At What Point Do You Just Stop Arguing?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Just wondering. I mean as Communists we have to stand up for the truth, but sometimes it seems like we're talking to brick walls.

It's just frustrating to hear arguments from some people like these couple of gems I got in a "discussion" on Facebook:

"-Humans have a long tendency towards favouring corruption, nepotism, dynasties, greed and myopia." (a.k.a there will be hierarchy and inequality even when private ownership of means of production is abolished because we're just built to seek that out somehow).

-"When 90% of american grain is controlled by 3 corporations; they are no longer "capitalist" by any stretch of the word."

Adam Smith would weep at this complete misinterpretation of his work, and the suffering it causes."

Point is, sometimes I have a hard time being sure when someone makes certain arguments, whether they are genuinely open to considering Communism as an alternative system but making arguments out of skepticism, as opposed to when someone has no chance of being persuaded.

Is it better to get drawn into a long debate and hope other people are convinced by your points, or to just leave some arguments alone and speak with those more open-minded?

[ZeroNowhere]

I generally don't start.

[Catmatic Leftist]

When it's abundantly clear I'm not going to get rational argumentation and it's just them being intellectually dishonest.

[Kadir Ateş]

To be honest, when I hit a brick wall, it's usually because I erred somewhere along the line, and feel the need to go back to the books and figure out how I went wrong. That tends to happen when arguing with other Marxists.

In terms of discussion with non-Marxists, I think it's best to use the Socratic method in order to draw out their presuppositions in a clearer, more explicit manner. Usually they get more exhausted of me then I do of them, and (very) rarely does that same person come up and say to me "You know, I was thinking about what you said earlier and maybe there's something to it". When it does happen, it makes me think that perhaps the fuss was worth putting up with, so being confrontational is just a matter of how you do it.

[La Comédie Noire]

"When 90% of American grain is controlled by 3 corporations; they are no longer "capitalist" by any stretch of the word."


Adam Smith would weep at this complete misinterpretation of his work, and the suffering it causes."

That's a really silly view of history. You could really nail them on this.



Is it better to get drawn into a long debate and hope other people are convinced by your points, or to just leave some arguments alone and speak with those more open-minded?

Some people you should leave alone, unless you like high blood pressure. It seems like you could get them thinking, given that you tell them to stop worshiping Adam Smith and put him in a proper historical context.

[Agnapostate]

Adam Smith would weep at this complete misinterpretation of his work, and the suffering it causes.

This one is probably the closest to the truth, in light of his statement that, "The differences of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of labor. The differences between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom and education."

[Leftsolidarity]

I stupidly do not stop most of the time. I will just go on and on no matter how stupid their argument is and just keep proving that they are being stupid. If it's online I don't care if I convince that person but if other can see the "debate" they can maybe take something away from it.

[Public Domain]

I like to talk to anyone who asks or argues.

May take awhile but you can turn them over. It gets frustrating, especially against seasoned pro-capitalists. I mean, if they're already dedicated to their political guns, it can get pointless.

I also find is much easier to talk about this stuff in person and have it understood. Quicker responses, etc. Benefit: You may eventually get them!

I don't bring it up mostly out of politeness. I'll correct people when they say something and that will usually get the ball rolling.

I will easily drop a conversation online, but I will go on and on in person. I'm told I'm very good at explaining it all.

[The Idler]

You stop arguing after the revolution.

[Kane]

When you know you have made your point,and the other side just don't get it. It is not always important for you to get the last word in. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree,and walk off.

[Red Rebel]

What do you wish to gain from arguing?

From discussion forums such as RevLeft, I enjoy having a dialogue with fellow comrades. They help perfect my views. By exchanging information we both benefit with the discussion.

I'm over discussing most politics with anarchists (not that you folks are anywhere near as bad as the latter listed), right wingers, racists, or other people with a firm set of belifes. I don't get anything from arguing with those folks. They have a relative set of beliefs, as do I. I won't gain anything from arguing with these folks on the internet. They probably won't either.

[∞]

Get your dictionary, open to the "i" section, search for the word "impasse".

[Kamos]

As long as I'm getting new arguments to trash. Once I see that someone is recycling his old arguments, or it becomes obvious that he's not listening to me (often the two happen together) I'll call it quits.