Debating with Communists

[Ron21]

Its interesting how people here see the destruction and deaths of communism…What about Capitalism…the facts are there to be seen…Capitalism has killed more people directly and indirectly than Communism and has left more people in poverty and despair…Im not a communist or a fan of it but people in West or So called Developed countries forget that their capitalist success or ‘better’ life is a results of their greed and exploitation of the so called less developed countries

Pardon me for sounding political

God Bless you all

 

[Al_Masetti]

Its interesting how people here see the destruction and deaths of communism…What about Capitalism…the facts are there to be seen…Capitalism has killed more people directly and indirectly than Communism and has left more people in poverty and despair…Im not a communist or a fan of it but people in West or So called Developed countries forget that their capitalist success or ‘better’ life is a results of their greed and exploitation of the so called less developed countries

Pardon me for sounding political

God Bless you all

We have the fact on the people deliberately singled out for execution under Communism.

Free market economics (also known as Capitalism) works everywhere it has been tried. It, and it alone, raises the living standards of the people.

Life spans increase in societies that embrace free market economics.

So, give us the examples of the folks who die under Capitalism.

[By the way, I prefer the use of the term “free market economics”. Primarily because in some places, the word “Capitalism” has been corrupted to included oligarchy, which is really a form of totalitarianism. ]

So, please, provide the backup for your statement:

" … the facts are there to be seen…Capitalism has killed more people directly and indirectly than Communism and has left more people in poverty and despair…"

 

[FrancesMarx]

So, please, provide the backup for your statement:

" … the facts are there to be seen…Capitalism has killed more people directly and indirectly than Communism and has left more people in poverty and despair…"

Don’t you think there is exploitation of the developing world in order to sustain the capitalist west. That might well be a case for direct or indirect killing.

 

[Isambard]

Yes if a Million natives were killed off anywhere in the world they would not be any relatives of natives left. Its like the inquisition argument when people say it killed millions if it did there would not be any Europeans left.

Er, entire populations were wiped out.

I just stated and you agreed that Marxists have a hostility toward property owners and religious people millions of these people where killed under Marxist regimes. The fact is that Marxism is a failure and should be discarded as the murderous ideology it is.

A slippery-slope fallacy. Very nice. Christianity is ethnocentric, yet I wouldnt say it is an ideology of racial supremacy .

And again, the only people killed under Marxist regimes, were those trying to break away from the capitalist state (Marxist jargon) by the state itself. ie. Paris Commune.

 

[Isambard]

By putting a smiley face after the sentence about body count, you show that you think about this as an abstract intellectual game. If European colonialism killed a lot of people, how does that justify the horrors of 20th Century communism? Are you trying to say that, well, colonialism killed people too, so it’s OK that communism killed millions of people? Does that really make sense to you?

I see you didnt read the original arguement, that body count automatically discredits an ideology.

Colonialism was about excersizing Western values and Christianity on “backwards” populations. If the above is true, then both of these fail as well as they have a large body count.

If a theory, when put into practice, causes the deaths of millions of people, wouldn’t you say that theory is wrong?

Umm, no. You could only say its wrong if the theory argues that no one would be killed. Marx argued that many resistors would be killed and what happened, alot of state power was put into surpressing worker movements and marxist communist parties in the 20th century. Hell, even Stalin went after the more traditional Marxists and had them knocked off.

What kind of atrocities have to be committed for you to admit that a theory is wrong? Naziism was just a theory until Hitler came to power. Can’t we measure the validity of the theory of Naziism by its results in the real world once it was implemented? Millions killed in concentration camps, millions more killed in expansionist nationalistic wars - is the theory that led to this a good theory?

So, all the major religions and ideologies of today are wrong because they all have a high body count behind them eh? Nothing about internal validity?

If the theory of Naziism can be measured by the results it produces in the real world, why can’t the theory of communism similarly be measured by the results it has produced? Millions killed in Stalinist purges and gulags, millions killed in the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution,” how many killed in communist wars of aggression like in Vietnam or the killing fields in Cambodia? How much human misery has resulted from denial of basic human rights in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and other places infected with communism? Could the theory behind these atrocities be a good theory if it led to these kinds of results?

Lovely strawman. I dont remember anyone argueing in favor of Maoist or Stalinist communism.

Are you seriously trying to argue FOR communism? After the really incalculable suffering it has produced in the 20th Century?

Where have a done that?

The OP was talking about communists, not social democrats or other left-leaning parties. Communists believe in class warfare, violent revolution to overthrow the existing government and seize the means of production, the installation of a ruling elite (the Party) that will use any means necessary to suppress any opposition. Their whole philosophy is founded on an atheistic world view that not only denies the existence of God, but sees religion as evil (hence the brutal repression of Christianity in communist countries.) Religion is the “opiate of the masses” that keeps the workers from seeing how oppressed they really are, and so makes it harder to stir them up to revolution. This is what Marx and Engels wrote about in the Communist Manifesto.

The OP mentioned Marx and communism. Not my fault both he and yourself are politically illiterate.

Communism has been so discredited and exposed, I’m really surprised there is anybody who would try to defend it.

Ive yet to see anything discrediting it on this board. All I see are a rich collection of fallacies.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Don’t you think there is exploitation of the developing world in order to sustain the capitalist west. That might well be a case for direct or indirect killing.

What are some examples of this “exploitation”?

You might want to ask people in Tibet what “exploitation” is. Or in Hungary or Czechslovakia under the USSR. Or Poland.

Communism actively seeks to stamp out basic human rights everywhere it rears its ugly head. One of the first rights it tries to get rid of is the right to worship.

John Paul II (the Great) was a holy warrior against communism and played a big part in bringing down the USSR and its empire. For that all Catholics can be proud.

 

[Isambard]

We have the fact on the people deliberately singled out for execution under Communism.

Free market economics (also known as Capitalism) works everywhere it has been tried. It, and it alone, raises the living standards of the people.

So you’e using the Austrian school’s definition of capitalism?

Life spans increase in societies that embrace free market economics.

Apperently not as they argue Free Market capitalism doesn’t exist, yet.

So, give us the examples of the folks who die under Capitalism.

Noone as it doesn’t exist.

[By the way, I prefer the use of the term “free market economics”. Primarily because in some places, the word “Capitalism” has been corrupted to included oligarchy, which is really a form of totalitarianism. ]

So, please, provide the backup for your statement:

" … the facts are there to be seen…Capitalism has killed more people directly and indirectly than Communism and has left more people in poverty and despair…"

Seeing how the Austrian definition is the minority, it can be safely ignored. I think you’re confusing the Marxist definition (capitalism is a form of commodification) and the Austrian school definition (capitalism as a form of trade in a system w/o government).

Under the commonly held Marxist definition, the history of Southern America, Africa, the Middle-East etc. is a result of capitalist imperialism.

 

[Isambard]

What are some examples of this “exploitation”? .

Marxist term of exploitation?

Slavery of blacks
The village in Bolivia whos water supply was privatized
Sex slavery industry in the Eastern european countries

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Marxist term of exploitation?

Slavery of blacks
The village in Bolivia whos water supply was privatized
Sex slavery industry in the Eastern european countries

These are the examples of how the capitalist west exploits the developing world? That a village in Bolivia had its water supply privatized? By whom? The United States?

You don’t give any explanation for any of these things. The slavery of blacks in the United States was a terrible thing. No question about that. But I was looking for examples of capitalist exploitation that are less than 200 years old.

I don’t know anything about the village in Bolivia, but how is that an example of exploitation by the capitalist west?

With the sex slavery industry, I would bet that it’s run by Eastern Europeans. Also, are countries in Eastern Europe considered developing countries?

If these are your examples (one from 200 years ago, a village in Bolivia, and sex slavery in Eastern Europe (?) ) - does this look like a systematic exploitation of the developing world by the greedy capitalist pig nations? NO.

It looks like the pathetic attempt by a communist to try to justify the massive crimes and atrocities committed under communist regimes. You need to pull your head out and look at the real world.

 

[Isambard]

These are the examples of how the capitalist west exploits the developing world? That a village in Bolivia had its water supply privatized? By whom? The United States?

Sorry, I assumed that for you to lecture me (who has done several yrs of Political economy), would be very knowledgeable over such obvious cases of (marxist defined) exploitation.

You don’t give any explanation for any of these things. The slavery of blacks in the United States was a terrible thing. No question about that. But I was looking for examples of capitalist exploitation that are less than 200 years old.

I do hope you’re joking. The incident with Bolvia is a little over 30yrs old, and the Sex slavery in Eastern Europe is still continuing. You really work hard to deny reality don’t you?

I don’t know anything about the village in Bolivia, but how is that an example of exploitation by the capitalist west?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000
“According to the magazine “The Ecologist”, in 2000 the World Bank declared it would not “renew” a $25 million dollar loan to Bolivia unless it privatized its water services.[2]”

“Only one party was willing to bid on the project.”.[5] This was Aguas del Tunari, a consortium led by International Water Limited (England), the utility Edison (Italy), Bechtel Enterprise Holdings (USA), the engineering and construction firm Abengoa (Spain) and two companies from Bolivia, ICE Ingenieros and the cement maker SOBOCE.[6]”

With the sex slavery industry, I would bet that it’s run by Eastern Europeans. Also, are countries in Eastern Europe considered developing countries?

Sexual slavery happens everywhere, even the US.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_slavery#The_United_States

I mentioned the Eastern European sexual slavery because its the one most people are familiar with. Again, I misjudged you who had some clue as to what he was talking about.

If these are your examples (one from 200 years ago, a village in Bolivia, and sex slavery in Eastern Europe (?) ) - does this look like a systematic exploitation of the developing world by the greedy capitalist pig nations? NO.

Never heard of Batista, Pinochet,or the Shah have you?

It looks like the pathetic attempt by a communist

Which communist?

to try to justify the massive crimes and atrocities committed under communist regimes.

If you are referring to me I’m not
a. A communist
b. A Marxist
c. Your arguements are simply terrible. No justification necessary when dealin with someone who desn’t even know the basics.

You need to pull your head out and look at the real world.

I do hope you someday realize the irony of this statement

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Sorry, I assumed that for you to lecture me (who has done several yrs of Political economy), would be very knowledgeable over such obvious cases of (marxist defined) exploitation.

I do hope you’re joking. The incident with Bolvia is a little over 30yrs old, and the Sex slavery in Eastern Europe is still continuing. You really work hard to deny reality don’t you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000
“According to the magazine “The Ecologist”, in 2000 the World Bank declared it would not “renew” a $25 million dollar loan to Bolivia unless it privatized its water services.[2]”

“Only one party was willing to bid on the project.”.[5] This was Aguas del Tunari, a consortium led by International Water Limited (England), the utility Edison (Italy), Bechtel Enterprise Holdings (USA), the engineering and construction firm Abengoa (Spain) and two companies from Bolivia, ICE Ingenieros and the cement maker SOBOCE.[6]”

Sexual slavery happens everywhere, even the US.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_slavery#The_United_States

I mentioned the Eastern European sexual slavery because its the one most people are familiar with. Again, I misjudged you who had some clue as to what he was talking about.

Never heard of Batista, Pinochet,or the Shah have you?

Which communist?

If you are referring to me I’m not
a. A communist
b. A Marxist
c. Your arguements are simply terrible. No justification necessary when dealin with someone who desn’t even know the basics.

I do hope you someday realize the irony of this statement

Well you’ve backpedaled away from your attempt to defend communism I see, and now are relying on name-calling to further your “arguments.” Very good. Is this what you’ve learned in your “several years of political economy”?

Anyhow, you’ve now admitted that communism is a failure and is indefensible, which I would agree with.

No political or economic system is ever going to be perfect, since they are all run by men, who have a fallen human nature. Pope Benedict XVI explains this in Spe Salve:

Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation—towards what Kant had described as the “Kingdom of God”. Once the truth of the hereafter had been rejected, it would then be a question of establishing the truth of the here and now. The critique of Heaven is transformed into the critique of earth, the critique of theology into the critique of politics. Progress towards the better, towards the definitively good world, no longer comes simply from science but from politics—from a scientifically conceived politics that recognizes the structure of history and society and thus points out the road towards revolution, towards all-encompassing change. With great precision, albeit with a certain onesided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution—and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination. Real revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia.

1. Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This “intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.

 

[JimG]

Here are some body count links:

digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php
communist body count

gulag.hu/jacoby.htm
less we forget

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
death by government

victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php
victims of communism

 

[Kaninchen]

Here are some body count links:

digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php
communist body count

gulag.hu/jacoby.htm
less we forget

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
death by government

victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php
victims of communism

I’ve always been very wary of those sorts of global figures and of global figures as a way of arguing - it’s not necessary and can distract from the argument, especially since they often seem to conjure numbers out of the air and leave the critic open charges of propaganda.

With Russia, for example, I think it’s much better to take the various actions of the Soviet State - liquidation of the kulaks as a class, the manufactured famines in the Ukraine, the policy of forced collectivization, the ‘nation killing’ transportations, and so on (together with the sheer incompetence) separately.

It’s still no argument against Marxist analysis of the inevitable collapse of capitalism, of course.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000
“According to the magazine “The Ecologist”, in 2000 the World Bank declared it would not “renew” a $25 million dollar loan to Bolivia unless it privatized its water services.[2]”

**I read the wikipedia article you linked to. It was very interesting. **

The Bolivian government asked the World Bank to get involved:
In 1985 with hyperinflation at an annual rate of twenty-five thousand per cent few foreign investors would do business in the country.[1] The Bolivian government turned to the World Bank as a last refuge against economic meltdown. For the next 20 years, successive governments followed the World Bank’s provisions in order to qualify for continued loans from the organization.[1] In order to move towards independent development, Bolivia capitalized (its landmark privatization reform) its railways, telephone system, national airlines, and hydrocarbon industry.

Protests developed when they proposed to raise the rates for water. Other people got involved and caused a more general uprising.
The coca growers of Bolivia led by then Congressman Evo Morales (elected President of Bolivia in December 2005) had joined the demonstrators and were demanding an end to the US-sponsored program of eradication of their crops (while coca can be heavily refined and made into cocaine it is used legally by many in Bolivia for teas and for chewing).

The government caved in to the demonstrators and abrogated the contracts with the water companies. The people who stirred up the trouble gained notoriety and are apparently poster-boys of the left:
The victory gained the cocalero and campesino groups international support from anti-globalisation groups.[2] Oscar Olivera and Omar Fernandez have become sought after speakers at venues discussing how to resist resource privatization and venues critical of the World Bank. His actions in the Water Wars raised the profile of Congressman Evo Morales and he became President of Bolivia in 2005. Omar Fernandez joined Morales’ socialist party Movimiento al Socialismo and became a Bolivian senator

In the meantime, the poor people in Cochabamba still don’t have any water.
In the end water prices in Cochabamba returned to their pre-2000 levels with a group of community leaders running the restored state utility company SEMAPA. As late as 2005, half of the 600,000 people of Cochabamba remained without water and those with it only received intermittent service (some as little as three hours a day). Oscar Olivera the leading figure in the protests admitted, “I would have to say we were not ready to build new alternatives.”[16] SEMAPA managers say they are still forced to deal with graft and inefficiencies, but that its biggest problem is a lack of money (it can not raise rates and no international company will give them a loan).[16] Luis Camargo, SEMAPA’s operations manager in an interview with the New York Times said they were forced to continue using a water-filtration system that is split between “an obsolete series of 80-year-old tanks and a 29-year-old section that uses gravity to move mountain water from one tank to another.”[16] He stated that the system was built for a far smaller city and worried about shrinking aquifers. A system to bring water down from the mountains would cost $300 million and SEMAPA’s budget is only about $5 million a year.[16] The New Yorker reports “in Cochabamba, those who are not on the network and who have no well, pay ten times as much for their water as the relatively wealthy residents who are hooked up”, and with no new capital the situation can not be improved.[1] A local resident complained that water-truck operators "drill polluted water and sell it. They [also] waste a lot of water.”[1] According to author Frederik Segerfeldt, “the poor of Cochabamba are still paying 10 times as much for their water as the rich, connected households and continue to indirectly subsidize water consumption of more well-to-do sectors of the community. Water nowadays is available only four hours a day and no new households have been connected to the supply network.”[17] Franz Taquichiri, a veteran of the Water War and an SEMAPA director elected by the community, said “I don’t think you’ll find people in Cochabamba who will say they’re happy with service. No one will be happy unless they get service 24 hours a day.”[16] Another Cochabamba resident and activist during the unrest summed up her opinion of the situation by saying, “afterwards, what had we gained? We were still hungry and poor.”

**They were just cynically used by leftists with their own agendas, and afterwards forgotten about.

It seems to me, this is more a story about exploitation by careerist leftists than by “imperialism.” The World Bank was asked by the government to intervene in the situation. They saw that an improvement in the infrastructure of the water system was needed, and proposed a rate increase to (partially) pay for it. People got upset, outside groups like the coca growers represented by Evo Morales got involved, and the project was shut down. The result is that Evo Morales is now president of Bolivia and he and his buddies give talks to leftists around the world about the evils of “imperialism.” In the meantime, the poor people in Cochabamba don’t have any water.**

 

[Isambard]

Well you’ve backpedaled away from your attempt to defend communism I see,

I never said I was defending communism. I said body count does’t discredit Marxism.

and now are relying on name-calling to further your “arguments.” Very good. Is this what you’ve learned in your “several years of political economy”?

I see you have the super-human ability to completely miss the arguements I presented (and youve consequtively failed to address) in all of my posts thus far.

Anyhow, you’ve now admitted that communism is a failure and is indefensible, which I would agree with.

I never admitted either. As I mentioned, Paris Commune

I only said that I was neither a Marxist nor a communist when you attempted your little ad hominem. Didn’t your priest ever tell you lying is a sin?

 

[rlg94086]

It’s still no argument against Marxist analysis of the inevitable collapse of capitalism, of course.

Yes, but that is only part of what is required when “debating with Communists,” which is the title of the thread. Even in the OP, Marx is mentioned, but the debatees are members of the Communist Party. Therefore, IMHO in arguing against them, any critique of Communism may be used. If the question was purely about Marxist philosophy, your point would be valid.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, but that is only part of what is required when “debating with Communists,” which is the title of the thread. Even in the OP, Marx is mentioned, but the debatees are members of the Communist Party. Therefore, IMHO in arguing against them, any critique of Communism may be used. If the question was purely about Marxist philosophy, your point would be valid.

There’s not just one species of communist. Trotskyists could call themselves communists but could hardly be blamed for Stalin’s crimes.

 

[Isambard]

There’s not just one species of communist. Trotskyists could call themselves communists but could hardly be blamed for Stalin’s crimes.

^^ Ditto for all the different variation of Marxists.

 

[rlg94086]

There’s not just one species of communist. Trotskyists could call themselves communists but could hardly be blamed for Stalin’s crimes.

Exactly my point. So, when “debating with Communists,” there is nothing wrong with discussing the failings of all “species.” You may defend Communism by choosing the one you like best, but that isn’t what was asked in the OP.

 

[Kaninchen]

Exactly my point. So, when “debating with Communists,” there is nothing wrong with discussing the failings of all “species.”

Bit like debating Christianity with Catholics on the basis of what all sorts of sects and cults do, in other words.

You may defend Communism by choosing the one you like best, but that isn’t what was asked in the OP.

I disagree, the best way of arguing is to go to the heart of the theory and it’s premises.