Often, in these arguments, things get real heated real fast. For example, I told one of my best friends that 'you can't stand still on a moving train' and basically made the argument that not taking a communist or at least anti-capitalist position is equivalent to endorsing the status quo. He responded that he is 'not a capitalist or a marxist' and that 'I can't tell him what he is'. Things got heated and he really doesn't like to hear me talk about explicitly socialist ideas anymore.
I have had similar arguments with my own brother. He is pretty well-educated and when we debate (or straight up fight, depending on the vibes) I often find myself incapable of backing up my arguments with examples or theory. This is due to my own ignorance, surely, but why the fuck can't the burden of proof be on capitalism, amirite
?
I know this is a bit of a ramble, but bear with me. I guess my main intention here is to ask how you handle certain arguments when you talk with non-leftists with whom you the rapport to speak frankly and who are actually willing to lend you their ears for a while, even if they vehemently trash-talk the immortal science of Marxist-Leninism the whole time.
What do you say to people who say:
1. "Without a profit motive, who will do all the repellent jobs (e.g. sewer maintenance) or the really challenging ones (e.g. heart surgeon) ? In other words, if no one is forced to work to live, won't there be some difficulty filling certain important jobs?"
or
2. "If there is no private property, won't people just be stealing eachother's shit all the time etc.
As for #1, I generally think that in a less alienated, egalitarian world the human satisfaction at work well done will generally overpower our more slothful qualities. I imagine in that dreamland of Full Communism it will be hard to get people to NOT work. My interlocutors don't usually go for this.
As for #2, and to these 'human nature' based anticommunist arguments in general, I think that in a less alienated world people will be dicks to eachother with less frequency and theft will still be a crime anyways. This is pretty flimsy, and people also don't like it when I give them this argument.
Generally, I find that when it comes to pointing out the contradictions and tragedies of capitalism I can usually find a lot of common ground, receive a lot of assent. The idea that we can do better by abolishing private property and free markets, however, is often met with dismissal, like 'oh, that's a nice utopian fantasy, but it wouldn't work in practice" and sho on, I claim. Here my line of argument usually flounders. I have a very poor idea of what real communism would look like, other than the fact that it would be the absence of all the stuff I hate about capitalism.
Again, I admit this is a poorly structured post, but it's late and I'm bored so please do reply/ifap me/request that the CIA send a more convincing mole.
It is not your central task to convince this or that person about communism at this point, but to convince yourself and prepare for the future.
Second, in terms of specific points of debate I wouldn't bother arguing those kinds of "what will socialism look like" things . If someone is keen on pinko stuff they'll be receptive and you won't have to argue the point. Ultimately the best strategy is to be an alpha and tell people to do their own fucking research. You don't need to convince anyone: you're a communist, you know you're on the right track, you don't need to prove that to anyone. Read, learn, just as you're doing right now and you'll be doing better than most
Just beat him up/tell mom as appropriate
This is done through building trust, understanding where the person you are talking to has a fundamental disconnect or pain point caused by capitalism, and guide them towards the self-realization that there is an alternative. This is a key part of any sales or evangelism training, the most effective way to get someone to do something is to let them think it is their own idea and it is your job to set up the right conversational path to get them there.
c_man posted:im pretty sure this is the first version of this thread that we've had that's included sincere, sound advice
they dont always include indications of sincerely following a correct line, acknowledgment of specific areas of theoretical weakness, and self-deprecating humour
i remember for example making one or two terrible threads in my early 'zzone days asking whats the deal with trotskyism, whats wrong with anarchosyndicalism, etc. painfully naive and unfunny and basically zero serious responses iirc. which is fair because it was probably obvious that i didnt even know what materialism was
Belphegor posted:For example, I told one of my best friends that 'you can't stand still on a moving train' and basically made the argument that not taking a communist or at least anti-capitalist position is equivalent to endorsing the status quo. He responded that he is 'not a capitalist or a marxist' and that 'I can't tell him what he is'.
honestly, most people are just trying to survive... I personally don't think moralistic arguments are helpful, if someone is going to be a sincere communist they ought to be so out of conviction rather than the shame of complicity
i think that's the difference between say an anti-imperialist and a closet liberal, the we need to bring down those oriental potentates type people
the way i would recommend you engage with laymen is to first have an understanding of the ways in which the system tries to legitimise itself and learn to undermine it with facts it recognises. the second is then to learn how the world actually works
to not make yourself look like a fool you're just going to have to know their positions better than them. for the free market stuff i recommend you read ha-joon chang. there are also other bourgeois economists who undermine liberal ideology eg steve keen. before jumping into marx&engels learn why mainstream economics is false and you won't have any problem with these conversations
bumpthread posted:if someone is going to be a sincere communist they ought to be so out of conviction rather than the shame of complicity
ilmdge posted:Everyone's been saying how it doesn't really work to just dazzle someone with your logic and they concede, oh, communism is the answer. But what I do find is that if it's someone you have a meaningful relationship with and who does talk about political stuff with you, that you can present them over a period of time with how various world events are understood through the leftist worldview and since there's so much bad shit that happens and since this worldview so accurately and consistently is able to comprehend what's happening and explain it in a useful way that over time nobody can deny the revolutionary science.
Honestly this type of osmotic learning from my better informed Marxist friend probably went a long way towards getting me to actually pick up a Marxbook. In those moments when we sat around as buddies shooting the shit about world events and history I realized he was the only one with persuasive, material analysis of things instead of the usual exceptionalism, prejudice, ignorance and apathy.
That said, point taken about not engaging liberals in the glorious marketplace of ideas.
tpaine posted:i hear Mephistopheles knows some good rhetorical jabs
I asked him and he just told me to watch 'The Big Bang Theory' and go from there.
as to your dilemma, part of me is like perpetually perplexed by both those questions though, since there are plenty of historical counter examples to both of them. there have been plenty of communist countries through modern history now. but, even if you're some trotskyist/ultra-leftist that denies that, capitalism has not been the only mode of production or social organization in human history. i mean, there still exist isolated hunter-gatherer tribes and communal agricultural societies today. it just requires just the slightest bit of perspective on history to formulate at least some answers.
Edited by elemennop ()
elemennop posted:everything everyone above has said is right.
as to your dilemma, part of me is like perpetually perplexed by both those questions though, since there are plenty of historical counter examples to both of them. there have been plenty of communist countries through modern history now. but, even if you're some trotskyist/ultra-leftist that denies that, capitalism has not been the only mode of production or social organization in human history. i mean, there still exist isolated hunter-gatherer tribes and communal agricultural societies today. it just requires just the slightest bit of perspective on history to formulate at least some answers.
its an uphill struggle to realize that capitalism is a historically limited phenomenon, that didn't always exist. you walk around with the implicit belief that "capitalism is just what people do". folks are kind of subtly taught to characterize Ug the caveman trading furs for beads (lol) as a capitalist cos he's exchanging things on a free market and trying to maximize his profit or whatever.
it took me a long time to really understand how wrong it is. that's one of the biggest mental chasms to leap imo
littlegreenpills posted:folks are kind of subtly taught to characterize Ug the caveman trading furs for beads (lol) as a capitalist cos he's exchanging things on a free market and trying to maximize his profit or whatever
the good old barter myth. graeber deals with this in debt
ilmdge posted:Everyone's been saying how it doesn't really work to just dazzle someone with your logic and they concede, oh, communism is the answer. But what I do find is that if it's someone you have a meaningful relationship with and who does talk about political stuff with you, that you can present them over a period of time with how various world events are understood through the leftist worldview and since there's so much bad shit that happens and since this worldview so accurately and consistently is able to comprehend what's happening and explain it in a useful way that over time nobody can deny the revolutionary science.
Several people in this thread are making honest attempts to give good advice, but Comrade ilmdge has given the correct advice. This is how they got me.
His annoyance only makes me want to spend MORE time here, in a 'date the bad boy' type of way.
Belphegor posted:on board the Grover Furr train.
we prefer "toiling on the grover furr-farm"
Belphegor posted:Update: So my trot friend is a little miffed that I started hanging out here, he is not on board the Grover Furr train.
His annoyance only makes me want to spend MORE time here, in a 'date the bad boy' type of way.
'Zzone posters are widely known as "The Bad Boys of Communism", mostly because we can't get any women to post here.
I find it difficult to see how even an anarchist could come to that conclusion.
I was willing to give him another look too, since I was put off him attacking Jacobin a few years ago which I now know is an op
babyfinland posted:The most repressive regime is probably DPRK
it's nothing compared to the way your arse represses that poor chair
xipe posted:Jacobin, which I now know is an op
what does this mean? I interpret it to be 'jacobin is run by the cia'
you just need to be able to navigate their insecurities about their own intelligence... everybody has them
best way to do so imo is to conceded trivial points that they bring up from time to time and to make it seem like your own opinion is more fluid than it is - that is you're willing to alter your worldview because you value what they have to say