Debating with Communists

[Isambard]

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

The Bolivian government asked the World Bank to get involved:
Bolivia capitalized (its landmark privatization reform) its railways, telephone system, national airlines, and hydrocarbon industry

This was the bit I wanted you to focus on. Its the definition of the basis for Marxist exploitation, that is commodification.

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).

Yep, tend to happen when a foreign power interferes in your economy as often as it happens in Bolvia.

B]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

Can you imagine that? The government taking the will of the people into account? How absolutely horrid

In the meantime, the poor people in Cochabamba still don’t have any water.

Welcome to the wet n’ wild world of political economy. Everything has consequences.

**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. **

Which made the water unobtainable to just about everyone given the Western GDP model the company was operating on.
Mea Culpa;4035480:

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.

They didn’t have water before, and Bolvia continues getting victemized by Western firms. All things back to normalcy:thumbsup:

 

[rlg94086]

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

No. You are reversing the situation. It would be like using Catholicism, Baptists, Evangelicalism, etc. when debating with Christians. Wholly legitimate.

Kaninchen:

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

So, at their heart, all Communists are the same then?

 

[Isambard]

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

Specifics matter quite a bit as alot of the models are mutually exclusive.

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

He mentioned Marx. There are different varations of Marxism, but not all communists are Marxists. I’d say its the minority historically among political activists.

Most were Maoists, Stalinists, Keynesian socialists, and Sorelians.

 

[Isambard]

No. You are reversing the situation. It would be like using Catholicism, Baptists, Evangelicalism, etc. when debating with Christians. Wholly legitimate.

Given the extreme ideological difference between communist ideologies, its more comparable to lumping together catholics, and Sunnis

So, at their heart, all Communists are the same then?

Only marxist communists which is a sub category.

 

[rlg94086]

Isambard:

He mentioned Marx. There are different varations of Marxism, but not all communists are Marxists. I’d say its the minority historically among political activists.

Most were Maoists, Stalinists, Keynesian socialists, and Sorelians.

Not according to Kaninchen…she mentions Marxism as the “heart of the theory.”

He did mention Marx, but he didn’t say he was debating with Marxists. You are making an assumption.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Not according to Kaninchen…she mentions Marxism as the “heart of the theory.”

He did mention Marx, but he didn’t say he was debating with Marxists. You are making an assumption.

Isambard doesn’t have a clue. Communism is a philosophy started by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. Apparently nobody read the passage from *Spe Salve *by Pope Benedict XVI about communism.

Note for Isambard, Pope Benedict XVI is the head of the Catholic Church on earth. *Spe Salve *is an Encyclical Letter he wrote for the faithful. Why not use some of your expertise gained “in several years of doing political economy” to what the Pope says?

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.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Yep, tend (sic) to happen when a foreign power interferes in your economy as often as it happens in Bolvia.

**Bolivia asked the World Bank to get involved. They brought in firms that had expertise in water systems. Those firms made an effort to improve the water system in Cochabamba. Is trying to improve the water system so that all the people in the city have access to clean water, after the government of Bolivia asks you to do that, your idea of “exploitation by foreign powers”? **

Can you imagine that? The government taking the will of the people into account? How absolutely horrid

In this case, it was more like the will of Evo Morales and the coca growers.

Welcome to the wet n’ wild world of political economy. Everything has consequences.

Yes, like if you are communist, take over a country, kill millions of people, your economy fails - people will conclude that communism is a failure, which it is.

They didn’t have water before, and Bolvia continues getting victemized (sic) by Western firms. All things back to normalcy:thumbsup:

**Seems to me the victimizers were Evo Morales and his socialist party (representing the coca growers) who used this situation for political gain, and then abandoned the people involved, who to this day are without water. Evo Morales is president of Bolivia, appears on Oprah, speaks to misguided leftists in America and Europe, all the while making a pretty penny. Why not take some of his speaking fees and invest the money in a new water system for Cochabamba?

The reason is that he couldn’t care less about the people in Cochabamba and whether or not they have water.**

 

[Vladi]

Er, entire populations were wiped out.

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.

Not 100 million people in a century.

 

[Kaninchen]

No. You are reversing the situation. It would be like using Catholicism, Baptists, Evangelicalism, etc. when debating with Christians. Wholly legitimate.

That would depend on one’s purpose, wouldn’t it? If one wanted to associate Christianity with the most unpleasant forms, one would choose to associate it with the most unpleasant forms.

So, at their heart, all Communists are the same then?

At their heart, all Christians are the same.

 

[Kaninchen]

He mentioned Marx. There are different varations of Marxism, but not all communists are Marxists. I’d say its the minority historically among political activists.

Most were Maoists, Stalinists, Keynesian socialists, and Sorelians.

Where one is choosing to talk about the large death-toll versions, the Marxist-Leninist version applies (Stalinist and Maoist variants). Quite how Keynesian theory fits into a communist model, you’d have to explain to me.

 

[Kaninchen]

Not according to Kaninchen…she mentions Marxism as the “heart of the theory.”

The context was, of course, communist regimes and communist parties, what I was trying to say was that what one needs to do is attack the central theoretical core of Marxism itself - if that falls, it all falls.

 

[rlg94086]

The context was, of course, communist regimes and communist parties, what I was trying to say was that what one needs to do is attack the central theoretical core of Marxism itself - if that falls, it all falls.

Understood. So, what do you think the best argument is to obliterate Marxism when debating with Communists?

 

[Kaninchen]

Understood. So, what do you think the best argument is to obliterate Marxism when debating with Communists?

I suggested on page #1 where one could start!

 

[rlg94086]

I suggested on page #1 where one could start!

Okay…it’s interesting as a refutation of the Marxist theory of history. However, that probably wouldn’t go to far in a debate with Communists. They are less interested in Marx’ theory of the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Most Communists are more interested in the implementation of the Communist ideal as a government.

That is why I believe the other arguments (i.e. the failure of other attempts and the inevitable failure of additional attempts due to the nature of man) are more fruitful.

 

[Kaninchen]

Okay…it’s interesting as a refutation of the Marxist theory of history. However, that probably wouldn’t go to far in a debate with Communists. They are less interested in Marx’ theory of the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Most Communists are more interested in the implementation of the Communist ideal as a government.

Nope. Without Marxist theory, it would be just primitive idealism - you talk to Marxists and you’ll get a Marxist argument about the ‘inevitable’. The purpose of the movement will be, in one form or another, how the ‘inevitable’ can be speeded-up (and how other sects’ interpretations are wrong).

That is why I believe the other arguments (i.e. the failure of other attempts and the inevitable failure of additional attempts due to the nature of man) are more fruitful.

That merely refutes the drive to capital in primitive capitalist and non-capitalist societies - ‘socialism in one country’.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Relevant reading:

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24145616-25717,00.html

"ALEXANDER Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize-winning writer who died this week, spotted the danger back when it was called communism.

"After all, this Russian war hero had been arrested on wild charges of slandering Stalin and sent to the Gulag, where millions had died.

"But we should be warned. When Solzhenitsyn published The Gulag Archipelago in English from 1974, warning of the horrors of the Soviet system he’d somehow survived, his revelations struck many intellectuals in the West like a clap of thunder.

“What? Nice communism, meant to help people, actually slaughtered them in their millions? Who’d have thought?”

Read the full article before debating with Communists.

 

[Isambard]

Bolivia asked the World Bank to get involved. They brought in firms that had expertise in water systems. Those firms made an effort to improve the water system in Cochabamba. Is trying to improve the water system so that all the people in the city have access to clean water, after the government of Bolivia asks you to do that, your idea of “exploitation by foreign powers”?

Im guessing you didnt actually read the article. The water system wasn’t improved, and the firm was nowhere near as altruistic as you make it seem. Hiking the rates should’ve been an indication. As should have the fact that the firm refused to comply with the terms of their agreement.

In this case, it was more like the will of Evo Morales and the coca growers.

You have a talent for baseless assertions.

Yes, like if you are communist, take over a country, kill millions of people, your economy fails - people will conclude that communism is a failure, which it is.

Sigh. Tell you what. Ill concede, if you concede the same criteria is applicable to Christianity, which turned the Rome, former Greek states, and parts of Europe, from the center of learning of excellence, into the intellectual armpit of the world during the Dark Ages. Many were also killed during this time.
Deal?

Seems to me the victimizers were Evo Morales and his socialist party (representing the coca growers) who used this situation for political gain, and then abandoned the people involved, who to this day are without water. Evo Morales is president of Bolivia, appears on Oprah, speaks to misguided leftists in America and Europe, all the while making a pretty penny. Why not take some of his speaking fees and invest the money in a new water system for Cochabamba?

Because its much more expensive that what any Bolvian makes.

The reason is that he couldn’t care less about the people in Cochabamba and whether or not they have water.

Baseless assertion number two.

 

[Isambard]

Not 100 million people in a century.

Got a academic source that says Marxism specifically is responsible for 100 million deaths?

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Communist Marxist philosophy means debating their position is not allowed and anyone who is not in lockstep with them is a criminal.

 

[Isambard]

Understood. So, what do you think the best argument is to obliterate Marxism when debating with Communists?

The person would need to know a little about comparative economics and specifically, value theories. Marxist economics’ labour theory of value suffers from an ad hoc analysis that makes it terrible at determining prescriptive economic measures.

As for classical Marxists, just conjure up some Darwin. ToE does more than shoot down creationist pseudo-science. It also shoots hole in Marx’s goal oriented vision of the development of man.

This said, I doubt you could ever “obliterate Marxism” in any debate. Simply, its already so incredibly pervasive in just about every single social science you could think of, and even in everyday language. You could attack some theories, but you need to know the scope and limitations. Hence why I initially recommeded reading Marx before you attempt to debate.