capitalist/fascist arguments and comebacks against them

[flaming bolshevik]

What are some pro capitalist/fascist arguments and what are some good comebacks against them?

[(A)]

I work for a Libertarian and we have long discussions about capitalism and socialism so I would love some points to bring up as well. its hard to tell anyone what they believe is wrong; harder to convince them.

[RedWorker]

"Communism killed 100 million people."
"No, it didn't, capitalism kills millions of people every year though."

"Heil Hitler 14/88!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"ok"

[consuming negativity]

I work for a Libertarian and we have long discussions about capitalism and socialism so I would love some points to bring up as well. its hard to tell anyone what they believe is wrong; harder to convince them.

This FAQ is really well done. It does not address things from a Marxist viewpoint, but it nevertheless does a good job at debunking the arguments of libertarians from a social democratic perspective that might be more palatable to your boss.

http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html


0.5: Why write a Non-Libertarian FAQ? Isn't statism a bigger problem than libertarianism?

Yes. But you never run into Stalinists at parties. At least not serious Stalinists over the age of twenty-five, and not the interesting type of parties. If I did, I guess I'd try to convince them not to be so statist, but the issue's never come up.

But the world seems positively full of libertarians nowadays. And I see very few attempts to provide a complete critique of libertarian philosophy. There are a bunch of ad hoc critiques of specific positions: people arguing for socialist health care, people in favor of gun control. But one of the things that draws people to libertarianism is that it is a unified, harmonious system. Unlike the mix-and-match philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties, libertarianism is coherent and sometimes even derived from first principles. The only way to convincingly talk someone out of libertarianism is to launch a challenge on the entire system.

There are a few existing documents trying to do this (see Mike Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism and Mark Rosenfelder's What's (Still) Wrong With Libertarianism for two of the better ones), but I'm not satisfied with any of them. Some of them are good but incomplete. Others use things like social contract theory, which I find nonsensical and libertarians find repulsive. Or they have an overly rosy view of how consensual taxation is, which I don't fall for and which libertarians definitely don't fall for.

The main reason I'm writing this is that I encounter many libertarians, and I need a single document I can point to explaining why I don't agree with them. The existing anti-libertarian documentation makes too many arguments I don't agree with for me to feel really comfortable with it, so I'm writing this one myself. I don't encounter too many Stalinists, so I don't have this problem with them and I don't see any need to write a rebuttal to their position.

If you really need a pro-libertarian FAQ to use on an overly statist friend, Google suggests The Libertarian FAQ.

[(A)]

Thanks a lot.
I finally caved and said.
"Go ahead and destroy our welfare state, but the second your capitalist ruling class slips up we will be there to cast them down."

He must really like me cuss I can be a pain lol.:lol:

[#FF0000]

Memorizing responses to common arguments isn't learning tbh. You should seek to understand the concepts folks are talking about instead of how to respond to people like some weird call and response.

[Црвена]

Bring up the slave trade.

[Tim Cornelis]

Bring up the slave trade.

"Private property is a legitimate right"
"Yeah well, slave trade".

"Nazi Germany solved unemployment and did a lot of good things"
"But what about slave trade?"

I don't see how that's effective.

[exeexe]

You could ask them if capitalism would work without violence?

[RedWorker]

I work for a Libertarian


As opposed to working with.
No surprise.
I wonder when right-"libertarians" will work for anyone else. But why would a worker be a right-"libertarian"?
Parasites.

[mojo.rhythm]

LIBERTARIAN: "The Great Recession was a product of CRONYISM, not True Capitalism™
SANE PERSON: "Actually, the crisis was the result of a process that is intrinsic to all forms of economy with private ownership of the means of production plus markets—you know, capitalism!

LIBERTARIAN: "Free markets are peaceful and based on voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange."
SANE PERSON: "There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. First off, free markets depend on the concept of 'private property', which is basically a government entitlement to have the police come to your door and beat the shit out of, or even kill, any person in the universe that touches thing Y without your express consent.
Second, even if I drop the previous argument, free markets can never be peaceful. Why? Because (a) externalities, such as pollution, etc. and (b) increasing inequality will always be the result of any 'peaceful' market transactions you carry out. So don't tell me that brutal economic violence and kids dying from breathing in soot is in any way fucking peaceful.
Finally, exchange is NOT MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL! Purchasing of goods and services in a market place does not approach that level of Homo economicus rationality. A buyer like me (or some other working-class person) will purchase something because (a) of sheer habit—milk, bread, eggs, cheese, etc. (b) craving—that chocolate bar in the lolly aisle, that packet of Peter Jackson cigarettes, etc. or (c) they believe at the time that they will probably be better off—new curtains, a trip to Hawaii, etc. Note that this does not necessarily guarantee that they WILL be better off!
Besides, if things were GENUINELY mutually beneficial, then what is the purpose of marketing and advertising?
So, in sum: fuck markets. They suck. They are violent, messy, unstable and exploit our deepest irrationalities and insecurities for short-term gain. I'll say it again: FUCK MARKETS!

[cyu]

I might work on Social Darwinism first. They may or may not identify as Social Darwinists, but that is usually not what's foremost on their mind. However, if you can convince them that Social Darwinism is wrong, you'll get the gears cranking in their head. Say no more, and as long as those gears are still cranking, eventually they'll drop capitalism and fascism as well.

[Tim Cornelis]

LIBERTARIAN: "Free markets are peaceful and based on voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange."
SANE PERSON: "There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. First off, free markets depend on the concept of 'private property', which is basically a government entitlement to have the police come to your door and beat the shit out of, or even kill, any person in the universe that touches thing Y without your express consent.
Second, even if I drop the previous argument, free markets can never be peaceful. Why? Because (a) externalities, such as pollution, etc. and (b) increasing inequality will always be the result of any 'peaceful' market transactions you carry out. So don't tell me that brutal economic violence and kids dying from breathing in soot is in any way fucking peaceful.
Finally, exchange is NOT MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL! Purchasing of goods and services in a market place does not approach that level of Homo economicus rationality. A buyer like me (or some other working-class person) will purchase something because (a) of sheer habit—milk, bread, eggs, cheese, etc. (b) craving—that chocolate bar in the lolly aisle, that packet of Peter Jackson cigarettes, etc. or (c) they believe at the time that they will probably be better off—new curtains, a trip to Hawaii, etc. Note that this does not necessarily guarantee that they WILL be better off!
Besides, if things were GENUINELY mutually beneficial, then what is the purpose of marketing and advertising?
So, in sum: fuck markets. They suck. They are violent, messy, unstable and exploit our deepest irrationalities and insecurities for short-term gain. I'll say it again: FUCK MARKETS!

Right-wing libertarians are not pacifists. They fully acknowledge that they are in favour of violence to defend property so pointing this out is moot. They argue from the concept of self-ownership that individual ownership is legitimate, and therefore that defending it with violence is legitimate. So it's not violence an sich, but the initiation of violence and force, from this perspective, that's the problem. The voluntary nature of propertarianism lies in that the owner, deemed to be the legitimate owner, has the right to dispose of his property as he pleases. Free markets are not peaceful, but right-wing libertarians don't claim they are.

The proper line of reasoning against right-wing libertarianism is therefore to attack the concept of self-ownership. We do not own ourselves, we are ourselves. And argue that self-ownership is contradictory as it justifies forms of 'voluntary' slavery.

Voluntary exchange is always deemed beneficial to both parties, otherwise they would have refrained from exchanging. Your counter-argument omits inequality of bargaining power in exchange. The purpose of marketing and advertising would be promoting. I don't see how it relates to mutual benefit.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Right-wing libertarians are not pacifists. They fully acknowledge that they are in favour of violence to defend property so pointing this out is moot. They argue from the concept of self-ownership that individual ownership is legitimate, and therefore that defending it with violence is legitimate. So it's not violence an sich, but the initiation of violence and force, from this perspective, that's the problem. The voluntary nature of propertarianism lies in that the owner, deemed to be the legitimate owner, has the right to dispose of his property as he pleases. Free markets are not peaceful, but right-wing libertarians don't claim they are.


You'd be surprised; almost every libertarian Ive seen argues that it will require NO violence to main private property. You give them way too much credit by assuming they are logically consistent.

[Tim Cornelis]

You'd be surprised; almost every libertarian Ive seen argues that it will require NO violence to main private property. You give them way too much credit by assuming they are logically consistent.

I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. Almost always, in my experience, they have elaborate plans for property rights / law enforcement.

[mojo.rhythm]

Right-wing libertarians are not pacifists. They fully acknowledge that they are in favour of violence to defend property so pointing this out is moot. They argue from the concept of self-ownership that individual ownership is legitimate, and therefore that defending it with violence is legitimate. So it's not violence an sich, but the initiation of violence and force, from this perspective, that's the problem. The voluntary nature of propertarianism lies in that the owner, deemed to be the legitimate owner, has the right to dispose of his property as he pleases. Free markets are not peaceful, but right-wing libertarians don't claim they are.

The proper line of reasoning against right-wing libertarianism is therefore to attack the concept of self-ownership. We do not own ourselves, we are ourselves. And argue that self-ownership is contradictory as it justifies forms of 'voluntary' slavery.

Voluntary exchange is always deemed beneficial to both parties, otherwise they would have refrained from exchanging. Your counter-argument omits inequality of bargaining power in exchange. The purpose of marketing and advertising would be promoting. I don't see how it relates to mutual benefit.

Some are. But I never actually claimed that propertarianism was 'pacifist'; my arguments do not require them to be pacifist. What propertarians DO accept, however, is the so-called Non-Aggression Axiom, which is basically the holy Commandment "Thou shalt not initiate force, under any circumstances."

Bear in mind that a threat of violence, explicit or implicit, can have the identical effect of actual violence in terms of coercing an individual into a situation that you desire—indeed, propertarians regard them as one and the same thing. Private property is, almost by definition, a massive implicit threat of violence against every human being in the universe except the property owner/s. So by that logic their own NAA is violated.

[cyu]

When a pro-capitalist claims you're "initiating force" by walking where he doesn't want you to walk, you can say he's "initiating force" by making a property claim. Then it just comes down to who can shoot first ;)

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

The fate of capitalism will be determined by who had shot first.

This is why I regard George Lucas a revisionist.

[mojo.rhythm]

...This is why I regard George Lucas a revisionist.

You mean Lukács, comrade? :laugh:

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To mojo.rhythm,

Him, too, but I was referring to the issue of who shot first.

[motion denied]

Isn't George Lucas the dude from Star Wars?

His movies are so bad he must be a revisionist wrecker.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

The special editions are the epitome of revisionism.

I don't have strong opinions on Lukács. Nor on Rodden-Beria.

[cyu]

He treats his movies like the internet treats Wikipedia. Sorry, off topic :ohmy: