Speech against capitalism

[Belisarius]

i have to make a rhetorical speech for school. i want to persuade the class room in communism without actually mentioning the word "communism" (it often scares people away). any suggestions about arguments, tricks, etc. i can use?

[Zanthorus]

It depends. I don't know much about belgium. Is there much of a red-scare thing going on there? If not you can probably get away with using "socialism". If not you can talk about the "associated mode of production" which is what I believe Marx called the mode of production under socialism.

Or you can just talk about "participatory democracy", "democratic economy", "workers councils" and what have you.

Really though if you want to convince schoolkids how awesome communism is then your probably in for a rough ride if you try and give it to them straight and talk about world workers revolution. Easing them in with liberal buzzwords about democracy and equality might be your best bet but showing how neither is possible under capitalism (Or at least is a total joke).

[Scary Monster]

You should definitely state first how capitalism doesnt work, and how democracy and capitalism are not compatible. Use an example such as: in the US, corporations dictate the government, using the example of the government's trillion dollar corporate bailouts payed by the people's taxes, yet people are still unemployed, homeless (look at the current situation of Detroit, Michigan where 1/4 of its population are unemployed and the mayor is kickin em out, last time i checked). The US public had no say in the government's decisions.

Then you could move on to talk about communism as an alternative to this, while never saying it is communism until the very end of your speech. Emphasize the fact that workers, 97% of the world's population, would have direct control over their governments, and would have direct control over their workplace, receiving a huge paycheck because the capitalists, who do no productive labor at all, would not exist anymore, and so they wouldnt be able to hoard up all the wealth that you and your fellow workers created yourselves.

[Belisarius]

that last thing was already my plan. but socialism won't be a problem since in belgium it means more a kind of reformist social democracy. but the general public opnion leans to the right.

another problem is that a rhetorical speech is not like an educative text. i should use stuff that they already know or that is easy explainable.

[CChocobo]

Good luck comrade, let us know how it went :)

[AK]

Emphasize the fact that workers, 97% of the world's population, would have direct control over their governments, and would have direct control over their workplace, receiving a huge paycheck because the capitalists, who do no productive labor at all, would not exist anymore, and so they wouldnt be able to hoard up all the wealth that you and your fellow workers created yourselves.
It is important to note that the cheap labourers in the third world working for large companies would first have to have their incomes adjusted before we can make any valid claim that all workers will receive massive pay rises. Undoubtedly, there will be pay rises for most workers though.

[Chambered Word]

You could try this approach: start off by saying, 'do you think the factories and offices should be controlled by the people who work in them democratically?' and 'do you think blablabla (list the main communist ideas that would normally appeal to people with a full brain in their head)' and then come out with 'CONGRATULATIONS! You're a communist!'

[AK]

You could try this approach: start off by saying, 'do you think the factories and offices should be controlled by the people who work in them democratically?' and 'do you think blablabla (list the main communist ideas that would normally appeal to people with a full brain in their head)' and then come out with 'CONGRATULATIONS! You're a communist!'
I'd imagine that no sooner than "you're a communist" had gotten out of his/her mouth then his/her entire class would burst into tears and start slitting their wrists.

[Belisarius]

i thought it would be better if i can show how the current society oppresses specifically them (it seems to matter more for them than numbers about Africa or unemployment rates). at the moment i have made my speech in this way that i explain how they are continually oppressed in their thoughts (with a little help of Foucault and Zizek), but i haven't written anything yet about the solution. i think i should point out the value of equality to help structure a society where there can't be an oppressor or oppressed.

[CartCollector]

i thought it would be better if i can show how the current society oppresses specifically them (it seems to matter more for them than numbers about Africa or unemployment rates).Well, once you've shown how the current society oppresses them, then you can move on to show how the same thing is what causes the horrors in Africa and unemployment. Show them that with the removal of this cause, it doesn't just help them, but people all over the world, because the cause is international. Then you show them how the struggles of the oppressed in other countries are linked to their struggles, and how it is necessary to support the struggles of the oppressed in other countries, because it ends up being to their benefit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If the reason you don't want to use the "c" word is that is scares people, then I think you should use it. People are going to call you one anyway if you talk about worker's running society (or in the US if you talk about not lowering taxes for the rich), so there's no way around it.

I'd suggest first talk about the observable problems of capitalism: crisis, inequality, war, etc. Then describe how these are actually inevitable and how since at least the 1830s people have been trying to reform the worst parts of the system but no matter how many times people have declared "the end of history" or the "end of economic instability" or "the war to end all wars" these problems remain.

That logically leads into the question of, well, if reforms can not solve the problem and at best are just salves to ease the worst of the pain, how do you actually get rid of the root causes. This is where revolution comes in and you can talk about a variety of ways people see this coming about (if you want to make the topic seem more academic than propagandistic). So you can say: historically, many communists believe that the state and classes should be done away with - they propose, workers taking over the means of production etc). You can also give a take on various ways that radicals view the USSR and why that was or was not an example of a better system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, once you've shown how the current society oppresses them...
I wonder, how successful would it be to try and show someone that she/he really is oppressed given that the person does not agree.

[Belisarius]

I wonder, how successful would it be to try and show someone that she/he really is oppressed given that the person does not agree.
i use foucault's panopticism. i say that authorities control their wills by surveillance and by creating desires in asking the right questions (for example: 50 years ago your father said "we're going to grandma and if you don't obey, i'll slap you in the face!", but now he says "we're going to grandma if you want that", because then you don't only have to go, but you even have to want it).

[Thirsty Crow]

i use foucault's panopticism. i say that authorities control their wills by surveillance and by creating desires in asking the right questions (for example: 50 years ago your father said "we're going to grandma and if you don't obey, i'll slap you in the face!", but now he says "we're going to grandma if you want that", because then you don't only have to go, but you even have to want it).

In my opinion, that is one tough path to choose, mostly because oppression is not so much linked to desire, in popular imagination, as to the negation of desire and constraints. From this point of view, it plainly paradoxical that creation of desires and culturally reproduced images equals oppression.

[Belisarius]

In my opinion, that is one tough path to choose, mostly because oppression is not so much linked to desire, in popular imagination, as to the negation of desire and constraints. From this point of view, it plainly paradoxical that creation of desires and culturally reproduced images equals oppression.
i don't know the entire structure by heart (i had to hand in my preparations), but it wasn't contradictory or suspicious in my scheme and I already explained pretty much the same in another oral presentation that some of them have seen. so they should be able to follow it, since my speech can only take 5 minutes (that's why i don't want to mention communism, it takes more time to "unbrainwash" them).

[MortyMingledon]

I agree with Jimmy Higgins. I think that if you want to persuade anyone into communism these days, handling the USSR is crucial. In the public eye, the USSR represents almost all communism, so you must be quick to give your personal opinion on the USSR during your speech. If the audience believes that the USSR was an evil dictatorship (as is the prevailing view in many circles at the moment), and the USSR represents all communism for them, they are bound to view communism as evil. You have to break this chain of thought by declaring the USSR did not have true communism.

[AK]

I agree with Jimmy Higgins. I think that if you want to persuade anyone into communism these days, handling the USSR is crucial. In the public eye, the USSR represents almost all communism, so you must be quick to give your personal opinion on the USSR during your speech. If the audience believes that the USSR was an evil dictatorship (as is the prevailing view in many circles at the moment), and the USSR represents all communism for them, they are bound to view communism as evil. You have to break this chain of thought by declaring the USSR did not have true communism.
I remember doing this with my friends but replacing the USSR with the PRC.
"China was never communist, in fact, nowadays it's blatantly capitalist."
"LOLWTFROFL. China was communist once."
"Really? When?"
"...It just was, okay?"

[CartCollector]

If the audience believes that the USSR was an evil dictatorship (as is the prevailing view in many circles at the moment), and the USSR represents all communism for them, they are bound to view communism as evil. You have to break this chain of thought by declaring the USSR did not have true communism.
Problem is if you say "that's not real communism" over and over again, people will begin to believe that it can't be done, and if it's ever tried it will just degenerate into one of the "not-real-communist" governments. The gains of the revolutions must be defended.

[Chambered Word]

Problem is if you say "that's not real communism" over and over again, people will begin to believe that it can't be done, and if it's ever tried it will just degenerate into one of the "not-real-communist" governments. The gains of the revolutions must be defended.

I agree with this, however I don't think you should just defend states you don't believe were socialist. If you have an opinion on a matter, state it and explain it to people; don't just dismiss the USSR, Cuba and Vietnam (as they existed in different stages on their histories - personally I'd defend the early USSR but leave it there) as non-socialist if you aren't willing to explain what they actually were and how they became that way.

[superborys]

I agree with the pro-subtlety people here. Explain to them with double talk the pro's of Communism and the perpetual cons of Capitalism, and then at the speech tell them, "What I have just explained, is Communism." Or something along those lines. If possible, tell them that you'd like to explain to them further. Only the smart people who can be proactive will be worth the effort, and they're the only ones likely to realize what you're telling them is true. Does that make sense?

[Comrade Gwydion]

You could try this approach: start off by saying, 'do you think the factories and offices should be controlled by the people who work in them democratically?' and 'do you think blablabla (list the main communist ideas that would normally appeal to people with a full brain in their head)' and then come out with 'CONGRATULATIONS! You're a communist!'

Hah... for a lesson in 'Levensbeschouwing' (belgian kid will know what it means), I once did this was all kinds of sugarcoated laVeyan Satanist idea's. The teacher had said we had to do presentations about morally acceptable issues, and gave satanism as an example of what was NOT morally acceptable. Although both my friend and I despised satanism, we thoroughly enjoyed challeging my teacher and proving him 'wrong'.

[Belisarius]

Hah... for a lesson in 'Levensbeschouwing' (belgian kid will know what it means), I once did this was all kinds of sugarcoated laVeyan Satanist idea's. The teacher had said we had to do presentations about morally acceptable issues, and gave satanism as an example of what was NOT morally acceptable. Although both my friend and I despised satanism, we thoroughly enjoyed challeging my teacher and proving him 'wrong'.
I did something similar in my religion class several times. i explained why marx and jesus had the same principles, why prisons are immoral, etc. most of the time i start by explaining why her questions are dumb and then i explain whatever i want to. sometimes it works, sometimes she gives me bad grades, but she has never agreed with me :). for example with the marx-jesus thing, she ened by saying: "would jesus agree with you?", which is actually another stupid question, since i first explained jesus' principles and afterwards Marx's. if Jesus wouldn't agree with me, he would contradict his own principles. it's always fun to irritate teachers:D