‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Table of Contents

1⠀.⠀Introduction
2⠀.⠀Glossary
⠀⠀ ⠀ – What is Socialism?
⠀⠀ ⠀ – What is Communism?
3⠀.⠀Arguments and misconceptions
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Hivemind dystopia
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Death toll and "victims of Communism"
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Famines and starvation
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Private property vs. personal property
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Equal pay and innovation
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Greed, laziness, and human nature
⠀⠀ ⠀ – "If you like Socialism so much..."
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Horseshoe theory
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Totalitarian dictatorships
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Democratic rights
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Economics
⠀⠀ ⠀ – The fall of Communism
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Post-Soviet citizens
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Venezuela
4⠀.⠀Why is anti-Communism so prevalent?
5⠀.⠀Resources
⠀⠀ ⠀ – Websites
⠀⠀ ⠀ – 19th century sources
⠀⠀ ⠀ – 20th century sources

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Introduction

Hello! My name is Celeste. I am a Venezuelan leftist with a passion for history and politics. I decided to transcribe and paraphrase Spooky Scary Socialist's video, Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever, to compile his arguments in text format, provide links to the given sources (hyperlinked in a brown color, like this), and add some of my own findings. (I recommend to check out the rest of his channel as well!) My primary goal is to educate as many people as possible; if you have any suggestions, requests, or simply want to chat, feel free to contact me in my Atabook. (While this website's focus is on debunking anti-Communist arguments, I am open to implementing other sections regarding the topic of Socialism and Communism).

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Glossary

— What is Socialism?
Common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

— What is Communism?
A stateless, classless, and moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production.

Technically speaking, "Communist" nations such as the USSR were not Communist due to the presence of a state. Rather, they were run by Communist parties whose goal was to create a Communist society through the Socialist phase. With this mind, note that I will alternate befween "Socialism" and "Communism" to refer to Communist-seeking countries, as no "actual" Communism has existed yet anyway.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Arguments and misconceptions

— Hivemind dystopia
A common image that comes to people's minds when socio-economic equality is proposed is that of a dull, dystopian society where the talented are forced to "lower themselves" to the level of the common masses. However, what is actually meant through this proposal is the freeing of the masses so they can all discover their own talents they would not be able to uncover otherwise in a Capitalist society.

In fact, after the Bolsheviks led the October Revolution, there was a fluorishing of creativity and liberating changes in culture (the growth of cinema and legalization of women's right to divorce being two notable examples). Modern capitalist society, on the other hand, enables a work culture in which it is normalized to hate your job while simultaneously complying to the mindless nature of it. The ability to indulge in interest becomes a privilege for the rich to have while the masses already live the dull lives feared upon the mention of Communism.

— Death toll and "victims of Communism"
Joseph Stalin is arguably the most infamous example of a Communist due to the 10 million death count attributed to his rule. While the executions were numerous indeed, Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years by J. Arch Getty reveals the extent of these deaths (over 1 million) was much lower than previously estimated (ranging from Volkogonov's 3.5 million to Shakhnovskaya's 20 million), citing "guesses, rumors, or extrapolations" as causes for the incorrect counts.

Furthermore, even if you were to consider the indirect death toll of Communist governments, this dismisses the exponentially bigger death toll that falls under Capitalist society (poverty, hunger, and imperialist war) despite an adequate amount of resources (compare to the famines in the USSR, which dated back to the 1870's).

— Famines and starvation
Mao's China and the USSR experienced famines during their respective governments, but the manner in which these are pointed out ignore two crucial details. For one, food security was consolidated after these famines, which had been present prior to their existence.

Second of all, the notion that everyone starved under Communism is false. Economic Development, Political-Economic System, and the Physical Quality of Life by S Cereseto and H Waitzkin compares the physical quality of life between Capitalist and Socialist nations using data from the World Development Report. It found that:

• Daily per capita calorie supply was higher in Socialist countries, the difference averaging at 12-15%.
• Socialist countries had lower child death rates.
• Socialist countries had a higher life expectancy.
• Socialist countries had a higher population per physician and nursing person.
• Socialist countries had a higher adult literacy rate.

The study goes on to say: "Historically, there is some evidence that the discrepancies between capitalist and socialist nations have reflected varying social policies. All the socialist countries have initiated major public health efforts. These initiatives have aimed toward improved sanitation, immunization, maternal and child care, nutrition, and housing. In every case, the socialist countries also have reorganized their health care systems, to create national health services based on the principle of universal entitlement to care. These policies have led to greater accessibility of preventive and curative services for previously deprived groups. Expanded educational opportunity also has been a major priority of the socialist nations, as publicly subsidized education has become more widely available. Literacy campaigns in these countries have brought educational benefits to sectors of the population who earlier had not gone to school."

The CIA themselves acknowledged that "American and Soviet citizens eat about the same amount of food each day but the Soviet diet may be more nutritious" in January 1983.

— Private property vs. personal property
"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property" is an often misunderstood quote from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. "Property" here is not used in the typical sense but rather refers to what Marx calls "bourgeois private property", or simply "private property". This is different from "personal property", which I will illustrate bellow:

• Personal property are things one owns as an individual own (ex. a toothbrush or a bed).
• Private property refers to the ownership of the means of production for the sole purpose of generating wealth and power to the people who own it (ex. a toothbush factory or a bank).
  What does the "abolition of private property" mean then? It means taking the means of production from private hands that only benefit a certain group of people into the hands of the community.

— Equal pay and innovation
The idea that an equal pay will discourage innovation is a misleading counterargument to Socialism and Communism. Socialism does not insinuate that everyone will be payed equally, but that everyone will have common ownership over the means of production. It also suggests something which is untrue, which is that Socialist nations have not been historically innovative, dismissing, for instance, the rapid industrialization of the USSR from the semi-feudal Tsarist country and their success in being the first country to go to space (first satellite, first animal in orbit, and first human in space).

Moreover, Socialism has historically provided free healthcare, free education, and subsidized housing, whereas Capitalism financially extorts patients in the healthcare system, enables student loan debt and rent payments to landlords. Just how many potential innovators have died before they could achieve anything because they were not lucky enough to be bron into a wealthy family in a Capitalistic society? Even from an environmental lens, Capitalism often dismisses scientific studies if it conflicts with profits, such as with oil companies denying climate change. People from the lower class who cannot afford to move from their birthplace end up dealing with life-threatening ecological disasters as the rich profit from a lack of (sustainable) solution.

The argument of (a lack of) innovation in Socialist coutnries also falls short considering innovation in Capitalism more often than not only benefits the Capitalists. A predominant example of this is the replacement of workers with machines, where workers get laid off or receive lower wages despite machines allowing for shorter working hours and higher wages (thus, more time spent in fostering a strong community or artistic development) due to the Capitalist interest in cutting corners to create as much profit as possible.

— Greed, laziness, and human nature
This presupposes that humans require a monetary incentive to act on anything, which is also untrue. Primitive human society was obviously not incentivized by currency (as it did not exist) but rather survival. Beyond this, others incentives also exist, such as: improvement of life, passion, satisfaction with work, curiosity, boredom, creativity, and companionship.

If anything, Capitalism being "true human nature" does not coincide with the fact Capitalism forms a minuscule fraction of human history (less than a millennia out of the hundreds of thousands of human history). Predominant (or promoted) incentives in society are not a static force and change depending on the system. To quote Andrew Collier, "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."

— "If you like Socialism so much, why do you..."
aka. "Communism is when no iPhone"

If Socialists are against Capitalism, yet retain items made within Capitalistic society, does that make them hypocrites? The answer is that this logic itself is problematic because it insinuates simply living within a system means you support it and cannot criticize or dislike it. To illustrate, a slave who abhors their masters still eats the food the latter gives them; a peasant who abhors feudalism still works with the tools made under that society; a Socialist who abhors Capitalism will use some form of product created under Capitalist society.

The truth is there is no ethical consumption under Capitalism. So long as one spends money, someone is going to be exploited. However, it is important to note nothing is created by Capitalism. This claim mistifes the nature of labor and the people behind it, who are exploited under Capitalism. What Capitalism (and Socialism) does, however, is determine who has control of the means of production (and consequently, payment).

As for rebuttals that involve asking a person why don't they move to a [insert Socialist country]... The same could be said about Capitalist Brazil (with its astonishing poverty rate).

— Horseshoe theory
Horseshoe theory argues that the far left is "just as bad" as the far right, often citing a vague use of violence. This theory ignores essential aspects of Communism and Fascism. In fact, analyzing Fascism reveals more similarities between it and Capitalism than with Communism. For instance, Capitalists were the ones to fund Fascism in both Italy and Germany as a result of the threat of unions to increasing profit. This is reflected in the fact Fascists suppressed Communist parties as well as labor unions and outlawed strikes. The argument that Fascism is left-wing or far left adjacent contradicts with the history of the former and who was behind its support.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP, aka. the Nazi Party) is often cited as another point of comparison between Fascism and Communism, as they both make use of the word "Socialist". The reason the Nazi Party used the word "Socialist" and "Workers'" in its official name was to purposely appear leftist-adjacent and appeal to the masses, despite the aforementioned differences. It's worth nothing that the term "privatization" also became popular upon the implementation of German economic policies of the 1930's.

— Totalitarian dictatorships
aka. "Communism only works on paper"

Socialism is not inherently authoritarian. Rather, it developed into an authoritarian system after Capitalist attempts to overthrow it in an effort to maintain capital. Key examples of Imperialist powers invading countries that try to move beyond Capitalism include:

• 1918-1920 Russia: 14 capitalist nations invaded Soviet Russia to overthrow the Communists.
• 1919 Germany: the Spartacist Uprising was suppressed by the Freikorps (backed by the Social Democrats).
• 1939 Catalonia: a strongly anti-fascist sector, Catalonia was taken over by Nationalist troops during the Spanish Civil War.
• 1961 Cuba: the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion made Castro wary of future U.S. intervention, prompting Cuba's alliance with the USSR and the Missile Crisis of 1962.
• 1973 Chile: Pinochet led a U.S.-backed military coup to overthrow democratically elected, Socialist President Salvador Allende establishing what would be a 17-year dictatorship.
• 1986 Nicaragua: the U.S. violated international law and sovereignty by supporting (financially and through the aid of arms) paramilitary operations opposing the Socialist Sandinistas government.
• Vietnam War: the U.S. intervened in North and South Vietnam's conflict of unification following the defeat of the French in 1954, viewing it as a threat to the containment of Communism.

Revolutionary countries are not going to be "allowed" to practice or develop Socialism without a push back, intensifying the siege mentality initiated by the Bolsheviks in an effort to survive amidst the hostility of Capitalist states. Given the context, the "totalitarianism" of Communism is revealed to be an unnatural development and a need to implement stern security measures to fight back against Capitalist terrorism.

Interestingly, Communist-seeking states are also mocked when they fail to defend themselves amidst genocide, being labeled as "weak". Yet, when it manages to defend itself, it is painted as power-hungry and authoritarian. In either case, Communism is depicted as a failure due to the headstrong desire to paint Communism as "bad" (ie. this is not an argument but rather a dogma).

— Democratic rights
In actuality, several Communist countries did not have democratic rights prior to the implementation of Communism, as such is the case with:

• Poland's right-wing dictatorship.
• Russia's Tsarist autocracy.
• Albania as an Italian Fascist protectorate.
• Cuba's dictatorship sponsored by the United States.
• Lituania, Romania, and Hungary's Fascist regimes.

Adding on, Capitalists only favor democracy when it is anti-Communist, as seen by the fact support for Communist parties and governments does not stop attempts to crush them. For instance, before the dissolution of the USSR, the people held a referendum where it was concluded that, out of the participants (80% of the adult Soviet population), 76.4% wanted to preserve the Soviet Union. When it favors Communism, the people's will is ignored.

— Economics
Many countries, prior to their Communist governments, faced decades of maldevelopment, exploitation, war, poverty, and overall misery. Naturally, Communists had to rebuild these countries in their entirety to improve living conditions. In contrast, the implementation of Capitalism on former Communist nations has often destroyed the economy of said places. Poverty and inflation increased, GDP fell and consumer spending decreased in Russia, death rates from suicide and infant mortality increased, and workers' safety nets were lost.

Bread lines in Communism are also used as a way to prove an "economic failure" despite the fact breadlines existed under Capitalist governments predating Communist ones.

— The fall of Communism
Citing the eventual dissolution of the USSR in 1991 as proof that "Communism failed" dismisses its success in providing services such as free healthcare and education even amongst embargos, full employment, and affordable housing. Furthermore, ever since Communism "failed" 35 years ago, Capitalist nations (notably, the United States) have attacked and invaded various countries, such as:

• Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War, when NATO carried out an aerial bombing in 1999.
• Afghanistan following September 11th, 2001.
• Iraq during the Iraq War.
• Libya in 2011 with the overthrow of Gaddafi, which led to a power vacuum followed by political instability.

The fall of Communism is more accurately attributed to Western opposition, the strains of Cold War costs and military spending, and Mikhail Gorbachev's poor policies as the last leader of the Soviet Union. Evidently, these reasons don't reflect on the nature of Communism so much as they reflect on the aggressive nature of Capitalism.

— Post-Soviet citizens and living under Communism
Besides the 1991 referendum, studies show that the majority of people who "lived under Communism" (ie. the USSR) prefer the return of Socialism and miss the Soviet Union even in the 21st century.

• According to Neli Esipova and Julie Ray, residents in 7 out of 11 ex-Soviet countries were "more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them" as of 2013.
• A 2010 Pew Research Center poll states that "72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism".
• According to a 2009 poll, "more than half of former Eastern Germans defend the [German Democratic Republic]".
• Radio Prague International details how over 60% of Czechs "believe that work opportunities, social certainty and personal safety were greater prior to the fall of Communism" and than less than 25% of adult Czechs "feel they are better off now [in 2011] than under communism.
• A poll shows that up to 81% of Serbians believed "they lived best in the former Yugoslavia" as of 2010.

— Venezuela
Ever since the last 1970's, Venezuela has funded public programs through a reliance on the profit they make off oil. This means that when oil prices collapse, their funds do so as well. The root of Venezuela's history with financial struggles is connected to a sudden collapse in prices (a feature of Capitalist markets) as well as the sanctions imposed into the country, corporate hoarding, and the United State's interest in oil. As for Venezuelans who cheer upon the 2026 invasion, it is worth noting they primarily focus on the removal of Maduro as an event rather than the political imposition of the United States. Even with this momentary celebration, many Venezuelans have expressed their mixed feelings and anxieties in regards to "what comes next" and what it may imply for the future of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Those celebrating Maduro's removal "are part of the middle- and upper-capitalist class who benefited from U.S.-backed governments and neoliberal reforms in Venezuela during the 1970s and 1980s–an era when Venezuela had Latin America's highest per capita income but also stark inequality and rampant racism and classism. [Back then] the rural and urban poor faced limited access to education, health care and economic opportunity [...] roundly ignored by many upper-class Venezuelans living in private, gated communities", says Erica Eva Colmenares.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Why is anti-Communism so prevalent?

Communism is a threat to property owners and thus they have made it their mission indoctrinate anti-Communist rhetoric for centuries. In Blackshirts & Reds by Michael Parenti, he explains how "the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace [in the United States], until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. The "ideological framework" of an anti-Communist could spin data about Communist societies to favor their argument. "If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regimes atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom," retorts Parenti.

Anti-Communist doctrine does not have to be overtly expressed to latch onto an individual. Simply living in a Capitalist society makes one absorb the sentiment through a vague, incomplete understanding of the topic at hand. Naturally, the elution of these ideas puts reality as they understand it at stake, obstructing proper, argumentative conversation.

Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher describes the titular condition as "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it." Fisher suggests that people are not actively hostile towards Communism but rather it is that envisioning a life beyond Capitalism is seen as impractical.

Notably, following the collapse of the USSR, actual Socialism is nearly extinguished in the modern world. The dissolution seems to allude that Capitalism will always win in the end. Poverty, famine, and war is normalized under the acceptance of Capitalism, the mere suggestion of the elimination of these being seen as utopian. Capitalism presents itself as an unchangeable that one must comply to.

Yet, Capitalism's need for a perpetually growing markets and infinite resources has exhausted the environmental state of the world and thus the living conditions of the people in it. How can one pretend it is "natural" to follow a system which kills one's own habitat? How is it "realistic" to act in a way that dismisses sustainability and prosperity? How can one go up to an exploited worker in the global South and tell them, "This is simply how things must go"? If Capitalism is the ideal, why is our goal to elevate ourselves in the pyramid in an attempt to escape it?

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Resources

— Websites

• Marxists Internet Archive
• Connexions
• ProleWiki

— 19th century sources

• 1840's: The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels, Wage Labour and Capital by Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
• 1850's: Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx.
• 1860's: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (aka. Das Kapital) by Karl Marx.
• 1870's: The Civil War in France by Karl Marx.
• 1880's: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels.
• 1890's: Social Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg.

— 20th century sources

• 1910's: The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin.
• 1930's: On Practice by Mao Zedong, On Contradiction by Mao Zedong, Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Joseph Stalin.
• 1990's: Blackshirts & Reds by Michael Parenti.