In your opinion, whats the easiest anti-communist argument to counter? Is it the human nature argument? The "communism failed" argument? The capitalism has been so successful argument?
In your opinion, whats the easiest anti-communist argument to counter? Is it the human nature argument...
Other urls found in this thread:
all of them
Just interrupt them and ask them to define socialism, capitalism and communism and they'll btfo themselves
From their own eyes that could just be a “not real communism” argument so that one is 50/50 on making the situation better or worse
How do you even avoid "not real communism" in general? I mean I'm not the biggest theory-buff but it's pretty clear there has never been a communist society as described here and before communism there is the socialist stage. I doubt most normies know this or care though
You can explain this but the central argument probably shouldn't be about this. Just address the "not real communism" thing as if they said "not real socialism", because like you said most normies won't know or care too much about marxist terminology.
For some reason I get tag teamed with the simultaneous “Communism is Jewish” by Holla ForumsYps and “communism is anti-semetic” by american evangelicals nearly every time one of the two comes up. So usually I get these two dumbasses to fight each other making it pretty easy imo.
Figure out where past attempts have gone wrong and show that you've learned from earlier mistakes instead of trying to disown history. For instance:
The "not real communism" argument is actually several different arguments rolled up in one.
Someone will inevitably bring up the Soviet Union, or Khmer Rouge, or whatever other irrelevant bogeyman to try and discredit the idea of Communism itself with however many deaths they think is the most persuasive. Often times someone will respond with "the Soviet union/whatever wasn't Socialist." For Leftists, the definition of the CCCP's government is an important doctrinal point around which their own theory often functions. Some call the Soviet Union "state capitalist," some call it "actually existing socialism," some don't consider it Socialist at all for numerous reasons, etc etc etc.
The Leftist argument here is both that 1. the Soviet Union wasn't socialist per se. Whatever their theoretical grounding, generally speaking most don't want to just do the Soviet Union over again. There isn't anything that says that Socialism has to be expressed or take the same form as it did in Russia. Trotksy even has an essay on this where he talks about how a Socialist revolution in the US would necessarily take an entirely different path than the Bolshevik's took, because the material conditions are radically different.
2, that by material definition the Soviet Union didn't meet the qualifications for what would be considered "Socialism." They might have been run by a Communist party, and depending on who you ask trying to "build socialism," but whatever the shape of Soviet society, it wasn't anything close to realizing Socialism.
The first point is incomprehensible to non-Leftists, because typically they're eyebrows deep in their own ideology as it is. To them Socialism is Socialism, which means it's whatever they don't like (or have been told not to like). Just take "Cultural Marxism" as another example. Whatever it might materially describe doesn't matter, because it's just a big scary word for "whatever I don't like." They aren't interested in learning about the nuances of Socialist theory or material definitions, because admitting that there was something about it that they didn't "know" would mean that they weren't completely in possession of the truth, and that terrifies them.
This somewhat plays into the second point. Nothing makes these people more asshurt than trying to define Communism, what it means, what it entails, what is required for it to exist. Despite these books and theories having existed in some case for over a hundred years, and that they're the source material for where all this thought comes from, it doesn't matter to them because they don't care. They "know" that Communism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more Communister it is. Usually these people will hide behind "common sense" or some idiotic dictionary definition, appealing to any and all authority except that of who they're actually talking about (Marx, Lenin, Mao, any of the Frankfurt School, etc). Try and correct them and they go into apoplectic fits of "Leftie word games."
Personally, whether Cuba, SU, China, etc were or weren't Communist is immaterial to the actual arguments of Communism–that Capitalism is inherently exploitative, wasteful, and immiserating to the vast majority of people, that it needs to go, that working people need to be in charge of themselves, their labor, their lives, etc.
If you really want to shit in their mouths, though, there is plenty of objective, verifiable evidence that 20th century socialism did work to improve the lives of billions of people, but it's not like those fags give a shit about facts.
Can you give me some anti-"human nature" arguments?
Point out that it is a straw man of leftist critique of the Soviet Union and other socialist governments.
1. Naturalism fallacy
2. Human nature is informed by one's enviroment
3. No civilisational system is natural
4. Humans in nature, hunter gathers, were naturally alturistic because we evolved as pack animals and as such are bound by mutual cooperation, not conflict.
I think this has been somewhat debunked by anthropologists. Hunter gatherer societies are generally extremely violent, moreso than almost any 'civilized' society.
Nah the data shows the opposite, far fewer homocides as a % of deaths in pre agri societies.
fug i sound like an anprim
This. Read up on Ted Kaczynski's "The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism". It demolishes any sort of noble-savage living peacefully in nature view.
Use it against them. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old, so accuse them of wanting to revert to slave society.
I get your point. But I think they will mostly like say: "But a little competition is good, we need to have hierarchies for humans to want to do stuff. SocDem is good."
This is a straw man. Intellectual competition in society is natural and does not need to be forced by economic necessity.
An important point to drive home is how their argument is essentially misanthropy and a generally negative view of people.
it doesnt support the opposite view either, though. he makes an important point that these quaulities vary by the particular group you're looking at. I say, since you replied with 'this' to the leftcom flag.
I don’t know how to debate but a pattern I tend to notice online is that Social Democracy is framed as Socialism a lot.
Go on whisper and make a post about how socialism and capitalism are in fact mutually exclusive and watch the left-liberals get mad
Lots of good points. Imo, you should never spend much time arguing that the USSR, China, Khmer Roughe or whatever wasn't actually socialist (in some cases, like with the Khmer Rouge it could be worth mentioning that they at some point got support from the CIA and were opposed by other commies) because even if you make a good case and explain your reasoning well, you'll at best end up with "alright so why does every attempt at implementing socialism end up with murderous, oppressive not-actually-real-socialism that kills 80 million people?". The best strategy is always a combination of debunking dumb cold war propaganda, talking about some of the positives of AES, and mentioning some of the actual shortcomings of AES (as opposed to "muh gorillions" or whatever), why it ended up like that and how similar problems are avoided in the future.
Was the khmer roughe socialist? I thought it was some weird agrarian primitivist shite?
Not an expert but yes. They were socialists but not orthodox Marxist-Leninists. Pol Pot had some weird ass pseudo-primitivist ideas but I think it could also be argued that he was just an opportunist, as I'm pretty sure they claimed to adhere to different ideologies at different times.
For some reason anticommunists really like misunderstanding the LTV so that's an easy one
He was leftcom. His goal was to destroy commodity production and the law of value.
it's literally as simple as copy and pasting Marx.
I've had some retards say to me "capitalism has always existed as long as there was trade."
I usually don't. I tend to go with "actually existing socialism" or "20th century socialism" or whatever. It annoys me how often I have to defend the Soviet Union though. I'm not even a big fan of it, but people just saying patently untrue things about it get my goat.
"Because the US government kills all the ones that aren't."
Marx never denied the importance of human nature and material incentives, nor did he deny that capitalism has been extraordinary successful and that it has improved the lives of millions of people.
The LTV isn’t it even “Marxist” or “communist”, it was originally promoted by bourgeois economists like Adam Smith whom right-wing libertarians love so much.
Sorry, meant for:
This is a good answer honestly. It’s s much more complex issue. Capitalists definition of capitalism tends to be so immaterial, ahistorical, and simplistic that they have socialism also having a simplistic definition I.E. whatever the government does. It’s not a binary or a on off switch.
Human nature was literally a core part of Marx’s opposition to capitalism. The whole notion of alienation is that it turns people into soulless, lonely, miserable, automatons with no agency or ability to express themselves and actually live their lives. The immiseration of the proletariat is the result of capitalism’s dehumanizing and totalitarian tendencies, not because it makes people poor.