[faber niger]

(Original post by The Socktor)
Has anybody noticed that most of the arguments put forward that aren't straw men or ad homina essentially only really work in critique of statist communism and not the anarchistic kind?

Probably because no one thinks anarchism even worthy of a rebuttal.

[malloryoscar]

So many misconceptions regarding Marxist theory and the idea of communism as a whole.

Communism usually occurs in countries where there is a lack of economic surplus. Due to the failure of the capitalist system many turn to either fascism or communism. Many who post dont understand the basics of the principle laid out in the communist manifesto.

Communism doesn't work without capital, therefore the only nations to have adopted communism have turned into dictatorship regimes, as to gain the funds to run said government they had to pillage and nationalise. E.G. Stalin and Mao

However if for example communism was adopted in a country with an abundance of wealth, the UK for example, things would be very different. Its not all about equal pay and lack of freedom, the only reason we have these views is due to the capital driven society in which we live. If we lived in a society where politics, the state and the media were not governed by money then we would live in a state of true democracy and freedom to discover ourselves. The idea of capital and economic struggle would not drive us as society, or the superstructure as Marx calls it, would not revolve around money but the idea of expression and self-realisation would.

The idea of human nature is merely a human conception driven by the world in which we live, we are not all greedy and selfish but rather sensuous beings who strive to co-exist. However via the oppression of those above us in the class register, we are forced into economic struggle and the chase for capital like those around us in society.

You may feel that communism is a utopian goal, however the real aim is a truly socialistic state, in which we are on the road to a better world. However government can only truly be changed in piecemeal, capitalist government can't last forever, much like the governments of former: autocratic and feudalist states eventually crumble to the demands of the majority.

in Short rather than making pre judgements based on little knowledge, read the works of Marx and political philosophers like Adorno and Rousseau

[The Socktor]

(Original post by jismith1989)
Probably because no one thinks anarchism even worthy of a rebuttal.

Or because they don't understand it.

[malloryoscar]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
because pretty much all communists are losers who have not done much with their life and dont earn a lot of money. They tend to be jealous of people with more stuff than them. Basically people who are complete losers who have never achieved much and never will.

all masked as "equality" of course

This Guy...

[monk_keys]

(Original post by malloryoscar)
This Guy...

[muddywaters51]

Why dont some of you socialists set up a commune here?

Oh, that's right your vision of communism involves brute force and power imposed by the all-powerful central government. What a beautiful thing.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
Why dont some of you socialists set up a commune here?

Oh, that's right your vision of communism involves brute force and power imposed by the all-powerful central government. What a beautiful thing.

Yes, because as an anarchist, I believe the state should have more power.

Use your brain before posting ey?

[snozzle]

a) In practice it has produced tyrannical regimes which were crushing to the human spirit.

b) Communist ideology has no answer to the problem of stopping despotic control of communist government. In contrast liberal democracy relies upon checks and balances and the division of powers.

c) The view and practice that political (state) power is total and commands private, economic, and social life too exacerbates the problem of b).

[malloryoscar]

(Original post by monk_keys)

Why are you implying...

[malloryoscar]

I hate this obsession of communism inevitably leading to tyrannical regimes and brute force. The truth is, the rule of individuals such as Stalin and Mao are merely just mutations and misinterpretations of Marxism and the communist manifesto. Rulers taking control in countries of broken economy often turn to an almost dictatorship type regime in order to generate the economic surplus in order to run said operation. Frankly they aren't communist, rather dictators with the premise of ruling in favour of the majority.

Rather than attacking the atrocities that communism 'inevitably' brings with its rule, lets not overlook the sheer monstrosities that capitalism has given rise to.

WWI- Battle for imperialism and capital leads to the death of millions.
The Rich poor divide- the gap between those with and without capital in many countries is vast. With capitalism backing this idea of social darwinism.
WWII-Again the battle for imperialism and the far right capitalist movement of fascism (the idea of survival of the fittest and great superior race) and the NAZI movement.
Dictatorships around the world- Robert Mugabe and his strive to possess the wealth and natural resources of Zimbabwe

Need I go on... "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?"

[monk_keys]

People take communism as an attack on their liberal principles and values. It must be wrong because it doesn't describe how they feel about society, 'if communism is right then how come I'm happy as a consumer being paid a monthly wage'. People want to get better jobs and do well for themselves therefore communism has no logic.

Marx believed this to be natural and didn't want to actively change society but rather described why it was and predict what the consequences would be long term.

[Fires]

(Original post by monk_keys)
People take communism as an attack on their liberal principles and values. It must be wrong because it doesn't describe how they feel about society, 'if communism is right then how come I'm happy as a consumer being paid a monthly wage'. People want to get better jobs and do well for themselves therefore communism has no logic.

Marx believed this to be natural and didn't want to actively change society but rather described why it was and predict what the consequences would be long term.

People's views on economic and political matters are heavily conditioned by their parents, by the mass media and by their own direct experiences of working conditions, etc. The picture of happy serfs toiling for their monthly wage so long as they have "liberal principles" is not in the reality most people inhabit. Most working people under capitalism are thoroughly fed up with most aspects of their workplace, the burdens of costs for basic utilities, food, accommodation and transport and the system that keeps them under - they would be out on strike a lot more were it not for the powerful role played by the right-wing media.

The "liberal values society" is essentially a trick of the mass media.

You are quite wrong that Marx didn't want to change it, he was no university academic, try reading the Communist Manifesto.

[snozzle]

(Original post by malloryoscar)
I hate this obsession of communism inevitably leading to tyrannical regimes and brute force. The truth is, the rule of individuals such as Stalin and Mao are merely just mutations and misinterpretations of Marxism and the communist manifesto. Rulers taking control in countries of broken economy often turn to an almost dictatorship type regime in order to generate the economic surplus in order to run said operation. Frankly they aren't communist, rather dictators with the premise of ruling in favour of the majority.

It's not a very good system if it can give politicians almost unlimited power and then depend upon their goodness to not abuse it.

(Original post by malloryoscar)
Rather than attacking the atrocities that communism 'inevitably' brings with its rule, lets not overlook the sheer monstrosities that capitalism has given rise to.

WWI- Battle for imperialism and capital leads to the death of millions.
The Rich poor divide- the gap between those with and without capital in many countries is vast. With capitalism backing this idea of social darwinism.
WWII-Again the battle for imperialism and the far right capitalist movement of fascism (the idea of survival of the fittest and great superior race) and the NAZI movement.
Dictatorships around the world- Robert Mugabe and his strive to possess the wealth and natural resources of Zimbabwe

Need I go on... "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?"

We shouldn't overlook Capitalisms failings but it's a fallacy to say we should adopt communism because Capitalism is not perfect...especially when the collectivist alternative has been such a dismal failure whenever put into practice.

[monk_keys]

(Original post by Fires)
People's views on economic and political matters are heavily conditioned by their parents, by the mass media and by their own direct experiences of working conditions, etc. The picture of happy serfs toiling for their monthly wage so long as they have "liberal principles" is not in the reality most people inhabit. Most working people under capitalism are thoroughly fed up with most aspects of their workplace, the burdens of costs for basic utilities, food, accommodation and transport and the system that keeps them under - they would be out on strike a lot more were it not for the powerful role played by the right-wing media.

The "liberal values society" is essentially a trick of the mass media.

That's what I'm saying, 'it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but their social existence that determines their consciousness.' As inhabitants of capitalist society we are prone to think like capitalists, this is natural.

(Original post by snozzle)
It's not a very good system if it can give politicians almost unlimited power and then depend upon their goodness to not abuse it.

Applies equally to capitalism

(Original post by snozzle)
We shouldn't overlook Capitalisms failings but it's a fallacy to say we should adopt communism because Capitalism is not perfect...especially when the collectivist alternative has been such a dismal failure whenever put into practice.

...which weren't communism.

[snozzle]

(Original post by monk_keys)
...which weren't communism.

You are only saying that because they failed.

If communism is some perfect society which axiomatically is only achieved when society is perfect then there is no point discussing it further, and absolutely no reason why we should believe that communist theory has any validity.

[monk_keys]

(Original post by snozzle)
You are only saying that because they failed.

More because they weren't communism.

(Original post by snozzle)
If communism is some perfect society which axiomatically is only achieved when society is perfect then there is no point discussing it further, and absolutely no reason why we should believe that communist theory has any validity.

Communism isn't intermittent, it is something that has yet to happen, but may, or may not happen in the future. It doesn't require a perfect society, it requires a completely broken society, things have to be bad enough for people to want change. They're not at the moment.

[snozzle]

(Original post by monk_keys)
More because they weren't communism.


Communism isn't intermittent, it is something that has yet to happen, but may, or may not happen in the future. It doesn't require a perfect society, it requires a completely broken society, things have to be bad enough for people to want change. They're not at the moment.

How do you know that?

[monk_keys]

How do I know it may or may not happen? It's a pretty safe bet.

[snozzle]

(Original post by monk_keys)
How do I know it may or may not happen? It's a pretty safe bet.

You are tying to sidestep. I'm talking about all positive assertions you are making re communism. How do you know they are true?

It doesn't require a perfect society, it requires a completely broken society, things have to be bad enough for people to want change.

[J91old]

My take is:
A basic course of economics would explain to everyone in detail why communism isn't sustainable.
Many politicians obviously know nothing about this (I'm in Italy so ignorance from politicians is at an epic level).

Ideally what capitalism does is to allocate resources where there is demand for a specific good or service. This allocation is driven by prices, so for an ordinary good the increase of demand increases the price allowing companies to produce more goods always at marginal cost.

All this is done indirectly, which means we don't need someone or an institution that says what to produce and at what price.

This is a quick intro to a microeconomic course but may help many to understand why capitalism works. (Under some assumptions).

Now imagine a central government that has to decide ( in 5 year plans) what to produce and basically who does it. Not even with the most powerful computer you could do such thing (my note: Imagine a bunch of corrupt and ignorant politicians ).