Why Communism Kills. This addresses the “Communism as theory” argument. For example, what Marx actually said:
The author discusses the “not to be taken literally” argument.
I can’t remember where i read this, but its my understanding that when the Nazi’s invaded the Ukraine in 1941 most of the peasants welcomed them as liberators and tried to join the Nazi party to help overthrow the USSR. The Nazis (probably because they were winning & didn’t realize they needed help) put them in concentration camps instead of letting them in the army.
Pretty sad state of affairs when the Nazis are viewed as your liberators.
What i find kind of interesting (if that is the correct word to describe it) is that the countries that supported communism ended up doing the opposite of communism, while those that have opposed it for decades ended up being communistic.
In principle, communism is designed to protect the poor from the exploitation of the rich, and make sure everyone has enough food, medicine & shelter to survive.
In todays world, virtually every 1st world anti-communist country now does that. Labor unions, minimum wage laws, socialized medical care, food distribution programs, social security, free/subsidized education, subsidized housing. All make sure the disenfranchized are not exploited or forgotten, which was the main force behind Marxism’s coming to power in the last 150 years.
I wonder what Karl Marx or Engels would say if he could see what the ‘pro’ communist countries turned into and what the ‘anti’ communist countries turned into. Would they support dictators like Stalin or Mao or would they support France, with its minimum wage laws, 35 hour workweek, free medical care & free education, etc?
As with other sources cited in this thread, the author of this article holds up Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, &c. as examples of communism in action. Yet it’s already been laid out quite plainly in this very thread (in this here post, to which the other side of this debate seems unable to respond) why Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, &c. were not and are not communist, nor have they put communism into practice.
As for the quote, let’s take a look at the whole paragraph, shall we?
Marx here is not speaking directly to the physical, but the social removal of the bourgeoisie and its right to individually control large portions of production for the profit of the individual bourgeois. The working class seizes the means of production, thereby sweeping the bourgeois out of the way. They eliminate individual control of the means of production, thereby making the bourgeois impossible.
While none of this necessarily involves bloodletting, it would be foolish to deny that violence in defense of a workers’ revolution would be somehow avoidable. The history of the Russian Civil War shows how arbitrarily violent the Whites were when they occupied territory in their attempts to crush the October Revolution. Should one also read the chapters entitled “The Executions” and “Balance Sheet of Bourgeois Vengeance” in Lissagaray’s “History of the Paris Commune of 1871”, one might actually come to realize that the working class ought to be forgiven for thinking there will most likely come a time when they’ll have to fight like hell to keep the gains of the revolution they’ve made.
each other maybe. There is no “working class”. There are a bunch of working stiffs who fall into many different categories and who, by and large, are not interested in revolting. In fact, the vast majority of them simply want to succeed. I remind you that even those who succeed too much must be killed acording to many branches of Communism.
So. he wasn’t. I remind you that Marx spent the remainder of his life after puclishing Das Kapital trying to educate the rowrkers of Germany so that when the revolution came (150 years and counting), only part of the ruling class would be slaughtered.
In any event, your argument that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not Communist is disingenuous. Its been made before. They were not pure Marxists, but Marx is not the only communist. In any event, pure Marxism has been proven wrong so many times its not even funny anymore. He simply saw things that weren’t there, and then tried to project a future course of events.
He was wrong several dozen times over.
Quite the contrary. The twentieth century is plastered with events that show just the opposite - some of the best examples are Russia in 1917, France in 1968, Chile in 1973, Iran in 1979, and Poland in 1981. All of them, in one form or another, put the issue of working class power (and the working class is nothing more than those of us to have to sell our ability to work to someone else in order to live - a “bunch of working stiffs”, as you call them) on the table for discussion. When the old order goes into crisis, as happened in each of these situations, the working class becomes very interested in revolution.
I’d love to see you back that up with something more substantive than “Look at China/Cuba/North Korea”.
How did the workers of Germany all get over to England? That’s where Marx spent most of his life, from the 1850s until his death in 1883. Secondly, Marx wasn’t speaking just to the workers of Germany - take his writings on the Paris Commune, for instance. Here was an example of workers taking power that he greeted quite warmly, and held up as an example for other revolutionaries to study and learn from. Thirdly, please provide quotes from Marx stating that human slaughter is a necessary ingredient of communism.
Nowhere have I argued than Lenin wasn’t communist. As a matter of fact, if you look at my first post on page 3 you’ll find that I cite the Russian Revolution as an example of a communist revolution - which was, however, deflected by external circumstances beyond its control and then ruined by Stalin, who took advantage of the crisis caused by those circumstances. Having made the argument before doesn’t make it disingenuous - trying to use it after it’s been rebutted and disproven is disingenuous. That, I may add, hasn’t happened yet.
Take my argument on page 3, dissect it, show me its weaknesses and inaccuracies. Prove it undeniably, irrefutably, and totally wrong. Then, and only then, will I cease forwarding it as an argument against the oft-repeated claim that Communism in practice is unworkable.
Such as? Please provide not only your analysis of Marxism, but quotes from the works of Marx on which you base your analysis.
Prove it to me. Prove me wrong. I want you to totally destroy my side of the argument so no one on that side of the debate ever has to hear me say “What you’re pointing out isn’t communism” ever again. They’re tired of hearing me say it, but they haven’t done anything to convince me I’m incorrect for saying it.
I’ve learned that Communism is like a religion, I’m not going to convince you of anything - and you are not going to convert me into your faith-based system of non-reasoning.
Joseph Schumpeter’s classic Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
Olentzero:
See, it’s like a religion. Olentzoro is a Fundamentalist Communist. Refer to the works of Marx (the sacred writings) - ONLY - for all arguments on Communism. Ignore reality, make the leap of faith.
Mountain Clan versus Valley Clan
This is the typical Communist argument for forcibly taking over the world’s economy, a small hunter-gatherer clan hypothetical. In an effort to describe it, the arguments for showing its illegitimacy are already readily apparent.
Do I have to explain, or are the italics good enough?
OK, fine. Passing out pelts or flints has but a passing relationship to all the finely tuned pricing mechanisms which allow the world’s economy - in the capitalist nations - to produce goods and services in massive quantities. If you don’t see how a small clan is a totally inapposite metaphor for the world’s economy, pick up ANY microeconomics book check it out. But, let’s go point-by-point
It just does not bear any rational relationship to a large complex economy or shed any light on why we should reject an advanced pricing system in the modern world.
If you want to actually answer the hypothetical literally, for me the answer would be “either.” Of course, that only tells you what kind of hunter-gatherer I would have been. Moreover, the hypothetical speaks of these goods in a vacuum, without consideration of scarcity. That’s what Communists always forget, Marx knew Communism could only work once there was a surplus of goods. You just assume things like supply and demand can be controlled. Then, you realize, “damn, we’re going to have to kill some people to make this work.”
Schumpeter’s quote sounds like a definition that would fit any philosophy.
Beagle, if you’ll look at the quote to which the comment you quote responds, you’ll notice that smiling bandit was specifically talking about Marx. Therefore Marx’ works is a logical starting point for continuing that particular debate.