you know how libs always say knee-jerk "communism only works on paper" despite the opposite being true? i would like to crowdsource help in writing a good retort to that, that could. hopefully plant seeds in someone’s mind.
you know how libs always say knee-jerk "communism only works on paper" despite the opposite being true? i would like to crowdsource help in writing a good retort to that, that could. hopefully plant seeds in someone’s mind.
Nah, reasoning isn't liberalism in the first place, and this approach actually does speak to some people. The mistake is in thinking you can move everyone like this.
What would be the purpose of convincing any single person that capitalism only works on paper? It's a nonsense argument to begin with, that if something has not been achieved before, means that it can't be achieved at all or that if something has been tried and did not succeed then we should stop trying. At one point, airplanes only worked on paper but we have airplanes now.
We know that capitalism works. The point is not to ask "does this economic system work?" but instead "how does this economic system work?" and "who does this economic system work for?"
We should be convincing people that capitalism is working as intended, that is, to enrich the capitalist class while the working class toils.
To say that capitalism isn't working, would imply that capitalism was ever intended to do anything other than enrich capitalists, which is liberal thinking. No person should think that capitalism was ever intended to help working people.
again it’s very common that you won’t necessarily convince the person you’re talking to but simply by responding to them around other people perhaps some of the bystanders might end up questioning their deeply held th liberal beliefs
These are more precise questions, but this is basically quibbling over the definition of "works." We all know what OP means when she says "capitalism only works on paper."
It is, but the whole point of this conversation is (presumably) to move someone who buys into exactly that sort of thinking. If you tell some lib that capitalism was only ever intended to enrich the already wealthy, they'd first argue that no, capitalism "works" for everyone, or at least the vast majority of people. Which would bring the conversation back to the point that capitalism only "works" that way on paper.
In the context of the "only works on paper" argument, "works" means is able to exist and sustain existence. In fact, liberals often follow the "communism only works on paper line" with "capitalism may have some problems but it's the best system that we've had." Libs think capitalism works because it still exists and they think communism doesn't work because the USSR ended in 1991.
If liberals tell you that capitalism works for everyone, that is not a time to say anything about paper because liberals don't read. Liberals never read "capitalism works for everyone" on paper. This is the time where you tell the liberal that capitalism is a class based system where one class exploits the other. Liberals already have a similar concept of the "99% vs 1%". You explain to them how the owning class takes advantage of the working class.