Capitalist Arguments.

[DisIllusion]

Whenever I argue with a capitalist on behalf of Marxism, I always get the classic "It doesn't work" spiel. What's a good way to argue that idea and to get capitalists to see the possibilities of communism?

[ComradeRed]

Point out capitalism in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and so forth has not worked for half a century to several centuries. The "miracle of capitalism" has not worked there, and it takes only one counter example to disprove a theorem.

[Floyce White]

DisIllusion: "...I argue with a capitalist on behalf of Marxism...to get capitalists to see the possibilities of communism"

1. Stop wasting your time talking to capitalists and talk to workers instead (unless you are a capitalist--then you should never waste our time).

2. "Marxism" is not communism. The "Marxist" "lower stage of communism" is a way to oppose communism by continual postponement. It is not possible to argue for "Marxism" and for communism at the same time.

ComradeRed: "...it takes only one counter example to disprove a theorem."

No, that's not so. Not everyone is good at logic. Many workers make very hasty, awkward arguments, and sometimes don't make one single main point but argue at several theses at once. Some of their points will be incorrect, others will be correct but use the wrong information, and so on. There is also the opposite case of foot-in-mouth, where you simply do not have enough experience and information to understand that the author is jumping over minor details of the argument that he expects you to already be familiar with. Most theories have exceptions, and your counter example could be one of these exceptions.

[KC]

Ask them "why not?" You will most likely receive a half-assed reply which you can prett much dismiss without any problems.

i.e.
"It goes against human nature!"
"It makes everybody poor!"
etc...

[Jadan ja]

The fact that they are attacking socialism with "it does not work" arguments is a success. That means that they recognize some problems of capitalism, but think that all the alternatives create even greater problems.

First, show them that socialism can work:

I am now reading an interesting book Schumpeter wrote about socialism. It is full of very convincing arguments why socialism can work and most arguments against socialism written by pro-capitalist economists are successfully attacked there.
Also, if you look at economic statistics of many former socialist countries, you will often see that socialism worked better then capitalism in those countries. I am most familiar with former Yugoslavia: all countries (except Slovenia) are still unable to reach the GDP they had in 1990 and unemployment is not decreasing. Under socialism all those countries had a rapid economic growth.

Then, show them that capitalism does not work well.

When you prove that socialism can work better then capitalism (as I said above using both attacks on agruments about difficulties of socialism as well as economic statistics), they will be left without arguments.

[Ouroboros]

They: "it works in theory but only fails in practice" you say
You: "yeah, people used to speak same thing to Wright brothers."

They: "if it worked it wouldn't fail"
You: "people spoke the same thing about democracy for 2000 years."

Also, as Jadan Ja told, you can suggest the same example of Yugoslavia. Really, there are many reasons to conclude that socialsim was economically superior. Socialism was supperior in majority of social values as well; social differences, crime, family structure, drug abuse.

- then why it failed?
- it did not failed, people decided they want capitalism.
- if people in Yugoslavia decided they want capitalism, that means it is better.
- if people in Germany decided they want Hitler that means he is better?

Also, you should point that neither one state is simply capitalist or socialist, all of them have both private and state ownership. For example, roads are usually in state ownership. Obviously, many capitalist states think that for some things, state ownership is better - now dilemma is reduced on question whether technical progress in future will leed toward more state or private ownership.

Now you have check-mate step - the most important industry of today is information industry, and it is very hard to capitalism to sell information; it can sell it only by heavy police pressure. Highest quality information, i.e. scientific information are already produced on the communist way, i.e. on Universities, for a fixed sallary, and given to the world for free.

However, two things are important:

- people reject communism not because it does not work. It works, but communism is HARD. Communism restrict dreams. You cannot dream that you'll be Bill Gates in communism. You cannot even dream even to live simple life but without work - and in capitalism, only some $500 000 is needed, quite reachable for many people. Communism is society of solidarity, and it has its price - huge price.

- people are very emotional about their beliefs. If you attack them, they only fortify. People can change their attitude only if they do not percieve such change as loss of their identity, and in majority of cases it is far better to avoid any hot discussion that could connect emotions with beliefs.

[chilcru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:06 AM
Whenever I argue with a capitalist on behalf of Marxism, I always get the classic "It doesn't work" spiel. What's a good way to argue that idea and to get capitalists to see the possibilities of communism?
As a rule of thumb, don't argue with capitalists on communism. Naturally, they would answer your arguments the way they did because they are the beneficiaries of the system. You don't expect them to say "communism is okay" while they are busy scanning the stock market for blue chips. Once in a while, some capitalists with a benevolent heart comes along. And they may learn to like communism as some kind of ideal but the pragmatist in them will bury that ideal in their minds.

Me, I talk with the workers. More fruitful talking with them. Especially with the WTO 6th Ministerial just around the corner.

[Clarksist]

Here is what I always say to capitalists: It doesn't work.

They say it does because we have things and it has stayed around for some time.

I say it doesn't because people are poor regardless of how much they work.

Anarchism has succeeded: the Spanish Civil War, family reunions, parties, friendly get togethers, some would say the Paris Commune, etc.

The only thing to topple anarchism is outside imperialism who have bigger guns.

Marxism can work in the same way too. The only difference is that it weans off of capitalism, and think of it this way: you have something to work toward the whole time.

[ComradeOm]

No matter what ideology you subscribe to the principle is the same - read all you can, learn all you can and then argue all you can. Defending your beliefs against a smart person is a fantastic way to learn. Whether you lose the first few is irrelevant.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Hey, whenever I'm arguing for communism, I always get the arguement that humans will try to do as little work as possible to survive, and so in a communist society there will always be lazy bums cheating the system and so it wouldn't work. How the hell do I fend off this arguement, I mean it's thrown at me so god damn much...

[KC]

Hey, whenever I'm arguing for communism, I always get the arguement that humans will try to do as little work as possible to survive, and so in a communist society there will always be lazy bums cheating the system and so it wouldn't work. How the hell do I fend off this arguement, I mean it's thrown at me so god damn much...

-People already work without getting paid at what they like. This is called a hobby. In a communist society, people will be able to do whatever they want; their hoppy could be their profession.
-Jobs that people won't want to do will be eliminated or split up between all members of society. Garbage man, for example could be removed and people could take their own garbage to the dump. At the end of a day at an office building, the workers can spend an extra hour or two cleaning up, so no janitors are needed. Undesirable factory jobs can be automated.
-The work day will be shortened to 3-5 hours so people won't have to work as much.
-Also, ask them why they think people in this society are lazy. People in this society are lazy because they don't enjoy their job, they work too much, and society promotes laziness. In a communist society, people will enjoy thier job, they won't be overworked, and society will promote mutual cooperation instead of laziness.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Thank you, I kept brushing off everyone's stupid arguements until eventually they threw that one at me, and I didn't quite know how to shut them up then...

I'm off to take some cappie punk to the cleaners!!!

[enigma2517]

Anarchism has succeeded: the Spanish Civil War, family reunions, parties, friendly get togethers, some would say the Paris Commune, etc.

Haha family reunions...love it. That is true though...I read in Alexander Berkman's ABC's of Anarchist Communism about how the State plays a very small role in our lives. We pretty much do everything anyway. The only time the state really steps in is for police action or war. Enforcing those class boundaries, nya mean?

[darth_revan]

they may talk about russia, it didnt survive more than 100 years. But russia wasnt communist at all. There were still rich people.
But i have some questions too:
You know, people are corrupt, they will always try to find ways not to work. And in communism, with a little bribing, they will accomplish that. What is it to do to stop that?

[enigma2517]

Bribe? With what? Money?

We won't have that.

The latest new gadget or some other nifty coveted device?

Not likely, those are available for the taking at the warehouse.

Gift economies are pretty cool like that.

Still, its not perfect, but the whole anti-consumer anti-material fetish stance definetely improves peoples chances of getting doped by that as well.

Think about it, back in the middle ages you'd probably have more luck bribing somebody with a "ticket to Heaven" then you would by offering them a new carriage or something.

[Nathe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:56 AM
Bribe? With what? Money?

We won't have that.

The latest new gadget or some other nifty coveted device?

Not likely, those are available for the taking at the warehouse.

Gift economies are pretty cool like that.
the problem with that, is that assumes that there are limitless resources, so everyone can have every gadget. that isnt so in real life, works well theoretically though.

i had one of my friends say that equality meant everyone having the same house, same car, same everything. i had to explain that equality meant being equal in choice, power, rights, status etc.

[Clarksist]

the problem with that, is that assumes that there are limitless resources, so everyone can have every gadget. that isnt so in real life, works well theoretically though.


Yes, but we by no means live in a world of scarcity. We live in a world of extreme excess.

With better honed resources, we would have anything we needed, and most certainly many things we wanted.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You may want to check out this thread -- High School Commie's Guide, to dumb cappie "arguments" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25500) -- it has a lot of good answers to daft questions.