So this Raymond Lotta guy, of the Revolutionary Communist Party of America, is coming to my school this week to give a speech ( http://thisiscommunism.org/ ). I need some help preparing some questions/comments that will prevent anyone from buying into his nonsense. I am somewhat familiar with cost accounting argument put forth by Mises in the 20s, but I'm worried that won't be enough.
For example, yes it's true a central planner will not be able to achieve efficient allocation of resources without prices, but what if he says that's not his goal? People in the world are starving, and a central planner could figure out how many calories are required to keep people alive and produce that much. People in the world are homeless, a central planner could figure out how many houses to build based on how many people exist (and how many components of the houses based on how many houses, etc.). People are clamoring for healthcare, a central planner could set a reasonable (let say, defined by the average of a survey of the population) doctor-patient ratio, and force that many people to become doctors. Of course these won't be the best doctors, or the best houses, using the correct materials, or the tastiest bread, but that's not the goal. And of course innovation will never occur, but who cares as long as everyone is being fed. I need to be able to prove that communism won't achieve a goal that he actually has, rather than one that he might not have. I realize that communism was originally claimed to be more productive/efficient than capitalism, but we all know how easily these words get redefined in politics.
The other angle of argument is about the human nature piece and the implementation piece (you know, the millions butchered by stalin and mao, power corrupts, moral hazard, etc.), but 1. I think debunking the theory is much more powerful of an argument than saying that no one has gotten it right yet, and 2. based on looking at his website, it sounds like he considers himself a bit of an historian, and I barely know anything about history (I'm a computer engineer/MBA student).
Any help here would be appreciated.
IMO you shouldn't try the calculation problem either. While I do believe it to be sound logic, you dont want to get tied down in a debate about pragmatism. Libertarianism is completely consistent with central planning so long as it is not coerced: I.e. you could form a commune where everyone pays into a pot and the leader decides what to produce.So, obviously, the point to hit him on is free and voluntary association. Do I own myself? If so, don't I own my labor? What if i don't own myself then who owns me? How can I be sure they will not abuse their power over me? What kind of check can I have over someone who is the judge in their own case?If he is an anarchist communist, how will he prevent the rise of a voluntary free market and private property?
1. What will prevent total destruction in the socialist state? Marx made it very clear that he wanted his "Dictatorship of the proletariat". When the very foundation of a system is based upon theft and violence precisely what is it that will keep the state in check and stop the deaths of innocents? Right now very few people in this country are very bad off, and if you want to improve the lives of people how can you do that when your very philosophy is based off of theft, murder, and killing.
2. I like having land and owning whatever I currently have. If you want to ask me for it and I have the right to refuse then that is perfectly ok but if you force it from me by confiscating my property then what right do you have to do this? What will I gain in communism over the current system?
If he says "oh the money and land confiscated from others will improve your lifestyle and nothing will need to be taken from you.
But then what of those from whom it was stolen? What right do you have to take from them? Why does anyone have a right to anyone else's property? You sir, provide me nothing but slavery with the masses.
3. If property rights don't exist then why do you have the right to distribute things with the government? Inevitably it is owned by someone.... So what logic is there here?
4. How do you account for the fact that the two founders of your philosophy were both upper middle class for both of their lives
5. How can you say that your philosophy is better than that of free market capitalism, doesn't capitalism rely upon consensual behavior? Whereas doesn't your system rely soley on coercion? If a system of uncoersed choices are evil, then aren't your current actions equally evil? Are you not working of your own free will?
After the whole moral arguments are blown to kingdom come and he's backed down to the utilitarian viewpoints then just hit him with these
6. Hasn't capitalism provided us with a huge increase in our standards of living? In the two centuries or so since the death of mercantilism haven't the nations which employ the policies of free trade and free action experienced huge increase in how long and just plain how well they live? According to the Marxian philosophy shouldn't our whole financial system have collapsed a long time ago? If you pull the whole "oh well it currently is" argument then say "but hasn't this only happened since America has become more and more mixed economy?
7. Hit him with the calculation argument
8. Don't the failed states of the Soviet Union and Communist china in which millions die show that not only is communism a moral evil, but that it is impossible and can only lead to a river of blood?
9. How can you account for the fact that Marx's whole idea of class analysis was based upon the idea that throughout history different classes have used the government to exploit other classes and that you are the only one suggesting the total state.
I've found these are arguments that will bring even the most determined Marxist away with their tail between their legs.
Piece of advice: DO NOT focus most of your efforts on asking him these questions! Hit him with as many of these as you can but what is much more important is that your classmates are not converted. Please afterwards circulate around your friends, ask questions, provide skepticism towards this fool in casual conversation with others. Our cause is weak enough as it is, we can't afford more converts to the other side.
Places you should do reaserch to prepare for this because this is probably where he is going to try to gain ground
Increase in wages and working conditions without government intervention in the 18 and early 19 hundreds
How currently the world (and especially America) isn't a free market
The effects of more socialist economies on nations
The effect on socialist economic systems once they become less controlling
Why wages don't stagnate
Why cartels and monopolies are impossible without the state
Brush up on Mises' calculation, and Hayek's knowledge arguments
Brush up on the rights of the individual. Focus especially on Rand.
Woooh.
Do all this and you should be fine....
Good Luck!
If you know several others who are against communism and for free markets, get them to ask questions as well - but sit seperately in a diamond formation.
It is called the delphi technique. http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/diamond_tactic.pdf - G. Edward Griffin
"In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party thatshowed how a small group of people – as few as four – could dominate a much larger groupand sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the DiamondTechnique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected bymass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority,especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority isdoing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to thefact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designedto convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. Here is the strategy:
1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose acandidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone onyour team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of theassembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience sothat, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of headturning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then thefront, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surroundedby people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced thatthese people represent the majority opinion.
I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and Ihave participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in theirown tightly held organizations. It works." Cont...
Post this up around the school before the talk as well...
Snowflake:I bet they have a lot of apologist historians.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
But these people are not historians, in the sense that they study history and have evidence.They have no evidence; they make it up.
In a couple of his books, David Landes showed as theme how historians use aggregates to make false claims, for instance.
As price decreases, quantity increases, but revenue is only, of course, reasonably greater. Furthermore, the changes in quality of goods (Ford Model T versus modern Toyota; tin versus stainless steel) are not reflected well in aggregates.
In other words, if we were to trust aggregate data, the First Industrial Revolution did not occur, because national income (according to very questionable ways of computing it, also) only grew at ~1.5 annually in Britain at the height of the Industrial Revolution.
Of course, massive changes in social organization had occurred, but aggregate data cannot show them well, and if we didn't know anything except aggregate data, we would assume nothing had happened. Nevertheless, fully aware of this, many historians use aggregate data.
And this, the occurrence or non-occurrence of the Industrial Revolution, is nowhere as 'controversial' a question as capitalism vs communism, on which every person who doesn't read books has an 'original' opinion.
There are historians who deny there is even specialization: everyone should do a little bit of everything and get rid of bosses said one of them. Is this really a apologetic historian, or is this just a person who is making things up?
We can never counter these arguments, because they are not arguments: in the end, the appeal is not to 'specialization doesn't work'; its the appeal ad hominem 'hate people with more property, so get rid of them and take their property.'
It is dialectic. If I were to insult a person, and he leaves the room, and I had prior this the last say on a topic: I 'win the debate.' Dialectic is not logic.
Schopenhauer said, quoting Aristotle, never engage in debate with people who you don't know are interested in truth and at your level of knowledge.