Top products from r/DebateCommunism

"Just in case anybody was taking this seriously, several of the links provided are to alt-right (read, fashy) sources." Explain how? Because they're scientific sources that you need an account to go to?

"Also worth noting that this is a poster to r/the_dimwit who has a frog meme as their banner, so I doubt that this is a good-faith effort to engage." Uh no I never posted to that subreddit unless you're just trying to do an ad hominem here.

"And just to counterpoint their thesis: intra-racial genetic diversity is higher than inter-racial diversity. That is to say, there is on average more variation within "black people" than there is between any given black population and white population. Turns out, skin color is kind of a shitty indicator." Ok, are you making the common argument against the taxonomic validity of race is that there is more genetic variation within than between races and so races must not be genetically different enough to be subspecies? This argument comes from a 1972 paper by the Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin (Lewontin 1972). As will be shown, Lewotin’s argument fails because the metric of genetic differences he used has no obvious relevance to subspecies and because human races are equally or more genetically differentiated than recognized subspecies from other species are.

To understand Lewontin’s argument you have to have a conceptual grasp of a metric used in population genetics called an Fst value. Say we take two random animals from the species and look at what variant they have for some specific gene. There will be some probability, called the species’s total heterozygosity, that these gene variants will not be the same. Now say we do the same thing, but this time the two people are picked from the same sub-population within the species. This time the probability that their genes variants will not be the same will be called the sub-population heterozygosity. To calculate an Fst value you subtract a the sub-population heterozygosity from the total heterozygosity and then divide by the total heterozygosity:

Fst = (Ht-Hs)/Ht

In other words, an Fst value tells us how much the probability of picking different gene variants increases is the gene variants are picked at random from the entire species instead of the same sub-population. When calculating an Fst value, geneticists run this analysis for many genes and then find the average increase in heterozygosity.

When an Fst value is calculated for a species with multiple proposed sub-populations the values are averaged. So, for instance, if we conducted a study and found that two people having different gene variants was 10% less likely if they were both picked randomly from the Asian population instead of humanity at large, 8% less likely if they were both from the European population instead of humanity at large, and 6% less likely if they were picked from the African population rather than humanity at large, we might assign humanity an Fst value of (10%+8%+6%)/3% = 8% under this 3 race model. And this is what we would mean if we said something like “Only 8% of human genetic variation is between races while 92% is within them”. (The proportion of variation within groups is just 1 – the Fst value.)In 1972, Richard Lewontin became the first person to empirically measure the human Fst value and found it to be 6.3%. Based on this finding, Lewontin  declared that categorizing humans racially has no “genetic or taxonomic significance”.

Unfortunately, Lewontin never explained why an Fst value of 6.3% should mean races have no taxonomic or genetic significance. And it isn’t obvious that it should. In fact, Sewall Wright, a founder of population genetics and the man who invented Fst values, thought that they had nothing to do measuring taxonomic significance and continued to believe in Human races long after Lewontin’s famous article (Wright 1984).

That Lewontin’s idea never took hold in the world of biology can be seen by looking at a 2006 report be the U.S Geological Survey which reviewed more than a century of popular proposed criteria for when a population counts as a sub-species. It never mentioned Fst values let alone Lewontin’s paper (Haig et al. 2006).

Since Lewontin’s paper, research has suggested that the Human Fst value is actually about twice as large, 12%, as what Lewontin suggested (Elhaik 2012). This has not altered the stance of Lewontin on races. Indeed, it isn’t obvious that his stance is open to changing because he has never said how high an Fst value would need to be in-order for a population to be of taxonomic signficance. Instead, he has just said that the human Fst value is too low.

Furthermore, Lewontin has never adressed the fact that there are many species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values lower than Humans. As can be seen below, I was easily able to find 8 other species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values no higher than humans.  In fact, it isn’t hard to find researchers in the nonhuman literature taking any Fst value greater than zero as evidence that a population is a subspecies. See, for instance, Lorenzen et al. 2007 and Williams, Homan, Johnston, and Linz, 2004. Given this, it is clear that most biologists do not use Lewontin’s criteria, whatever exactly that is, for subspecies. And given that he has never made any argument for using it, neither should we.

Jackson et al. 2014, Elhaik 2012,  Lorenzen, Arctander, and Siegismund, 2008, Pierpaoli et al. 2003, Lorenzen et al. 2007, Jordana et al. 2003, Hooft, Groen, and Prins, 2009, Schwarts et al. 2002, and Williams, Homan, Joshston, and Linz, 2004.

Instead, many biologists use a criteria of subspecies based, in part, on the idea that a population can only be a subspecies if you can analyze the traits of an organism in that species and accurately predict whether or not it is a member of a proposed subspecies.

Based on this traditional understanding of subspecies taxonomy, multiple geneticists have pointed out that an Fst value of 6% is just the average increased probability of a single gene being different and that, by combining data from multiple genes at once into our analysis, we can very accurately predict whether or not someone will be a member of a given race (Mitton 1977). To get a conceptual understanding of what this means, imagine that you were told to guess whether a person was a male or a female based on whether they were taller or shorter than average, or hairier or less hairy than average, or whether their voice was higher or lower pitched than average, etc. If only one of these facts were told to you, you could make an educated guess but there would be a decent chance that you would be wrong. But if you combined data on, say, 20 such sex differences, your chances of correctly guessing the person’s sex would become quite high. By the same principle, a singe gene might not be a very good predictor of someone’s race, but that doesn’t mean that the combined data of many genes wont be.  It was on this basis that the famed population genetic A. W. F. Edwards dubbed this argument against race “Lewontin’s Fallacy” (Edwards 2002).

Lol, I totally understand. Still, I think there's considerable value in his works, particularly from the 80s. When he's working to synthesize the experience of socialism and advance its theory, it's pretty good stuff. When he's trying to convince people he's the only hope for the world, not so much.

Some other sources I've found useful:

A World to Win magazine had a number of important articles which are well worth digging into.

Corrigan, Philip, Harvie Ramsay, and Derek Sayer. 1979. For Mao: Essays on Historical Materialism. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Starr, John Bryan. 1979. Continuing the Revolution: The Political Thought of Mao. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

(These are from academics and focus more on the theoretical aspects. They're the best academic works I know of on Mao though and are very nice overviews.)

Another academic work which has an excellent chapter on Mao (though the bulk of it deals with other aspects) is Martin, Bill. 2008. Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation. Open Court.

Badiou has a nice analysis of the GPCR in Badiou, Alain. 2008. The Communist Hypothesis. Verso.

(Some journalistic/historical accounts of Maoism in practice/development in China):

Belden, Jack. 1949. China Shakes the World. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Han Suyin. 1976. Wind in the Tower: Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Revolution, 1948-1975. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Hinton, William. 1966. Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village. New York:
Vintage.

Horn, Joshua S. 1969. Away with All Pests: An English Surgeon in People’s China, 1954-1969. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Hunter, Iris. 1986. They Made Revolution Within the Revolution: The Story of China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Chicago: RCP Publications.

Milton, David and Nancy Dall Milton. 1971. The Wind Will Not Subside. New York: Pantheon.

Myrdal, Jan. 1965. Report from a Chinese Village. New York: Signet.

Finally, Li Onesto has good book on the Nepalese revolution which unfortunately was betrayed by the leadership.

My impression is that the most prominent objection of an orthodox Marxist to characterising what they believe as "religion" would be that they are operating with objective, materialist, ontological naturalist, scientific criteria, and that reject revelation, faith, spirit, supernaturalism and mysticism. Under orthodox Marxism, the concept of science encompasses a much broader definition than most modern philosophers of science or scientists accept, particularly those working in the analytic tradition. Here's non-Marxist radical socialist Noam Chomsky on the concept of "Marxism".

The various definitions and connotations that terms like "religious" hold are situated in a social and cultural context which changes over time. It's matter of semantics, and comes across from the Latin root of the word "religion" in "religio" meaning "obligation, bond, reverence" and "religare" meaning "to bind" . For example, existentially speaking, committing oneself wholly to the revolutionary cause would be considered religious form of life in Kierkegaardian terms. If you aren't already familiar with what I mean, I suggest looking up Kierkegaard. Sartre was attacked by many orthodox Marxists for trying defining the purity of Marxist philosophy with his existentialist philosophy.

Some Christian philosophers, like John Macmurray, endorse Marx's critique of religion as a valid critique of institutional and established religion as false-religion, much in the same way that Kierkegaard rejected the established church. Atheist Marxists like Zizek and Badiou claim that Christianity is the foundation of the only true form of atheism, that Calvinist soteriology provides the model for earthly salvation, and that the Saint Paul the apostle is the founder of universalism and the left tradition. Terry Eagleton is another prominent Christian Marxist who emphasises the political revolutionary character of Jesus. I'd recommend his Reason, Faith, Revolution and Why Marx Was Right as better introduction to Marxism for where you are coming from than simply diving into Capital etc.

It's often pointed out that Marx was an eschatological thinker. However, these tend to gloss over Marx's view of theory of praxis as dynamic. Even so, many Marxists and anti-Marxists alike take their cues from Carl Schmitt in viewing all political traditions as being historically derived from theological traditions.

When speaking of Marx and "Marxists", it always pays to remember Marx's famous quote: "what is certain is that I myself am not a 'Marxist' ".

As long as capitalism exists, there is always a danger of socialist countries reverting back to capitalism through outside attacks be it military or ideological.

I would not go as far as to say it only failed because of outside aggression but also because of the relative inexperience of the working class, as it was the first successful try of building socialism, and subsequent ideological mistakes.

What proved to be effective against the Soviet Union was not direct aggression. The Soviet Union was able to withstand these quite well but a more indirect approach of promoting "peaceful cooperation" and "shared humanitarian value" that weakens the (ideological) defenses.

There was a concept called peaceful coexistence in the socialist community. Obviously, the Soviet Union cannot be perpetually at war with all capitalist nations. This concept only does not constitute opportunism as long the fight on the ideological, cultural, economic and so on, so on all levels except the military one is kept going. There can not be any lasting peace with imperialism. This concept got perverted. People thought that since socialism was fully built there would be no danger of reverting back and class war can be reduced. Through this, bourgeois ideology could slowly penetrate the ideological foundation of the Soviet Union; we call this revisionism.

This caused the idea of mixing socialism and market economy and having the best of both worlds, so in the Khrushchev era some reforms were implemented that crippled the growth of the economy and lessened the importance of the plan. Through some of the reforms were reverted later, this also helped bourgeois ideology getting even more traction and made the black market bigger. The black market created some people that had an economic interest in a free market again.

While the soviet union had many problems, until 1985 when Gorbachev started the destruction or maybe even later, they could have been still reversed, and the path of socialism could have continued.

Socialism Betrayed has an excellent analysis of the end of the soviet union: https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Betrayed-Behind-Collapse-Soviet/dp/1450241719

beautiful political project, in particular I love that their warriors were women led...here's a wonderful documentary (paywall)

Russia in Revolution by SA Smith just came out and it's pretty good although not exactly left-wing. Rather refreshingly he doesn't shy away from pointing out that the non-Bolshevik parties brought their banning on themselves by boycotting the soviets and starting revolts.

Lars Lih's biography of Lenin is also pretty good.

The Achaemenud Empire did have slavery, just not our conception of it.

To quote:
>Regarding the Achaemenid Empire, there is a great deal of textual evidence for the existence of slaves during their empire. Just as we have several sale contracts of slaves from Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Seleucid Empires from Uruk (in Babylonia), we also have some from the Persian Period. One such document (Text 143, from Strassmaier, 1890, Inschriften von Kambyses) talks about the "branding" of the hand of a slave in both Akkadian and Aramaic. Similarly, two Aramaic documents from Achaemenid Egypt cite a similar practice of slave-branding (Texts 22 & 41 from Grelot, 1972, Documents araméens d'Égypte). Perhaps surprisingly, the same practice exists in Quintus Curtius Rufus' Alexandrian history. At V.5.5-6, he describes some Greek prisoners of war in the hands of the Persians, and they also have the same branding with "Persian letters." Now, they are not directly named "slaves," but the connection is not difficult to imagine.

The Culture and Social Institutions of Iran.
Another saucy link

Also about Japan. They had a smiliar transition to Europe.

>In the period from AD 1000 to AD 1500 world commercialization had developed sufficiently to trigger a major capitalist takeoff in those two parts of the world, Western Europe and Japan, that had the most suitable preconditions for capitalist development These preconditions involved size, location, geography, demography, and feudal politico-economic arrangements. World-transforming capitalism would eventually have emerged even in the absence of these preconditions, but such conditions greatly facilitated its development.
Here is the JSTOR link for the paper

So besides your two meager stabs at a theoretical framework, do you have anything else? Also please back up your claims if you want to make an honest attempt at critiquing not only communist theory but also capitalist and the like.

You can read a brief summary of them in the Epilogue of his book Main Currents of Marxism which is viewable on Amazon. (If that link doesn't bring up the reader immediately, it's page 1206-1215.)

(I don't endorse, or buy all of these claims, but I'm curious what others more familiar with Kolakowski have to say about them. 1. 4. and 6. are what I'm most interested in)

TL;DR:

1. It's absurd to call Marxism 'Scientific Socialism' because, while the process/framework may be called 'scientific' the end itself (communism) isn't.
   
   
2. This notion of scientific socialism has lead to what he calls the anti-science/anti-intellectual features of Marxism.
   
   
3. That the degenerated Soviet state was not an obvious result of Marxism, but was certainly compatible with it.
   
   
4. Marxism is a logically consistent framework connecting various values which do not work together empirically.
   
   
5. Marxism is dead as an explanatory system, with no hope for revival except by 'true believers'
   
   
6. The 'Communist' 'end-goal' of a stateless, classless, society is itself a form of totalitarianism which would necessitate a society made not of free choice of association, but of bureaucratic consensus.
   
   

You linked a historian who is standing in opposition to the rest of his field. Academia operates by consensus.

But okay, have some sources:

Robert Conquest: The Harvest Of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine

Hadzewycz, Roma; Zarycky, George B.; Kolomayets, Martha: The Great Famine in Ukraine: The Unknown Holocaust.

James E. Mace: Soviet Man-Made Famine in Ukraine

There are sources in Ukrainian and Russian as well. Tauger is completely on his own here.

A decent starting econ text is Carbaugh's Contemporary Economics. It's intended for a college course that covers both micro and macro. It's a short but reasonably good text.

From there, you could move on to Contending Economic Theories by Richard D. Wolff. It covers the differences between and pedigree of Keynesian, Neoclassical, and Marxist theories.

Paul Mason's Postcapitalism introduced me to the idea. I've seen other books fully focused on full automation but I haven't read any and can't make any recs. https://www.amazon.com/Postcapitalism-Guide-Future-Paul-Mason/dp/0374235546

Closest thing I could find (possibly an edition of this?):

http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Economic-Performance-Structure-Edition/dp/0321078160

This one https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Revolution-Empire-Crisis-1890/dp/0198734824

https://www.amazon.ca/Gulag-Archipelago-Experiment-Literary-Investigation/dp/0061253715/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478276699&sr=1-1&keywords=the+gulag+archipelago

Here you go, have a read and then try to justify authoritarian rule.

Which brings us to another emerging contradiction of Capitalism: aren't all digital goods just ideas stored on some computer much like how an idea is stored in a human brain? Thus, there is no such thing as an "equilibrium in the same sense within a marketplace of" digital goods also, correct? How are prices even being set on digital goods as we speak? There must be some monopolistic shizzzz going down one would think...

https://www.amazon.com/Postcapitalism-Guide-Future-Paul-Mason/dp/0374536732

I met the old leader, Sam Webb, once. I asked him about a couple things, one of which was the book Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union. He told me that he opposed the publishing of the book. One of the authors (Roger Keeran, I believe) even got in trouble a few years back for attending a conference of the Communist Party of Canada.

What was basically left unsaid about why the CPUSA was mad at Keeran for doing this is that, frankly, the 49th parallel is an imaginary border separating a single nation.

On that note, I also learned recently that the other author of the book, Thomas Kenny, is a pseudonym of someone who used to be a high-ranking official in the AFL-CIA. Basically he used a pseudonym in order to make sure he would keep his pension safe from the shitbag labor bureaucrats who might want to screw him for writing a pro-Soviet book.

The overall thesis of the book I think is generally wrong today. Not enough emphasis is stressed on the National Question as it relates to Eastern Europe, or the Common European Home line, which was basically Gorbo making a play for the Western Europeans against 'America' and their Takfiri friends in the 'Middle East'.

> Are you trying to [realistically] describe marketing?

FTFY. And yes.

>If by "addictive", you mean "tastes good", sure.

It's a bit more than that. Lighting up your brain like heroin. Read this book.


>And yet the capitalist has to meet the needs of the consumer to make money. Funny how that works.

Are ya lying or just a naive sycophant?

Reality. Try living in it.

>Tell you what, try starting a company based around making something you think is good, with no regard for whether anyone else wants it. See how that turns out.

I don't have to. It's already been done, millions of times over - and they are the most profitable. No one has to want it - they just have to be manipulated to think so.

>And yet the poor in capitalist countries have access to luxuries the nobility of medieval Europe could only dream of.

But not even their level of healthcare and other necessities. Why don't capitalists focus on solving needs first, for everyone?

>Absolutely nobody "chooses" supply and demand pricing.

Of course they do. They chose supply and demand pricing over cost pricing. Over subsidized pricing, over any other method. Arbitrarily, to the consumer.

It ain't majic.


>attempting to force the price to be something else results in unintended side effects, black markets, whatever it takes to get goods to the people who want them.

Only if the consumers are manipulated fools who want to be subjugated.

>Another idea: start a business, and charge arbitrarily large amounts of money for your goods. I'm sure you'll be able to make people pay 10 grand for an apple very easily.

I don't know if you are this stupid, or are so stupid as to not realize you can only regurgitate your owners propaganda, with no understanding.

Many people are doing the equivalent of buying an apple for outrageous prices though.


>You don't seem to grok..,

So, majic? I don't know what your owners are telling you, but you are being played for a fool. What grade are you in?


>doing things for the pure joy of seeing others suffer.

I don't think they look at consumers as people at all.


>And capitalism is by far the best thing that has ever happened to reduce grinding poverty, bringing literally billions out of it where every other economic system has failed.

No, technology and scientific innovations have done that. Mostly outside of the economy. What capitalism has done is deny access to this progress to those who need it. Force many to suffer needlessly.


>in the case of communism, actually regressed the situation and caused tens of millions of deaths).

Who told you that? Oh, yeah, the same ones who are robbing you blind.



>Nobody determines what the population is.

How is that a response to this?:


>Wages are arbitrarily determined by the supply and demand of available workers. Arbitrary to the worker. And that limits their ability to get their needs fulfilled.

> name one area I'm saying we should oppress

Your support of capitalism is support for oppression - especially your own.


> I've done my research...


You've swallowed your propagandist dogma.


>and the fact that youre refusing To do research totally doesn't surprise me

What do you need me to research? How you can be so obtuse?


> there's a reason people were trying to escape the soviet block to the west, and it's not just prosperity, but freedom.

I responded to this, but you chose to block it out because you can't think, just vomit dogma. Read back.


>You've called me a slave to production and consumption. Explain that, how the heck does that take away my freedoms

You are being forced to produce and consume at the behest of the capitalists, at their discretion, for one purpose, to maximize their profit - not yours.


You are manipulated to eat crap they misname food, that only addicts and sickens you. They have a habit of tricking you into buying crap you don't even want.


>I'm here to have a discussion to try and understand why the heck people would support communism despite completely and utterly failing wherever its tried.

You would have to acknowledge what we do support, not what your owners tell you what communism is. I have explained this yet you hold on to your lies.

>what was the cause for the early military failures if not the discharges?

The German war machine was just a lot better. I recommend reading Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 by Geoffrey Roberts, for a more modern and balanced historical overview.