Marxism corrupt and can't work?

[Amon]

Hey there everyone!

I'm a bit of a beginner with getting all these ideologies round my head so please forgive me.

If I'm ever having a conversation with someone on marxism/communism, they just come down on me like a ton of bricks.

'Marxism is just full of corrupt leaders.' 'Communism only works in theory, get with reality already!'...These are a few of the things I usually get told.

Does anyone have any ideas how I can explain to them, as they seem to be set in their ways and have been exposed to propaganda, like most people when they think of Marxism.

I'm just getting tired of not having my opinion validated, just to be blown down by all this Capitalism freedom stories.

Thanks in advance people.
Again, sorry if it's a really basic thing!

Peace & love.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I can point you in a direction. Visit the "High School Commie's Guide" (stickied up in the Learning section) for answers to these kinds of questions. Also if you want to be able to counter peoples views, I suggest you read Communist and Anarchist literature. Again, checking the stickied threads can help you there.

[Amon]

Thanks, I've read through them before, but I'll definitely go through it again until I fully grasp it.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[Mr. Natural]

Amon, Welcome aboard! I see you are in the UK; I'm in the US.

As to your difficulties opposing bourgeois propaganda and argumentation: Turn the stooges' arguments on their head! The system of capitalism is opposed to living systems and is cashing us in. For instance, there is no way that a global system of production can be made to be ecologically sustainable.

So, when someone claims "Marxism is full of corrupt leaders," turn the statement on its head to point to the relentless truth that "Capitalism has nothing but corrupt leaders." All of your UK leaders will qualify for this description. Have some fun!

Then it's also true that "Capitalism [not communism] only works in theory." Capitalism functions as a cancer of all life forms, and its destructive effects are to be seen everywhere. Capitalism manufactures a malignant profit; life generates a sustainable surplus (ecological profit) in order to create and maintain its communities. Life is bottom-up community; capitalism is top-down profit stolen from life's communities.

Grey Scholar's suggestion to head to the Learner archives is excellent. I would also like to suggest a particular book, Joel Kovel's Enemy of Nature (2003). Kovel is the head of American ecosocialists, and Enemy is written in mostly clear language for a popular readership, and it absolutely nails capitalism in concepts you will easily grasp. Kovel also presents a bottom-up, "ecosystemic" concept of revolutionary organizing that I believe will prove to closely resemble any successful processes that might emerge in the West.

You are way ahead of where I was at your age and you are on the right path. So relax, do your homework, find some excellent comrades, and get to it--whatever might seem right to you and your comrades/group.

My red-green best!

[human strike]

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Revolutionary change is not something that we choose like a product on supermarket shelf. Communism is something that develops organically out of the contradictions and flaws of capitalism, out of the "premises now in existence". It is not something that can be forced into existence by leaders, corrupt or otherwise.

[Ocean Seal]

Marxism is a method of analysis, it doesn't have leaders or corruption. Generally when anyone speaks about this, they mean that the Eastern bloc was full of corruption, I'm pretty sure that everyone in this forum acknowledges that. Just don't listen to them, they advocate the great man theory. Just read, read Marx, read revleft, and read Lenin. There is no point to rehabilitate the Soviet Union or "really existing socialism". Don't speak to the emotionalists about it, instead speak to them about the reality of capitalism and what a massive shithole it is for almost all of us.

[Le Socialiste]

I've found that most people who criticize Marxism (and by extension, socialism) in this light often have a severely skewed misunderstanding of it that corresponds less with the theoretical and scientific nature of Marx's - and other's - works, and more with the top-down, bureaucratic and repressive regimes of the 20th century. It does not help to simply dismiss these aberrations however, as "not socialism" (even though they weren't). You must be capable of highlighting how and why this is. Reading up on what Marx and Engels wrote will help you go a long way in countering these claims while not appealing to overly moralistic arguments (which are handy, but concrete examples are far superior). Some of the reference points noted in this thread are of some use, and I would also point you to the Marxists Internet Archive - if you haven't been already - which can be a great resource.

In the meantime, you can point out that Marxism is above all an analytical science of the social, political, and economic effects of capitalism. It is not a heavy-handed, dogmatic ideology hellbent on shackling the earth's peoples to a distant and repressive state. Marx delved into the economics of private capital, while simultaneously noting the sociological effects on the average workingwoman and man. He correctly postulated that capitalism, despite its sheer reach, wealth, and influence, self-perpetuates the very antagonisms that will ultimately lead to its overthrow by the working-class. What occurred in Soviet Russia post-1923-24, and in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., closely resembled what many considered a state capitalist society, wherein the means of production remained out of the reach of the proletariat, no seizure of political or economic power occurred (or lasted) on the part of the working-class, and the state continued to exercise its role as a representative of those ruling interests dominating class society (those not of the proletariat's).

[Amon]

Amon, Welcome aboard! I see you are in the UK; I'm in the US.

As to your difficulties opposing bourgeois propaganda and argumentation: Turn the stooges' arguments on their head! The system of capitalism is opposed to living systems and is cashing us in. For instance, there is no way that a global system of production can be made to be ecologically sustainable.

So, when someone claims "Marxism is full of corrupt leaders," turn the statement on its head to point to the relentless truth that "Capitalism has nothing but corrupt leaders." All of your UK leaders will qualify for this description. Have some fun!

Then it's also true that "Capitalism [not communism] only works in theory." Capitalism functions as a cancer of all life forms, and its destructive effects are to be seen everywhere. Capitalism manufactures a malignant profit; life generates a sustainable surplus (ecological profit) in order to create and maintain its communities. Life is bottom-up community; capitalism is top-down profit stolen from life's communities.

Grey Scholar's suggestion to head to the Learner archives is excellent. I would also like to suggest a particular book, Joel Kovel's Enemy of Nature (2003). Kovel is the head of American ecosocialists, and Enemy is written in mostly clear language for a popular readership, and it absolutely nails capitalism in concepts you will easily grasp. Kovel also presents a bottom-up, "ecosystemic" concept of revolutionary organizing that I believe will prove to closely resemble any successful processes that might emerge in the West.

You are way ahead of where I was at your age and you are on the right path. So relax, do your homework, find some excellent comrades, and get to it--whatever might seem right to you and your comrades/group.

My red-green best!

Thank you very much for your input, it's really helping me. I can certainly agree with you that the UK leaders are corrupt, they claim to be in opposition to each other, when in actual fact they are completely identical.

I shall definitely check out the book by Joel Kovel that you have kindly suggested to me, I'm sure it'll clear up a lot of things for me.

That's one of my problems...finding comrades...there's none around where I am, which is the main reason I came here, hopefully though with time I shall find some nearby!

Again, thanks for your contribution, hopefully soon with a lot of reading I shall be fully equipped to get my point across correctly.

[Amon]

Revolutionary change is not something that we choose like a product on supermarket shelf. Communism is something that develops organically out of the contradictions and flaws of capitalism, out of the "premises now in existence". It is not something that can be forced into existence by leaders, corrupt or otherwise.

Thanks for clearing that up, helps me out a lot

[Amon]

Marxism is a method of analysis, it doesn't have leaders or corruption. Generally when anyone speaks about this, they mean that the Eastern bloc was full of corruption, I'm pretty sure that everyone in this forum acknowledges that. Just don't listen to them, they advocate the great man theory. Just read, read Marx, read revleft, and read Lenin. There is no point to rehabilitate the Soviet Union or "really existing socialism". Don't speak to the emotionalists about it, instead speak to them about the reality of capitalism and what a massive shithole it is for almost all of us.

Doesn't have any leaders, exactly, thank you. I've tried explaining this and all I get is "Guevara, Mao, Stalin, Castro...no leaders huh?". It's frustrating to reason with these people!

I've found that most people who criticize Marxism (and by extension, socialism) in this light often have a severely skewed misunderstanding of it that corresponds less with the theoretical and scientific nature of Marx's - and other's - works, and more with the top-down, bureaucratic and repressive regimes of the 20th century. It does not help to simply dismiss these aberrations however, as "not socialism" (even though they weren't). You must be capable of highlighting how and why this is. Reading up on what Marx and Engels wrote will help you go a long way in countering these claims while not appealing to overly moralistic arguments (which are handy, but concrete examples are far superior).

In the meantime, you can point out that Marxism is above all an analytical science of the social, political, and economic effects of capitalism. It is not a heavy-handed, dogmatic ideology hellbent on shackling the earth's peoples to a distant and repressive state. Marx delved into the economics of private capital, while simultaneously noting the sociological effects on the average workingwoman and man. He correctly postulated that capitalism, despite its sheer reach, wealth, and influence, self-perpetuates the very antagonisms that will ultimately lead to its overthrow by the working-class. What occurred in Soviet Russia post-1923-24, and in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., closely resembled what many considered a state capitalist society, wherein the means of production remained out of the reach of the proletariat, no seizure of political or economic power occurred (or lasted) on the part of the working-class, and the state continued to exercise its role as a representative of those ruling interests dominating class society (those not of the proletariat's).

Thanks for the link to the website, it's prove informative and helpful in my quest to completely understand everything well enough to defend myself in the future. As I stated above, all I get is people pointing out the revolutions that involved violence, and then say I'm siding with murders, which I don't believe I am. Thank you for the contribution in helping me learn, I'm only 20 so some people don't take me seriously, fortunately this site has helped with that

[Le Socialiste]

Thanks for the link to the website, it's prove informative and helpful in my quest to completely understand everything well enough to defend myself in the future. As I stated above, all I get is people pointing out the revolutions that involved violence, and then say I'm siding with murders, which I don't believe I am. Thank you for the contribution in helping me learn, I'm only 20 so some people don't take me seriously, fortunately this site has helped with that

Perhaps it would be helpful to point out the violent character of the American, French, and other strictly bourgeois revolutions of the last couple centuries. Communism doesn't advocate violence per se, nor does it fetishize it. As a socialist, one must readily accept that violence is an inevitable aspect or quality of seismic social change (i.e. revolution). We do not necessarily enjoy this, but we must highlight how the very repressiveness of existing societies under capitalist production intensifies and makes possible the "violent" means of its overthrow. This is as much a product of people's sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement as it is a result of the institutionalization and systemic usage of violence by the state (read: ruling-class), which is - on the whole - accepted and condoned by media and political punditry. When an officer beats protesting students, or an unmanned drone conducts "operations" in the "War on Terror", the media and political establishment - more often than not - offer a skewed depiction of events that isolates and minimizes the controversy, despite the fact that such occurrences are a day to day reality for many. We should point out the hypocrisy behind this, while continuing to build an active network of resistance against such active brutality. Pacifists fail to understand the inner dynamics perpetuated under capitalism that make the prospect of "peaceful" revolution a material and practical dead-end.

[Positivist]

Challenge: Marxism is just full of corrupt leaders.
Response: And capitalism isn't? You do know that south Korea, south Vietnam were military dictatorships right? No? How about that when communists were democratically elected in Chile the US sponsored a military coup where freedom of speech, association, and election were repealed? Not that either? Well then maybe you've heard of the contra death squads who Reagan sponsored to slaughter Latin Americans? Corruption is nothing inherent to Marxism and seems to be quite rampant all throughout the free world too?

Challenge: Communism only works on paper
Response: What does that even mean? (See if he actually has an explanation at which point it should be so easy to respond that it will be easy.)

[Amon]

Perhaps it would be helpful to point out the violent character of the American, French, and other strictly bourgeois revolutions of the last couple centuries.

How about that when communists were democratically elected in Chile the US sponsored a military coup where freedom of speech, association, and election were repealed?

Wow. You guys have been extremely helpful. Thank you very much for your time and effort. I will take all these and read them throughly!

I've certainly gained a lot of valuable knowledge just from this thread alone.

I feel as if I can defend myself a lot better with this information, although I do tend to fumble my words so I need to gain a bi of confidence too in the process...it will come as I grow in knowledge.

Thanks again guys, you've been a tremendous help

[Positivist]

The communism only works on paper will probably lead into how communism is "against human nature." Respond to this by asking them what human nature is. Most likely they will say something about selfishness, and in communism people will have no incentive to work because they will not have the selfish motivation of advancing.
First tell them that no serious anthropologist takes the idea of such a simplistic human nature seriously and explain that the reason they don't is because of discoveries that early hunter-gatherer societies owned property in common and produced for the sake of sustaining the whole community.

Next explain to them that advance is more possible in a communist society, where people are paid the full value of their labor, than in capitalist society. Find some social mobility statistics to support this on the Internet as there are plenty to be found.

[Amon]

Most likely they will say something about selfishness, and in communism people will have no incentive to work because they will not have the selfish motivation of advancing.

I have definitely come across this in my short time of learning!
Thanks a lot for your input, these arguments will no doubt help me greatly!

I really like the information about the hunter-gather societies. I had never even thought of that before!

[Mr. Natural]

Amon, Thanks for your open-minded responses. You are already discovering one of the big benefits of Revleft: engagement with others. I, too, am isolated and got a computer solely to join Revleft. Another big Revleft benefit is in the area of education. I've gone to school here, and some comrades have some impressive Marxist licks.

I wanted to clear up a big typo from my first post in this thread. When I wrote that a global system of production couldn't possibly be ecologically sustainable, I meant to write "a global system of production for profit couldn't possibly be ecologically sustainable."

On another note, I think of you when I recall the Zen admonition, "If you don't get it from yourself, where will you go for it?" This isn't a statement advocating an isolated, sopisistic concept of self. What it means is that when you engage others, you conscientiously consider their input, but it is you who must make the decision as to what to accept and reject. You are the judge as you dynamically engage others and life. In this sense, "If you don't get it from yourself, where will you go for it?" is in agreement with the new scientific understanding of life's organization wherein all living systems self-organize in dynamic interdependence with others. In the human domain, that means nurturing open but critical minds.

Life is community; communism is community. Let's keep the community of Revleft going and growing and steer it in the direction of developing an effective revolutionary organizing process(es). You and I currently lack a local community of comrades. Perhaps that means "We are the one(s) to get left community going in our areas."

My red-green best.

[Amon]

I wanted to clear up a big typo from my first post in this thread. When I wrote that a global system of production couldn't possibly be ecologically sustainable, I meant to write "a global system of production for profit couldn't possibly be ecologically sustainable."

Thank you for clearing that up, Mr. Natural!

I certainly agree with you on how we need to spread the word in our own communities. I do have trouble thinking how to without everyone screaming..'COMMIE! MURDERER!'.. down my throat. People are so uninformed here that they don't even know their left fro right, they're completely slaves to the system of capitalism.

I do like this community as I haven't been here long, and I have already learned SO much! May my knowledge continue to grow.

Thanks again for your help, comrade. I have hopes that one day people will wake up.

[Lucretia]

Hey there everyone!

I'm a bit of a beginner with getting all these ideologies round my head so please forgive me.

If I'm ever having a conversation with someone on marxism/communism, they just come down on me like a ton of bricks.

'Marxism is just full of corrupt leaders.' 'Communism only works in theory, get with reality already!'...These are a few of the things I usually get told.

Does anyone have any ideas how I can explain to them, as they seem to be set in their ways and have been exposed to propaganda, like most people when they think of Marxism.

I'm just getting tired of not having my opinion validated, just to be blown down by all this Capitalism freedom stories.

Thanks in advance people.
Again, sorry if it's a really basic thing!

Peace & love.

I guess the first step in having a conversation like this is clarifying what is meant with "Marxism is corrupt" and "communism works in theory." How does the person leveling the accusations define "marxism" and "communism," and what about it do they find incompatible with human nature (which is presumably where the critique is heading)?

[Amon]

I guess the first step in having a conversation like this is clarifying what is meant with "Marxism is corrupt" and "communism works in theory." How does the person leveling the accusations define "marxism" and "communism," and what about it do they find incompatible with human nature (which is presumably where the critique is heading)?

It honestly depends who I'm asking, if I'm talking with a Republican for example...well there's no point cause they don't even know what communism or marxist even means, they're brainwashed to hate them without even knowing what they are.

The slightly more 'intelligent' people who I come across, regarding human nature, usually say things along the lines of, 'Humans are greedy and selfish so it'll never work', or 'If one person doesn't work, then the whole system collapses'.

Can you imagine the kind of people I'm dealing with now? That'll give you a little clue.

[Lucretia]

It honestly depends who I'm asking, if I'm talking with a Republican for example...well there's no point cause they don't even know what communism or marxist even means, they're brainwashed to hate them without even knowing what they are.

The slightly more 'intelligent' people who I come across, regarding human nature, usually say things along the lines of, 'Humans are greedy and selfish so it'll never work', or 'If one person doesn't work, then the whole system collapses'.

Can you imagine the kind of people I'm dealing with now? That'll give you a little clue.

I think you just answered your own question. You respond to the person making the accusation by saying, "I think we mean two different things by communism and Marxism. You might mean Stalinism, but what I mean is X, and X is what I'm fighting for politically." The human nature is so tired and lame that I am beginning to suspect that there may be a human gene with the argument encoded into it. But no, seriously, the response to that is to emphasize that capitalism heightens people's competitiveness and self-interestedness to the point of making selfishness a kind of virtue. Everybody naturally has an instinct for self-preservation. Desiring to see people remain homeless when there are millions of empty and unowned houses -- that's capitalist selfishess.