Responding to common arguments?

Can we have a thread about good responses to common forms of arguments against the left? I am new to leftist theories, and I don't know how to respond to >Marxism rejects individualism

Why do we have to have 200 words now???

Other urls found in this thread:


I didn't finish reading your statement before responding
Marxism is in favor of individualism because cooperation for common good is better for you as an individual as opposed tp capitalism which puts you as a faceless cog in the profit machine where your needs are neglected in favor of "what's best for the company"

This image BTFOs almost all arguments you will encounter

Good work my man, thanks for posting that

Thanks, comerad

I want to kms now

Overall good except:
Fuck democracy.

Fanaticism means having highly enthusiastic devotion and diligence for a cause. Extremism is synonymous with radicalism, it means having extreme/radical views and advocating for extreme/radical measures.
Whether these characteristics are good or bad depends on the ideology. We as revolutionary socialists, being convinced of the truth and of the technical and ethical superiority of our worldview, must embody and uphold the qualities of fanaticism and extremism if we are serious in winning so that we can inspire and organize people from their apathetic and passive condition and defeat reactionaries which are likewise fanatical and extreme.

We need an archive of counter arguments to anticom shit with sources n shit I mean dog damn It would make debating much easier.

The Argument:
Communism can not work because humans as a species are inherently greedy and opportunistic. The measures taken to prevent the fall of Communism, the vanguard as it was in Russia, will enable its destruction. In this world and this time, Communism is a pipe dream.

That's actually why capitalism doesn't work.

argument: x is communist
answer: nice try, that doesn't and has never existed

Part of the problem is that there are no "easy answers" as a leftist. You're essentially required to justify and explain all of your viewpoints from the ground up. Unlike liberals, we have no cultural hegemony to make people more receptive to our ideas, allowing them to make broad arguments that ignore nuance, while forcing us to engage in pedantry just to disprove an unfair negative argument. This is why liberals can just be like HURR COMMUNISM DUSNNT WURK and people accept it, whereas marxist explanations of the functions of capital are often dismissed or just plain absent from public consciousness.

Holla Forumscuck brainlets give themselves away every time


Fuck you.

So you don't want your opinions and desires to have any impact on your livelihood?

If you want to use the human-nature argument back at them:
Counterargument: humans are inherently communal and cooperative to the in-group while exploitative and antagonistic to the out-group. Capitalism makes all humans part of the out-group.
Or you could deny it and say that human nature is whatever their environment compels it to be: capitalism compels them to be greedy and opportunistic.>Fuck democracy.

No dude, he's right. Democracy leads to lobbying which leads to accumulation of power in the hands those who are the most capable of deceit.

Just like unregulated, large-scale free-market will inevitably result in monopoly and accumulation of wealth bringing and end to said "free-market",
large-scale Democracy will inevitably result power accumulating in the wrong hands.

For democracy to work people would need to know what is best for themselves.
The fact that most proletarians of our time are reactionary and believe capitalism is serving their best interest proves otherwise.

Democracy is a reactionary tool to keep capitalists in power.

No, retarded republicanism does that.

How in the hell would you "lobby" a democratic movement?


That's representative "democracy".True non-statist democracy is the people deciding things from themselves.

One person doesn't need to cast a ballot to make a decision for himself.

And that's entirely what free association is. You regularly make decisions for yourself whether you want to be apart of this collective effort or not; if it's not respecting your opinions and desires you go elsewhere.

I really wish there was some kind of website that debunked all the common arguments against socialism. It gets tiring having to explain the same shit over and over again to people who don't know any better.

Tell them to read theory. All the hand-holding is causing them to be dependent upon you.

If you tell them "read x" 99% of them don't bother. I've directly linked things before, told them you only need to read a couple of sentences, and still they don't read it. They will however read what you write in response to them (I'm talking about Youtube comments btw).

Anarchist FAQ

Yeah but that centers around anarchism. I'm talking about basic socialism, like explaining how roads aren't socialist, state ownership isn't socialist, socialism doesn't cause famine etc. I know how to respond to all these, but like I said it's real tiresome. It would be nice if a website existed that explained in detail and gave links that debunk the shit that the average American believes about socialism.


Fuck this you fucking pseud hack fuck you I'm not communist anymore

Orwell was a leftist though.


Here's the full-size directly from le reddit

Lobby is a bad word, but people who are the best at convincing others don't always have the best ideas.

see below




Ok, look. I'm going to teach you an important skill. Not many people know about this. It is a cross-discipline method for blowing minds.
The simple answer to the quoted text is, 'How exactly does owning your own workplace cause a famine?'.
In order to answer like that, (You) need to know that socialism is SIMPLY the worker's control and ownership of his or her own workplace.
This works in any field, but I often apply it to mind-reading to get my particular point across. How does a psychic read minds? Simply, again, they just know their own mind so well to the degree to which they can see their own mental makeup in others.
That's all of apparent magic, articulation, persuasion, argumentation. Just spend your time learning for yourself, and when others come along and ask, your gift will seem supernatural. But all you did was concentrate on one point longer than they.


And how does any other system fix that?
People being liable to make bad decisions doesn't go away under any system.

that's true, no system will fix that completely, but complete democracy is as much, if not more nonsense then representative democracy.
Voting on every issue would be a logistical nightmare.

So even if we go through all that hassle, we will still have people voting on whims left and right and authority being in the hands of the most manipulative.

So why not just skip all that bullshit and try to come up with a meritocratic system, where decisions on matters are made by experts in concerning field rather then misinformed masses.

Ofc some system of peer reviews would be needed. I don't claim to have all the answers but i don't believe that democracy, representative, complete and/or anywhere between, to be the be all end all system of governance.

People with no information or understanding of a matter should not have a say in it.

And who is to decide who does and does not get a say in things?

Democracy is the principle that if an action has the potential to affect your life you should have a say in if, when and how this action is undertaken. Complete democracy (or direct democracy) is a necessary component of any society that aims to provide the maximum amount of freedom to their citizens. This should be the only discriminating element between people that vote on something or not.

Meritocracy is a beautiful system in theory, but inevitably degenerates in an elitist oligarchy if enough time is let to pass. It might me a static oligarchy, like feudalism or a dynamic oligarchy like we have under capitalism, but its nature does not change. This is because the meritocratic process is for the most part a positive feedback system, those that do better will get better faster than the rest, eventually eclipsing people that would have had a chance of competing with them if the game was reset to the starting point.

Mixing the systems is even worse, you are just giving even more incentives to the oligarchs to keep the potential competition down and subservient. How do you think did we get to Trump and Wall Street keeping a democratic government in their pockets? Do you think they all reached their position out of personal skill?

And to say that direct democracy is impossible, especially this day and age, it's absurd. Athens did it thousands of years ago without wireless instantaneous communications technology. It appears impossible because the political machine of the bourgeoise democratic state is interested in keeping the voting process as convoluted and manipulable as possible.

Or maybe people that did not have the occasion to spend days learning theory want small snippets in order to more easily digest the concept and better debate with whoever they are engaged with.
No of course, how silly of me. engaging in debate is not a profitable experience, only reading theory is.

Not to mention they somehow miss the fact that the book implies the pigs are AS BAD as the humans, as they literally become indistinguishable from them, not worse. Somehow though the message they get out of it is that we should go back to have the humans in charge and not another system entirely.
Polite sage for doubleposting

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
I don't have the answer but it should be based more on what they say then who they are.

Though i do agree with this in theory, in practice a line has to be drawn somewhere. We don't want to go to war accidentally cuz some guys manage to sway a critical mass with a fear mongering campaign for example.

I thought i was clear that i don't want to mix them

No, obviously not.

I didn't say it was impossible, I think it's impractical though, and i don't believe it to be the best/most efficient way of governance that we will ever think off, that's all.

Yeah, except only men who had reached a certain ripe age and owned property(bourgeois) could vote. women and slaves could not. Oh yeah, and they had slaves.

I'm so sick of this Athenian democracy meme portraying it as the perfect democratic model. It was even more corrupt then what we have to day. It's only historically and culturally significant since it's one of the earlier democratic experiments.
But it was flawed as shit.

The Example in Favour of the Argument: Stalin.

Nah fuck you, enlightened despotism all the way.

Of course I do, which is why I want a system were the unelected leader is obliged to consider the opinions of every citizen then make a decision with complete disregard to which opinions are more popular, thereby taking full personal responsability for his decision.

No it's the majority of the people deciding things, which are dumb and selfish, always have been and always will be. The minority that loses the vote are also people last time I checked.

Agreed and if I want to live under a autocracy then I should be free to go elsewhere i.e. secede and not be forced to live under a democratic/majority-rule regime.

You mean the same democratic Athens that voted Socrates to death? When Socrates should have been made King of Athens instead?


Why would a socialist society ever go to war? There's no benefit and the risks are enormous. Wars are the blunt instruments of the elite, not the masses. Also can you remind me of the last war waged following a democratic vote? I can name however several that were stopped because of public condemnation.
The idea that the public is too stupid to vote right is idiotic.It all comes down to material conditions, not vague "yall too stupid to lead" arguments that use faulty examples to prove their point. You're not making a rational point here, just declaring that you "feel" people are too stupid compared to your immense intellect.
Define efficient. What do you mean by it? The least waste of resources? The fastest way to accumulate resources? How is meritocracy more efficient than direct democracy?
I'm so sick of this Athenian democracy meme portraying it as the perfect democratic model. It was even more corrupt then what we have to day. It's only historically and culturally significant since it's one of the earlier democratic experiments.
But it was flawed as shit.
I see you did not even bother to read my post. I was not saying that Athens is a model to be followed, I was pointing out the fact that they could effectively govern themselves through democratic vote (as restricted as it was, that's not the point) with the technology they had. Today we can easily use modern technology to make direct democracy a simple and quick process.

How do you propose to keep this unelected leader under scrutiny? He has the power in hand, it's a simple matter to use that power to manipulate public opinion, it happens constantly in the real world and our leaders are "democratically" elected. How do you propose to force him to follow the will of the people? How do you propose to decide if he should be punished or substituted?
You elitist little shit. Educate yourself before speaking. Individual variations are meaningless when it comes to socio-political dynamics. Material conditions are the only significant variable, not intelligence, greed, emotions, opinions or whatever you want to throw in the pot. You essentially propose a system that relies on feelings to work, where the only meaningful contribution to society of the masses is to shut up and slave away their lives, meanwhile you ignore all parameters that actually matter. You do not give a single explanation on how this magical system would work, you do not give a crap about real measurable conditions. Everything you said is just a nice mental experiment with no impact or applicability to reality nor tangible advantages for anyone but the "illuminated" autocrat.
I'm sorry but does history give you the impression that you can simply leave society? Let's not be idealists here, it's not pragmatically possible to leave society behind like this. You don't like your autocrat, therefore you will abandon all your immobile possessions and unwilling family members and seek fortune elsewhere? Does this sound realistic to you? What if your country utilizes a fiat type currency that looses its value outside national borders, you would loose even your liquid wealth.
Not to mention it's unlikely your kind autocrat would let you go so easily. Why would he? If this is the only instrument you have to express your disapproval of the state of things, he simply has to force you back and he can do whatever he wants with you afterwards, including seizing the property you abandoned.
Another genius that did not get my point.

Also if you please can stop reddit spacing it would be great

How about the 'basic economics' maymay? I feel like I have an actual response, but not quite able to put it into words.

Best way to debunk this argument is to press the guy to specify what he means with this and then proceed to answer to whatever he comes up with. Most of the time they have no clue of what they actually mean by that, it's just a premade response so that they don't have to actually discuss anything.
Of course claiming "basic economics lol" is a shitty argument. Economics are a soft science, where the scientific method is not applicable in a systematic and structured way, so even the best analysis will be theoretical models at best. Therefore to behave like mainstream economics are accurate instruments capable of describing reality is fallacious at best. For example many important economists admitted they failed to predict the 2008 crisis because their analysis did not consider structural weaknesses but almost exclusively temporal trends.
Furthermore most "economic theories" (those that get thrown around by neoliberal politicians and lolbertarians online) are little more than nice mental experiments with little to no ground in reality. The "rational agent" for example does not exist, neither the "free market", they are just theoretical constructs that cannot be applied to anything tangible. Stuff like the tragedy of the commons are a good example of how far removed from reality these theories actually are.

Leaving here a few good reads. The first is a very brief (not even 20 pages) introducion to basic marxist economics, a quick look at that and you should be able to respond to pretty much everything ancap-tier idiots are able to come up with. I however highly suggest having a look at the second, which is still pretty short (around 60 pages) and goes a lot more in depth. With that there's little armchair economists can say to put you in a difficult spot.
Last one is a bit more complicated and requires to know some theoretical basics (nothing too complicated don't worry), but it's very interesting and quite complete.

Marx studied economics longer than anyone ever has before or since. He even laid out the most perfect model of capitalism we've ever seen. So good in fact that if you were able to follow it to a T, you'd be a succesfull capitalist. Many millionaires are actually marxist. They have a deeper understanding of how cold-hearted and ruthless capitalism is and that you need to act accordingly in order to thrive as a capitalist.

Economics as it is practiced in most institutions is not a science period. Neoclassical economics is only interested in telling an "internally consistent" story. It is not interested in deriving truth about the physical world; it does not build theories with actual predictive power.

I propose that the Law clearly states that the role of the leader is to serve people's needs and protect people's freedoms (which includes protecting them from their fellow citizens that wish to oppress them) so you keep him under scrutiny by observing whether he is obviously succeeding or failing in his duties.
Well how DO YOU propose to keep the majority of the population under scrutiny? Which is easier? Keep a single individual under scrutiny or keep the majority of the population under scrutiny?
So you admit that most people are dumb then? I don't care if he does manipulate public opinion if I agree with his position but if I disagree with him then I will oppose him just like I would oppose an un-manipulated public opinion I disagree with. And yes our current leaders ARE democratically elected, you can cover your ears and deny all you want, it's true.
The very point of having a unelected leader is to go against the "will of the people"/will of the majority if their will is wrong. As for how to decide if he should be punished or substituted it's very simple: it should be mandatory for every citizen to be heavily armed, so if someone believes he is a failure then they either leave the state or pressure him to abdicate power and if he doesn't then try to overthrow him.
And how DO YOU propose to punish the majority of the population? Which is easier? Punish a single murderer or punish a lynch mob?
Yeah I reject this marxist autism. Individual variations ARE MATERIAL CONDITIONS that affect reality. "Opinions don't matter" LMAO, get the fuck out of here, if opinions don't matter then why do you care so much about the majority of people imposing their opinions if they don't matter?
Oh no what an horror! I can see how this can be bad for an emotionless autist like you.
Wrong. I already said that every citizen should participate in politics by voicing their opinions/suggestions and the dictator is required to take them all into consideration, but in the end he's the one who decides regardless of the popularity of his decision, that's what real leadership is (even Zizek spoke about this). Taking inspiration from your own words: today we can easily use modern technology to make direct dialogue between the people and the leader a simple and quick process.
Autocracy is a historically tested and realistic system and proven to be the best system in the right hands: also see your pic
Here's the difference between you and I: you trust the majority of people to make the right decisions while I prefer to trust one man I personally chose to follow/support and help him gain power to make the right decisions. Which one is more realistic?



Yes history shows you can move out of a state to another state or secede and create a new state. This is why I support freedom of movement, open borders and secessionist movements I agree with.

Re-read my post, I was talking about leaving a democracy. But the same applies to an autocracy.

Because that's the legal and moral principle the state is founded upon and if he infringes upon it then he ceases to be a legitimate ruler. You have a double standard: What's your answer if the same happens in a democracy? What if the majority rules that you can't leave the community and forces you to stay?

And you did not get my point, which is that democracy is the worst form of government ever since ancient times.

Very hypocritical of you to post a picture of Lenin, who was a dictator that abolished the direct democratic councils/soviets because they started to vote against Lenin's government and after that he promoted one-man managerial dictatorships

The booru should have some infographs.

Oh I'm sorry I lost track of this thread and did not see the answer you gave. It's pretty unlikely now that you will see my answer, but I feel you deserve it considering you put effort in your post.

This is utterly meaningless.You would be asking the institution invested with the authority to enforce laws to enforce the law on themselves. Why would they? What incentive they have to respect this principle?
And then what? Send a strongly worded letter? Ask the police (that the autocrat controls) to remove their employer? And how would you reach the consensus on if the autocrat is respecting the law or not? Not by voting I imagine, so I guess only individual (ergo powerless) opinions will rise against the rogue autocrat.
But that's the point! You can't keep people under scrutiny, you inevitably run in the supervisor's supervisor vicious cycle. The best way to govern is therefore to give everyone the maximum amount of power possible in order to minimize the possibility of people exploiting the other using the power they have in their hands. The only way to guarantee that none will be able to exploit the other is to guarantee everyone the same level of power.
Again this is meaningless. People may be dumb or not, the point of democracy is to minimize risk by maximizing the decentralization of power.
And in a democracy you are able to leverage your voting power to actively oppose those that you disagree with. In an autocracy you do not have any instrument to do so, you are subject to the autocrat's will no matter your opinion.
They are "elected". Burgeoise democracy is a pseudo democracy built to protect the interest of private property and capital. It lacks the level of protection for the general population a direct democracy would afford.
You do realize what would this mean right? You are essentially proposing to go back to the Roman empire of the third century. Govern from the sword or die by it. Do you really believe that the army would have trouble keeping the masses in check? Together with constant control and oppression by the police and mass media?
This is a false dichotomy. The cause of the vast majority of crimes is the material conditions of the individual. If those are taken care of and guaranteed by the democratic control of the productive forces of society most criminal activity will cease to be simply because there would not be any reason to risk social punishment if you are able to maintain yourself with an acceptable level of dignity.
Dear friend the material conditions that have an actual impact on society is the control over resources, the availability of need-satisfying labour, the safety of the one own existence. The rest is secondary. Yes there are people more or less stupid, but on a social scale this differences do not produce any significant effect if compared to whether or not they have enough food to live and how much they have to do to secure that food.
Opinions don't matter in the sense that they are not the driving force of society. Capitalism is better than feudalism not because capitalism by virtue of the free market of ideas allow more opinions to be heard, but because despite all its faults it produces an increase in the quality of life for the majority of people.

But those opinions are meaningless if they have no power behind them. The autocrat is free to suppress them as much as he likes and maintain his supremacy even in the face of overwhelming opposition.
It's also proven to be the worst system in the hands of the wrong hands. Do I have to list all dictators that made life worse for their countries? Good dictators are an exception, not the rule. I don't like my chances with this system.
Again you are proposing a false dichotomy. Direct democracy does not imply absence of leadership, it implies a decentralized system of power that gives the highest level of protection to everyone regardless of the quality of the leaders.
This can happen only if there is still territory that can be claimed to make a new country. The US case is unique as there was no strong nationalistic power in the americas before the arrival of Europeans and that allowed the colonists to seek their fortune in new states. This is no longer the case in our current world, where every piece of land is claimed by a state and owned by a private individual. You also imply that the autocrat would allow a secessionist movement to succeed, while it most likely would not be the case. Why would he let a part of the country go? He looses wealth, manpower, resources and power overall. It is not in his interest to do so.
No the foundation of society is a delicate balance of resource ownership, social forces and power struggle. The point of democracy is exactly this, decentralize power and wealth to minimize social struggle. In an autocracy there always will be people trying to become the autocrat, it simply is in their best interest to do so. There is no moral framework that will prevent social upheaval to eventually destroy the autocratic society.
You can't do anything, just as you can't do anything in an autocracy. The point is however that in a direct democracy the chances of something like that happening are minimized. Since power is decentralized everyone looses very little by letting a part of the country go, so it is much more likely a secession would succeed without bloodshed in a democracy rather than an autocracy.
True enough I guess. I like reaction images too much I guess.