From an argument

[Pogue]

Got into an argument with a guy I know, self-proclaimed 'federalist', he wholeheartedly supports capitalism. In the end I got annoyed with the argument and left because he kept making ludicrous anti communist claims, but I am looking for comrades responses on some of his points.

1. When he asked what would happen to people who expressed desire to try capitalism in a communist society. I said they would be argued against. I said that if they actually tried to implement capitalism as a practice (i.e. introduced wage slavery, profit etc.) this would be against the pre-agreed rules of the commune and so they would be asked to leave because they were breaking the rules. He said this is totalitarian, oppressive and murder because it would force them to fend for themselves alone and would be punishing someone for their views. I said it wasn't, because if they want to live in the commune they must abide by its rules. He said that because under communism, communism would probably spread and be worldwide, they would have no where to go, and I said that they could go to other capitalists and do what they want with them. He said this is oppresive, a prison.

2. He said that it would be impossible to have developement because there would be no incentive (money) and no one would have enough resources because they can only have what they need (I was arguing according to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). I said that the workers/people could decide to allocate people resources for research/developement if they saw fit. He said popular opinion is not the basis of whether something is or isnt worthy of money. I said experts could help influence the decision.

3. He seems to think capitalist practices are a right and to deny them is oppresive, even if the communes rules stated that you could come in and take freely as long as you pulled your weight and didnt oppress people (by means of sexism, racism, homphobia, capitalist etc.)

4. He said that the welfare state and 'socialism' defeated the need for communism.

5. He said that people would live under fear in communism, because they would only get what they 'need' if they were as hard as the commune said they did (from each according to his ability). He said they would be 'murdered' and 'imprisoned' for not working hard enough, according to this rule, because they would be denied what they need for not working to their ability. I said someone who refused to work would be asked ot leave because they were causing others to support them unfairly.

Comrades opinions and counter-arguments?

I cannot say anyone 'won' the argument because he just kept repeating that communism is totalitarian murder and unworkable, regardless of my coutners, so I logged off of MSN in the end.

All contributions welcome!

[Kropotesta]

I'm sorry but your mate sounds a tad ignorant. How about you get him to join here and debtate people in the OI section?
Oh yeah, I assume you're talking about actual communism here and not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as you speak of communes and such.

1. When he asked what would happen to people who expressed desire to try capitalism in a communist society. I said they would be argued against. I said that if they actually tried to implement capitalism as a practice (i.e. introduced wage slavery, profit etc.) this would be against the pre-agreed rules of the commune and so they would be asked to leave because they were breaking the rules. He said this is totalitarian, oppressive and murder because it would force them to fend for themselves alone and would be punishing someone for their views. I said it wasn't, because if they want to live in the commune they must abide by its rules. He said that because under communism, communism would probably spread and be worldwide, they would have no where to go, and I said that they could go to other capitalists and do what they want with them. He said this is oppresive, a prison.
Well communism is moneyless, so.... Anywho I don't think any commune would try to kick out capitalists. The reason for this is that any attempt would fail. Why would anyone want to work under someone for pay when their needs are being seen to and working with equals collectively? Also even if they could produce something people wanted, it simply wouldn't meet demand as people, I'd of thought, wouldn't work for them. If anything the people could set up a syndicate based on producing the capitalists idea, supplying it for everyone.


2. He said that it would be impossible to have developement because there would be no incentive (money) and no one would have enough resources because they can only have what they need (I was arguing according to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). I said that the workers/people could decide to allocate people resources for research/developement if they saw fit. He said popular opinion is not the basis of whether something is or isnt worthy of money. I said experts could help influence the decision.
For according to need does not mean that people won't be able to obtain anything else or not beable to pursue certain interests.
To quote Kropotkin- "He who wishes for a grand piano will enter the association of musical instrument makers. And by giving the association part of his half-days' leisure, he will soon possess the piano of his dreams. If he is fond of astronomical studies he will join the association of astronomers. . . and he will have the telescope he desires by taking his share of the associated work. . .In short, the five or seven hours a day which each will have at his disposal, after having consecrated several hours to the production of necessities, would amply suffice to satisfy all longings for luxury, however varied. Thousands of associations would undertake to supply them."


3. He seems to think capitalist practices are a right and to deny them is oppresive, even if the communes rules stated that you could come in and take freely as long as you pulled your weight and didnt oppress people (by means of sexism, racism, homphobia, capitalist etc.)
Why would capitalism be a right? Does one person inherently have more rights than others? Becasue that's esstentially what capitalism implies.


4. He said that the welfare state and 'socialism' defeated the need for communism.
I'm sorry but this is ridculous and doesn't even warrant a reply. By the way, does he know the exact definitions of socialism and communism?


5. He said that people would live under fear in communism, because they would only get what they 'need' if they were as hard as the commune said they did (from each according to his ability). He said they would be 'murdered' and 'imprisoned' for not working hard enough, according to this rule, because they would be denied what they need for not working to their ability. I said someone who refused to work would be asked ot leave because they were causing others to support them unfairly..
As I stated previously, distribution by need does mean that is all that a person my obtain, after all we don't want to hinder individuality.
"Imprisoned" and "murdered"? by whom? The people?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Some quick answers:


1. When he asked what would happen to people who expressed desire to try capitalism in a communist society.
Same thing that happens to people who express a desire to try slavery in a capitalist society.


2. He said that it would be impossible to have developement because there would be no incentive (money) and no one would have enough resources because they can only have what they need (I was arguing according to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). I said that the workers/people could decide to allocate people resources for research/developement if they saw fit. He said popular opinion is not the basis of whether something is or isnt worthy of money. I said experts could help influence the decision.
"Popular opinion is not the basis of whether something is or isnt worthy of money"?? Of course it is! Popular opinion is what drives market demand in a capitalist market economy too.


3. He seems to think capitalist practices are a right and to deny them is oppresive
Then you can say that common property over the means of production is a right and to deny it is oppressive.


4. He said that the welfare state and 'socialism' defeated the need for communism.
The welfare state only exists in a small part of the world and is about to be completely eliminated by globalization.

[Demogorgon]

1. When he asked what would happen to people who expressed desire to try capitalism in a communist society. I said they would be argued against. I said that if they actually tried to implement capitalism as a practice (i.e. introduced wage slavery, profit etc.) this would be against the pre-agreed rules of the commune and so they would be asked to leave because they were breaking the rules. He said this is totalitarian, oppressive and murder because it would force them to fend for themselves alone and would be punishing someone for their views. I said it wasn't, because if they want to live in the commune they must abide by its rules. He said that because under communism, communism would probably spread and be worldwide, they would have no where to go, and I said that they could go to other capitalists and do what they want with them. He said this is oppresive, a prison.Ask him what happens to people who try to set up feudal land tenure and serfdom under capitalism. A number of answers here spring to mind.

a) They don't. It is ridiculously far fetched. Same will be true of trying to individually re-start capitalism under Communism

b) Even if somebody does want to be a feudal lord, they aren't going to find anyone willing to be their serfs. Same will be true of people willing to be wage slaves when there is a better options available

c) If someone were to try to become a feudal lord by force and force people to be serfs they will get carted off to the pokey pretty quickly

He obviously won't be able to deny that that is the outcome of trying to start serfdom under capitalism, so why should he expect better from starting wage-slavery under Communism.

Incidentally his argument against people being made to sling their hook should they fail to play by the rules is ironic. Normally Capitalists refuse to acknowledge that depriving somebody of their livelihood is ana ct of aggression


2. He said that it would be impossible to have developement because there would be no incentive (money) and no one would have enough resources because they can only have what they need (I was arguing according to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). I said that the workers/people could decide to allocate people resources for research/developement if they saw fit. He said popular opinion is not the basis of whether something is or isnt worthy of money. I said experts could help influence the decision.Who does he think decides what is worthwhile under capitalism? The market largely allocates resources for new development. The allocation is hardly egalitarian, but popular opinion does play a big part.


3. He seems to think capitalist practices are a right and to deny them is oppresive, even if the communes rules stated that you could come in and take freely as long as you pulled your weight and didnt oppress people (by means of sexism, racism, homphobia, capitalist etc.)What makes him think it is a right? There is a style of argument that says "x is a right, therefore we must have x". But it never explains why it is a right. It is just a technique to shut down argument. It is like when children argue over who is right until one says "I'm right, black magic" and the argument has to end.


4. He said that the welfare state and 'socialism' defeated the need for communism.
No it showed that things were considerably better when we had such things and having a more egalitarian system still would be even more beneficial

5. He said that people would live under fear in communism, because they would only get what they 'need' if they were as hard as the commune said they did (from each according to his ability). He said they would be 'murdered' and 'imprisoned' for not working hard enough, according to this rule, because they would be denied what they need for not working to their ability. I said someone who refused to work would be asked ot leave because they were causing others to support them unfairly.

There isn't really any point in responding to that. It isn't an argument, it is just an assertion. There is no decent way to respond to that other than throwing equally silly arguments back in parody and while that can be amusing doesn't get anywhere.

Also this guy doesn't seem to have a great understanding of politics. I mean defining his political idea as "federalist". What does that even mean? There are people on the American right who call themselves federalists and people on the British Left who do the same. Proudhon called himself a federalist, the Maoists in Nepal are federalists. The previous Prime Minister of Japan (and as far as I know the current one too) is a federalist and so forth.