messed up!

I look around and I hope, HOPE, that the revolutions in the Phi., India, and Nepal can shed new light on Communism, that it will cause a revolutionary chain reaction across Asia and inspire revolutions around the whole world. In my time it could.

I look around and see the horrible things that these corporations are doing and merely wish it would stop.

I look towards Marxism-Leninism fir guidance.

I look towards the teachings of Karl Marx and Engels for guidance.

I look around and hope to one day give myself the task of leading the Proletarian masses to victory. We should all strive to do just that.

I thought you were against Marxist-Leninism...

[Kamos]

Well not strictly true... people died fighting for communism! Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution etc...

And who do you think killed those people? Capitalists. If any system killed those people (which is still a laughable concept, systems don't kill people, their believers do) it's capitalism.


I thought you were against Marxist-Leninism...

He's been a M-L for a long time.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

He's been a M-L for a long time.

I've heard he has been jumping around a bit.I think it is too early to judge what he is as Anarchism,Marxism-Leninism,and socialist nationalism have all been under his lips at one time or another.

[ColonelCossack]

He's been a M-L for a long time.

I never knew...

Meh. I'm not complaining. :cool:

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

How do you all respond to the human nature arguments against communism, socialism and anarchism? Eg. ''socialism would only work if everyone were generous'', ''it is unrealistic as it tries to create a perfect society''. Those kind of arguments.

[El Louton]

[QUOTE=Kamos;2261190]And who do you think killed those people? Capitalists. If any system killed those people (which is still a laughable concept, systems don't kill people, their believers do) it's capitalism.

I wasn't saying it wasn't. All I said is that they died fighting FOR a system.

[ColonelCossack]

How do you all respond to the human nature arguments against communism, socialism and anarchism? Eg. ''socialism would only work if everyone were generous'', ''it is unrealistic as it tries to create a perfect society''. Those kind of arguments.

You could ask, "If it's human nature to be selfish, why do people give to charity?"

You could also say, "If it's human nature to be capitalistic, why am I anti-capitalistic?"

Also the original societies worked on a primitive communist basis.

[RedMarxist]

I thought you were against Marxist-Leninism...

Maybe I got a little too carried away on that, er, rant about the glories of Marxist-Leninism.

But yes, I have made up my mind for quite some time now. I am a Marxist-Leninist, however. I have for a time studied heavily on the subject(Lenin's writings, The Life of Lenin by Louis Fischer, and the excellent book The Bolsheviks in Power, etc.)

I can't believe my folks let me read this stuff!

But anyways, I'd just like to point out that Leninism is not inherently a failure. It is pretty apparent that Leninism works fine when used on the sidelines of the revolution(agitation and stuff like that), but where it has failed is when it tries to take up the mantle of leadership, becoming the "vanguard of the revolution" after it has overstayed its welcome.

I do believe I programmed a mod for a computer game about that, called A World To Win.

Although it can be argued that Lenin the man was an authoritarian and a order obsessed freak, that does not discount the entire ideology simply because the man had serious flaws in character or morals.(Marx allegedly hated Jews, yet that does not mean that Marxism is anti-Jewish)

Likewise, Lenin may have arguably taken power in a coup of sorts after the much vaunted "October Revolution," but that does not mean that the ideology is all about obsession with power/is inherently authoritarian.

That was Lenin the man. He was deeply flawed as a human being, but again his theories are very important and should be applied in future proletarian uprisings.

but rest assured the stupidest mistake for the Filipino, Indian, and Nepali CP's to make would be to autocratically take power and "lead the proletarian socialist state to victory over the bourgeoisie." Sadly, I really think to myself that that is where all three parties are headed. Must be the pessimism talking.

[Huey P. Newton1233]

I'm in the same boat as you I'm a Junior in highschool and I'm a Marxist-Guevaraist

[Adorno4498]

@RedMarxist But the entire POINT of Leninism is the vanguard party and democratic centralism! And Marx did not hate Jews. He was born Jewish, but his dad converted to Lutheranism, because no one would hire a Jew, at the time. He was against all religion, and that includes Judaism. However, he never expressed hatred for Jewishness as a culture or Jews as people
As far as human nature goes, human nature is a social construct. Again, like the OP said, just ask them to prove human nature! The bourgeoisies CAN'T DO IT! And you could also argue that the "need" to accumulate of the ruling is the entire failure of capitalism. Like slavery, it needs to accumulate or die. And a dollar in one man's pocket is a dollar out of anothers.

[Meditation]

Thanks for an awesome thread mate :thumbup1:

[Tovarisch]

@ the original post: Great analogy there with the casino! You're right, capitalism only favors a very small number of people, and generally at the expense of everyone else

[red1936]

-Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!

Ever hear of say... Nikola Tesla? a Serbian and argueablly the most brilliant scientist in history who died in debt and poverty, his inventions also taken for granted, if you have to say more then that then whoever your debating with isnt worth your time man.

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

Well that depends, if we are looking at wage structures in a Marxist-Leninist nation like the Soviet Union and Albania, Working HARD was rewared, results were rewarded with bonuses, better housing ect. a hard working janitor could make up to 6X more then a lazy doctor, it isnt untill humans arent as petty and materialistic that wage differencials are abolished.

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

Like the Somoza regime in Nicaragua that allowed the "freedom" of 5% of the population hoarding 95% of the wealth? Is one "free" to explout anothers labor? if so. why?

-Communism is dead!

If you ignore the growing Communist movement in Mexico, and guerilla groups all across Latin America then sure why not?

-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living
in dire poverty?

Well Cuba despite the embargo is the only country in latin America without childhood malnutrition (source : UNICEF) (of course Cuba is not Marxist-Leninist, when speaking strictly of Marxist-Leninist states the only 2 have been the USSR and Socialist Albania)

North Korea isnt in dire poverty, they were during the great famine in the 90s, but what is often forgotten is that North Korea wasent the only area effected by that famine. Parts of China were effected (China being Social-Imperialist and able to buy stockpiles of rice from South Asia barely if at all felt the effects of the famine) South Korea recieved a lot of aid from the United States so they werent effected by the famine, North Korea recieved next to no aid from Gorbechauv and the USSR or the west, so North Korea went though a famine. However that famine has stopped. Most of the pictures of slums in the DPRK have actually been taken in SOuth Korea, and the pictures of starving kids are usually from the famine that took place in the 1990s and passed off to look as if it was happening currently much like the United States did to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. They took pictures from the famine of 1921 and the American great depression and tried to pass them off as pictures of the "Holodomor".

I hope this helped

[Drowzy_Shooter]

8th grade and an anarcho here. Of course I'm not exactly public about that. I live in arkansas. Do you even know how much crap I'd get? At this point I'd like to leave it at that I'm an anarchist. But even then that's pushing it.

[Smyg]

f******


Go ahead, say it. Fucking. This the internet and you're an anarchist.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Go ahead, say it. Fucking. This the internet and you're an anarchist.

I know i know, but I'm trying not to be to offensive recently. I've found my language slipping and I'm trying to work on it. Cussing doesn't make me sound any smarter.

[revhiphop]

Are you really a communist?

No motherfucker, I'm joking... Why else would I say I am a communist?

Communism is where the government owns everything! That's bad!

No, communism is a classless, stateless society. There is no organized government under communism. You probably mean socialism, the stage before communism. This is the period in which we try to create communism by making an economy run by the state (different socialists/communists will have different definitions of what socialism is. Some socialists are not communists & vice versa).

Communism doesn't work, history proves that.

What is your definition of "work?" Do you by chance mean that it doesn't allow people to exploit? No, you probably mean everyone is unhappy. I'll address this next.

Everyone is unhappy in communism!

First of all, you are probably referring to socialism. Please do not try to tell me what socialism and communism are if you are neither a socialist of communist. So if socialism makes people unhappy why is it that 58% of Russians regret the collapse of the Soviet Union? Why is it 57% of East Germans say life was better there and defend its legacy? Why do 49% of Romanians say life was better before capitalism? The list goes on and on.
I have sources for all of these. But due to my post count, I cannot yet post links.

Under communism no one can have a house because no one has private property!
Everyone would have to use the same tooth brush or something!

There is a huge difference between private and personal property. Personal property is things you use for yourself. Private property is things that shouldn't really be ownable by an individual.. eg: land, food sources, nature, water, etc

Under communism no one can speak badly about their government!

Now this claim has small legitimacy to it. Under Stalin, there were political prisoners. However, if you read the Soviet Constitution, in Chapter 6, article 49 it says "Every citizen of the USSR has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations for improving their activity, and to criticise shortcomings in their work.
Officials are obliged, within established time-limits, to examine citizens' proposals and requests, to reply to them, and to take appropriate action.
Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account." This means people were allowed to make criticism without being persecuted and submit ideas and concerns to the government.

Mao killed millions through famine! Stalin also killed millions!

Are you implying that Mao himself actually wanted to starve people? China was being run by rightists at the time too, Chairman Mao was not the only one holding political power. Now, these rightists were in charge of the food program! That's right, they oversaw it, and Mao took the blame. Now we can't just say the rightists wanted to starve people. To be fair, natural disasters really fucked up the whole process along with the rightists poor leadership. Also, there was a lot of error on the side of the farmers.
As for Stalin, yes. There were many killed in the Gulag. Comrade Stalin did make many mistakes. But, how many were innocent? How many were actually political prisoners and not murderers or rapists and such? Do you have those facts handy? Probably not.

Communist countries never have as much success as Amuricuh!

High literacy rates are not success? Lowering the price of food to something affordable? Abolishing forced marriage? Free and good education? Women's and other oppressed groups getting equality, that's not success? The Soviet Union gave women the right to vote immediately! It took the US 144 years to let women vote and 94 years for blacks! Before Mao, many women in China were forced to bind their feet to make them small and attractive. Mao abolished that! What about the jump in average life-spans after a socialist state is created? If that's not progress I don't know what is!

If you don't like it hear why don't you just leave?

I bet that's what the King told to the Founding Fathers. (This one usually leaves everyones jaws dropped)

Communism only works on paper!

No. You can tell that to citizens of real communist societies and ask what they think. Capitalism only works on paper. If you think capitalists are somehow going to work for the benefit of us all and that it's going to last forever... you have no brain.

If Socialism is so great, why did the Soviet Union collapse?

The Soviet Union collapsed, yes. This was due to many different reasons. If capitalism is so great, why did it collapse in Russia (or other socialist countries) and give birth to socialism? Socialism is fucking inevitable. Capitalism causes too many contradictions.

Anyway, that's what I've heard a lot of. If there's any more, please add it or ask me to come up with a response. I'm great at arguing and would love to help anyone out who is being bombarded by capitalists :D

[runequester]

Communism doesn't give any concrete plans for how to plan society

Bukharin. The ABC of communism. Plans it out quite specifically actually.
And given he was eventually purged by Stalin, I imagine the trot's can get behind him too.

[daft punk]

Communism doesn't give any concrete plans for how to plan society

Bukharin. The ABC of communism. Plans it out quite specifically actually.
And given he was eventually purged by Stalin, I imagine the trot's can get behind him too.
Bukharin was Stalin's right wing ally against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenv. But in 1928 it was obvious Trotsky had been right all along so Bukharin was no use any more. As you say, he was purged as were all the original Bolsheviks. Most of the CP was purged.

[runequester]

Bukharin was Stalin's right wing ally against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenv. But in 1928 it was obvious Trotsky had been right all along so Bukharin was no use any more. As you say, he was purged as were all the original Bolsheviks. Most of the CP was purged.

Yes, we get it. Trotsky was soviet jesus and Stalin was Bill Gates crossed with Hitler.

[daft punk]

Yes, we get it. Trotsky was soviet jesus and Stalin was Bill Gates crossed with Hitler.
Why dont you just read up on it. Bucharin was a right winger as far as the Bolshevik party was concerned. Zinoviev and Kamenev were wavers, the sided with Stalin after Lenin died, then a year later they realised their mistake and went over to Trotsky, then in 1928 they capitulated to Stalin, and spent the next few years waiting to be murdered. They knew it was coming.

Trotsky was told to leave the country. He was exiled to Kazakhstan, and the told to get out completely, so his family had to trek over the snow covered mountains and into Turkey.

If you are serious, look into what I've told you. It's easy to get to the bottom of it.

[runequester]

Why dont you just read up on it. Bucharin was a right winger as far as the Bolshevik party was concerned. Zinoviev and Kamenev were wavers, the sided with Stalin after Lenin died, then a year later they realised their mistake and went over to Trotsky, then in 1928 they capitulated to Stalin, and spent the next few years waiting to be murdered. They knew it was coming.

Trotsky was told to leave the country. He was exiled to Kazakhstan, and the told to get out completely, so his family had to trek over the snow covered mountains and into Turkey.

If you are serious, look into what I've told you. It's easy to get to the bottom of it.

I was referring to your inability to post anything not containing either praise of Trotsky or condemntation of Stalin.

It's like a broken record, hero-worship is not something communists should aspire to and honestly both of them are becoming fast irrelevant in the present day.

[Q]

Why dont you just read up on it.

Which begs the question: How much of Bukharin did you read?

I'm very oblivious to the person and his ideas. So I'm currently reading a book called Bukharin's theory of equilibrium (Pluto Press, 1989, ISBN 0 7453 0292 0) to get a grip on it.

Does anyone have more read-worthy stuff from or on him?

[daft punk]

I was referring to your inability to post anything not containing either praise of Trotsky or condemntation of Stalin.

It's like a broken record, hero-worship is not something communists should aspire to and honestly both of them are becoming fast irrelevant in the present day.

It has nothing to do with personalities. The historical record must be set straight before the world will embrace socialism. We will never sell socialism to the masses while the masses think that what we intend is like what the USSR was, a dictatorship by an elite.

Plus there are incredibly important lessons to be learned. For example in Indonesia a million people died after the Stalinists told them to trust the military. This was because Stalinists never dumped the ideas of Popular Fronts and Stages. They disarmed the workers in fact, put the brakes on things, so the military pounced. Similar thing in Chile and probably in Venezuela in the future.


Which begs the question: How much of Bukharin did you read?

I'm very oblivious to the person and his ideas. So I'm currently reading a book called Bukharin's theory of equilibrium (Pluto Press, 1989, ISBN 0 7453 0292 0) to get a grip on it.

Does anyone have more read-worthy stuff from or on him?

I dunno why you want to read Bukharin. He backed Stalin and he was a keen fan of the NEP, telling the kulaks to "enrich yourselves", the exact opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky had said, which was that the rich peasants should be heavily taxed.

[Lolumad273]

Since I don't think making a new thread every time I have a question is a good idea, I'm going to ask this here.

I got this from someone...

"This would cause all the Alpha males to compete for leadership of the pack. If they don't get to lead, they leave and what you have is tribalism with stronger tribes competing against lesser tribes.

The flaw in communism is the people, which is ironic since it's a government 'for' the people."

I'm not really sure how to reply to it... Or even what it means...

[daft punk]

The problem in Russia wasnt Stalin first and foremost, it was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. The bureaucrats they inherited from the Tsar took over from within.

Yeah Stalin was an alpha male and did battle for leadership, but the truth is he won because he best represented the fact that the revolution was degenerating. At the time he got power, the economy was in a mess, they had had to privatise much of it and so on. They had this terrible problem where food had dropped in price and industrial good had shot up. It was only a year after a terrible famine and there was hardly any industry. Most people couldnt even read or write, and the bureaucrats could run rings around the communists.

What you need is democratic elections with right of recall, and all representatives to only get the average wage.

[Lolumad273]

I then got the argument that people want more things. As a status of wealth. Even back in the paleolithic age, if a man got the biggest moose, he's the alpha male. He gets all the women, he is raised as the leader. How would communism remove that desire for more things, bigger things, better than your neighbor?

This guy I'm talking to is really fucking with me. Hahahaha

[Omsk]

Most people couldnt even read or write


Over-exaggeration.
And generally not true.

The Soviet school system:

Rigid discipline in the Communist school was definitely not supposed to mean harsh, loud-voiced management of the classroom or physical punishments, although the latter were kept in reserve. The teacher was told to win the confidence of his charges (most Soviet teachers were men) by friendly, helpful behavior, and to persuade them to follow the right path by exhortations, by shaming them, and by enlisting the other pupils to help reclaim a recalcitrant. Teachers were to instill obedience, unselfishness, and collective-mindedness. Individual competitiveness was to be suppressed and group spirit cultivated.
Randall, Francis. Stalin's Russia. New York: Free Press,1965, p. 112

By [the time of] Stalin's death there were one million full-time students in the universities alone, the largest number in the world after America.
Randall, Francis. Stalin's Russia. New York: Free Press,1965, p. 114

And litteracy was on a high level too.

In the five years from 1933 to 1938 about half a million administrators, technicians, economists, and men of other professions had graduated from university schools, an enormous number for a country whose educated classes had previously formed a very thin layer of society.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 384

During the 1930-ies the cultural development of the Soviet Union advanced in leaps too. The number of students in all schools 1929 was approx. 14 millions. In the year 1938 they had increased to approximately 34 millions, and at that time students in all kinds of courses including part time, amounted to more than 47 millions. Almost a third of all citizens took part of the school system. In the beginning of the 1930-ies 33 per cent were still illiterate in the Soviet Union (67 per cent in 1913). 1938 illiteracy was totally eradicated since several years back. During this period the students at higher forms of education almost tripled from 207,000 to 601,000. The number of libraries was 70,000 in the year 1938 compared with 40,000 in 1933. The amount of books in the libraries 1938 reached the colossal figure of 126 millions to compare with 86 millions 1933.
Sousa, Mario. The Class Struggle During the Thirties in the Soviet Union, 2001.


All in all,educational advances made under Stalin were huge.

By the middle of the 1920s, literacy had increased markedly. Improvement in the national republics was especially striking. Compared to 1922, in 1925 the number of literate workers in Georgia grew 15 times, in Kazakhstan five times, in Kirghizia four times, and the pattern was similar in other regions. The main sources of literacy and culture were the workers' clubs in the cities and the reading huts in the villages. The printing of periodicals was three times what it had been in 1913. The building of libraries began on a massive scale. Film studios were built in Odessa, Yerevan, Tashkent, and Baku. More creative literature was being published.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 127