How to counter a liberal

[Impulse97]

I just got done trying to counter my mother in a hasty debate after she learned I planned to attend a seminar by CPUSA.

She brought up the 'This system (US Gov.) is the best because of its checks and balances and has proved itself for 200 years. 19th century politics don't work today'

'Look how much better China is after Mao'

She disregarded me when I brought up the SU lacking other Socialist nations to trade with and thus in part failed because its economy wasn't compatible with the Capitalist world market.

When I suggested she read some of the communist bigwigs she said

'I don't need to read, I can look through human history and see that when Humans have tried to live in communes its failed'

There's more, but I'm getting forgetful. The talk was rather rushed.

And lastly,

'You can go, but you may get there and find out their really a bunch of kooks'

Ugh. I dunno how to counter her. Every time I bring up a point she reverts to the best system argument. Not Capitalist, but US and how it was created by some smart men who knew what they where doing.

EDIT: She also suggested reading Adam Smith and said I'd just been reading a bunch of apologists for a flawed system.

[RedSonRising]

Anarchist Spain, elements of the system in Cuba, Chiapas under Zapatista control, Titoist Yugoslavia, and even the Israeli Kibbutz all saw their best days as regions under workers controlling the political and economic systems. Even reformism in Latin America has achieved more for the working class than any immediate acceptance of the hierarchy of power and wealth that is capitalism.

Remind her that Russia and China would still be in the third world were it not for centralized industrialization, and that those two potentially error-ridden examples using similar models is not the end-all example for application of the ideology.

Not to mention the fact Capitalism is currently fucking up most of the world in the most miserable manner and runs contrary to every basic notion of freedom and democracy for working people, and destroyed the infrastructure of post-Soviet States.

If she doesn't want to engage these ideas, then let her know her blind acceptance of traditional beliefs based on propaganda put her in no position to assume authority on such matters over your own knowledge, and that at least your trying to make something out of a concrete political belief system instead of living in a comfortable situation going "Why bother, it won't work" (aka "I don't need to worry about trying to give revolutionary societal organization another go.")

EDIT: Tell her Adam's smith idea of a bunch of small-business villages doesn't apply in a world of modern coercive states, and that apologizing for capitalism would be a lot harder, considering it accounts for pretty much every violent incident and depraved set of conditions known to the world in the last two hundred years. Those apologies would be much more fun to read than socialists trying to figure out what worked and what didn't without masturbating to the founding fathers.

[wunderbar]

'This system (US Gov.) is the best because of its checks and balances and has proved itself for 200 years. 19th century politics don't work today'

Hasn't she just contradicted herself there?

[Le Socialiste]

She does realize that the republic-style system of government had been around prior to the 19th-century, right? It's far older than communism/socialism.

[pluckedflowers]

I think these debates too easily stray into abstractions like a vaguely defined communism vs. an equally vague capitalism. I suggest sticking to the basics; in particular, the exploitation of labor that is intrinsic to capitalism. Does your mother believe the people who create wealth ought to be obligated to give that wealth to others?

[Property Is Robbery]

When you tell her CPUSA is practically the democrat party she will probably be proud of you

On a more serious note, give up debating with your mom while you're ahead. My dad is an extremely stubborn liberal and when we talk about politics we both always end up crossing a line. It's really not worth it.

[Property Is Robbery]

EDIT: She also suggested reading Adam Smith and said I'd just been reading a bunch of apologists for a flawed system.

Show her how Smith was against the division of labor and was ultimately anti-capitalist

[ZeroNowhere]

Walk away.

[robbo203]

Show her how Smith was against the division of labor and was ultimately anti-capitalist

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? He certainly envisaged more of a role for the state in the management of capitalism than is sometimes imagined but that hardly made him "anti-capitalist" . Its perfectly possible to be a statist and an ardent supporter of capitalism

Smith's famous example of the pin factory to illustrate the point about the division of labour and the enormous increases in productivity resulting therefrom was overblown and exaggerated and disregarded the point that Marx later picked up that, in talking about productivity, you have to look at the entire production chain from start to finish, not just the final stage. Neverthless, what Smith was effectively saying was that the division of labour was a good thing because it promoted productivity. That has to be balanced against any comments he made about the adverse psychological effects of the division of labour and the fragmentation of work

[Impulse97]

Hasn't she just contradicted herself there?

No I mistyped. She was referring to the US's government structure that had proved itself superior to Communism for 200 years and 19th Century politics don't apply in today's world. (e.g. Marx and Socialism).

[mikelepore]

She's right. An optimal political and legal system does need what Rousseau and Locke called "checks and balances". What ruins it is to superimpose a capitalist class-ruled economic system, which creates totalitarian job conditions and brutal poverty, and places the political offices and regulatory agencies up for sale to milllionaires and their friends. When society tries to operate political democracy and economic dictatorship at the same time, the democracy part gets steamrollered. I would love to have a political system approvable to Jefferson and an economic system approvable to Marx.

[Kotze]

Listen to your mom and read some Adam Smith.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

As soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their labour adds to the value of the materials. In exchanging the complete manufacture either for money, for labour, or for other goods, over and above what may be sufficient to pay the price of the materials, and the wages of the workmen, something must be given for the profits of the undertaker of the work who hazards his stock in this adventure. The value which the workmen add to the materials, therefore, resolves itself in this ease into two parts, of which the one pays their wages, the other the profits of their employer upon the whole stock of materials and wages which he advanced. He could have no interest to employ them, unless he expected from the sale of their work something more than what was sufficient to replace his stock to him; and he could have no interest to employ a great stock rather than a small one, unless his profits were to bear some proportion to the extent of his stock.

The profits of stock, it may perhaps be thought are only a different name for the wages of a particular sort of labour, the labour of inspection and direction. They are, however, altogether different, are regulated by quite different principles, and bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship, or the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspection and direction.

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them.

[stuckinarut]

Arguing politics/religion with family is a good way to taint what would otherwise be normal relationships. Your mother has no clue what she is talking about, and from your description, she seems alot like my parents/family. My mother will ask me provocative questions that require more than the typical two or three word phrase (talking point). When I proceed to break down her question to give her a thorough answer, she gets annoyed, and claims that "I'm preaching". It would seem that the older generations (I'm 26) have lived so long in a system of sound bites, that they have given up trying to navigate the serious issues in society. I know my parents (2 school principles) could care less what is going on in the world. They watch the local 6:00 broadcast, and assume that it's true. When I tell them that I read multiple sources daily, including Al-jazeera and RT, they said I was reading "wacked out propaganda".

For the record my parents, while centrist, are left of center as life-long educators. It would seem that any opinions outside the corporate D vs. R, Liberal vs. Conservative didactics are subject to summary dismissal without proper evaluation. I see it as the symptoms of late-stage capitalism.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

1.) 'I just got done trying to counter my mother in a hasty debate after she learned I planned to attend a seminar by CPUSA.'
Why would you attend a seminar by the CPUSA?

2. )'She brought up the 'This system (US Gov.) is the best because of its checks and balances and has proved itself for 200 years. 19th century politics don't work today''
Part One: The United States Government itself since its inception has been massively changed and has not 'proved' itself, but in fact has been found to be incorrect on its very basis and has continually been an abusive force. Much worse than 'Stalinism' or-- for that matter 'Maoism' in the long run.
Part Two:
The United States itself is the product of Nineteenth Century politics making effectively the argument a logical fallacy.

3.) 'Look how much better China is after Mao'

Part One: Maoism had been reverted in exchange for Dengist Market Reforms after Mao's Death, however it should be pointed out that China before Mao was in fact worse than China after Mao.

The periodic famine that had continually horrified China's neighbors before Mao and had claimed millions of lives within China alone had been still existent due to a lack of Industrialization and proper agricultural control.

The Second Part of this, which goes along with it will be that Mao had:

A) 'Been responsible' for the deaths of millions within China due to the GLF:

However-- the GLF had effectively solved the issue of the periodic famine and the surrounding deathrates in China's neighbors had themselves been worse to the point that millions of lives were claimed due to Capitalism.

Not to mention, during this period of time the Chinese life expectancy had continued to rise and the population expanded.

To say the least:

China as a Capitalist State has Post-Mao been capable of expanding itself to Industrial Growth that could be considered miraculous by outside Capitalists and has managed to build the foundations of a massive Industrial-Capitalist power.



4.) 'She disregarded me when I brought up the SU lacking other Socialist nations to trade with and thus in part failed because its economy wasn't compatible with the Capitalist world market.'
The USSR had been economically isolated this itself is undeniable.

The USSR had:

*Faced Intervention from European and American forces that were attempting to get rid of the Bolshevik Government.
*Not been recognized by Western Governments during the Bolshevik period of time and time following this.
*Been in massive isolation and at the same time dealing with a growing conflict against the Japanese whom were receiving the support of Western forces.

The USSR in all effects shouldn't have attempted to be compatible with the World Market as:

*If one is compatible with the World Market they are Capitalist and if they are Capitalistic the Revolution at itself has been betrayed as the intended goal was Socialism.
*The USSR had never used the GDP and instead had a product called the NET which was to measure the rise of productive labor in the USSR and its growth.
*Had in fact never failed, as the USSR was dissolved. However, this doesn't quite matter as by the time that the USSR was dissolved in all forms, State Capitalism was accepted and the USSR whether a degenerated Workers State or not-- Had betrayed Leninism.


5.) 'When I suggested she read some of the communist bigwigs she said

'I don't need to read, I can look through human history and see that when Humans have tried to live in communes its failed' '

Feel free to explain that Human History for thousands of years has had conditions which are noted as Pre-Communism and they show a period time when Communistic relations had existent.

Bourgeois Democracy and Capitalism on the other hand by these very standards has resulted in massive failure:

*It allowed for the rise of Fascism and the crushing of Bourgeois Democracy and the usher in of Corporatism by Fascists.
*It has effectively at a rate of a minimum of Five Million per year claimed the lives of those in the Developing World since 1990-- Which has been thus far, 105 million lives from starvation alone.
*Allowed for wealth to be subjugated in the hands of the few and allowed the few to rise against this due to the exploitation that has been occurring.
*Imperialist domination over countries for the sake of natural resources and attempts to spread Foreign Policy into other countries that have claimed millions of lives.

[Thirsty Crow]

She brought up the 'This system (US Gov.) is the best because of its checks and balances and has proved itself for 200 years. 19th century politics don't work today'

Nice one.

The American Constitution is a relic of past times, and more importantly, it serves to cement the bipartisan political tradition in the US.
Another thing: why would communism and Marxism be "19th century politics"? This is just cursing and slander, probably based on mythological bullshit that is the rambling about the "new economy". Well, guess what, this new economy ouf yours functions awfully like the capitalism of old. Wage labour and capital, all the way.

And this: the fact that a system of political rule has "survived" for 200 years does not constitute proof of its desirability, efficiency and legitimacy. It only illustrates the degree to which the political and intellectual elites have managed to master the "art" which Chomsky calls "manufacturing consent".

'Look how much better China is after Mao'

There is no argument here, just superficial comparisons which focus on specific economic areas. That's an easy way out, a cop out, and a refusal to think about the root causes of the shift, its effects, and prospects for a decent life for the Chinese proletariat. You may as well mention the "no suicide pledge" whihc workers' are forced to sign (there is a thread in politics, look it up).
Also, it's funny that she doesn't mention two things:

1) that the Chinese revolution, and to a certain degree the concrete measures by the Chinese state, has enabled the creation of a industrial base without which the Dengist regime wouldn't be able to promote the kind of economic policies that it promotes

2) after Mao, there appeared certain social phenomena, typical of growing social inequality caused by capitalist market forces, which were lacking in Mao's time, as far as I know (for instance, the dispossession and internal migration of rural labourers, amounting to the effects of the European primitive accumulation processes in the 18th century)

She disregarded me when I brought up the SU lacking other Socialist nations to trade with and thus in part failed because its economy wasn't compatible with the Capitalist world market.

I think you're wrong here.
The economy of the SU was "compatible" with the capitalist world market. Soviet enterprises engaged in foreing trade. The thing is, the bare necessity to do so was a factor that severely crippled any chance of both acting politically in order to spread the revolution and of internal stabilization of Soviet society.

'I don't need to read, I can look through human history and see that when Humans have tried to live in communes its failed'

And how will she look through human history if not by reading a book? Maybe she owns a crystal bowl that shows both the future and the past?

And "communes", implying something like Fourier's utopian, limited communities, is not the aim of communists.

She also suggested reading Adam Smith and said I'd just been reading a bunch of apologists for a flawed system.

She didn't present any evidence, and quite frankly, she seems awfully ingorant of even the most basic of facts and factors which come into play here. Arrogant ignorance, it's hard to argue against it.

Ask her if she read Adam Smith, who argued that labour is the source of all wealth.

[chegitz guevara]

It's generally a bad idea to discuss politics with your parents.

[Hexen]

It's generally a bad idea to discuss politics with your parents.

Well depending what parents you have but most people (especially the previous generations) are just products of their own society which has trained them to think without question since childbirth like the one we're discussing now.

It's always up to the current generations to change things and correct the mistakes that most of our last generation has made.

[Rakhmetov]

This is how I counter a liberal; to wit:

[Ocean Seal]

She brought up the 'This system (US Gov.) is the best because of its checks and balances and has proved itself for 200 years. 19th century politics don't work today'

What 19th century politics don't work today? I'm fairly sure she is referring to 18th century politics when describing the "best system". The idea that the system works is based on the idea that the state can be used by anyone and that everyone's voice counts equally. Tell that to political action committees. Tell that to the media. I count the same as David Koch? Now who are we really kidding here.
Also "checks and balances" are just used by politicians as an excuse to prevent progress and keep the people out of power. They slow down the pace of progress and isolate citizens from power through law. They have legislated property rights which keep the rich in complete power. Democracy isn't about just saying "we have a vote" its about we have meaningful power. And we all know that isn't true. The institution most central to us is our workplace, and we have no control there and we cannot change that.
Also the US is a republic as any run of the mill libertarian will tell you not a democracy. That means it protects the rights of minorities. Very convenient language because the only minority that it protects: the ruling class.
Consider the following article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_804020.html

The people in their vast majority want to cut defense and tax the rich more. Yet what do you hear in the halls of congress: cut medicare, hell get rid of medicare.

Representing the interests of the people?

How about Obama? He came in on a progressive agenda with 60 Democratic Senators and a House filled with Democrats? And what progressive acts did he accomplish? Extending the Bush taxes cuts, trillion dollar bailouts, or was it the War in Libya? Certainly sounds like the words of a progressive who wanted to put the people in power, punish big business, and stop war.

'Look how much better China is after Mao'

Huh? Doesn't that show how well Mao performed? Yes after Mao's leadership for 26 years China was significantly better. Unless of course she is referring to Deng's takeover and how he made China better. Of course China improved under Deng the pace of progress from under Mao could not be stopped and it was a recently industrialized country post Mao. It didn't have anywhere to go but up. But take a look at China today. Its 'prosperity' isn't reaching the majority of Chinese citizens. Not too long ago there was an article about the inhumane treatment of workers in China. You can search it on the forums and I think it was actually called inhumane treatment of workers in China but I could be wrong.

By the way China Pre/Post Mao (from one of my other posts)

China: Lifespan before Mao: 32 CITATION NEEDED
After Mao: 66 CITATION NEEDED
Starvation Present Before Mao: Yes
Starvation Present After 1961: No
Pre-industrial Society Before Mao: Yes
Industrial Society After Mao: Yes
Industrial Output Before Mao: 1.2 billion yuan CITATION
Industrial Output After Mao: 489.2 billion yuan CITATION
China started out roughly the same as India, yet India still has starvation, is still a pre-industrial feudalist society, and lifespan hasn't increased greatly. So there it is from 1947-1980 100 million people starved in India which dwarfs the numbers that the reactionaries put up for the GLF several times over.

She disregarded me when I brought up the SU lacking other Socialist nations to trade with and thus in part failed because its economy wasn't compatible with the Capitalist world market.

The SU economy never really failed. Gorbachev's neoliberal reforms are what caused a rapid decline. So in fact, it was capitalism which failed.

She also suggested reading Adam Smith and said I'd just been reading a bunch of apologists for a flawed system.

Do read Adam Smith

[danyboy27]

I just got done trying to counter my mother in a hasty debate after she learned I planned to attend a seminar by CPUSA.

She brought up the 'This system (US Gov.) is the best because of its checks and balances and has proved itself for 200 years. 19th century politics don't work today'

'Look how much better China is after Mao'

She disregarded me when I brought up the SU lacking other Socialist nations to trade with and thus in part failed because its economy wasn't compatible with the Capitalist world market.

When I suggested she read some of the communist bigwigs she said

'I don't need to read, I can look through human history and see that when Humans have tried to live in communes its failed'

There's more, but I'm getting forgetful. The talk was rather rushed.

And lastly,

'You can go, but you may get there and find out their really a bunch of kooks'

Ugh. I dunno how to counter her. Every time I bring up a point she reverts to the best system argument. Not Capitalist, but US and how it was created by some smart men who knew what they where doing.

EDIT: She also suggested reading Adam Smith and said I'd just been reading a bunch of apologists for a flawed system.

There is nothing to counter when you speak to a liberal, beccause the difference between a liberal and a socialist/communist is the degree of comittement toward the left ideal in general.

just tell her that you want to do better than the liberals and bring out even more progressives things for society in general, going one step foward if you will.

And nothing is perfect, not even the political system in general, if it was perfect, we wouldnt have this discussion right now.