to much for me to chew

[thinkerOFthoughts]

what ever predictions you are mentioning do not make his ideas suddenly "fantasy" since he was just taking guesses at what it looked like might happen.
Not true. He wasn't making simple guesses, he was making statements, predictions, based on the system of thought that Communism is built on. You can't separate Marxism from Marx's understanding of the world and history - the two are inextricably linked. And without fail, his statements have been proven false and his thinking has been messy if not outright contradictory.


Secondly people dont have to be perfect to have a communist society, and I dont know why you think you do? is it because most countries such as Russia, China, Cuba have not became truly Communist? well... thats because they got screwed up along the way. It all depends on the leaders, are they going to do stuff for the progression of Communism? or are they just going to start doing stuff that would benefit themselves? guess what? they started doing things for themselves, but that dose not defeat the idea that a Communist society is very much plausible!
Okay, let me try this again. I'll spell out the reasoning in small steps so it's easier to follow.
1. Communism has been attempted multiple times.
2. Each time it has been attempted, it has failed.
3. Each time it has failed, Communist thinkers have argued that it failed because it "wasn't really Communism."
4. Each time they do this, they change the strict definition of what Communism is and has to be. After Russia many said that Capitalism must necessarily come before Communism as a sort of introductory stage - in stark contradiction with everything Communism had taught previously.
5. These changing definitions constantly reveal Communism to be more and more difficult to achieve, while Communist states are growing no closer to existence. This cycle will continue until people finally wake up and realize that Communism is outrageously implausible as a system of government.

If you're going to pick a contradictory and narrow set of beliefs, and least try to find one that didn't become outdated before you were born.
My name is St. Dymphna by the way lol please dont ask:blushing:

yeah this is just ot much for me to take a bite out of I figured you guys would be the best to go to.

[Tower of Bebel]

"Each time" is a fallacy, but let's just ignore that.

"Communism" (a production relation) was never "attempted". Yes, political revolutions were "attempted", but to say that "communism" was "attempted" is stupid. And more important: the only people who said "communism" was "attempted" were agents of the bourgeoisie. Stalinists say the soviet union was "socialist", not communist. And stalinism is not the only branch of communism (a political current).

The system of government we fight for is a democratic republic.

[Plagueround]

My advice would be to stop debating this until you've got a firmer grasp on this kind of thing. I understand you're eager to defend the beliefs you've picked up, but take a breather and do some more research. Knowledge is power and all that jazz.

As for this particular poster, they have to understand that communist belief is as diverse as any other political ideology. What happened with the failures of previous attempts at socialism don't even have anything to do with many of the modern movements. To say there is a strict definition of communism once again places unfair limits on one ideology because the person doesn't like it. They are constructing a straw man argument. Trust me when I say you will encounter this a lot. All the time. Probably for the rest of your life. But you'll also likely find some people who are on board with your ideas. My personal approach that I've had great success with is talking to people and mentioning my ideas and what I would like to see. Once they are sympathetic and think it's a great idea, then I start telling them where these ideas come from. Try to approach it as "These are ideas I support..." and elaborate from there...not "I support communism and this is why." Some people may not do this, but I find I have greater luck because it forces them to address the content of what I'm saying, not the strawman demon of "COMMUNISM IS EVIL!".

As far as Marx being disproven, he is still widely acknowledged as one of the founders of modern sociology and is taught in schools. The idea that he's completely irrelevant is propaganda.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

yeah I probably should stop debating lol. All this debate popped up after I posted an article about Stalin trying to do anti fascist things before the war now their this big up roar on that board about Communism lol and only me to defend. I didnt even want to debate it.

[rednordman]

I don't think the person knows what they are talking about, which is kinda funny because they put it across rather well. For starters, how has all of Marx,s Ideas been proven wrong. I thought that his works on Capital are actually rather well respected by economists as a decent critique, just outdated as they have no choice but to take a capitalist view due to the fall of the Soviet Union. Sure Marx may not have been right about absolutly everything, but who is?
On the 4th point that they drop. I know for certain that they are wrong about that. I believe Marx himself even spoke of a capitalist development stage before communism.
I believe the reason past communist attempts where not totally successfull (They were not a 'total' failure) was because they where doomed from the very start. Lenin really depended on a European socialist revolution after WW1, and actually very nearly got it (If germany had of had a successfull revolution, i believe that it could have had a domino effect on the rest of Europe). Because that was repressed by the german government, Russia was left under-developed and totally isolated (not good conditions for communism) without any allies who could help them out. At this point Russia was on the brink of civil war+the whole world was against them.
Then there where people exploiting the situation to suit themselves. Many people refused to work, and alot turned to crime. There was even alot of infighting between other socialist revolutionary parties, whom did not like the bolsheviks. The fact that it (the SU, not communism) actually survived for more than 65years after that is rather remarkable, regardless of politics and economics. There is obviously alot more to it but i cannot write the complete history within a few lines:). For me all through out the life of the soviet model of communism, they where set back by war and constantly had to rebuild which simply cost too much. Sure some of the policies may not have worked or been executed very well, but absolutly everything was done by opponents to make them fail in any case. It would be interesting to find out what would have happenend if there was not the problems that they faced. How would it turned out if there was no blockades and hostility from the west? What if everyone worked for the revolution regardless and didnt think about their own interests?

[Demogorgon]

I'll give you some help here in coming up with an answer though you need to appreciate that these are pretty common criticisms and come from people who don't really know Marx that well. To best them you have to understand Marx much better, so make sure you are well prepared before getting into debate.

Now to this fellow's arguments:

Not true. He wasn't making simple guesses, he was making statements, predictions, based on the system of thought that Communism is built on. You can't separate Marxism from Marx's understanding of the world and history - the two are inextricably linked. And without fail, his statements have been proven false and his thinking has been messy if not outright contradictory.
What exactly does this person mean by Marx's predictions? His predictions as to what a Communist society might look like? It comes as a surprise to a lot of people to find out that Marx never made any such predictions at all. Opponents of Marx often claim that the Soviet Union and suchlike prove Marx wrong as if the USSR was following a blueprint written by Marx, but such a view is simply nonsense. Marx was interested in analysis of contemporary capitalism and also in interpreting history.

Maybe this fellow is a bit smarter than that and is instead claiming that Marx's prediction of Revolution has been disproven. However there have been revolutions, just not necessarily successful ones and at any rate just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't. As for the rest of Marx's thinking, it has actually stood up pretty well. Hell he has a better explanation for the present financial crises than half the current economists. Simply saying that his thinking was incoherent won't make it so.

1. Communism has been attempted multiple times.
2. Each time it has been attempted, it has failed.
3. Each time it has failed, Communist thinkers have argued that it failed because it "wasn't really Communism."
4. Each time they do this, they change the strict definition of what Communism is and has to be. After Russia many said that Capitalism must necessarily come before Communism as a sort of introductory stage - in stark contradiction with everything Communism had taught previously.
5. These changing definitions constantly reveal Communism to be more and more difficult to achieve, while Communist states are growing no closer to existence. This cycle will continue until people finally wake up and realize that Communism is outrageously implausible as a system of government.
Every time I see an argument like this, it makes a little part of me die. It is the silliest fallacy of them all, the notion that sharing a name makes different things the same. All you have to do is point out that your outlook is different to that of the Soviets and that just because they share a name does not mean they are the same thing. The failure of a certain set of policies referred to as Communism does not mean an entirely different set of policies will fail just because they are also called Communism. If you like give them a different name. It doesn't matter, simply differentiate them for past failure. To try and tie your views in with past failures is to refuse to address you on your actual arguments. Don't let anyone get away with this.

Incidentally point 4 is utter bunk. Orthodox Marxists have always maintained that Communism can only follow capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

If I become President of Singapore, and name it an anarchist state ( :D ), then that don't make it so. Just like 'anarcho-capitalism' isn't anarchism at all.

[zimmerwald1915]

Now to this fellow's arguments:
What exactly does this person mean by Marx's predictions? His predictions as to what a Communist society might look like? It comes as a surprise to a lot of people to find out that Marx never made any such predictions at all.
That's not strictly true; Marx attempted to describe communism several times, but only in the most broad and general terms.

[apathy maybe]

1. Communism has been attempted multiple times.
No it hasn't. Revolutions have been attempted multiple times, but "communism" as a class-less state-less society, has never occurred on a mass scale.

2. Each time it has been attempted, it has failed.
Each time people have tried to move beyond "revolution" to communism, they have failed. From an anarchist perspective it is pretty obvious why, all those nasty parties, and centralised states and stuff.

3. Each time it has failed, Communist thinkers have argued that it failed because it "wasn't really Communism."
That's 'cause it wasn't communism... Fucking ignorant fuckers, no country has ever claimed to be in communism. They always claimed to be moving towards communism. (What they claimed, and what they believe/d may well be different things. The Communist Party of China, as far as I know, still claims that China is on the road to communism, except that China is one of the most capitalist states around! Wait, they are on the road to communism, same as the USA...)

4. Each time they do this, they change the strict definition of what Communism is and has to be. After Russia many said that Capitalism must necessarily come before Communism as a sort of introductory stage - in stark contradiction with everything Communism had taught previously.
Sign of ignorance. Marx said, Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Communism.

5. These changing definitions constantly reveal Communism to be more and more difficult to achieve, while Communist states are growing no closer to existence. This cycle will continue until people finally wake up and realize that Communism is outrageously implausible as a system of government.
It isn't a system of government, it is an economic system. Not only that, many people don't think there should be any government (in the sense of a ruling body who set laws and so on ).


Ignorant bastard who knows slightly more than other person makes mistakes. This isn't news.


Not true. He wasn't making simple guesses, he was making statements, predictions, based on the system of thought that Communism is built on. You can't separate Marxism from Marx's understanding of the world and history - the two are inextricably linked. And without fail, his statements have been proven false and his thinking has been messy if not outright contradictory.
You can't separate Marxism from Marx's understanding of the world and history. But (and this is a problem I have with Marxism), his statements have not been proven false at all what so ever! You can't disprove them just like that!

The only way that Marxism could be shown to be wrong would be for capitalism to evolve (and/or revolutionise (:confused: stupid language)) into another economic system, that isn't communism and/or socialism.

But while capitalism is the predominate economic system, and while it hasn't changed into anything else, Marx can not be disproven.


I would suggest St. Dymphna, you go back to "Random" and tell them that they are wrong. They are sorta right with some things, but basically wrong with what they are arguing. (Also ask them what science they have studied, if they know what the "scientific method" is, and if they know anything about logic. Their five steps, for example, not only is based on false premises, but even if the premises were true, the conclusion doesn't follow!)

[ZeroNowhere]

5. These changing definitions constantly reveal Communism to be more and more difficult to achieve, while Communist states are growing no closer to existence. This cycle will continue until people finally wake up and realize that Communism is outrageously implausible as a system of government.
Changing definitions? Surely you know about Debs and De Leon? Y'know?
"Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled, and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. -- That is socialism, nothing short of that." -Daniel De Leon in 1906.
Anyways, as to socialism being impossible, it's not, and that is bullshit.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Hey thanks guys :) this should really help me :)

I know its another post but....... this board I go to has broke out into a anti communist debate and I am the only supporter tho it would be wise to back down I feel I will learn quicker with this kind of situation I have here a post made by a very inteligant man..... you guys are inteligant also soooooo yeah.


The problem with communism is that its end goal makes humans lazy.

There was an experiment in the US sometime in the 1600 when a group of settlers created a form of communism, where everyone was "equal" and everyone shared with everyone. It failed.

The reason it failed was because some thought they did not have to do anything and they could rely on everyone else. This is the mentality that Communism creates. What happens when everyone in the community or country thinks like that? The country or community will die.

In theory communism sounds good, because it sounds like those that need help will get it, the bad side is that it takes from others and gives to others who have not earned it.

This example is a form of communism.

Let say you have a classroom filled with 30 people. 10 people are getting A's. 5 people are getting B's, 5 people are getting C's and 10 people are getting F's.

Let say that A's is a 100 points. B's are 90 points. C's are 80 points and F is 70 points.

The object of communism is to make it as equal as possible while "sharing" what everyone has with the community. In this case, the students with the A's and B's will be sharing their points with those that have C's and F's.

So in order for the people with F's to make C's, all the A's people will give up 10 points, so the F's become C's, so instead of 10 F's there are 15 C's and instead of 10 A's there are 15 B's. The class is still not equal.

So those with C's have 80 points and those with B's have 90 points. Those with A's have already given up 10 points. Now they have B's and will be asked to give up another five points, while those with B's will be asked to give up 5 points, so the class can be equal. with an 85 avg.

Those who had A's gave up 15 points. Those with B's gave up 5 points. Those with F's gained 15 points and those with C's gained 5 points. So tell me what is the incentive of those with F's to study? When they know those with A's will give them their points? What is the point of A students to study when their hard work will be taken from them?

What is going to happen is those that are smart will play dumb, so not to lose anything, those that are dumb will still dumb since they have no incentive to achieve anything, because it will be given to them.

Capitalism offers incentives for people to succeed. If you work hard you keep what you make, if you are a failure you can start over and try again or you can just be a failure and that is your right. But no one will help you.

Read Alan Greenspan's book Age of Turbulence and see for yourself from an economist point of view of how communism failed and how capitalism works and succeeds.

With the Advent of Capitalism the life style of people improved and the health and life time of the people improved. People lived longer, are richer. Capitalism created the stuff that you have in your house, it even created your house! Go to Russia and see the poverty that lives there, those are from the old Communism days. Everything was owned by the government, there was no incentive to improve anything, everything was substandard. Productivity was low, the economy of Russia was crawling and everyone was poor, with the exceptions of those at the top of the communist party. They were "equal" and taking everything from the people and the country.

Communism is a failed system, it can not be sustained with people give to those who do nothing vs those who do something, because it leads to people doing nothing at all. Which is why Russia failed.

China succeeded because it created a hybrid capitalism/communism. China would do much better if it was a fully capitalist society. That proves to a degree that capitalism is a better system, since they Chinese recognized that they had to incorporate another system into theirs.

North Korea is an utter failure. It GDP is worthless, it survives off the mercy of China and South Korea. It is one of the most impoverish nation on earth, millions are starving while their leaders spend billions on the military and nuclear weapons.

Cuba did well when Russia was propping them up, its economy failed when Russia collapsed, because the Cuban economy was based off of Russian Spending. Now Cuba is barely making it and it has to survive off the leftist countries of South America and the little trade it does with the West.

Yet America has the largest economy in the world. Even our poorest people live like rich people in most third world countries. Capitalism creates a standard by which everyone can achieve. Communism lowers the standard by which all must achieve and in the end that standard becomes to high, because no one strives for it, when it can be given to them.

[apathy maybe]

There isn't anything to respond to, it's all bullshit.

The problem with communism is that its end goal makes humans lazy.
Really? Got some quotations from any great communist theoreticians to back that claim up? ... Nope, didn't think so.


There was an experiment in the US sometime in the 1600 when a group of settlers created a form of communism, where everyone was "equal" and everyone shared with everyone. It failed.

The reason it failed was because some thought they did not have to do anything and they could rely on everyone else. This is the mentality that Communism creates. What happens when everyone in the community or country thinks like that? The country or community will die.
Really, got a reference for that? ... Nope, didn't think so.


Capitalism offers incentives for people to succeed. If you work hard you keep what you make, if you are a failure you can start over and try again or you can just be a failure and that is your right. But no one will help you.
Really? So the cleaner working 12 hours a day and making $6 an hour (or whatever minimum wage is) is succeeding? Capitalism doesn't allow just anyone to succeed. And hard work sure as hell won't let you succeed.


Lots of bullshit misunderstanding about what communism actually is (none of the so called "communist" states ever claimed or claim to be communist, merely working towards it...).


Cuba did well when Russia was propping them up, its economy failed when Russia collapsed, because the Cuban economy was based off of Russian Spending. Now Cuba is barely making it and it has to survive off the leftist countries of South America and the little trade it does with the West.
References please. How come Cuba is doing so much better then Haiti? How come Cuba has one of the best health care systems in Latin America (and better in many regards than the USA's)?

This bastard needs to learn to reference their absurd claims.

Yet America has the largest economy in the world. Even our poorest people live like rich people in most third world countries. Capitalism creates a standard by which everyone can achieve. Communism lowers the standard by which all must achieve and in the end that standard becomes to high, because no one strives for it, when it can be given to them.
Right... So all those native Americans in the reservations at living better than people in Cuba? Aboriginal people in Australia (another capitalist nation) have third world health care standards, and often live in third world type conditions.

Has this person looked at Somalia recently? Capitalism is really doing a great job there!


Anyway, this person has a typical misunderstanding of what communism actually is, and is absurdly attributing to capitalism things that just aren't true.

They need to learn to reference (for example the claims about North Korea), and they also need to read up on what they are discussing. No "communist" wants another China or USSR, at the most some might think that a state is required to move a country towards communism.

[Oneironaut]

I would first ask this person what experiment she is referencing. I know of no such experiment...

Even if she made up the experiment, you would have to get her source. I am willing to bet that people being lazy is the reason why this "communism" failed is completely false. She said that there were 1600 people who conducted this experiment? The majority of us here at revleft do not support isolated communes, which is exactly what was created considering there were 1600 people operating together. This of course would be doomed to failure. We advocate world revolution that would lead to a society where 6.72 billion people would be co-operating, not 1600. The reason why isolated attempts at establishing socialism (all attempts up to date) have failed is that there were inadequate means of productions present. If a revolution was to occur in the United States and all its corporations' assets were liquidated, imagine the rise in quality of living for the great majority of Americans. This rise in quality of living with likewise increase support amongst Americans to continue with socialism and would be an example for the rest of the world to follow- world revolution!

She also denies the aspect that goods aren't just "free" in communism- while you surely won't be paying with dollar bills for goods you still have to contribute to society to expect anything in return.

Her whole classroom analogy was presented to me already by an economics professor at a University. Basically the whole analogy is irrelevant. People don't have equal accessibility to education under capitalism, people take classes at universities that do not interest them but are necessary to fill "cores", and for others education itself doesn't interest them. All of these issues lead to disparity in grades. We likewise don't advocate that people getting A's should give their grade to someone getting an F. We advocate those who can and want to get A's in certain areas should continue with that area because they have a greater ability than someone else in that particular field. The same person who got an F in that class could very well get an A in another class, which is what that person's ability creates.

In this sense, society will be much more efficient than our current one. People will be doing jobs they enjoy and the more menial labor jobs will likely be taken over by machines. People will pursue what makes them happy.

She even referenced Alan Greenspan's book! You should add that his beliefs are a portion of what has created the economic crisis. She said that capitalism created everything, I would say that workers created everything. Capitalism simply creates capital while it is the workers who create everything.

All of her references to failed socialist revolutions I already commented on. They were doomed to fail from the start. Marx said that the proletarian revolution must occur in a first world country to be successful otherwise it will degenerate back into capitalism. Marx's predictions are spot on.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

thanks for the comments although I dont think this person was talking about 1600 people but people in the 16 hundreds (colonial times)

[Oneironaut]

thanks for the comments although I dont think this person was talking about 1600 people but people in the 16 hundreds (colonial times)

That was the other option I considered. Even so, for communism to be successful, it must come after capitalism. There must already be present in the world the means of production, which they exist now- but sure as hell didn't in 1600- to produce for all of humanity. This is the current reality. We have the means to produce for all of humanity yet the means of production remain in the hands of the rich, whose interests aren't the same as the massive majority of the world.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Well the first guy I quoted gave up I think! He ended by saying somthing about how I can live my revisionist history but not to expect anyone believe their obvious lies.:):lol:

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. -Adam Smith

Just thought I should comment on this, since it's been bugging me for some time. Brilliant as he was, Adam Smith was no prophet, and quotes like this are just one example of an honest mistake he made in his thinking (another was his condemnation of corporations as economically unhealthy). This statement was very true when he wrote - poverty was widespread all through the world, and while affluence was greater in Europe and the United States, starvation was still a constant risk for those who were poor.
Today, however, the situation is far different from the one in Smith's time. Free trade has came about on an unprecedented level, and wealth has increased all over the world. While inequality exists, there has nonetheless been massive income increase across the spectrum, and grinding poverty DOES NOT EXIST in today's truly affluent society. Ironically, the only place grinding poverty truly exists (outside of the third world and middle east) is in failed Communist states in Easter Europe.
I assume you realize how ironic it is for you to be quoting Adam Smith as if he was some endorser of Communism. Smith constantly argued for free markets and thoroughly explained the benefits of currency and trade. His answer to poverty and inequality? Certainly not Communism, but a more thorough application of free trade. And a couple centuries later, it's clear to see that he was, for the most part, right.

Well because of my statement that I would like to see a money less society another debate has started and this person quoted my signature. Sorry if you guys are annoyed about me bringing debates from another board on here :(

[thinkerOFthoughts]

*sigh* I am getting so bogged down with these people right now!:scared: I am getting to the point where I am scared to enter the polotics section cuz their will be waiting yet another wall of text to deal with:huh: its getting.... discouraging to say the least. And of course the idea that no Country has ever achieved Communism is just sooooo ridiculous to them:laugh: They are so thick headed and all they now want to do is call me indoctrinated:glare: yup I got indoctrinated in less than a week:glare: well at least its was for a good thing.

[Demogorgon]

This one here is just pathetic the person plainly knows nothing about Adam Smith

Just thought I should comment on this, since it's been bugging me for some time. Brilliant as he was, Adam Smith was no prophet, and quotes like this are just one example of an honest mistake he made in his thinking How on earth can you call it an honest mistake? It is simply true. Is this fellow denying the existence of incredible inequality under capitalism?
(another was his condemnation of corporations as economically unhealthy).Oh dear, oh dear. When we consider the legal position corporations have worked themselves into, how can we call them beneficial?
This statement was very true when he wrote - poverty was widespread all through the world, and while affluence was greater in Europe and the United States, starvation was still a constant risk for those who were poor.
Today, however, the situation is far different from the one in Smith's time. Free trade has came about on an unprecedented level, and wealth has increased all over the world. While inequality exists, there has nonetheless been massive income increase across the spectrum, and grinding poverty DOES NOT EXIST in today's truly affluent society. Ironically, the only place grinding poverty truly exists (outside of the third world and middle east) is in failed Communist states in Easter Europe.Hardly, in the United States alone 11% of Households are not "food secure", that means they are genuinely unable to feed themselves properly at all times. That is grinding poverty and it is not insignificant.

Moreover you cannot ignore relative poverty given the catastrophic effect that it has on society. And it is extremely prevalent.

Incidentally, here is an ironic fact. A lot of Eastern Europe has less "grinding povery" than the United States!

I assume you realize how ironic it is for you to be quoting Adam Smith as if he was some endorser of Communism. Smith constantly argued for free markets and thoroughly explained the benefits of currency and trade. His answer to poverty and inequality? Certainly not Communism, but a more thorough application of free trade. And a couple centuries later, it's clear to see that he was, for the most part, right.Tell this guy to look up "anachronism" in a dictionary.

[Drace]

*sigh* I am getting so bogged down with these people right now!:scared: I am getting to the point where I am scared to enter the polotics section cuz their will be waiting yet another wall of text to deal with:huh: its getting.... discouraging to say the least. And of course the idea that no Country has ever achieved Communism is just sooooo ridiculous to them:laugh: They are so thick headed and all they now want to do is call me indoctrinated:glare: yup I got indoctrinated in less than a week:glare: well at least its was for a good thing.

Just go make jokes.
It will improve your humor

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Just go make jokes.
It will improve your humor

lol i got an awesome sense of humor I just dont like over bearing people

[apathy maybe]

I would suggest, that if they believe that the USSR was, China is, Cuba is, North Korea is, Albania was, Yugoslavia (before 1990) was, communist, then they have a big problem right there.

Ask them to define communism, ask them what the common links are between these different countries, what makes them all communist.

Ask them if Singapore has these tendencies, if Chile in 1978 (or pick another year from the dictatorship) had them, if Spain in 1970 (or pick another year) had these same tendencies.

See what they actually know. You might try abandoning any threads you are currently in, and direct them to a new thread asking these questions.

(Also, a link to the forum would be nice, so that we could perhaps jump in and help out.)

[Post-Something]

These are all really basic arguments, you can actually find answers to all of these in the high school commie guide. I would recommend that you read some more Marx & Engels to get a better feel for the problems of capitalism though. You'll quickly find that 90% of arguments against you will be in the "I don't think it will work" section, and you just have to explain to them exactly what you mean by communism. Good luck :)

[zimmerwald1915]

The problem with communism is that its end goal makes humans lazy.
Oh really? I suppose he has proof? Oh wait, he doesn’t. That means he’s working from preconceived notions and prejudices. Specifically, in this case, the notion that people are naturally indolent and have to be forced to work by the exceptions to the “indolence rule”. It’s a notion that goes back to the Bible, one of the founding myths of western civilization; the original state of man was that of a “noble savage”, whose life consisted of food consumption, sex, and naming things for fun. Labor, the “production of his material existence” was an eternal punishment from an omnipotent and infallible higher power. The presupposition there is that labor is something inherently un-enjoyable.

Some one’s chain of reasoning seems to be “people hate to work, therefore in a society where they can depend on the labor of others to furnish their means of subsistence they will work as little as possible”. He leaves unsaid the corollary that if this continues for any length of time the society will collapse in on itself due to underproduction. Perhaps he thinks it obvious. The whole argument, however, is based on the predicate that humans hate labor and have to be forced to do it. Some one’s bubble is about to be burst, because this just ain’t the case. In point of fact, when labor can be creative, when it constitutes “the free play of [the laborer’s] own physical and mental powers”, it is the most natural and enjoyable thing in the world. The notion that “people hate to work so they must be forced to work” becomes, once this concept is realized, “people only hate to work when they are made to work.”

Then, once we start thinking historically, it becomes “people only hate to work in the conditions established by class society. In capitalism specifically, labor has been divided up to such an extent that labor can’t constitute ‘the free play of physical and mental powers’”. To the false charge that communism makes people lazy, counterpoise the true and provable charge that capitalism is an inhuman, alienating, dehumanizing system, whereas communism allows for creative labor.


here was an experiment in the US sometime in the 1600 when a group of settlers created a form of communism, where everyone was "equal" and everyone shared with everyone. It failed. The reason it failed was because some thought they did not have to do anything and they could rely on everyone else. This is the mentality that Communism creates. What happens when everyone in the community or country thinks like that? The country or community will die.
When was this? I know about New Harmony, but that was in the early nineteenth century. What’s more, I can’t find any record of any sort of commune in what became the United States around 1600. There was the Puritan colony at Massachusetts Bay, but that, along with the other colonies in the Americas, was one of the poster children of early capitalism.

This guy needs to name his examples, or else they possess no validity whatsoever.


In theory communism sounds good, because it sounds like those that need help will get it, the bad side is that it takes from others and gives to others who have not earned it. This example is a form of communism. Let say you have a classroom filled with 30 people. 10 people are getting A's. 5 people are getting B's, 5 people are getting C's and 10 people are getting F's. Let say that A's is a 100 points. B's are 90 points. C's are 80 points and F is 70 points. The object of communism is to make it as equal as possible while "sharing" what everyone has with the community. In this case, the students with the A's and B's will be sharing their points with those that have C's and F's. So in order for the people with F's to make C's, all the A's people will give up 10 points, so the F's become C's, so instead of 10 F's there are 15 C's and instead of 10 A's there are 15 B's. The class is still not equal. So those with C's have 80 points and those with B's have 90 points. Those with A's have already given up 10 points. Now they have B's and will be asked to give up another five points, while those with B's will be asked to give up 5 points, so the class can be equal. with an 85 avg. Those who had A's gave up 15 points. Those with B's gave up 5 points. Those with F's gained 15 points and those with C's gained 5 points. So tell me what is the incentive of those with F's to study? When they know those with A's will give them their points? What is the point of A students to study when their hard work will be taken from them? What is going to happen is those that are smart will play dumb, so not to lose anything, those that are dumb will still dumb since they have no incentive to achieve anything, because it will be given to them.
Perhaps it is Some one that is playing dumb. The whole example, and in turn his position, rests on the presupposition that an economy is a zero-sum game. Of course, that concept was disproved by Adam Smith in the eighteenth century, and the refutation has been accepted by economist bourgeois and communist up until…now. What actually happens is that societies start off with a whole world of basically untapped resources at their disposal. The classical western economy, built on the labor of slaves in the fields, started out from the small population base of Greece, grew through the Hellenic and Roman conquests to encompass the whole of the Mediterranean Basin, and then stopped. Why? It had reached the end of the densely populated areas of the Earth that weren’t controlled by other powers (Parthia, the Indian states, China). What happened? It collapsed, and gave rise to a new mode of production, which did away (in a fundamental sense, though not totally) with the master-slave relation and instead bound laborers to the land and the land to lords. When that reached its natural limits (the limits of land cultivable with the technology available at the time), it in turn collapsed and gave way to a society where laborers had been emancipated from the land and also from the tools used to work it. That’s this society, here, now.

All the while, the ability of humans to produce has grown. It grew from the antique to the feudal to the capitalist mode of production. In the latter, it has grown to such an extent that we can’t consume all the stuff we produce, at least within the market property relations of capitalist society. Goods can’t reach impoverished buyers, not because they’re inaccessible physically, but because they’re impoverished and therefore can’t participate in the market relation.

Some one’s example fails because it doesn’t actually describe the conditions we’re living in, nor does it describe communism. Capitalism has created the objective material capacity, looking only at technological progress, of humans to produce an abundance of use-values. That is, we produce more than we need, and actual abundance is hindered only by the market relation. In communism, where not only will the market relation be abolished but where humans will be free to labor creatively and will therefore produce more, there will be a condition of superabundance where everyone will have more than they need. Things won’t have to be taken from the “rich” to feed the “poor” (these are categories endemic to class societies but I don’t really care to invent new terms); the “rich” won’t know what to do with all the stuff they’ve got, and will literally be giving it away.

To retain the general scene of Some one’s example, but to actually apply it to real conditions, let’s say that the thing shared is not “points”, but the actual knowledge required to perform well on the tests. The people with As won’t lose anything, since knowledge isn’t diminished by exchange (to transfer the example to the real world, we’re looking at the continuous reproduction of goods), and the people with lower grades will improve. Hey, look! I’ve just invented peer tutoring! These programs should be shut down! They’re embryos of communism!

Oh, and I should probably mention that he must have a lot of time on his hands, since he spends so much time building straw men and knocking them down.


Capitalism offers incentives for people to succeed.
Perhaps it does. So?


If you work hard you keep what you make, if you are a failure you can start over and try again or you can just be a failure and that is your right. But no one will help you.
Ah, now here’s where things get interesting. This scenario has no relationship to the actual capitalist world, unless that relationship is one of total negation. I’ll assume for a second he’s talking about businessmen, capitalists. “Working hard” in this example means, not actual labor to create commodities, but making sound investment decisions through the knowledge of how the market is performing at a given time, what the state of supply and demand is, and what niches a new product can fill. The problem is (and we don’t see this much with big capitalists since they diversify, but with small businessmen who pour all their capital into their business in order to make it work, it is endemic) if you fail, you can’t “start again”. The barriers to entry into business are simply too high for someone who has lost all his capital to reenter business. He would be outcompeted in an instant if he tried to start over with what assets are left after his creditors have had their due.

Then there’s the interesting statement that “you keep what you make”. Again, assuming we’re talking about businessmen, this is entirely false. In point of fact, businessmen sell products. If they hung onto them, they wouldn’t remain businessmen for long. Again, this was recognized as true from the very beginning of bourgeois economics: that an economy isn’t “keeping” things, it’s selling and buying. This statement only makes some sort of sense if we’re talking about fixed capital, buildings, machinery, computers, that sort of thing. Of course, as technology improves and as machines wear down, they’re upgraded, repaired, and replaced. So even fixed capital isn’t really “kept”; it’s only kept for as long as it’s useful and is irreplaceable with something better.

But let’s move beyond Some one’s blinkered statements. He’s talking about businessmen; let’s talk about laborers and businessmen. In point of fact the products sold by the businessman weren’t made by him. They were made by workers whose capacity to work over a given time the businessman has purchased. Laborers don’t “keep what they make”. In point of fact they never own what they make. They labor on raw materials owned by the businessman. Furthermore, wages, which fluctuate around the level needed to maintain the laborer and his dependants, cannot except in the most extreme and unlikely circumstances be high enough, nor can workers be ascetic enough, to pass the barrier to entry into business. Workers are consigned to “just be failures” (interesting choice of terminology by Some one, by the way) not by any personal “failure” on their part but because the capitalist system and the capitalist class needs them in the position they’re in.


Read Alan Greenspan's book Age of Turbulence and see for yourself from an economist point of view of how communism failed and how capitalism works and succeeds.
This is a copout, but for what it’s worth, Some one should read Das Kapital and see for yourself from an economist point of view how capitalism fails and how communism works and succeeds.

See? I can do it too!


With the Advent of Capitalism the life style of people improved and the health and life time of the people improved. People lived longer, are richer. Capitalism created the stuff that you have in your house, it even created your house!
This statement has been treated with historical perspective (and grammar): With the advent of mature feudalism the life style of people improved and the health and life time of the people improved over the antique economy. People lived longer, were richer. Feudalism created the stuff they had in their houses, it even created the houses themselves. With the advent of Capitalism the life style of people improved and the health and life time of the people improved. People lived longer, are richer. Capitalism created the stuff that you have in your house, it even created your house. With the advent of communism the life style of people will improve and the health and life time of the people will improve. People will live longer and have a better quality of life. Communism will create the stuff you will have in your house, including the house itself.


Go to Russia and see the poverty that lives there, those are from the old Communism days.
Actually the economy in Russia today is consistently more than twenty percent worse than the economy of the USSR from 1930 to 1980 (the turbulent beginning and end of the system there are discounted because the economy simply wasn’t running normally). But that’s quite beside the point, as the USSR didn’t practice communism but an extreme form of state capitalism (all you revlefters out there feel free to disagree with this; just don’t clutter this particular thread with refutations).

All the rest of his post is describing the demerits and virtues of other forms of state capitalism (Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, American), and are therefore not worth my time or anyone else’s.

I hope you can make good use of this. In fact, since it’s four pages long, I really suggest you make use of this, so the hour and a half I spent typing this doesn’t go to waste.

[rednordman]

I really do not want to move of topic, but I noticed that one of the responses claimed that China would be a better country if it was a 100% capitalist one. I find this a rather interesting statement to make, not that i support the current Chinese government, but i just find it funny how they almost take it for granted that capitalism will save everything and sort everyone out..and i bet they think we are the ones who are narrow minded and short sighted. China is a vastly populated country, what would happen to the ones who in the less economically and enterprise attractive areas? This is where poverty is common place in a capitalist country.
+its common knowledge that the poverty in russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was down to disasterous economic policy, mainly during the Yeltsin years. I mean the Russians even voted the CPSU back into power, only for the vote to be rigged in Yeltsins favour. I heard somewhere that its rumoured that alot of the poorer people in the big cities are still mainly self-sufficient (live of their own home grown veg) due to the experience. I cannot provide a source for that though.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

The statement was made that Russia was not communist, that it was socialist.

The end result of communism is socialism, thus Communism in Russia made Russia into a Socialist State.

lol I just noticed this! Now if I am not mistaken.... its the other way around aint it? The hopeful end result of Socialism is Communism not the other way around right? if anything Socialism is suppose to be a transitional stage right?

[Demogorgon]

lol I just noticed this! Now if I am not mistaken.... its the other way around aint it? The hopeful end result of Socialism is Communism not the other way around right? if anything Socialism is suppose to be a transitional stage right?

Correct

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Sigh I keep getting told to get resources for something but I dont know where to find them :( they claim "The entire Academia of Communism recognized Russia as Communist" my claim because of what I learned from you guys is "no thats is completely false" Well they claim that their statement is a commonly known peace of knowledge of history. So the only way to accept my answer is from some good sources.

[zimmerwald1915]

No, the only answer is that, since they're the ones making assertive statements, it's their burden to provide evidence.

[revolution inaction]

Sigh I keep getting told to get resources for something but I dont know where to find them :( they claim "The entire Academia of Communism recognized Russia as Communist" my claim because of what I learned from you guys is "no thats is completely false" Well they claim that their statement is a commonly known peace of knowledge of history. So the only way to accept my answer is from some good sources.

The sailors at kronstadt didn't think the ussr was vary communist

http://libcom.org/library/1921-kronstadt-proletarian-spin-russian-revolution-cajo-brendel

They were not the only ones

http://libcom.org/library/third-revolution-nick-heath

emma goldman wrote a book about her experiences in Russia

http://libcom.org/library/my-disillusionment-in-russia-emma-goldman

She started out thinking that the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries but after she spent some time in russia that changed.

there were also bolsheviks who disagreed with the way things happened in russia

http://libcom.org/library/bolshevik-opposition-lenin-paul-avrich

http://libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition

and other anarchists

http://libcom.org/library/counter-revolution-soviet-union-gregori-maximov

[Demogorgon]

Sigh I keep getting told to get resources for something but I dont know where to find them :( they claim "The entire Academia of Communism recognized Russia as Communist" my claim because of what I learned from you guys is "no thats is completely false" Well they claim that their statement is a commonly known peace of knowledge of history. So the only way to accept my answer is from some good sources.

Given that it is not true the burden isn't on you. Tell them that if they are so clearly right then they should easily be able to come up with sources to back themselves up. Once again, do not let them frame the debate on their terms.