Arguing with a liberal

[JAH23]

After Obama's State of the Union address, I was arguing with this girl who thought every word Obama said was holy and true. She said that he is trying to fix all the problems in this country, and installing good policies. I disagreed, and told her that Obama is just another capitalist president who will not change a damn thing. I told her that democrats and republicans are two alternate routes which lead to the same deadly, destructive system: Capitalism, and that it doesn't really matter who is in the White House. In conclusion, I told her I have no faith in the American system of government/economics. She said that I was being apathetic.

My question for you is: How can I explain in layman's terms to a liberal/democrat that Capitalism is simply a bad system without delving into all the jargon we use here on revleft? How can I have a decent argument with a patriotic and loyal liberal without coming off as a militant Socialist douche?

Love you guys.

[whore]

have a look at the high school commies guide: http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html not that i've read it, but whatever.

also, if a person is a "patriotic and loyal" (presumably to the usa), then ask them what is so great about that country. what has she done to be proud of the country. she hasn't done anything. why should she be proud of something that someone else did?

also, ask her how you are being apathetic when you fundamentally rejecting the capitalist system. you obviously care, because you are explicitly rejecting, after an amount of thought, the present system.

[NecroCommie]

If you get someone to agree with class war, you can also make that someone to agree with everything else in communism. Explain in simple terms why class war a) exists b) is important.

[Thirsty Crow]

After Obama's State of the Union address, I was arguing with this girl who thought every word Obama said was holy and true. She said that he is trying to fix all the problems in this country, and installing good policies. I disagreed, and told her that Obama is just another capitalist president who will not change a damn thing.
Wait a minute.
If Obama's healthcare plan works, how's that the he didn't change a damn thing?
I mean, denouncing capitalist governments is fine, but to deny the change, even the slightest one, may lead to dogmatic ranting which in fact is a thing that most people associate us lefties with, sadly.

[Raúl Duke]

If Obama's healthcare plan works, how's that the he didn't change a damn thing?
I mean, denouncing capitalist governments is fine, but to deny the change, even the slightest one, may lead to dogmatic ranting which in fact is a thing that most people associate us lefties with, sadly.

"Obama's" health care plan (not sure if one could accurately call it that...it seems more like a nightmare created by congressional democrats and republicans) is a mediocre one that basically mandates people to have and pay for private health insurance. It's like a big hand-out for the already obscenely rich insurance companies. The change that is being proposed is in its face a bad one that even progressive liberals hate it.

But in a way, one shouldn't sound dogmatic when speaking to normal people. Also, the discussion is about politicians so it doesn't exactly need you to refer to capitalism explicitly (I usually do so implicitly, let the person draw the conclusion that the system is fucked). One thing is use the history, like how democrats have lied before on their perceived positions (i.e. LBJ was the peace candidate but he did a troop surge in Vietnam. Obama was perceived as a peace candidate and yet another troop surge to Afghanistan) and such.

[Thirsty Crow]

"Obama's" health care plan (not sure if one could accurately call it that...it seems more like a nightmare created by congressional democrats and republicans) is a mediocre one that basically mandates people to have and pay for private health insurance. It's like a big hand-out for the already obscenely rich insurance companies. The change that is being proposed is in its face a bad one that even progressive liberals hate it.


You are quite right to warn me, I forgot to add an important elaboration. What I meant by "if the plan works" is "if it proves efficient in providing elementary and free health care to people who couldn't afford it" (that's how the project is presented in European mainstream media; I admit, I didn't examine it as one should).

[LeninistKing]

THE ANSWER OF WHY LIBERALS AND MOST AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB, SO UNINFORMED, SO BORING, SO COLD, SO APATHETIC ABOUT POLITICS IS THAT MOST US CITIZENS ARE PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie


A philosophical zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie), p-zombie or p-zed is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except that it lacks conscious experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness), qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia), or sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience). When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain. And americans are like that !! Americans don't feel pain at all, and notice how most people you see in America have a smiling facade in their faces. (That's weird insn't it, in a world of problems, you just can't be laughing and smiling all the time)

While it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain), it does not actually have the experience of pain as a putative 'normal' person does.

The notion of a philosophical zombie is mainly a thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment) used in arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) (often called zombie arguments) in the philosophy of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind), particularly arguments against forms of physicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism), such as materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) and behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_zombie&action=edit&section=1)] Types of zombies

Philosophical zombies are widely used in thought experiments, though the detailed articulation of the concept is not always the same. There are, in effect, different types of p-zombies. What differs is how much exactly they have in common with normal human beings. P-zombies were introduced primarily to argue against specific types of physicalism, such as behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism). According to behaviorism, mental states exist solely in terms of behavior: belief, desire, thought, consciousness, and so on, are simply certain kinds of behavior or tendencies towards behaviors. One might invoke the notion of a p-zombie that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a normal human being, but that lacks conscious experiences. According to the behaviorist, such a being is not logically possible, since consciousness is defined in terms of behavior. So an appeal to the intuition that a p-zombie so described is possible furnishes an argument that behaviorism is false. Behaviorists tend to respond to this that a p-zombie is not possible and so the theory that one might exist is false.
One might distinguish between various types of zombies, as they are used in different thought experiments, as follows:

A behavioral zombie is behaviorally indistinguishable from a human and yet has no conscious experience.
A neurological zombie has a human brain and is otherwise physically indistinguishable from a human; nevertheless, it has no conscious experience.
A soulless zombie lacks a soul but is otherwise indistinguishable from a human; this concept is used to inquire to what, if anything, the soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) might amount.
However, philosophical zombies are primarily discussed in the context of arguments against physicalism (or functionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind))) in general. Thus, a p-zombie is typically understood as a being that is physically indistinguishable from a normal human being but that lacks conscious experience.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_zombie&action=edit&section=2)] Zombie arguments

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/David_Chalmers.jpg/180px-David_Chalmers.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Chalmers.jpg) [/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers"]David Chalmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Chalmers.jpg) believes zombies are a challenge to physicalism.



According to physicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism), the physical facts determine all other facts; it follows that, since all the facts about a p-zombie are fixed by the physical facts, and these facts are the same for the p-zombie and for the normal conscious human from which it cannot be physically distinguished, physicalism must hold that p-zombies are not possible, or that p-zombies are the same as normal humans. Therefore, zombie arguments support lines of reasoning that aim to show that zombies are possible.
Most arguments ultimately lend support to some form of dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism)—the view that the world includes two kinds of substance (or perhaps two kinds of property): the mental and the physical.
The zombie argument against physicalism is, therefore, a version of a general modal argument against physicalism, such as that of Saul Kripke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke)'s in "Naming and Necessity" (1972).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-0) The notion of a p-zombie, as used to argue against physicalism, was notably advanced in the 1970s by Thomas Nagel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel) (1970; 1974) and Robert Kirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kirk) (1974).
However, the zombie argument against physicalism in general was most famously developed in detail by David Chalmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers) in The Conscious Mind (1996). According to Chalmers, one can coherently conceive of an entire zombie world: a world physically indiscernible from our world, but entirely lacking conscious experience. In such a world, the counterpart of every being that is conscious in our world would be a p-zombie. The structure of Chalmers' version of the zombie argument can be outlined as follows:

If physicalism is true, then it is not possible for there to be a world in which all the physical facts are the same as those of the actual world but in which there are additional facts. (This is because, according to physicalism, all the facts are fully determined by the physical facts; so any world that is physically indistinguishable from our world is entirely indistinguishable from our world.)
But there is a possible world in which all the physical facts are the same as those of our world but in which there are additional facts. (For example, it is possible that there is a world exactly like ours in every physical respect, but in it everyone lacks certain mental states, namely any phenomenal experiences or qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia). The people there look and act just like people in the actual world, but they don't feel anything; when one gets shot, for example, he yells out as if he is in pain, but he doesn't feel any pain.)
Therefore, physicalism is false. (The conclusion follows by modus tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens).)
The argument is logically valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), in that if its premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. However, philosophers dispute that its premises are true. For example, concerning premise 2: Is such a zombie world really possible? Chalmers states that "it certainly seems that a coherent situation is described; I can discern no contradiction in the description."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-1) Since such a world is conceivable, Chalmers claims, it is possible; and if such a world is possible, then physicalism is false. Chalmers is arguing only for logical possibility, and he maintains that this is all that his argument requires. He states: "Zombies are probably not naturally possible: they probably cannot exist in our world, with its laws of nature."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-Chalmers2-2)
This leads to the following questions: What is the relevant notion of possibility here? Is the scenario in premise 2 possible in the sense that is suggested in premise 1? Some philosophers maintain that the relevant kind of possibility is not so weak as logical possibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility). They argue that, while a zombie world is logically possible (that is, there is no logical contradiction in any full description of the scenario), such a weak notion is not relevant in the analysis of a metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) thesis such as physicalism. Most philosophers agree that the relevant notion of possibility is some sort of metaphysical possibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_possibility). What the proponent of the zombie argument claims is that one can tell from the armchair, just by the power of reason, that such a zombie scenario is metaphysically possible. Chalmers states: "From the conceivability of zombies, proponents of the argument infer their metaphysical possibility."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-Chalmers2-2) Chalmers claims that this inference from conceivability to metaphysical possibility is not generally legitimate, but it is legitimate for phenomenal concepts such as consciousness.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-3) Indeed, according to Chalmers, whatever is logically possible is also, in the sense relevant here, metaphysically possible.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-4)



After Obama's State of the Union address, I was arguing with this girl who thought every word Obama said was holy and true. She said that he is trying to fix all the problems in this country, and installing good policies. I disagreed, and told her that Obama is just another capitalist president who will not change a damn thing. I told her that democrats and republicans are two alternate routes which lead to the same deadly, destructive system: Capitalism, and that it doesn't really matter who is in the White House. In conclusion, I told her I have no faith in the American system of government/economics. She said that I was being apathetic.

My question for you is: How can I explain in layman's terms to a liberal/democrat that Capitalism is simply a bad system without delving into all the jargon we use here on revleft? How can I have a decent argument with a patriotic and loyal liberal without coming off as a militant Socialist douche?

.

Love you guys.

[Klaatu]

JAH23, the most important thing that changes are attitudes. Change minds, and you change the world. For example, America's first black president shows two things about America: (A) we have progressed somewhat against racism and (B) there are still a lot of racists here (those are the "teabaggers.")

I think that the behaviour of these neocons suggests that capitalism is a bad thing, connected with hatefulness and divisiveness (look at those people, those capitalists, and see what I mean - they seem to be full of hate - what is that telling us?)

[pierrotlefou]

After Obama's State of the Union address, I was arguing with this girl who thought every word Obama said was holy and true. She said that he is trying to fix all the problems in this country, and installing good policies. I disagreed, and told her that Obama is just another capitalist president who will not change a damn thing. I told her that democrats and republicans are two alternate routes which lead to the same deadly, destructive system: Capitalism, and that it doesn't really matter who is in the White House. In conclusion, I told her I have no faith in the American system of government/economics. She said that I was being apathetic.

My question for you is: How can I explain in layman's terms to a liberal/democrat that Capitalism is simply a bad system without delving into all the jargon we use here on revleft? How can I have a decent argument with a patriotic and loyal liberal without coming off as a militant Socialist douche?

Love you guys.

The best thing to do is to shy away from the socialist buzzwords when having a discussion. Most americans will tune you out the second you say the words proletariat, imperialism, or bourgeoisie. You have to explain to them that no matter which party they support it does not matter because the system itself is flawed and why that is. Or you could just Tell them Nazi's were overly patriotic too and see how that rubs them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberals can be some of the worst people to talk politics with because for some odd reason they really connect with their politicians a little bit more than conservatives do and the positions of power they so badly want. Conservatives go apeshit over a preferred President but only because of what he does for the country. Liberals though are highly, highly idealistic, delusional and a bit megalomaniacal. They believe themselves to be morally superior because they view themselves as that happy medium between Marxists and Free Market enthusiasts. This leaves them thinking that they can be both pro-establishment and revolutionary in their thinking. It's really quite pathetic and it's no wonder why they're both laughed at by conservatives/libertarians and leftists.

I wouldn't even recommend convincing them of anything otherwise. Just let their precious Messiah Obama fail.

It's no wonder that Noam Chomsky has more books out there about the liberal establishment than he does about the conservatives. He knows who is really in charge and who believes themselves to be the proprietors of democracy.

[JAH23]

If you get someone to agree with class war, you can also make that someone to agree with everything else in communism. Explain in simple terms why class war a) exists b) is important.

You have any ideas on how to do this in a simplistic manner?

[Comrade_Stalin]

You have any ideas on how to do this in a simplistic manner?

The problem is the complexities of Marxist theory, add on top of that the large number of communist groups, and you will have a hard time trying to explain class warfare and why it is important.

You could try this. First explain that unemployment produces surplus value as unemployment goes up, wages go down as it gets harder to sell your skills. Then you can explain to her the business cycles. This will explain to her that most of the profit is made during times of high unemployment. From there you then could show her that class warfare is important.

[Klaatu]

RadioRaheem84, remember that the country is never going to snap-jump from it's present "right-of-center"
conservative mindset, right into socialism, without first crossing over that "raging river" of liberalism.
To "get to the other side," you have to fight the rapids, so to speak. The best recent chance we might have
gotten to do that, was in the 1960s-70s, when America was actually leaning quite left in her attitudes,
just before the Reagan Revolution of the 80s, which massively shifted the U.S. to the political right.
But good luck shifting away from this cancerous conservatism now, as it has it's dirty fangs deeply sunk
into the nation's proverbial crotch.

But it is possible that the public opinion can and will shift left again, as more and more people are thrown out
of work by wrong-headed conservative economic policies, and people begin to realize that the capitalist politician
who promised Joe the Worker a job, only ended up with his hand in your wallet, and his dagger in your back.

But that's just my opinion.

[GPDP]

RadioRaheem84, remember that the country is never going to snap-jump from it's present "right-of-center"
conservative mindset, right into socialism, without first crossing over that "raging river" of liberalism.
To "get to the other side," you have to fight the rapids, so to speak. The best recent chance we might have
gotten to do that, was in the 1960s-70s, when America was actually leaning quite left in her attitudes,
just before the Reagan Revolution of the 80s, which massively shifted the U.S. to the political right.
But good luck shifting away from this cancerous conservatism now, as it has it's dirty fangs deeply sunk
into the nation's proverbial crotch.

But it is possible that the public opinion can and will shift left again, as more and more people are thrown out
of work by wrong-headed conservative economic policies, and people begin to realize that the capitalist politician
who promised Joe the Worker a job, only ended up with his hand in your wallet, and his dagger in your back.

But that's just my opinion.

As far as attitudes go, the American people are much closer to the left on a wide variety of issues than you give them credit:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-peoples-progressive-t128423/index.html

"Right-of-center" conservative mindset? I don't see it, certainly not as pronounced as some people here make it seem.

[Jimmie Higgins]

After Obama's State of the Union address, I was arguing with this girl who thought every word Obama said was holy and true. She said that he is trying to fix all the problems in this country, and installing good policies. I disagreed, and told her that Obama is just another capitalist president who will not change a damn thing. I told her that democrats and republicans are two alternate routes which lead to the same deadly, destructive system: Capitalism, and that it doesn't really matter who is in the White House. In conclusion, I told her I have no faith in the American system of government/economics. She said that I was being apathetic.

My question for you is: How can I explain in layman's terms to a liberal/democrat that Capitalism is simply a bad system without delving into all the jargon we use here on revleft? How can I have a decent argument with a patriotic and loyal liberal without coming off as a militant Socialist douche?

Love you guys.

I think the best way to deal with liberals is just to appeal to the ideals they have - the hopes they project onto Obama - and bring it to a concrete level so that it doesn't become a question of "is Obama a good person or not" but is about how do we really win the things that the millions of regular people who voted for Obama want.

So I think it's totally natural for someone to wish for better health care, an end to the war, a more just economy, and so on and we shouldn't discourage them. In fact if we can't crack how to criticize the Democrats while not coming off as dismissive of the supporter we are talking to, waiting for the Dems to expose their ruling class colors will simply lead many people to defeatism or concluding that the US is just inherently conservative and change is not possible. We want people to realize that change from above - especially from the corporate Democrats - is impossible, not change itself.

As slimy as Obama has been as President, he did say something really important at his acceptance speech - something I always throw at pro-Obama liberals all the time - which was along the lines of: The change you want will not be automatic (and "I can't do it alone" was the next part I think, but I leave that out), you will need to put pressure on the government if you want to see things change.

Of course this is empty rhetoric from Obama, but it is also really true and you can then talk to a pro-Obama liberal about how change has really happened in the US: from grassroots struggles often with explicitly radical politics such as the 8-hour day, the building of the IWW or the CIO, civil rights, and so on.

This argument usually works well with regular liberals. If someone is in movements and an activist and had pro-Democratic or pro-Obama politics, I think you can be a little harder and point out all the ways the Democratic party has failed to produce the change it claims it fights for and make a political argument about why their failure isn't because they are spineless but because they are tied to the ruling class in the US and yada yada yada I'm sure most American comrades know the arguments from here. Basically argue that the Democrats are a dead end for movements and it takes radical independant politics to really change things for workers and other regular folks.

[NecroCommie]

You have any ideas on how to do this in a simplistic manner?
It is simply done by pointing out how there can be no two owners for something. There can only be multiple owners if they share power, which clearly is not something that factory owners are prepared to do. This clearly illustrates how the power of the working class is diametrically opposite to power of private capitalists.

Also, point out how world has seen numerous work places without bosses, but not once has there been a productive workplace without workers. Together these two observations absolutely prove that the interests of workers are ultimately hostile to the interests of capitalists,

[RadioRaheem84]

RadioRaheem84, remember that the country is never going to snap-jump from it's present "right-of-center"
conservative mindset, right into socialism, without first crossing over that "raging river" of liberalism.
To "get to the other side," you have to fight the rapids, so to speak. The best recent chance we might have
gotten to do that, was in the 1960s-70s, when America was actually leaning quite left in her attitudes,
just before the Reagan Revolution of the 80s, which massively shifted the U.S. to the political right.
But good luck shifting away from this cancerous conservatism now, as it has it's dirty fangs deeply sunk
into the nation's proverbial crotch.

But it is possible that the public opinion can and will shift left again, as more and more people are thrown out
of work by wrong-headed conservative economic policies, and people begin to realize that the capitalist politician
who promised Joe the Worker a job, only ended up with his hand in your wallet, and his dagger in your back.

But that's just my opinion.


I agree with you to an extent. I think that every one has to walk through the murky river of liberalism to get to us, but that's only because of the presuppositions ingrained into them by the system. But I look at my own life as an example of someone who crossed over. I was ready to get into finance, do everything pro-establishment, the whole nine yards and I considered myself to be liberal as can be. I sneered at anti-globalization protesters because I thought that the same financiers they were attacking were the ones creating wealth not extracting it and I thought that policy wonks from top Ivy League schools were the only ones that could get us out of any mess. That's how delusional I was but at the same time, I thought that was the only viable option to put ones hope in.

It took a lot to convert me over to Marxism because the ideas seemed to Utopian and irrational. Little did I know that the liberalism and capitalism were the real irrational and utopian ideals. But that's how the liberal thinks and I was always generally the nice liberal. Some of my colleagues were and still are very elitist in this sense. Like Chomsky even notes, the liberals ideals are elitist in nature and scope. I mean conservatism at least has a populist streak for as reactionary as it is but liberalism is truly an elitist ideology and breeds the most contempt for the working class. The point is that maybe I don't want people to cross over to that murky raging river of liberalism because it will leave people very complacent and make them believe that they've reached this happy medium that can let one enjoy both the revolutionary appeal of the leftist while clinking wine glasses with the rich.

[x359594]

In my experience of talking to liberals I've learned that they think that their view is not an ideology but "the way things are or the way things should be," so the first thing to do is to show them that there are alternative views, and that their view is a particular view, an incomplete view that's in need of re-evaluation.

[JAH23]

Jimmie Higgins: I think the best way to deal with liberals is just to appeal to the ideals they have - the hopes they project onto Obama - and bring it to a concrete level so that it doesn't become a question of "is Obama a good person or not" but is about how do we really win the things that the millions of regular people who voted for Obama want.

This is very good advice. Explain to them how capitalism cannot achieve the changes they would like implemented into society, and that socialism is the real route to free health care, equality for all people, good education, and an unlimited supply of dank ass weed (joke).


RadioRaheem84: Little did I know that the liberalism and capitalism were the real irrational and utopian ideals

Very true. I mean, how idealistic is to think that a completely free, unregulated market which exploits human beings and places their labor above their humanity can run successfully?

All wise words from everybody. Appreciate the comments, comrades. :)

[syndicat]

yeah the issue isn't whether Mr O is a "good person" or not. Same for any capitalist actually. But O. has been in fact an advocate of "free market" neoliberal policies for years. It's best to deal with in terms of speciifics. Health care is good example because he's been completely unwilling to consider single payer. The socalled public option is no adequate substitute. The power of the private insurance cos. ensures that it will be inferior, and they'd prefer it not exist at all...the current plan. This is a total capitulation to parasitic insurance cos. that do not provide health care, but make profits off it. Cos. that make profits by figuring out how to deny coverage to people...and that's what they'll continue to do under the present Demo Party socalled "reform."

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

THE ANSWER OF WHY LIBERALS AND MOST AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB, SO UNINFORMED, SO BORING, SO COLD, SO APATHETIC ABOUT POLITICS IS THAT MOST US CITIZENS ARE PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie


Many materialist philosophers, as the article suggests, are skeptical of the existence of philosophical zombies. I assume you're being humorous, though. :)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is really frustrating to speak to someone like that. I hate it when that person is so far away from what you're talking about they have no concept of what you believe and cannot believe what you believe.

[JAH23]

^ ^ That's pretty much how I feel everyday. sigh.