Being stuck in a debate... some help?

[punisa]

Hi comrades,
I do stand for everything I have every read about communist ideology, but I stumbled upon a silly debate that was going on some forum. To cut it short, one guy said:

"Communism has resulted in despotism, murder, corruption and poverty everywhere it has been tried. Russia. China. Vietnam. Cambodia. Albania. North Korea. Cuba. Etc. Perhaps if communism didn't ALWAYS end in tyranny, oppression, murder, corruption and poverty, it might be looked upon with some favor."

I've just hit the reply button and figured out that I'm cluless about what to answer, how should I continue such a discussion using only argumentations and civilized manner?

Really looking forward to your answers, see ya soon

[sonicbluetm]

I'm an anarcho-socialist so I believe that it's authoritarian forms of communism that are responsible for all of those things. More to the point it's not even the communist aspect but more the authoritarian aspect that is to blame. You can find most of those same things in totalitarian regimes which don't necessarily subscribe to any communist ideology.

It's authoritarianism that is the problem. And just so you know, socialism can and does exist in democratic and free societies.

[piet11111]

start by pointing out that in none of those country's the people where in charge but instead of them a bureaucratic elite was ruling over them.

then you can start that all of the major theoreticians wanted to see the masses in charge of their own lives and not some elite.
because of that simple fact those country's never could have been true socialism/marxism/communism/anarchism/maoism etc etc.

its the most simple argument anyone can spoon-feed to a political opponent i would not go in more detail then this because it would only confuse those pro-capitalist simpletons.

[RedStarOverChina]

All these countries he mentioned seemed to me to be previously extremely backward countries enslaved by Western capitalists and mercilessly exploited.

That's what they were under capitalism, anyways.

Being from one of the backward countries he mentioned, I remember talking to countless old people who recall what life was like in the pre-revolution period, when everyone who's not a capitalist/elite was reduced to a begger or a slave-labourer.

THAT was capitalism to the exploited nations.

Of course you should also remind him that capitalism has two "playing-fields" that different countries find themselves in...One is financially independent and exploiting, an another is dependent and exploited.

Under this arrangement, capital from rich, exploiter nations enslave poor countries and plunder their natural resources and labour. The bulk of the profit goes, of course, to rich countries and a much smaller portion go towards native capitalists in third-world countries. The poor underclass in those countries gets robbed blind.

Back then, third-world countries such as the ones he mentioned had to choose from being exploited, deprived underdogs under the capitalist arrangement or struggle to be proud, independent self-reliant, and freer countries under the Leninist alternative.

Needless to say, they chose the latter and screwed up pretty bad.

But did they create more misery than under capitalism? That's debatable but from what I've heard from those oldies, Leninism brought much more good than suffering.

For example, my grandmother witnessed her entire family dying of some lung disease that could have been easily cured, but alas, they could not afford the medicine back then when Chiang Kai-shek's American-backed fascist government still dominated China.

Who's to say that kind of suffering is worse than the Cultural Revolution?

[punisa]

I agree with all of your responses. The debate I mentioned was concentrated around reasons why todays's democracies should never pursue a communist govermnent. Basiclly USA and countries that Vaginal_Residue named "financially independent and exploiting"

The fact that almost all communist countries "screwed it up" presents a very big argument for anti-communist people. Of course I'm fully aware that those countries were not actually "Communist" due to the bad government, but it tends to get really hard to explain that to the person who slaps "Stalin killed 20 million of his people" your face.
I hope you understand where I'm going with this.

Can we just say that communism was a tragic ideology that always got the power-hungry leadership?
And were all those leaders actually so bad as we usually say?
I admit that I have talked bad about Stalin on numerous occasions, particularly when faced with a commie-hater. Why? I guess I was trying to justify the history facts.

Take Stalin for example. He is usually presented as the meanest heartless killing machine that never cared about his people. I found it hard to believe such accusations and have since read almost all of his political writings and numerous biographies.
Even today I didn't move very far from the starting point.

My personal theory, which might (and probably should) be criticised is that many of those leaders were very well educated on the Marxist ideology, probably much better then we'll ever be. But the utopic part got in the way. The strong resistance that people gave towards the idea that all resources are belonging to everyone, not just them, was too strong. Faced with such personal resistance they unfortunately resorted to bloodshed (which I cant approve).

On the expansion of topic: Yugoslavia was not mentioned in the "black" list. This is definetly the communist episode I want to know more about, but unfortunately recent nationalist wars in the area crippled people's minds completely and its almost impossible to even mention communism.

[Bear MacMillan]

On the expansion of topic: Yugoslavia was not mentioned in the "black" list. This is definetly the communist episode I want to know more about, but unfortunately recent nationalist wars in the area crippled people's minds completely and its almost impossible to even mention communism.

Yugoslavia under Tito actually wasn't that bad. He operated one or two labour camps, but that was about it. It was a founding member of the "Non Aligned Movement" which was meant for countries who didn't want to be under either the US or Soviet spheres of influence.

[BIG BROTHER]

tell him that capitalim has resulted in more deaths, but unlike communism, the deaths have being caused because they have truly implemented capitalism. In Mexico for example it has resulted in 50 million people living under the pooverty line, and out of those 50, 20 million are living in complete misery. Also our capitalist "democratic" goverment has neve hesitated in murdering anybody who opposed the system, like the students who were massacrated in october 2nd 1968.

Also capitalism, has made the USA an imperialist nation that's responsable for a lot deaths, disasters and dictatorships like the "contra" deaths squads reagan fundded in central america, the CIA assited coup of Salvador Allende that lead to Pinochets regime, USA army actons in latin america to protect United Fruits interests, more USA backed dictatorships in latin america, and of course all the people who pretty much die for the misery that capitalism has put them through.

it seems to me that if we're talking abouta system causing poverty, despotism and suffering capitalism always wins.:rolleyes:

[BIG BROTHER]

o yeah, and i also forgot to mention how the USA with its capitalist system, back up the saudi arabian goverment, and is currently killing inocent people in Iraq. And you know what the funny thing is? the least could go on for ever.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I always enjoy exposing fallacies in a debate.
You can play by their rules, but still come out victorious.

Here are the fallacies I found in this argument:

"Communism has resulted in despotism, murder, corruption and poverty everywhere it has been tried. Russia. China. Vietnam. Cambodia. Albania. North Korea. Cuba. Etc. Perhaps if communism didn't ALWAYS end in tyranny, oppression, murder, corruption and poverty, it might be looked upon with some favor."

Fallacy of accident: Despots, murder, etc. are bad. In Russia, China, etc. despotism, murder, etc. has been committed. Russia, China, etc. claimed to be communist. Therefore communism is bad.

This is not a valid argument because it doesn't take into account that other variables could have been responsible for any atrocities that may have occured.

Fallacy of the consequent: These nations which claimed to be communist had despotism, murder, etc. Therefore in order to have despotism, murder, etc., it is communist.

This is not a valid argument because non-communist countries can be just as violent. There is no proof given that despotism, murder, etc. cannot be the result of non-communism.

Begging the question: Without communism, the world would have less despots, murder, etc.

This isn't valid for the same reason as above: it assumes that despotism, murder, etc. would be less without communists.

Call to perfection: "if communism didn't ALWAYS end in tyranny, oppression, murder, corruption and poverty, it might be looked upon with some favor."

No structure, social or otherwise will completely eliminate corruption, murder, etc. To say it will is childish. Since no social structure can completely eliminate said flaws, and therefore is present in any society, the policy cannot be deemed "bad".

Non sequitur: again with the fallacy of accident, the argument incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another.

I do not suggest that you formulate your own argument around exposing fallacies, but a properly exposed one will not only strengthen your argument, but discredit your rival's argument at the same time.

In this case I would center my attention to questioning the other's definition of communism. He has obviously been mind fucked by the anti-communist propaganda which distorts the integrity of communism.

For more info. on fallacies, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

[sonicbluetm]

Another angle: capitalism and democracy DO NOT necessarily go hand in hand. IN FACT it is my firm belief that capitalism is highly corrosive to democracy and freedom in general.

Capitalism and democracy being a sort of ideological marriage is a myth that has been introduced into the culture by cleverly crafted capitalist propaganda JUST A CENTURY AGO. This general attitude did not exist before then. ALL fiscal issues were hotly debated across the country, and all ideas were on the table. The ruling elites desperately wanted to set the fiscal agenda in stone and they succeeded in doing so.
Today you cannot question our fiscal policies without being met with vitriol, EVEN IF you're a true capitalist who is arguing that our current monetary policies aren't capitalist at all. Take Ron Paul and how the elites marginalize him and ridicule him, simply because he happens to have fiscal policy ideas that deviate from the elite-determined "norm".

[RED DAVE]

And one more argument is that these countries, listed in the OP, were (are) not, in fact, communist or socialist, but were (are), in fact, state capitalist.

This is a situation where classic capitalism is, for various historic reasons, not viable, so the state assumes the role of a giant corporation, basically making all the economic decisions. Eventually, these countries have, one by one, been transformed into standard capitalism with one sort of government or another and people don't have to lie and call them communist or socialist.

RED DAVE

[Cybersomatix]

In the name of mutual aid, got a link?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Explain that the person is right. That capital C Communism has ended in disaster when it has been experimented with. Then explain that Communism is much different than communism. Talk about how party bureaucrats will always stifle the people because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Explain that communism is a type of society that can not fail nor succeed. It just is. Now getting to that society is the part that can fail or succeed. Have a discussion about how past ideas about how to get there have been blunders and maybe it's time for some new thought on the subject or that maybe a different strand of thought can do better than Marxism.

I personally think this is the biggest problem that people who want a communist society face. Being stuck in old ways and not evolving with the times hurts the potential of progressing.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

And one more argument is that these countries, listed in the OP, were (are) not, in fact, communist or socialist, but were (are), in fact, state capitalist.
Thank you. I was getting at that with my post, but ranted on and lost focus (hence the "Russia, China, etc. claimed to be communist.)

[cyu]

Fallacy of accident: Despots, murder, etc. are bad. In Russia, China, etc. despotism, murder, etc. has been committed. Russia, China, etc. claimed to be communist. Therefore communism is bad.

This is not a valid argument because it doesn't take into account that other variables could have been responsible for any atrocities that may have occured.

Fallacy of the consequent: These nations which claimed to be communist had despotism, murder, etc. Therefore in order to have despotism, murder, etc., it is communist.

This is not a valid argument because non-communist countries can be just as violent. There is no proof given that despotism, murder, etc. cannot be the result of non-communism.

Begging the question: Without communism, the world would have less despots, murder, etc.

This isn't valid for the same reason as above: it assumes that despotism, murder, etc. would be less without communists.

Call to perfection: "if communism didn't ALWAYS end in tyranny, oppression, murder, corruption and poverty, it might be looked upon with some favor."

No structure, social or otherwise will completely eliminate corruption, murder, etc. To say it will is childish. Since no social structure can completely eliminate said flaws, and therefore is present in any society, the policy cannot be deemed "bad".


Good stuff, well formulated.

[RedHal]

Hi comrades,
I do stand for everything I have every read about communist ideology, but I stumbled upon a silly debate that was going on some forum. To cut it short, one guy said:

"Communism has resulted in despotism, murder, corruption and poverty everywhere it has been tried. Russia. China. Vietnam. Cambodia. Albania. North Korea. Cuba. Etc. Perhaps if communism didn't ALWAYS end in tyranny, oppression, murder, corruption and poverty, it might be looked upon with some favor."

I've just hit the reply button and figured out that I'm cluless about what to answer, how should I continue such a discussion using only argumentations and civilized manner?

Really looking forward to your answers, see ya soon

how easy is it for anti communists to rant about dictatorships and mass deaths, it's just repeating what we've been fed throughout school and the mass media. I will not comment on Stalin because I have not studied enough to make a fair judgement. But I have studied the history of Maoist China, and it's not the one sided mass deathcamp as we've been fed. A lot of progress happened during Maoist China, mistakes were made of course. But that is to be expected in something so complicated as a revolution, too bad some revolutionaries expect everything to go smoothly and comdemn past revolutions rather than correct their mistakes. A revolution is not a dinner party.

[punisa]

A revolution is not a dinner party.

Good one RedHal, I really like it :thumbup1: