When Debating a Capitalist...

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

This thread is for posting rhetorical points and standard arguments/rebuttals which effectively defeat capitalist arguments. Post your strategies for debating and "converting" capitalists.

Master-Debater (haha)? Let us in on your tactics.

In an argument with a capitalist? Post their points and we'll help you out.

Any good resources that would help in debate? Post them here!

If our goal is to spread leftist ideology, we need to be able to beat them in debate- destroy their economic, social, and political points.

Have a blast.

-ExUnoDisceOmnes
From One, Learn All

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I'll compile resources here.

Top twenty most common logical fallacies:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Balanced Resource, but still could be useful for triggering ideas and for reference:
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Capitalism_vs_socialism

[psgchisolm]

Hence forth, it wouldn't be logical, or techincally correct blame Capitalism for deaths, and starvation, as, firstly, as I said in my last post, it is nothing more than an economic theory, and secondly, because it is fairly open to interpretation.

I suppose you could blame a dead British textile factory owner for a few deaths, and over working childeren, but that was his own means of doing business, he wasn't following any set of rules, unlike Lenin when he took over Russia.
this, i'm tired...

[Broletariat]

Hence forth, it wouldn't be logical, or techincally correct blame Capitalism for deaths, and starvation, as, firstly, as I said in my last post, it is nothing more than an economic theory, and secondly, because it is fairly open to interpretation.

I suppose you could blame a dead British textile factory owner for a few deaths, and over working childeren, but that was his own means of doing business, he wasn't following any set of rules, unlike Lenin when he took over Russia.

this, i'm tired...
His justifications for not being able to blame Capitalism do not lead to his conclusion. Racism is a theory (or some such I guess?) and fairly open to interpretation, yet it can be blamed for deaths.

[Rafiq]

Well, under that logic Socialism and Communism cannot be blamed for any deaths either, neither can Fascism.

Regardless, our arguments shouldn't base off of how many people capitalism has killed, but our arguments should base off of whether capitalism is a suitable system for humanity, which it isn't.

[Robocommie]

Well, under that logic Socialism and Communism cannot be blamed for any deaths either, neither can Fascism.

Regardless, our arguments shouldn't base off of how many people capitalism has killed, but our arguments should base off of whether capitalism is a suitable system for humanity, which it isn't.

Those arguments are always based on such a double standard, anyhow. Violence by capitalist leaders is always either justifiable, or somehow an unpleasant deviation from the norm. Violence by socialist leaders, on the other hand, is always cast as somehow being inherent to the ideology, and can never be justified.

So while the US can drop the atomic bomb on two civilian cities and say they had to do it to save American lives, we're all expected to accept the fact that Lenin was an evil man because on occasion, he too decided people had to die to protect the Russian Revolution.

[Geiseric]

Unless somebody else starts it, i'm not going out of my way to debate with apitalists. I'm always right on several points, and then they use the human nature argument which is also wrong but they don't understand how the human mind is maleable according to external stimuli, and they're just confused and I get frustrated and give up. I just tell people i'm socialist if politics come up, and if i'm asked, what's socialism? I give them the main points and usually they agree. However most people into politics are petty bourguase, totally republican, so they're scared away from me since most people know i'm commie.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Watch this

UltE6U4t8Vc
Ujk7T3hjUY0

[psgchisolm]

Those arguments are always based on such a double standard, anyhow. Violence by capitalist leaders is always either justifiable, or somehow an unpleasant deviation from the norm. Violence by socialist leaders, on the other hand, is always cast as somehow being inherent to the ideology, and can never be justified.

So while the US can drop the atomic bomb on two civilian cities and say they had to do it to save American lives, we're all expected to accept the fact that Lenin was an evil man because on occasion, he too decided people had to die to protect the Russian Revolution.
Ironcially, this is the exact same bullshit he responded to me with. There was another guy who at least seemed open to some form of debate, but the original douchebag pushed me away from the group today.

[Savage]

Capitalism creates the private ownership over the means of production, this creates capital accumulation into the hands of the capitalists at the expense of the laborer, this leads to nasty things like poverty. Profit kills, and whether the capitalist 'intended' to or not is irrelevant, because they caused it, and they continue to cause it. If you run into someone arguing that 'following the theory' bullshit just list all of the anti-leftist purges throughout the history of capitalism, you'll find that millions were killed directly in the name of profit and class domination.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hence forth, it wouldn't be logical, or techincally correct blame Capitalism for deaths, and starvation, as, firstly, as I said in my last post, it is nothing more than an economic theory, and secondly, because it is fairly open to interpretation.

I suppose you could blame a dead British textile factory owner for a few deaths, and over working childeren, but that was his own means of doing business, he wasn't following any set of rules, unlike Lenin when he took over Russia.


Capitalism is not an economic theory. It is an existing set of economic practices. The concrete workings of these practices are not open to intepretation - they are definite, historically framed.
And the dead factory owner followed the first and foremost rule of capitalist production - accumulation of surplus value, or in other words - profit. Historically, exploiting child labour and providing horrendous working conditions was very much unregulated at the time, which enabled the before mentioned rule to manifest itself in a totally inhumane way.

[Bombay]

I always like to point out that in capitalism the majority does all the work but the small minority collects all the profits. Then I usually continue that we need a system that takes the majority also into account.

Many capitalists argue that capitalism is the most efficient system.
I remind them that capitalism wastes a huge amount of resources. In a different economic system we wouldn't even need marketing.

The "risk argument" is one of the hardest ones. My answer usually is that the risk of the capitalist is the only risk in the world that justifies high salary and exploitation of other people.

[Rooster]

You can't really argue with proper capitalists because most of them are mentally unbalanced. in their own heads they are completely right, objective and realistic. thinking that only if pure capitalism existed then it would regulate itself then accuse me of being idealist because im a communist. you cant really argue with many of them because they think poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy and rich people are rich because their smart and industrious. randroids are the worst to argue with. its like trying to argue with a scientologist.

[PhoenixAsh]

You can't really argue with proper capitalists because most of them are mentally unbalanced. in their own heads they are completely right, objective and realistic. thinking that only if pure capitalism existed then it would regulate itself then accuse me of being idealist because im a communist. you cant really argue with many of them because they think poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy and rich people are rich because their smart and industrious. randroids are the worst to argue with. its like trying to argue with a scientologist.


I agree with some parts of your post...the ones I have emphasized

The rest counts for some people...but it equally counts for some leftists...its a human trait, not a purely capitalist one ;)

The number one questions you should ask is why then they are not rich. Are they lazy and unindustrious? Do their parents not work hard enough? Are they mentally limited to advance their economic position further? Does their argument indeed mean that economic advancement for their parents means they have reached their IQ-limits?

This line of questioning usually gets them to back-track really, really fast. If not it forces them to bring new arguments to the table which in turn mean new possibilities to continue the debate.

Now...the second question you can ask is if they think capitalism is a system based on economic principles dealing with money gathering or if it is a system based on wellbeing of humanity?

[superborys]

I've found that most capitalists (if you can play your argument right) will eventually defer to the "there will always be criminals who steal from other people because they want more" argument, and nothing I can say will convince them otherwise. I say that there will still be a law system of sorts and most criminals will stop operating because there won't be a lack of food and things, they'll always have what they need (and hopefully what they want).

It's amazing, it's like the magical power of voluntary charity and "hard work" can solve all problems.

[Rafiq]

^^^ Some people might do that, but if you look at the statistics... In modern times, hardly anyone who has what they need steals because "They want more".

I don't think this will be the case. People assume that it will be common, but fail to understand everyone has a point of view, and a mind, emotions, thoughts, ect.