1) No state will ever, ever, ever have any success through anarchism. Guess why? Because we oppose the state. It's kinda like...step one, y'know? But let's pretend you said society, and show why that is utter nonsense too. Revolutionary Catalonia:

Increased production
Falling illiteracy
Freedom for the working class
Collectivisation of all production
Increased education
Increased feminist liberation
Fall of petty crime

...It worked. You'll see similar effects in Makhnovia, and pretty much anywhere anarchism is introduced. It seems that democracy actually works. 

2) Communism has never taken away any freedom from any individuals. It frees them to control their own lives - in a communist society, you would be free to follow your passions and live without insecurity. There would be complete freedom of thought, freedom of speech. If you want to look at a society that takes away people's freedom immorally, look at capitalism. 

3) I don't think any democracies exist. All modern states are just that - states. Governed by hierarchies and the capitalist class, with the freedom of the majority marginalised by the freedom of the wealthy. 

Could you explain what communist policies (as they were conceived) North Korea enact?

Well, they call themselves communist and the flag is red - what more do you want?! 

It strikes me that there are a lot of people working within a capitalist society who haven't really earned it. Its remarkable that you have such support for it given the staggering inequality in capitalist societies. Do you really think there is no better way of doing things?

Wow, you actually made a point, nice one...it's rhubarb, of course, but still

1) "Only in a capitalist society can people truly make something of themselves"
This is a point that is incredibly easy to deconstruct. First off, what does "make something of yourself" mean? Why do you want to be wealthy? Well, it allows you freedom. You can spend time on the things you want, you are free from financial insecurity, you can learn new skills, you can enjoy life. Now let's look at this in capitalism - by definition, very few can ever achieve this. Most people will be part of the working class, which is powerless and will simply sell it's labour to capitalists for an exploitatively small price. It doesn't matter how hard you work, either, as the wealth and power concentrated in the capitalist class will remain through inheritance and the protection of the state. The only way to join them is to become a capitalist, propagating the system in which the vast majority are excluded from wealth or power, finding it very hard to "make something of themselves". 
Now let's look at anarcho-communism. This is a society in which there is no financial insecurity, in which everyone has the power to follow their own path, education is open to all, and life becomes much more enjoyable. Simply by being born, by being a part of society, by being a human being, you have "made something of yourself". Unlike capitalism, the ability to grow as a person and enjoy life is open to everyone, rather than a small minority. 

2) "Communism gives no incentive for people to better themselves"
This statement could hardly be more capitalist if it tried. Communists don't believe that people are motivated to better themselves by material goods, not naturally anyway. If everyone is given education, security, and freedom, I think you'll find that everyone has their own passions and ways of contributing to society. Whether this is by raising a family, writing poetry, driving a bus, or learning medicine, the incentive to "better yourself" and be part of a community in which you are individually free is innate and not the result of this economic view of humans as risk/reward machines. For instance, when those studying medicine where asked how low a wage they would accept before they entered a totally different field, they ended up changing only when it was much, much lower than a living wage. 
And how does bettering yourself under capitalism work? No matter how much propaganda they come out with, the ability to truly better yourself will depend on your economic background - people don't "better themselves" out of freedom and power, they do it out of fear. 

3) "Communism demonises personal growth and wealth"
I find it extremely telling that you put those two things together. Let's address the latter first - what is wealth? Like I said, it is more the ability to have a comfortable life, and take the things you want from what society produces, than any abstract concept of money. In a communist society, this would just be how people lived. We don't demonise happiness, we demonise happiness being concentrated in the hands of the few. 
Communism also gives the greatest opportunities for personal growth - noone would be tied to a class they can't get out of, education, music, security, everything you could want in order to grow would be available. Is that the case under capitalism? 

I'll do the rest in another post, give me a mo...

4) "If you earn a certain amount of money in a capitalist society, it's because YOU earned it."
Hahahaha, nope! Let's look at "earning" in capitalism. For the working class, it based on their ability to sell labour to those who own production. In order for that private business to create profit, it must pay it's workers less than they give them - if they don't, the business can only ever break even. Therefore, capitalist wages are inherently exploitative, which certainly takes the romanticism out of "earning". 
The emphasis on YOU in your post is very telling. YOU cannot do anything on your own. You must be educated, have shelter, have food. You drive to work in a car made and designed by thousands of people, on a road built by the community. The place you work was built by hundreds, you would not understand your job if you wasn't taught language. Everything we do is a small part of unimaginable societal relationships, and so all of society should benefit equally. 
Also, if you think the wealth distribution in a capitalist society is based on how much you earned it, then...what the fuck? 

5) "Communism is imprisonment"
No, communism is freedom. Communism means no-one is born into hunger or starvation, no-one is born into a life of being subservient to capitalists or the government, no-one dies in a war, no-one goes without education or shelter. Everyone is free and secure, power is decentralised, decisions are made democratically, everyone is able to choose how to live their life providing they don't stop others doing the same. This is freedom.
Capitalism is imprisonment. It is wage slavery, it is societal domination. It is wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few self-serving elites. The vast majority of people will never, ever be able to live up their true potential or choose how their life will go. It is war, it is hunger, it is inequality. It corrodes people on every level and takes away individual freedom. It's wrong. 

1) "Communism is a la la land that lives under falsehoods."
Which falsehoods? Freedom, equality, democracy? 

2) "It may sound good on paper, and all that jazz."
Damn, I only need you to say "human nature won't allow it" for me to have my Lazy Arguments Against Communism bingo! First off, something that doesn't work in practice also must not work in theory, so...yeah. Also, how do you explain the internal success of communism whenever applied? You seem to be totally incapable of admitting how wrong you are about the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc... I've shown how communism has been attained, I've given you examples of it working, I've explained to you why the societies you are referring to have/had nothing to do with communism. If you're just going to sit there in a rocking chair with your fingers in your ears whispering "But the Soviet Union was horrible, but the Soviet Union was horrible..." then I don't see any point in us discussing. At some point you can either educate yourself, admit that you're wrong and make a point against the application of actual communism, or just admit that it doesn't matter how much evidence you see, you're never going to change your ignorance on what the word even means. 

I'm going to try this one more time, because I don't think you're trolling. Communism is a stateless, classless society where production is controlled by the producers and power is decentralised into autonomous communities and syndicates. I'd like to know why you think that is a bad idea, safe in the knowledge that fascist states such as North Korea CLEARLY have nothing to do with it. 

For those who want to experience the wonders of socialism you can come to Venezuela. There's no guarantee you will want to go back to your country. Or that you will be alivr after a week or two 😂

So the fact that it's applications in history have been internally successful is just meaningless? The fact that what doesn't work in practice also mustn't work in theory doesn't matter? It's fine if you don't agree with communism, I'd just expect you to have a reason that's less easily refutable than "It hasn't worked in history".

Again, pure ignorance. 




I know you're Venezualan, but the fact remains that socialism means working-class control of production. Not the state. Venezuala is not socialist, simple as that. Ironically, I think a socialist revolution would be a great way to get rid of Chavez.

How?