Well, ask him how much fun black people had in the 1950's. There is so much more wrong but that's how you could win it by saying one simple thing.
Results 1 to 20 of 38
Debating against Capitalists.
I need some help with debating. So, my brother, a social democrat, keeps bringing up the "Golden Age of Capitalism" of the 1950's, and how it supposedly it was so great. Are there any arguments that show the 1950's in another light?
Last edited by Zoroaster; 6th June 2014 at 00:34.
"Whatever you do, never lose your fondness of walking. I walk myself into my daily well-being, and I walk out of all illness. I have walked myself into my best thoughts, and I know of no thought so heavy that one cannot outwalk it." -Soren Kierkegaard.
"Beloved imagination, what I most like in you is your unsparing quality. There remains madness, 'the madness that one locks up', as it has aptly been described. That madness or another..." -Andre Breton.
Well, ask him how much fun black people had in the 1950's. There is so much more wrong but that's how you could win it by saying one simple thing.
Well a huge part of the reason our economy was good was because we had cheap oil (due to our interference in the Middle East). There were a couple recessions however, most notably in 1954. This was also a time when the US lent support to foreign dictatorships in Iran, South Korea, and Taiwan for their economic interests. Furthermore, military spending increased dramatically with the Korean War and in his farewell address Eisenhower warned of the "military industrial complex."
"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass." Karl Marx
I think you would have more success if you demonstrated to him how that period was an outlier and based on a very specific context; which was the aftermath of world war II (specifically the rebuilding process combined with the massive population losses and the economic destruction of rival countries). If you try and focus too heavily on social issues ie the civil rights movement your brother could easily sidestep it by bringing up the prosperity of other Western Nations in this era where issues like this were not present or simply argue that the racial oppression wasnt a necessary condition of the eras prosperity.
Explaining this and the history around it will show that not only was the failure of that golden age predetermined but that these conditions cannot be repeated by anything less than a world war is a much harder argument to overcome.
Such reasoning is also helpful when dealing with people who use the growth rates of China as proof of capitalism desirability.
David Harveys History of neoliberalism will be helpful on this matter as Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (although I cannot personally vouch for the latter).
Isn't the Golden Age of Capitalism partly a result of working classes' militancy and strength? And when the bourgeoisie could deal away with it, they did, destroying labour unions and left social movements?
Or am I completely making this stuff up?
I never heard an American social democrat look back to the 1950s with nostalgia. Whenever they talk of social democracy, they always go on and on about the Scandinavia welfare state.
Tell him about how the economy of the US and the standard of living of its citizens grew much more rapidly during the 19. century, before welfare, constant wars and central banking. That will show him.
...
You can read more here:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/...-neoliberalism
But basically the west got rich by introducing globalization which lead to increased exploitation of the poor parts of the world.
You could talk about the arms industry and how the cold war was (probably) a massive economic stimulus in the US?
If he's a social democrat, McCarthyism and the Red Scare would be rather unpleasant to discuss if you get beyond the "but I'm not a communist" line.
But too be honest, if he's convinced it's a "golden age" their is very little you can do as that is more likely to be an emotional identification with a particular era rather than based on rational arguments. the only way thing you can do is research that era (wikipedia's probably a good place to start), present your case and hope your brother respects you enough to be open and challenge his own convictions [but that's kind of the 'exception' in any form of debate].
kinda surprised no one brought up the fact that the US was practically the only industrialized country that wasn't in ruins after World War 2.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Who was the boom 'great' for? Living standards rose steadily, but they were still low - workers, on the whole, were still poor, even with a few extra scraps from the bosses' table. Mass unemployment was gone for a while, but it returned with a vengeance in the '70s, steady wage increases stopped, inflation rose as a result of declining profitability, and living standards took a nosedive.
So i suppose the best argument against the 'golden age' 1950s is what occurred after that decade. Iron law of capitalism: no boom is forever. What goes up very high must come crashing down very hard, as bourgeois economists themselves well recognise.
it's not really a surprise that the economy and "standard of living" would both grow as a country went through industrialization.
Last edited by #FF0000; 7th June 2014 at 18:05.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
As others have brought up, I think the question here is great for whom?. The statistics I've seen, seem to show that for the very poor things haven't really changed a whole lot or have simply gotten worse. More so, they show that the number of individuals in that group has grown. It's as if everyone has moved down a notch.
The only reason a Golden Age existed for capitalism was because the establishment was afraid of revolt, so they gave into certain demands. That fear no longer exists. The population has been effectively propagandized. There will not be a future Golden Age, because the old opposition is gone. The problem with social democracy is that you'll always end up where you started because power is still a commodity, available to the highest bidder. That is one of the fundamental problems of so-called capitalist democracies.
When I was growing up in the 80s, there was kinda a sense that the postwar era was the norm and that we'd just been kinda having to tighten belts for 15-20 years and then things would be better. Now it should seem more obvious that the postwar situation was a momentary phase.
Like other people said, the postwar arrangement was possible because of the destruction of economic rivals which created new markets for American companies and destroyed manufacturing surplus. This expansion in the economy meant for the capitalist, it was generally more useful to ensure labor peace in a time of growth than to fight and enforce labor discipline. In the u.s. There was a major strike wave right after the war because the postwar arrangement was unsettled and contested.
In other countries, social democrats came to power, in the us, the labor unions became more or less accepted as a fact of business. But in exchange for giving more crumbs and more wages by capitalists, labor peace also meant that labor was expected to limit itself to maintaining order, negotiating wages, etc. this meant that even in generally tolerant unions, things like racism or sexism were at best seen as "outside issues" and often actively defended both by labor leaders and rank and filers as "part of the deal". Communists and militants in general were generally driven out of unions and workplaces; gays and blacks were repressed with increased vigor after a slight thawing during the war; women were pushed out of the workforce and again doubly-expected to conform after a war-time loosening of gender expectations.
The result of labor peace was that the overt class struggle of the early 20th century did subside. This is why both liberals and conservatives can look back on this era and think of it as a golden age (an economic golden age for liberals since living standards increased and inequality decreased, a social golden age for conservatives because of the high level of conformity).
Weird thing for a social democrat to say...they don't usually talk about "golden ages." I think the 1950s was the start of the current period of unthinking, where the mass media and the leaders use bribery, gentle propaganda and distraction to brainwash us into thinking society is all good. This is when the masses were fed up with war and just wanted to sit back and let the leaders do the work, so we succumbed to what they said. Also, any system will be at its best at the beginning, and capitalism was only effectively stabilised in the West in the 50s. It's only going to get worse from here until it finally cracks and the next revolution happens.
I grew tired of arguing against cappie, I discuss politics with people who are open to socialism and can be influenced. Which isn't too uncommon...
If you argue with a highly ideological cappie with the intent to change their mind, then it would be a waste of time. One usually goes into a discussion not knowing of a given person's mind is malleable to new information. I generally see it more important to convince people observing who might be on the fence. You cannot hope to change the mind of an ideological purist.
On the other hand, one shouldn't *shy away* from such exchanges, either, because you can really get a lot of experience and practice over a vast amount of political terrain with it -- it's like making the vessel 'airtight', if you will....
(I'd only say to make sure that the other person is considerate enough to go point-by-point, in actual exchanges. Once people start talking *past* each other, there's really no point to it anymore.)
I agree. When it comes to debate with my pro-capitalist sister it becomes utterly useless when she thinks over-using ad hominens and other logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum, makes an actual argument against socialism. She's made no attempt to understand socialism or the anarchist point of view. She thinks I essentially want to bring the Soviet Union back. Which could work out if we're talking about creating free soviets and utilizing a permanent revolution until all states and classes are completely obliterated.
unfortunately that's what I find myself doing. Except for the occasional compulsion to debate on youtube then retreating when I get my ass handed to me (I'm not very good at it.)
I find it rather useless anyway as 99.9% of cappies are not going to change their minds no matter what you tell them.
