Debating with Communists

[DL82]

Should I even bother?

I got talking to two people on a stall today who were trying to promote the British Communist Party (and you thought pro-life campaigners were unpopular!)

Anyway, started arguing with them about how Marx was short-sighted, violent, ignored individual rights and human flourishing, etc. They just seem impervious to everything, as if history doesn’t count.

At the same time, they did seem genuinely interested in what other people had to say. I’d like to give them something to think about, particularly around the issues of religion and/or the rights of the unborn. Any suggestions? Something they wouldn’t dismiss as mere Catholic propaganda. I don’t expect they’ll leave the Communist party and start coming to mass, I just hope to change their views a little, who knows what ripples such a small gesture might have.

At the same time, I’m not too worried, it’s not like they’re going to take over the country any time soon!

Any suggestions? Maybe the same thing holds true here as with right-wing extremists, i.e. “Arguing with fascists is like racing in the special olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded.” But these guys did genuinely seem like people who had given some thought to their beliefs, so would like to have something worth saying in return.

 

[Isambard]

Marxism is one of the best fleshed out socio-political frameworks. Most people get confused by the loaded terminology however as both Austrian and Chicago schools of economic thought have muddled how folks view them. I suggest a thourough reading of what Marx said, terminology, and concepts before engaging them in any sort of discussion lest you talk past each other.

 

[KingAlfred]

Round up death-toll figures associated with Communist regimes: Stalin – somewhere between 25-35 million; Mao - well over 20 million; Pol Pot – two million. There are many other Communist tyrants to uncover. Also, stress the oppression of Communism, its total belief in materialistic solutions to the human plight, all of which have miserably failed. Best case-in-point – the former Soviet Union. Total and unmitigated failure of a state.

Marx was wrong. People are *not *motivated by the moral incentive of providing for their neighbor. *John Locke *was right. People are motivated by private property. Build a society in which the average guy can work to own private property, however meeger it might be given his income-level, and everything else in society will fall into place – government, law and order, work-ethic, etc., etc. Why? Because people will want their private property *protected. *

Deep down, people have a much stronger instinct for property ownership than collective survival. Marx fundamentally misunderstood human nature, and history has proven that fact. The last Communist monolith, China, is rapidly capitalizing its economy, because it learned that collectivist economics* DO NOT WORK*, period.

 

[rlg94086]

Should I even bother?

I got talking to two people on a stall today who were trying to promote the British Communist Party (and you thought pro-life campaigners were unpopular!)

Anyway, started arguing with them about how Marx was short-sighted, violent, ignored individual rights and human flourishing, etc. They just seem impervious to everything, as if history doesn’t count.

At the same time, they did seem genuinely interested in what other people had to say. I’d like to give them something to think about, particularly around the issues of religion and/or the rights of the unborn. Any suggestions? Something they wouldn’t dismiss as mere Catholic propaganda. I don’t expect they’ll leave the Communist party and start coming to mass, I just hope to change their views a little, who knows what ripples such a small gesture might have.

At the same time, I’m not too worried, it’s not like they’re going to take over the country any time soon!

Any suggestions? Maybe the same thing holds true here as with right-wing extremists, i.e. “Arguing with fascists is like racing in the special olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded.” But these guys did genuinely seem like people who had given some thought to their beliefs, so would like to have something worth saying in return.

In my own experience, I had to come to the realization of our fallen nature. I did this prior to reconversion…iow I was still agnostic. My next step from Communism was a belief that it was equal to Democracy/Capitalism from an idealistic standpoint. I realized that the “natural” instincts of mankind, which I believed was summed up by Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” would subvert any possibility of reaching the final stage of Communism envisioned by Marx and Engels. The problem is…I don’t remember how I got there. IIRC, I was 16 at the time of this epiphany.

 

[strngrnrth]

Having grown up Communist, I can tell you the brainwashing is so absolute that they don’t feel they could possibly be the ones who aren’t thinking – to them, everyone else looks like a zombie.
Their strength comes from the fact that they have the same values almost everyone has (humility, hard work, caring for the poor and vulnerable, community, generosity, self-respect, politeness, modesty), and no hesitation about declaring all problems about to be solved. Break that certainty with hard reality and never let up.
But don’t be rude. People don’t care how much you know unless they know how much you care. Let them know you’re concerned for the poor and weak too, and you also have answers. Then involve them in Socratic dialogue about why…
Communism has killed more people in a hundred years than all other ideologies put together and more than any other single ideology, religious or political, in several hundred years.
(Answer: Because when everything hangs on proving a premise that isn’t true, people get desperate fast.)
Communist countries that go capitalist suddenly find unimagined wealth.
(Answer: It was there all along but unusable without the laws of economics getting their chance to work.)
It’s mostly the young and middle class who are wholeheartedly Communist.
(Answer: They have the least economic trial and error under their belts and don’t know what works.)
Communist countries are so miserable and their governments lie so much.
(Answer: People are happier when they are free to choose as many aspects of their lives as possible, including whether to try to store wealth for their descendants and whether to elect a different party to office etc. Governments lie to retain popularity when they are doing unpopular things. Governments cover up their people’s misery to avoid rebellion. Communism is a dictatorship over, rather than of, the workers.)
Communist countries are so polluted?
(Answer: Without accountability everything is inefficient, including enforcement of safety standards and consumption of resources.When the means of production are the property of the same government that controls every part of life there can’t be any accountability, for the owners of the factory or mine or mill are the owners of all power.)
Be prepared to be accused of not caring about the poor, of greed, of elitism. These are the attitudes they have been drilled to expect from the opposition. Show examples of what Christians do for the poor and discuss the humility of saints. Don’t get personally defensive, but do point out that you are a worker yourself and if workers are to have all the power, most workers would choose private property and freedom.
Be prepared to ask them not to engage in fallacies. Watch for straw men, ad hominem attacks, and circular argument above all.
Remember that they are trying to use their lives to do all the good they can and might be very emotional, but they usually will be willing to try to reason. They probably mean well. Engage that idealism. Offer coffee or snacks, which they strongly associate with the very values they think their opponents lack. This might shake their assumptions up. Find your common ground first, then set the terms (reason and facts, not personal attacks), then stick to those terms carefully yourself.
Pray and prepare.

 

[rlg94086]

Having grown up Communist, I can tell you the brainwashing is so absolute that they don’t feel they could possibly be the ones who aren’t thinking – to them, everyone else looks like a zombie.
Their strength comes from the fact that they have the same values almost everyone has, and no hesitation about declaring all problems about to be solved. Break that certainty with hard reality and never let up.
But don’t be rude. People don’t care how much you know unless they know how much you care. Let them know you’re concerned for the poor and weak too, and you also have answers. Then involve them in Socratic dialogue about why…
Communism has killed more people in a hundred years than all other ideologies put together and more than any other single ideology, religious or political, in several hundred years.
(Answer: Because when everything hangs on proving a premise that isn’t true, people get desperate fast.)
Communist countries that go capitalist suddenly find unimagined wealth.
(Answer: It was there all along but unusable without the laws of economics getting their chance to work.)
It’s mostly the young and middle class who are wholeheartedly Communist.
(Answer: They have the least economic trial and error under their belts and don’t know what works.)
Communist countries are so miserable and their governments lie so much?
(Answer: People are happier when they are free to choose as many aspects of their lives as possible, including whether to try to store wealth for their descendants and whether to elect a different party to office etc. Governments lie to retain popularity when they are doing unpopular things. Governments cover up their people’s misery to avoid rebellion. Communism is a dictatorship over, rather than of, the workers.)
Communist countries are so polluted?
(Answer: Without accountability everything is inefficient, including enforcement of safety standards and consumtion of resources.When the means of production are the property of the same government that controls every part of life there can’t be any accountability, for the owners of the factory or mine or mill are the owners of all power.)
Be prepared to be accused of not caring about the poor, of greed, of elitism. These are the attitudes they have been drilled to expect from the opposition. Show examples of what christians do for the poor and discuss the humility of saints. Don’t get personally defensive, but do point out that you are a worker yourself and if workers are to have all the power, most workers would choose private property and freedom.
Be prepared to ask them not to engage in fallacies. Watch for straw men, ad hominem attacks, and circular argument above all.
Pray and prepare.

Hi strngrnrth,

Good advice, but only if they are the Soviet Union (Leninist/Stalinist) brand of Communism. I assumed that they are more like I was - intellectually immature individuals who are enamored with the idealism of Marx and Engels and the final stage of Communism.

If you bring up the “Communism has killed more people…” argument, then they can always counter, correctly, that the Soviet Union was not true Communism. A better way to use the failures of the USSR would be to demonstrate the fallen nature of man - that is what happens when humans try to live out the Communist ideal. IOW…it is not Communism that killed the people. Rather, it was the fallen nature of individuals empowered by the Communist Revolution. Ask them how you can prevent this from happening.

 

[strngrnrth]

Hi strngrnrth,

Good advice, but only if they are the Soviet Union (Leninist/Stalinist) brand of Communism. I assumed that they are more like I was - intellectually immature individuals who are enamored with the idealism of Marx and Engels and the final stage of Communism.

If you bring up the “Communism has killed more people…” argument, then they can always counter, correctly, that the Soviet Union was not true Communism. A better way to use the failures of the USSR would be to demonstrate the fallen nature of man - that is what happens when humans try to live out the Communist ideal. IOW…it is not Communism that killed the people. Rather, it was the fallen nature of individuals empowered by the Communist Revolution. Ask them how you can prevent this from happening.

Yeah, but also make sure they realize it wasn’t just the USSR that killed millions. China tried another way of getting to that ideal, and the atrocities of the GLF and Cultural revolution are just now coming to full light. Attempts to reconcile Communist/socialist thought with eastern religion have wreaked horror in Cambodia and Myanmar. A different version of the road to true Communism has done its work in Cuba. So on and so on everywhere anyone has ever tried it in any way.
The only situations where socialism works are religious communities (and only sometimes), families, and temporary, one-purpose groups such as armies, and even in the last case it is extremely inefficient and harsh. What is it about human beings everywhere, that only those who know each other well and are driven by something spiritual or closely related can make socialism work – and true Communism is apparently imposible to arrive at? Fallen human nature is exactly the answer.

Remember that they likely don’t understand economics and see wealth as static. Go slowly when describing economic mechanisms.

 

[rlg94086]

Yeah, but also make sure they realize it wasn’t just the USSR that killed millions. China tried another way of getting to that ideal, and the atrocities of the GLF and Cultural revolution are just now coming to full light. Attempts to reconcile Communist/socialist thought with eastern religion have wreaked horror in Cambodia and Myanmar. A different version of the road to true Communism has done its work in Cuba. So on and so on everywhere anyone has ever tried it in any way.

You are right…I shouldn’t have narrowed my scope to the USSR. Sorry about that…I guess I have had too many discussions with my Romanian buddies.

strngrnrth:

The only situations where socialism works are religious communities (and only sometimes), families, and temporary, one-purpose groups such as armies, and even in the last case it is extremely inefficient and harsh. What is it about human beings everywhere, that only those who know each other well and are driven by something spiritual or closely related can make socialism work – and true Communism is apparently imposible to arrive at? Fallen human nature is exactly the answer.

Exactly. Ironically, Communism is anti-religion, yet the only place I’ve seen something close to the theory work is at an Abbey.

strngrnrth:

Remember that they likely don’t understand economics and see wealth as static. Go slowly when describing economic mechanisms.

Well said.

 

[Brendan]

Exactly. Ironically, Communism is anti-religion, yet the only place I’ve seen something close to the theory work is at an Abbey.

The interesting thing is that it works in Abbeys precisely BECAUSE of the combination of religion and personal property.

When one recognizes that one’s own soul is the penultimate personal property, you want to engage in a society that protects it.

Christ’s parable of the merchant who finds a pearl of great price and sells everything he has to gain it is both monastic and capitalistic at the same time.

 

[rlg94086]

The interesting thing is that it works in Abbeys precisely BECAUSE of the combination of religion and personal property.

When one recognizes that one’s own soul is the penultimate personal property, you want to engage in a society that protects it.

Christ’s parable of the merchant who finds a pearl of great price and sells everything he has to gain it is both monastic and capitalistic at the same time.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that because the rest of society is capitalistic, the giving up of personal property (as you probably know…the monks are traditionally allowed no personal posessions) has meaning?

 

[Brendan]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that because the rest of society is capitalistic, the giving up of personal property (as you probably know…the monks are traditionally allowed no personal posessions) has meaning?

No, the monk’s soul itself is recognized as being personal property, something that cannot be given away, or shared, only lost.

The monk recognizes that it’s salvation is a pearl of great price and sells all their other possessions to order to ‘obtain’ that.

Just like Christ said in Matthew 13.

Very ‘capitalistic’, and it’s an outlook that is not possible while holding a Communistic worldview.

 

[rlg94086]

No, your soul itself is recognized as being personal property. The monk recognizes that it’s salvation is a pearl of great price and sells all their other possessions to order to ‘obtain’ that.

Just like Christ said in Matthew 13.

Yeah…that will convince the Communists.

I’m sorry Brendan, but the tie in is extremely tangential and it just doesn’t do much for me. While it makes sense to give up all attachment to material possessions and place greater value on our salvation, I don’t think you can tie that in to Capitalism’s protection of personal property.

 

[Kaninchen]

Any suggestions? Maybe the same thing holds true here as with right-wing extremists, i.e. “Arguing with fascists is like racing in the special olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded.” But these guys did genuinely seem like people who had given some thought to their beliefs, so would like to have something worth saying in return.

Marxism, inter alia, is a theory of history, of inevitability. Karl Popper, in “The Poverty Of Historicism” provided a difficult to deal with refutation of the Marxist theory of history:

1. 
   *]The course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge.
   
   *]We cannot predict, by rational or scientific methods, the future growth of our scientific knowledge.
   
   *]We cannot, therefore, predict the future course of human history.
   
   *]This means we must reject the possibility of a theoretical history; that is to say, of an historical social science that would correspond to theoretical physics. There can be no scientific theory of historical development serving as a basis for historical prediction.
   
   *]The fundamental aim of historicist methods is therefore misconceived; and historicism collapses.

 

[ribozyme]

Marx was wrong. People are *not *motivated by the moral incentive of providing for their neighbor. *John Locke *was right. People are motivated by private property. Build a society in which the average guy can work to own private property, however meeger it might be given his income-level, and everything else in society will fall into place – government, law and order, work-ethic, etc., etc. Why? Because people will want their private property *protected. *
.

Yup… it is naive (and extremely dangerous to the welfare of the unfortunate) to expect everyone to be charitable like Dorothy Day was. People aren’t charitable and I do not expect charity to met the needs of the unfortunate and to significantly reduce poverty.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Consider the debates by others in the past.

Consider such authors as Jonah Goldberg, who maintains that Fascism and Communism are essentially the same.

amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

And the Black Book of Communism:

amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

And the history of Communism … “Fire in the Minds of Men”

amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-James-Billington/dp/0765804719

And the history of Communism in the 20th Century United States:

amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-Treason-Years/dp/0914053108/ref=pd_sim_b_1

These will get you started.

 

[ribozyme]

Consider the debates by others in the past.

Consider such authors as Jonah Goldberg, who maintains that Fascism and Communism are essentially the same.

amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

And the Black Book of Communism:

amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

And the history of Communism … “Fire in the Minds of Men”

amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-James-Billington/dp/0765804719

Do you consider Pinochet’s methods to suppress dissent from his regime’s economic policies “fascism”? Do you think the Argentine “Dirty War” was an exercise in “fascism”? Tell me what is fascism.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Gen. Augusto Pinochet served as president of Chile during a troubled period of that country’s history. His fate was to become the world’s most demonized person in the last quarter of the 20th century, and his death on December 10, 2006, was met with a new outpouring of denunciation by the international left.

But, the international left has scant evidence in behalf of its demonization of Pinochet.

Pinochet was confronted with an indigenous terrorist movement. Chilean terrorists engaged in assassinations and bombings of public infrastructure. Pinochet was able to put down real terrorist movements with minimal damage to Chile’s civil liberties.

According to the Rettig Commission, Chile’s struggle with terrorism resulted in 2300 (both sides) dead and missing.

The propaganda against Pinochet has fantastic elements, such as “eyewitness” accounts of bodies of slain innocents thrown overboard from navy ships on the Mapocho river that runs through Santiago. Anyone who has seen the “river” knows it is not navigable.

The international left loved Salvador Allende’s socialist rhetoric and his policies against “the rich,” policies that destroyed Chile’s economy and led to public agitation for his overthrow. The left hates Pinochet for overthrowing Allende and for turning Chile’s economy over to economists educated at Harvard and the University of Chicago, who privatized Chile’s social security system and put in place the institutional basis for Chile’s successful market economy. These are the real reasons for Pinochet’s demonization.

The international left cannot make up its mind whether Allende was overthrown by Pinochet or by the CIA. In some accounts the reason to hate Pinochet is that he is the puppet of capitalist Amerika. Why then demonize the puppet instead of the puppet-master?

In truth, Allende overthrew himself. He disregarded the constitution, permitted private property to be seized by communist organizations, tolerated and assisted the formation of armed groups that operated independently of the government, and disorganized the economy to the extent that there were food shortages.

In left-wing mythology, “the popularly-elected Allende” was overthrown by the tyrant Pinochet. This is far from the truth. Allende received only 36% of the vote and was appointed president by the Chilean congress after Allende swore an oath to respect the constitution.

Three years later on August 22, 1973, the Chilean congress censured Allende for violating law and the constitution in order to “establish a totalitarian system absolutely opposed to the representative system of government established by the Constitution.”

Allende was censured for “making violation of the Constitution and the law a permanent system of conduct” and for “systematically trampling the powers of the other branches of government” while at the same time “violating the civil rights of the citizens guaranteed in the Constitution and permitting and stimulating the formation of illegal parallel powers which constitute a grave threat for the nation.”

Allende was censured for systematically violating private property rights and illegally taking over 1,500 farms from their owners and hundreds of businesses. The resolution condemned Allende for aiding and abetting the establishment of illegal armed groups that “intend to replace legitimately constituted powers and serve as a base for the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The resolution noted that this goal was publicly acknowledged by Allende himself.

The censure of Allende called upon the military to intervene and oust the Allende government. Housewives, unable to find food for their families, had been calling for military intervention for months. When the women would encounter military officers in the streets, they would throw corn kernels at their feet and cluck like chickens.

The military had to be forced to act by the elected representatives of the people. The irony is that Allende would likely have been pushed aside by the parallel government that he was allowing communists to create.

Pinochet is demonized despite the fact that he established a broad-based commission to create a new constitution and scheduled elections to return the government to civil authority. To achieve reconciliation among Chileans, both terrorists and the military government were amnestied. Pinochet permitted himself to be voted out of power.

The military government kept the amnesty, but successor governments did not. In his old age Pinochet was harassed by vengeful leftists determined to overturn the amnesty only with regard to Pinochet. That fact alone is testimony to which side of the conflict represented true character and a spirit of good will.

Today government corruption is on the rise in Chile as power-seeking politicians seek to remove constitutional restraints and to create economic dependencies that expand political power. It remains to be seen if the legacy of freedom that Pinochet gave to Chile will survive or whether it will succumb to the power of propaganda.

Had Pinochet not acted, Chile would likely have followed the Cuban model, along the path that Venezuela is following today and many other Latin American countries have followed in the past.

One can similarly argue about the path of Peron or the Sendero Luminoso or the Sandanistas or the conflict between the Communists and Franco in Spain or even the path of the Communist Viet Cong in South Vietnam as they assassinated their way to power.

 

[Kaninchen]

Don’t you think you should have given the author (Paul Craig Roberts) some kind of attribution?

 

[Al_Masetti]

amazon.com/Guerrillas-Generals-Dirty-War-Argentina/dp/027597359X

Argentina’s Dirty War’s origins can be traced back to military interventions in the 1930s and 1940s, and the rise of General Juan Peron’s populist regime, which resulted in the polarization of Argentine society. Peron’s overthrow by the military in 1955 only heightened social conflict by producing a resistance movement out of which several guerrilla organizations would soon emerge. The ideologies, terrorist tactics, and internal dynamics of those underground groups are examined in detail, as well as their links to other movements in Argentina and abroad. The guerrillas reached the height of their influence when the military withdrew from power in 1973 and turned over the government to Peron’s puppet president, Hector Campora.

They quickly found themselves in opposition again after Peron returned from exile, and as Peronism dissolved into factions after Peron’s death, the military prepared to take power again, inspired by a new “National Security Doctrine.”

The origins of this ideology in U.S. Cold War doctrine and in French “revolutionary war” doctrine are fully explored because the Argentine military’s “Dirty War” strategy and tactics grew directly out of these ideas. The arrests, the treatment of prisoners, and the mindset of the interrogators are treated in detail. Special attention is given to the anti-guerrilla war in Tucuman’s jungles, the strange history of David Graiver (the guerrillas’ banker) and the Timerman case. In the concluding section of the book, Lewis describes the intrigues that undermined the military regime, its retreat from power, and the human rights trials that were held under the new democratic government. Those trials eventually were stopped by military revolts. Presidential pardons followed and have left Argentina divided once more. This is an important survey for scholars and students of Latin American politics, contemporary history, and civil-military relations.

Lewis points out that there really was a war going on. The guerrillas were active, were powerful, were committing acts of terrorism and were seriously threatening to destabilize the Argentine state. A lot of anti-military sources try to portray the security threat posed by the guerrillas as a figment of the military’s imagination. This was simply not true. There was a real war going on and Lewis shows that this was the case. Lewis does not excuse the ways the military chose to deal with the guerrilla threat, but does explain why rational and normal men would choose to commit such horrorific acts. In their mind they were in a desperate life and death struggle, and they acted accordingly. In retrospect they made some very bad choices, but Lewis helps explain how it all seemed rational and necessary at the time.

[attribution: edited bits from the Amazon product description and a review on Amazon]

 

[Kaninchen]

Don’t you think you should have given an attribution for that Amazon review?