We have no choice but to be nice to the rich blah blah blah

[Regicollis]

Can you help me with a good quick comeback to the following type of argument against socialism?

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

In socialism, the working class takes supreme political power and control over the means of production. We abolish wage slavery and generally liquidate the rich (by means of assimilation or guillotine).

It has nothing to do with reformism. In fact, were against refomism.

If you are looking for a quick comeback, tell them:

Learn what socialism actually is. Its not when we tax the rich and give them a petty slap on the wrist. Its when the working class takes control of their workplaces, and completely oust the rich.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country.

Rich people will leave the country? Can we do it now!?
Smart people will leave? Hell no! They're smart, remember!

No, seriously. Upon a worldwide (or continent-wide for europe) revolution currency will loose all value. rich people leave and take their money? So what, it's useless in a communist nation anyways!
That's the whole beauty of it all!

[Let's Get Free]

Those poor oppressed rich people. But you could always point out that socialism will relieve the long suffering rich- poor things - of the trauma of risk by making the means of production the common property of everyone

[Regicollis]

And then it will be too easy for them to say that the revolution will not come anytime soon.

Until the revolution comes what kind of arguments can be used for keeping them from taking even more from the working class?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Ehmm...please? ;)

[Let's Get Free]

And then it will be too easy for them to say that the revolution will not come anytime soon.

Until the revolution comes what kind of arguments can be used for keeping them from taking even more from the working class?


Tell him the rich have already looted trillions of dollars of public wealth to finance their imperialist wars and bank bailouts. Or that the richest people in human history should stop acting like the whiny, out-of-touch French aristocracy on the eve of the French Revolution or they might end up like them.

[Rafiq]

Can you help me with a good quick comeback to the following type of argument against socialism?

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."


20th century Socialism is indeed a thing of the past. However, so long as the proletariat exists, as will it's class interest, of which is antithetical to the capitalist mode of production. Whose "we"? Reforms are only made on behalf of those same "rich and smart" people to rescue their deteriorating class based dictatorship, or more accurately, the mode of production of which necessitates their dictatorship. The Bourgeoisie isn't doing the Bourgeois state a favor by existing, the state exists to protect their interest by default. I mean, if the shit he was saying was true, then by Christ, we as Communists would be of no use and the class war would be over: The bastards would fuck off and we'd be done with it, without the conquest of state dictatorship or class based state terror. Leave them unemployed? Only of the enemy retains the upper hand. The Communists historically have brought them to their knees succumbing to our demands, lest they risk a strengthening in class conciousness and the destruction of their current state of affairs.

I know I sound a bit unsophisticated, however the reason for this is that these types of arguments are so easy they're almost a waste of my time.

[Guayaco]

Rich people will leave the country? Can we do it now!?
Smart people will leave? Hell no! They're smart, remember!

No, seriously. Upon a worldwide (or continent-wide for europe) revolution currency will loose all value. rich people leave and take their money? So what, it's useless in a communist nation anyways!
That's the whole beauty of it all!


When Fidel Castro (who I do not intend to hold up as the epitome of a Marxist) took power he simply ordered the peso cubano (cuban currency) to be reprinted and allowed citizens to convert the old currency at par value in any bank. A ceiling limit of convertibility was imposed for any one person, which functioned as a de facto expropriation of any large amount of liquid assets (productive capital and large land holdings were directly seized). Furthermore, since pesos could only be converted in Cuba, expatriates who had the old currency were suddenly holding worthless paper.

What matters is the productive capital and its supply chain. Paper money and keyboard credit in bank accounts have no intrinsic value.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

When Fidel Castro (who I do not intend to hold up as the epitome of a Marxist) took power he simply ordered the peso cubano (cuban currency) to be reprinted and allowed citizens to convert the old currency at par value in any bank. A ceiling limit of convertibility was imposed for any one person, which functioned as a de facto expropriation of any large amount of liquid assets (productive capital and large land holdings were directly seized). Furthermore, since pesos could only be converted in Cuba, expatriates who had the old currency were suddenly holding worthless paper.

What matters is the productive capital and its supply chain. Paper money and keyboard credit in bank accounts have no intrinsic value.

I was thinking in Anarcho-Communist terms (no money at all)

[thriller]

Can you help me with a good quick comeback to the following type of argument against socialism?

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

As far as them leaving the country, well they already ship jobs overseas, it's been going on for decades. In fact if we are nice to them, the government will keep pushing through acts like NAFTA, Free Trade Area of the Americas, etc. Then ask them "Ohh really, so did minimum wage, the weekend, 40 hour work weeks, and safer work conditions come about because the workers bent over backwards to appease business owners?" And of course the answer is NO, only when the working class organized and fought back did they make progress. You could reply to their comment as such: "Social Darwinism is a thing of the past." As for socialism being a thing of the past, I get that a lot. But I usually reply along the line of "Okay, so what is socialism?" Once they start saying Cuba, China and the USSR I say "Well those are/were countries with leaders and intrinsic bureaucracies right? Well communism is a classless stateless society, so if there is a state and classes, you do not have communism." Usually they will say "Well I am talking about socialism." Ask them the difference, and they will usually become stumped, because there is no scientific distinct definition distinguishing the two, it's interpretation. And if it is up to interpretation, that is where I say "Socialism is of the future because it is still to be defined by the people themselves, not told to them by the ruling class."

[Strannik]

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

Well, this is sort of true, as reformism/social democracy is indeed a dead end. But the solution is to take over the factories and establish concrete relationships between actual production units. Money and property rights are just abstractions. Without social approval they have no value whatsoever. Money can be reprinted or, with today's information technology, replaced with common task lists and inventories.

The fear of losing some "smart" people (I assume people who possess actual know-how and not, for example, bourgeois apologists) is somewhat more grounded. But this is precicely what becoming ruling class means - if we don't know something, we'll have to learn. Information has never been more available, so all we need is motivation.

[helot]

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

I get a different option from that, namely international cooperation of the working class. If we're unable to make gains based on national groupings due to capitalism being international and the same employer being propped up during a dispute by a lack of industrial action elsewhere then the solution is international action. Such a thing also serves to build links and solidarity across the planet making the social revolution a little bit more likely.

[Regicollis]

This kind of argument usually comes up in debates about whether welfare programmes should be slashed or not or whether the rich should have tax cuts or not.

Being a leftist today quickly becomes a very defensive position where you fight to keep the small concessions the working class has achieved.

In such a climate talking about international organisation of the proletariat becomes very difficult because it marks you as an utopian with little connection to real world politics.

[helot]

This kind of argument usually comes up in debates about whether welfare programmes should be slashed or not or whether the rich should have tax cuts or not.

Being a leftist today quickly becomes a very defensive position where you fight to keep the small concessions the working class has achieved.

In such a climate talking about international organisation of the proletariat becomes very difficult because it marks you as an utopian with little connection to real world politics.

I think that the major concessions the working class has achieved will disappear within the next few decades precisely because the amount of collective action required to defend them just isn't there. It's a bit of a defeated view but there you have it.

Having said that, I don't see discussing international cooperation of the working class utopian at all and while some may i simply point to the instances of me actually engaging in solidarity actions with workers elsewhere in the world. Of course it's on a small scale as it doesn't include millions of people globally but we can slowly build on it overtime and i feel that small victories are the only way to actually develop collective action at this time due to the general weakness and division of the working class. We need to build confidence.

[Conscript]

That's not really an argument against socialism so much as it is against liberalism and reformism, it exposes how much of a sham bourgeois democracy is.

I've used similar reasoning against social democratic or center leftie friends before.

[rylasasin]

" If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country."


And here we have another idiotic cappie stereotype: Conflagulating "Smart and Competent" with "Rich." Since in their mind, people are only smart if they're using it to make pots of money. Otherwise their dirt dumb.

What a load of crock.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can you help me with a good quick comeback to the following type of argument against socialism?

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

Capitalists need california agricultural land, they need the shipping facilities, they need the infrastructure, they need the factories, they need the oil in the US, the trees, all the other resources, they need the skills and labor of US workers. The boss needs us... the thing is, we don't need the boss.

"Outsourcing" or even moving to differnet states within the US does happen, but often it is more of a threat and leverage to pressure unions into agreeing to concessions and pressure voters into supporting tax breaks and other pro-business measures. Capitalism will always upend things and move capital and production around - if we fight back or not. So only our ability to fight for more control and build class solidarity will counter the power of capital to toss our lives around.

[Beeth]

Can you help me with a good quick comeback to the following type of argument against socialism?

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

Most workers aren't class conscious and they worship the rich anyway. Ironically, workers are staunch defenders of capitalism (and other reactionary ideas like sexism, racism). So it is not like workers have suddenly developed a defeatist attitude, this has always been the case. Most workers are uncle toms.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Most workers aren't class conscious and they worship the rich anyway. Ironically, workers are staunch defenders of capitalism (and other reactionary ideas like sexism, racism). So it is not like workers have suddenly developed a defeatist attitude, this has always been the case. Most workers are uncle toms.
Nonsense. Many proletarians hate the shit they have to wade through every day, and that includes contempt for both their employers and the political system (look at how apolitical most people are). It's silly to call fault on them for attitudes like what you're suggesting after decades of being told that there is no alternative to capitalism, along with complete butchering of communism by the bourgeoisie with (disturbingly) complimentary help from the numerous reactionary movements that labelled themselves as 'socialist' in that period ("National Socialism").

Honestly, do you live in a ten-story flat or something?...

[Beeth]

Nonsense. Many proletarians hate the shit they have to wade through every day, and that includes contempt for both their employers and the political system (look at how apolitical most people are). It's silly to call fault on them for attitudes like what you're suggesting after decades of being told that there is no alternative to capitalism, along with complete butchering of communism by the bourgeoisie with (disturbingly) complimentary help from the numerous reactionary movements that labelled themselves as 'socialist' in that period ("National Socialism").

Honestly, do you live in a ten-story flat or something?...

Okay, but how do you explain the reactionary attitudes of most workers? How do you explain that workers care more about the latest celebrity gossip than they do about their own economic condition? Or that they blame immigrants instead of their employers? Etc. etc. of course, you will blame capitalist propaganda, as if workers are mindless zombies who can be easily manipulated by such propaganda.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

A house slave would say this.

Sure, some reforms might lead investors and capitalists to jump ship (lot of hypotheticals in there, huh? real solid argument, lql) however genuine Socialism doesn't propose economic reforms but a total over-throw of the system proper. Thus no class ass kissing has to occur and truthfully, the rich should count themselves lucky if they get to keep their heads.


And then it will be too easy for them to say that the revolution will not come anytime soon.

Oh rly? Maybe they have no idea what's happening in Greece, Spain, the rest of Europe and all over the globe, considering virtually all of it is suffering economic meltdown.


Until the revolution comes what kind of arguments can be used for keeping them from taking even more from the working class?

Their argument is premised upon capitalism has and will always exist, and are arguing within the systems to which they can lead the conversation as they see fit regardless of whether or not it makes any logical sense whatsoever. In a sense, they're pigeon holding you intellectually.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Nonsense. Many proletarians hate the shit they have to wade through every day, and that includes contempt for both their employers and the political system (look at how apolitical most people are). It's silly to call fault on them for attitudes like what you're suggesting after decades of being told that there is no alternative to capitalism, along with complete butchering of communism by the bourgeoisie with (disturbingly) complimentary help from the numerous reactionary movements that labelled themselves as 'socialist' in that period ("National Socialism").

Honestly, do you live in a ten-story flat or something?...



Okay, but how do you explain the reactionary attitudes of most workers? How do you explain that workers care more about the latest celebrity gossip than they do about their own economic condition? Or that they blame immigrants instead of their employers? Etc. etc. of course, you will blame capitalist propaganda, as if workers are mindless zombies who can be easily manipulated by such propaganda.

Okay okay, hold your horses both of you...
The two can co-exist!

Because of the age-long mind-numbing capitalist propaganda (and especially the anti-communist propaganda), workers have evolved into capitalism-defending 'zombies'.

Time and time again i walk into that wall of disbelieve and resistance against communism.
They no longer care for a fight. Most of them still believe that one day they will belong to the rich people (aka the bourgiousie).
Talk to them about the job: it's crap!
Talk about a change: ehmm...
Talk about communism?: What! Are you crazy!!!!

Ergo, the one does not erase the other.
It's cause and consequence.

[Marxaveli]

Whenever I hear someone say that "if we don't respect the rich, they will just leave and take all the jobs with them, because they are the job creators after all", first that that comes to my mind is, wtf are they waiting for!? Tell them I said don't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out, and that I said thanks for saving us the trouble of a needing a revolution to forcefully tell them to gtfo. Good riddance. We do not need them, they need us. Period.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Does proletarian internationalism mean nothing? Where the fuck are the bourgeoisie going to run to?

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Does proletarian internationalism mean nothing? Where the fuck are the bourgeoisie going to run to?

Fascism.

Which is something we must watch for.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Does proletarian internationalism mean nothing? Where the fuck are the bourgeoisie going to run to?

Weren't they going to mars?

("Yeah, you better run, *****es!")

[Positivist]

You could respond that the"rich" are by no means smarter for starters.

[milkmiku]

Does proletarian internationalism mean nothing? Where the fuck are the bourgeoisie going to run to?


They won't need to run, people will fight and die for them as they do now. These super rich people can generate wealth. Look at place like Brazil or Detroit city. Where the rich literally wall themselves off and pay people to protect them.

[o well this is ok I guess]

If a rich person moves all his money out of the country, all that is lost is an abstraction. A purely ideal "value" is removed. The buildings, the mines, the oil wells, all of it remain stationary.

[Rugged Collectivist]

"Socialism is a thing of the past. If we make just the slightest reforms the rich and smart people will just leave the country. Our only choice is between closed factories, unemployment etc. or pampering the rich with tax and wage cuts, reduced benefits etc. Today it makes no sense for workers to demand higher wages since that will just leave them unemployed."

- Basically a form of defeatism where the argument is that small, national groupings can't do shit because the word economy is capitalist. The only political task left becomes to offer the best conditions for capitalists.

(emphasis mine)

The bolded part is absolutely correct. This is why it's super important that we make sure there's nowhere for them to run.

[Ocean Seal]

So the rich are running? Can their factories take off like in starcraft?