Argument Thread

[Sinister Intents]

I thought it might be good exercise to put oneself in the shoes of someone else politically speaking. To refute intentionally the arguments put forth by the people here in a way a liberal or reactionary might. To think creatively arguments against communism, anarchism, and so on.

One thing I can immediately think to say is: All Marxists and anarchists are idealists, they want something unattainable no matter how much theory they chalk up your way, no matter how much supposedly proven stuff they throw your way any attempt at collectivization and statelessness and classlessness has been thoroughly crushed by the forces of reaction. The USSR degenerated, Makhno's Free Territory crushed, Anarchist Catalonia destroyed, the Paris Commune tanked, primitive communist tribes are suffering to keep with the times in a globalized capitalist world. Any attempt at communism leads to someone taking power regardless, and it will never last because people will naturally lean towards allowing someone else to take care of the work.

I'm trying to think of a refutation, but I can still see how that would all be refuted, but I tried... I thought this thread might be a good exercise

Someone else try!

[consuming negativity]

Communism is a dead ideology that the academic and nonacademic world have moved on from except as a study of history. Attempts at changing capitalism through revolution have continuously failed, not only because of the power of the bourgeoisie but from the lack of the communists to deliver on the things they've promised. As a result, the world has moved on, the revolutionary left has become commodified and turned into a status group for disaffected youth and criminals, and any real movement to change society will be forced to abandon socialism and work within the system.

[Sinister Intents]

Communer, that sounds more factual and true

[motion denied]

Even if you accept the Marxist paradigm that the history of hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle and that, basically, one class rules over and exploits another, the overcoming of capitalism would be a mission of the world proletariat. However, when Marx cried "proletarians of all countries unite" in 1848 he spoke only of a good part of Europe. By that time the potential union across borders was doubtful; today it's just unlikely (to say the least). Marxists/anarchists underestimate the mediations and contradictions between proletarians of different countries and proletarians of the same country but different sectors of the economy. Even more: the potential for the proletariat to act as a class is undermined by the said divisions; "workers" in a post-fordist world are not as homogeneous as they once had been. The Marxian party model failed; the Leninist party model failed. Any party will fail. There are too many mediations "in the way" of the supposedly historical mission. British workers will "defend their jobs" against immigrants; the precariat has a very different dynamic than the "regular" proletarian, etc.

The Marxist critique of from the point of view of labour is obsolete, as immaterial labour has become predominant. The changes in the working class in the last decades have buried the Communist utopia (and the labour x capital conflict, or its possible overcoming) - even leftists have noted this, eg Habermas, Offe, etc.

It's not that capitalism is not shit, it's that the Marxian critique, albeit important, is now history. The potentials of the proletariat were exaggerated; their political organisations have failed; they consistently fail at building class solidarity (how many internationals there are? How many internationalist groups?); the "objective conditions" laid down by the likes of Henryk Grossman (crisis) has not resulted in the rise of Communism, but of its ultimate contrary, fascism. They have failed, and inevitably will always do. Here I'd cite Robert Kurz' on the end of history and Titanic. Because that is what it is.

[Illegalitarian]

Communer, that sounds more factual and true

In actuality Marxism is still held as pretty important in the academic world, and communism as an idea lives on in many different movements and countries the world over. Academics and poor workers in the third world make up the majority of the worlds communists I would say, and of course any notions of reformism and "working withing the system" are out the window. The argument also implies that communism can simply be willed into existence and isn't a direct result of changing material conditions as we get closer and closer to peak capitalism, so to speak, to a point where the contradiction of labor and a desire for profits hits its critical point.

Communer is just good at devil's advocate, that's all.


I'll give it a shot:



The fatal flaw of Marxism and all communist ideologies lies in the assumption that there can possibly be an internationally united working class rising up and fighting for its own class interests, that national, religious, and cultural divisions will always and forever trump any sort of solidarity based on class across those borders.

The only reason capitalism was brought into the world is because feudalism was so outwardly shitty and and awful that people were faced with little choice but to live with it or (literally) make heads roll and had nothing at all to do with some constantly advancing and changing "material conditions" or "social relations".

[tuwix]

I thought it might be good exercise to put oneself in the shoes of someone else politically speaking. To refute intentionally the arguments put forth by the people here in a way a liberal or reactionary might. To think creatively arguments against communism, anarchism, and so on.

One thing I can immediately think to say is: All Marxists and anarchists are idealists, they want something unattainable no matter how much theory they chalk up your way, no matter how much supposedly proven stuff they throw your way any attempt at collectivization and statelessness and classlessness has been thoroughly crushed by the forces of reaction. The USSR degenerated, Makhno's Free Territory crushed, Anarchist Catalonia destroyed, the Paris Commune tanked, primitive communist tribes are suffering to keep with the times in a globalized capitalist world. Any attempt at communism leads to someone taking power regardless, and it will never last because people will naturally lean towards allowing someone else to take care of the work.

I'm trying to think of a refutation, but I can still see how that would all be refuted, but I tried... I thought this thread might be a good exercise

Someone else try!

Material equality that is an objective of money elimination is impossible. Equality is just impossible because people differs. One is born more intelligent than another. And s/he always will want to be better than others.

[G4b3n]

The major problem with communism that I can see is that it is often more attractive to intellectuals than to workers. Not to say that communist movements haven't had the backing of major sections of the working class before, but the realities of capitalism do make this rather difficult.

If I am working 10 hours a day and busting my ass to keep food on the table, no I do not want to nor do I have time to listen to your lecture on labor history or dialectical materialism, fuck off.

[John Nada]

I have one that no one can refute.

Human Nature!

Okay.

One argument would be that it's impossible for a revolution to happen in modern times. There's never been a real revolution in a developed capitalist country, and in 3rd world countries the revolution gets crushed by the US and co. People are too scared to fight because the state is so powerful, or they've bought into the system because it's good for them or they see no alternatives. Even if a revolution occurred, it would be a lot of bloodshed just to end up with the status quo or worse, like all the other revolutions.

[Sinister Intents]

The trend I see is that thr hegemonic order is too strong, reactionary and liberal thought is hyperengrained, we're destroying the planet, revolutions are impossible and reforms occur more often and they're the epitome of stagnation, and so on