Marxism Debate

[Moonstone Spider]

I thought this might be amusing. On a different board I've been debating Marxism's value with a handful of communists and used MW's refutation of Marxism as a link, here's their "Refutation:"

I acutally agree with you MS, Marx was a dip, and his manifesto wasn't more than a piece of inflammatory fluff. Had Marx not had so much clout in the Second Socialist International (also known as "the International"), nor so much influence with the Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia, and had the debate between Marx and Bakunin not ended as it did, there is every reason to believe that the "Soviet Union" would have been founded under anarchist principles, not "communist" ones.

That said, your link is ridiculous. In order to accept his "arguements", you must overlook the fact that his logic makes no sense (conclusions drawn from facts not proposed, facts included in the arguements for purely rhetorical purposes, since they don't serve the conclusions, etc..), and his obvious and total infatuation with mercantile capitalism. For the most part, his refutations of Marxism simply consist of some rather babal, sophomoric scorn, and a repitition of the point that "free" markets take care of themselves. Never does he give evidence of this, nor does he give any thought to the HUGE number of regulatory methods and controls that allow "free" markets to survive.

I'm now going to quote (with comments) his entire refutation of the "ten commandments of communism"

1. "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
   In other words, seizure of all real estate. No more worrying about saving money to buy that house ... the government will take it away!
   Interesting, a purely rhetorical arguement, devoid of logic, fact or relevance. He certainly makes it sound frightening though, doesn't he, conjuring images of some poor hard working people who have saved and saved losing their home to an evil government. Of course, he doesn't take any account of the rational behind the seizure of land, nor does he mention what would happen to the siezed land. This is because doing so wouldn't allow him to put up his little straw man.
   
   In actuality, the purpose of the siezure of land is one of those areas where the Marxists and Anarchists tend to agree. Why should individuals be able to own land? If the country belongs to it's citizens, why should individual citizens be able to own excluseive rights to land well beyond their immediate need. What Marxists and Anarchists object to is not the ownership of a house, but the ownership of many houses. People who make money not through honest labour or any creative activity, but simply because they "own" land.
2. "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
   After taking away your real estate, the government will take away most of your income too. Wonderful.
   Again, the author decides that vacant rhetoric is what's called for. Given that the government proposes to provide for all the basic neccessities (food, shelter, etc) why should people need the same amount of income that they would under capitalism? (where they must compete to be able to offer the highest amounts for the commodities they need)
3. "Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
   Taking away the right to bequeath the fruits of your life's work to your beloved children. How charming. It's one thing to tax inheritance, particularly for the wealthy, but to confiscate it entirely? That's simply unconscionable.
   Why? Some facts would have been appreciated, or better context from the work that he claims he is refuting.
4. "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."Ah, yes. The never-ending communist persecution of "emigrants and rebels." Although neo-Marxists often claim that "true" Marxism does not restrict the right to live where you wish, we can see here that this is simply untrue:
   
   Marx targeted emigrants (presumably with something stronger than the general confiscation of land; he probably meant that they should lose everything but their underwear), because the free movement of people, goods and services is anathema to Marxism. This is a reminder of a serious problem with communism- it can only exist in isolation. A communist society will be "contaminated" by contact with a capitalist society, due to the capitalist habit of broadcasting images of its wealth and materialism. Those images act as a magnet for the "best and brightest," who will be rewarded like princes under capitalism but treated no better than the ignorant and useless under communism. However, a society will not fare well if the "cream of the crop" leaves. So what can they do? They can restrict access to capitalist broadcasts and they can criminalize emigration. And of course, this is precisely what real communist states have done. I think we all recall the infamous Berlin wall.
   I don't have any real criticisms of this paragraph, provieded one accepts his definiton of communism, this arguement actually makes sense.
   
   Marx wished to persecute rebels, but how does one specifically target rebels? In free societies, a rebel is only arrested if he commits an act which violates one of the general laws, such as shooting a police officer or bombing a government building. The fact that he is a rebel is not, in itself, considered illegal. There are no special laws designed to target rebels, and in fact, numerous forms of public protest, demonstration and civil disobedience are actually protected by law. So we return to the question of: "how do we specifically target rebels"? Well, one can hardly single them out by waiting for them to break a general law- this is what we do for all citizens. The only way to single out rebels is to target their political beliefs. This is exactly what real communist states have always done, and although neo-Marxists claim that this isn't what Marx intended, they can't explain how he planned to persecute "rebels" without resorting to such measures.
   Marx planned to persecute rebels in much the same manner that today's "democracies" pursecute them. While he is technically correct that being a rebel is not actually ILLEGAL in today's "free" societies, they are certainly treated like the governments expect them to blow up a building or shoot a cop. Witness the massive harassment, surveilance, and false charges levelled against environmental, consumer or peace activists. COINTELPRO being a wonderful example (provided by the FBI, specialists in persecution) of how rebels can be persecuted before actually committing any crimes.
   Further, the author is obviously totally ignorant of the history of those "free" societies when it comes to repression of political beliefs. In those days, it was common practice to prosecute people for dissention, sediton, or treason, simply because they WERE communists, anarchists, pacifists, or similar. This continued (in the US at least) until the early 1970s, when it took on more subtle forms.
5. "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." Monopoly and state control are the mantra of communism, but monopolies are always destructive. Without competitive forces to ensure quality and efficiency, monopolistic entities, whether they be corporations or government agencies, invariably descend into wastefulness and sloth. This is why Microsoft was brought up on charges by the United States Department of Justice: competition is nature's way of ensuring the strength of the species, and it has proven to be a good way to ensure the strength of an economy as well. Furthermore, competition means choice, and choice means that the buying public has power.
   Again, my only problem with this sentence is it's unthinking acceptance of mainstream capitalist theory. If you're going to say that competition strengthens the economy, than you must refute Marx's statements against that point.
6. "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state."
   First rule of all dictatorships: seize control of the radio stations, the telephone system, and the newspapers. Neo-marxists claim that Marxism does not necessarily lead to dictatorship, but it's hard to agree with that claim when one of Karl Marx's ten commandments is the state seizure of all "means of communication"! Such far-reaching government power over communications can be abused to muzzle miscreants or suppress public knowledge of state misdeeds at any time, so it effectively removes freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression, there can be no freedom at all. Of course, it goes without saying that the seizure of transport has a similar chilling effect on freedom of movement (not to mention the power of the masses to punish or reward competing suppliers of transportation services).
   It's interesting, but those media outlets today that are most critical of their governments tend to be those wholly owned by them. BBC, CBC, etc are all highly critical of the governments that pay for them. Yet, turn to a company like ABC, NBC, or CNN, and you will see dissent muzzled and government misdeeds cheerily accepted since advertisers do not with to have policies that are benificial to them critisized, and a company must serve the needs of it's customers(the advertisers) first and it's raw material (the audience) second.
7. "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan."
   Broadening of state industry- this is actually redundant, given his previous statements. If the government has already seized all real estate, it already controls all the factories. I'm not sure why this directive was included at all.
   This statement only makes sense if you accept his extremely simplified version of the plan for the seisure of land. If, as he seems to think, Marx meant for the government to take everything, and somehow kick the people out, this makes sense. However, since the government only wished to take the ownership of the land itself back (not the use or operation of factories, farms, houses, etc), this statement is a broadening of an earlier one. One he apparently does not understand.
8. "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
   What sounds better to you? Being paid to work, or being forced to work? Choosing an employer based on pay and benefits, or being forcibly conscripted into an "industrial army?" The phrase "obligation to work" sounds better than "being forced to work by threat of punishment", but without the possibility of positive incentive, it means the same thing. Marx would take away your freedom to choose not to work. Suppose you decide that you would rather move to a small cabin up north, live largely off the land, and do just a little bit of occasional work for spending money? In a capitalist society, you would be forced to adopt an austere lifestyle, but no one would stop you. But Karl Marx would accuse you of not pulling your weight, and you would be forced to go work the same way as everyone else.
   If you remove the rhetoric and irrelevant arguements from this, what it boils down to is "everyone has a right to not work, if they so choose", which is one of the basic things that communism opposes. If he wishes to refute the ideology, he should provide logic, not rhetoric.
9. "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country."
   Like all advocates of social re-engineering, he thinks that it should be possible to "turn back the clock" on the process of industrialization. Sorry, but there is no practical way to decentralize heavy manufacturing operations so that they're spread out over the countryside like primitive feudal farming operations. This is wishful thinking at best, and sheer stupidity at worst.
   Straw man fallacy. When does marx use the phrase "turn back the clock"? If he doesn't, why is it in quotes? Does the author plan to provide evidence that ALL advocates of social re-engineering think the same things? Perhaps the author has interviewed all of these people, or taken a survey large enough to give a good statistical basis to this statement. Or perhaps it's simply a lie.
10. "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
    This sounds pretty good, and indeed, all civilized nations have instituted public schools and made child labour illegal. But if you read his full text, you will see that he is not merely advocating the creation of public schools. He wants children to be taken away from their parents and educated in state boarding schools! And he is not trying to abolish child labour entirely, he just wants to abolish child labour in its present form. In its place, he suggests that schools and industrial factories be merged into one, so that children work and go to school at the same time. How charming.
    Hmm... if he isn't planning on refuting the quoted statement, perhaps he should post the one he DOES object to? And what is wrong with incorporating production into industrial schooling? If i want to learn to be a welder, what better way to do it than to do some actual welding? Wait... that sounds a lot lika apprenticeships, something offered (here at least) BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS!
    [/list=1]

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm sure that a plane ticket to North Korea doesn't cost that much.

[Darth Wong]

I like the way the little prick assumes that this little off-topic one-page brief about the Communist Manifesto was intended to be a full-blown research paper on Marxism, and critiques it that way, screaming that I don't provide full references, etc. It's an introduction, not a fucking research paper. He's just looking for excuses to defend his ideology.

[HemlockGrey]

I didn't read the whole thing, but point out that all the communists are either dead or living in abject proverty while the capitalist dogs prosper.

[Joe]

http://www.flashbackimaging.com/images/dmsp_wld2.JPG

This picture is a pretty good argument against communism.

[Mr Bean]

And what are we looking at Korr? Heat Graph? Popluation Graph? What?

[Joe]

Lights. The South is absolutely ablaze.

[Darth Servo]

Most of his "criticisms" seem to fall into two categories
"Well, capitalism has some of these problems too." and "you're just reciting capitalist rhetoric instead of logic".

[Darth Wong]

Also, a large number take the form of "I don't think you proved your position well enough, so I don't have to bother proving mine", even though the observed failure of communism puts the burden of proof on him, not me.

[neoolong]

Also, a large number take the form of "I don't think you proved your position well enough, so I don't have to bother proving mine", even though the observed failure of communism puts the burden of proof on him, not me.

Actually I think that true communism has never been achieved. Socialism fails before it can reach communism.

[ArmorPierce]

Yeah and don' t you hate it when they say something like this lil prick that I was debating with at another messageboards a couple years back at newgrounds "There has never been a true communist government" when we tell him about the Soviet Union and the such his reply is "Those weren' t true communist governments" he pissed me off so much that I started flaming him. And he called me a troll!

[Tosho]

Lord Wong, why don't you go over to the board our communist "comrades" are at and for lack of a better term obliterate the little marxist wet dream they've made for themselves.

[neoolong]

Yeah and don' t you hate it when they say something like this lil prick that I was debating with at another messageboards a couple years back at newgrounds "There has never been a true communist government" when we tell him about the Soviet Union and the such his reply is "Those weren' t true communist governments" he pissed me off so much that I started flaming him. And he called me a troll!

Part of the reason why there has never been real communism is because the process to even get there is so fucking flawed. Which is why there has never been real communism as a system of government.

[Raptor 597]

Interesting, how these 'Communists' always say there communism ideal was perverted. And how Mike put it:"But the ideal is always perversed."

[Darth Wong]

Don't you love their logic?

We say: "Communism doesn't work."

They say: "That's not true communism."

We say: "True communism is impossible. It runs against every fibre of human nature, and it lends itself too easily to abuse."

They say: "Ah, but if someone could make it work anyway, then it would be great."

We say: "So? You could say the same thing about benevolent dictatorships."

They say: "Capitalist dogma!!!!! Bourgeoisie pig!!!!"

We say: "What? Answer the point!"

They say: "This recipient is no longer receiving E-mail from your address."

[consequences]

Logic, they have logic now? I thought they just used wishful thinking and rhetoric.

[lgot]

Well, to be quite true, Marx really have nothing to do with what Lenin or Mao made in their socialist revolutions...Except that Marx did defend the direct Intervention of the State (which is not the same as dictators) to organize a socialist system.
And there is plenty of socialism today in the world, where the private sector organized the socialism instead of government. In the end Socialism is form of organization of Capitalism…

[Darth Servo]

Don't you love their logic?

We say: "Communism doesn't work."

They say: "That's not true communism."

We say: "True communism is impossible. It runs against every fibre of human nature, and it lends itself too easily to abuse."

They say: "Ah, but if someone could make it work anyway, then it would be great."

We say: "So? You could say the same thing about benevolent dictatorships."

They say: "Capitalist dogma!!!!! Bourgeoisie pig!!!!"

We say: "What? Answer the point!"

They say: "This recipient is no longer receiving E-mail from your address."

Damn, thats too funny.

[RedImperator]

Well, to be quite true, Marx really have nothing to do with what Lenin or Mao made in their socialist revolutions...

Except that Lenin and Mao (and Stalin) depended on Marx to justify their policies. Lenin actually deviated the most from Marx, but he did so with his NEP (New Economic Program), which re-introduced capitalism at the small-business level because the Marxist economy he tried to adopt was failing miserably. Philosophically, Lenin helped complete Marxism by recognizing that a communist state can't exist in a vacuum, and by allowing an elite minority (vanguard) to conduct the revolution without a general uprising among the working class, and Stalin took it to the next logical step by killing millions to protect the revolution (which would have horrified Marx undoubtedly, but then I don't think Marx completely understood the implications of his own theory, thanks largely to his complete misjudgement of human nature). Mao deviated from Marx in that he saw the peasants as a force for revolution, rather than the industrial working class, but he depended on Lenin and Stalin's developments of Marxism to justify his rule and his policies.

In short, no matter how hard modern Marxists try to distance themselves from Lenin, Stalin, and Mao today, the three dictators WERE good Marxists, and their atrocities were in fact a logical result of applied Marxism, not aberrations.

(Heh...read the enemy's holy books...it's much easier to destroy their arguments when you know the roots of them, as anyone trying to refute Biblical literalism can tell you)

[weemadando]

Don't you love their logic?

We say: "Communism doesn't work."

They say: "That's not true communism."

It wasn't.

We say: "True communism is impossible. It runs against every fibre of human nature, and it lends itself too easily to abuse."

They say: "Ah, but if someone could make it work anyway, then it would be great."

Granted, but the Marxist doctrine states that the process of political evolution will inevitably lead to communism. It mightn't be true utopian communism, but it will be better than that despotism that people say was communism.

We say: "So? You could say the same thing about benevolent dictatorships."

They say: "Capitalist dogma!!!!! Bourgeoisie pig!!!!"

You say: "Goddamn liberal pinko commie a-rab terrorist faggot." And lock us up.

We say: "What? Answer the point!"

They say: "This recipient is no longer receiving E-mail from your address."

Actually I'm happy to debate the virtues of communism at length. And I'm happy to state that "true" communism, should it ever come about, will take hundreds if not more years in order to reach.

Not like Stalin who after taking over from Lenin (whom openly admitted this fact) said: right we're here, if you don't like it I'll fucking kill you.

[Peregrin Toker]

What has made most 20th century collectivist societies fail is not human nature, but that a communist society requires very high morality of its citizens.

As modern capitalism value elitarianism higher than altruism, the results are people dominated by a social elite who are more concerned about their individual well-being than that of their subordinates.

In the aftermath of a socialist revolution, if the socialist order is to survive, these people must be kept from power with violent means, if it is necessary.

Because of this, a working communist society should start out as a dictatorship, and if it shall become more democratic, the cultural value of the particular society must be changed in a way so future generations will value a collectivist economy and take it for granted. In other words - a socialist society does not just need a switch of power, it also needs a cultural revolution like that China experienced under Mao Zedong.

If that is not enough, several cultural revolutions may be needed.

When all people work with each other instead of against each other, and they prefer cooperation over competition and collectivism over capitalism, then the socialist state can begin its transition into the non-hierarchial society which was Marx' final goals.

Of course, if we should avoid this dictatorship and go directly to a non-hierarchial social structure, we need a society composed entirely of idealistic collectivists.

Do you now understand why every long-lasting socialist state yet ended up as a dictatorship???

[Nick]

What has made most 20th century collectivist societies fail is not human nature, but that a communist society requires very high morality of its citizens.

And humans are not, by nature, moral creatures. Moral reasoning is something which is laid over the top of instincts which were developed for a primitive hunter/gatherer society. And, if anyone hadn't noticed, we don't live in one of those anymore.

As one biologist (who specialises in studying ants) described communism: "Wonderful theory. Wrong species"

As modern capitalism value elitarianism higher than altruism, the results are people dominated by a social elite who are more concerned about their individual well-being than that of their subordinates.

Only if the capitalists are short-sighted twits who don't realise that most leaders hold their position only through the sufferance of those same subordinates. Capitalism is about aligning the goals of the individual with the goals of the society, rather than placing them in direct opposition (ala communism).

In communism, a baker bakes bread because of their altruistic love of 'society' (whatever that is).

In capitalism, a baker bakes bread because they know other people want bread, which means possessing bread gives the baker bargaining power to attain the things they want.

In the aftermath of a socialist revolution, if the socialist order is to survive, these people must be kept from power with violent means, if it is necessary.

Isn't it interesting that it is so hard to convince the supposed beneficiaries of communism that it is going to be a good thing?

Because of this, a working communist society should start out as a dictatorship, and if it shall become more democratic, the cultural value of the particular society must be changed in a way so future generations will value a collectivist economy and take it for granted. In other words - a socialist society does not just need a switch of power, it also needs a cultural revolution like that China experienced under Mao Zedong.

If that is not enough, several cultural revolutions may be needed.

All of which is founded in the assumption that human nature is infinitely malleable - which is demonstrably false. We evolved to fill a particular evolutionary niche. Part of the mental machinery that involved was a general purpose learning system - but there is a hell of a lot of hardwired stuff in there as well.

When all people work with each other instead of against each other, and they prefer cooperation over competition and collectivism over capitalism, then the socialist state can begin its transition into the non-hierarchial society which was Marx' final goals.

Of course, the whole idea of capitalism is to engineer the system such that any need to choose between individual and collective interests is minimised. As far as possible, an enlightened, self-interested decision should serve to benefit society, as the society has been molded to the interests of the individuals within it, rather than the other way around.

Of course, if we should avoid this dictatorship and go directly to a non-hierarchial social structure, we need a society composed entirely of idealistic collectivists.

And a group of people of that moral calibre are likely to make any system of government work.

Do you now understand why every long-lasting socialist state yet ended up as a dictatorship???

If anyone hasn't grasped this yet:

Humans are, by nature, and on average, selfish.

Humans are also, by nature, sociable - that is, we instinctively recognise that working with others can allow us to achieve things we could not otherwise achieve.

The institutions of liberal democracy and capitalism are tailored towards channeling these instincts in ways which are collectively beneficial.

Other models, such as communism, ultimately failed because they attempted to bend human nature out of shape, or because they failed to scale effectively to larger groups of people.

Those who find the collectivism of Marxism appealing should, instead of railing against the "entrenched inequity of the system", seek ways to provide constructive suggestions without wandering off into "Wouldn't it be nice if humans were something completely different from what they actually are?" pipe dreams.

If your ideas of social constructivism require changes to human nature, construct your time plans on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years. If, on the other hand, you make your goals a little more modest, and aim simply to improve the balance between society, human nature and morality, then you can make your plans on the scale of generations.

[Nick]

Double Post (interestingly enough, I only pressed the submit button once - and when it didn't seem to work, I checked the BBS and found the double post already here. Gotta love the Internet. . .)

[Illuminatus Primus]

Granted, but the Marxist doctrine states that the process of political evolution will inevitably lead to communism. It mightn't be true utopian communism, but it will be better than that despotism that people say was communism.

(emphasis mine)

So we're supposed to believe that Marx's doctrine was right? Marxism requires a political stability and popular demand for it that will never exist. Furthermore, why should we hold beliefs intended to operate when considering 19th century industrial vices, and isn't nearly as applicable in anyway, shape, or form today.

You say: "Goddamn liberal pinko commie a-rab terrorist faggot." And lock us up.

And this changes how Mike was right about how Communists respond to criticism how?

Actually I'm happy to debate the virtues of communism at length. And I'm happy to state that "true" communism, should it ever come about, will take hundreds if not more years in order to reach.

The idea that someone can convince themselves that pure theory con somehow be analyzed and treated as a practical alternative to at least non dysfunctional modern systems, is incredible.

Not like Stalin who after taking over from Lenin (whom openly admitted this fact) said: right we're here, if you don't like it I'll fucking kill you.

Find a more dysfunctional system, please. The only known examples of an attempt to apply Marxism resulted in the building of fences to keep the workers in the "workers' paradise."

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'm sure that a plane ticket to North Korea doesn't cost that much.

Did you see that one Dilbert comic where the only flight he can get is in an overhead storage bin, to North Korea. He asks if it's non-smoking, and the ticket lady says "It depends on how accurate the anti-aircraft guns are".