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.
Capitalism looks good on paper but it doesn’t work in real life. It’s just human nature. These academics talk about supply and demand curves, but after hundreds of years they still can’t even provide evidence that one exists. I’d love it if markets were free and efficient. It would make society so simple and everyone would get what they needed most. But people aren’t robots, you know? They don’t consume rationally and all the money ends up going to the guys at the top who use it to make themselves more powerful. It’s called tragedy of the commons. Markets can start out efficient, but people steal shit and force people to stop competing, which fucks the markets up even more.
Riddling it with cliches is fun lol. I think there could be more about labor relations, but I wasn’t sure how to work it in. Like more worker perspective and less macro economic abstract stuff
An approach I've had some success with is starting with a story/anecdote about problems in a big corporation and then tossing out some anti-government cliche. For example, if someone tells you about how some project they're working on at Big Company XYZ is a mess that's just bleeding money, hit them with:
See, that's what you get working with the government: you end up wasting a bunch of money and never getting anything done.
It's not exactly "capitalism only works on paper," but it is a concise way of questioning both the supposed efficiency of the private sector and the supposed problems with public solutions.
am I misunderstanding or does your little statement say the exact opposite of what you’re arguing?
You aren't seriously bashing government waste and inefficiency with that statement. You're bashing private sector waste and inefficiency by mocking a talking point usually aimed at the government.
i can't think of a lib cliche to coopt for that but i agree that some worker perspective stuff would be good to add
Capitalism doesn't actually work on paper either. For more info please see Capital by Carl Marks.
For every dollar of aid the South receives, they lose $14 in drain through unequal exchange, not counting illicit financial outflows. Poor countries are developing rich countries, not the other way around.
You can read Jason Hickel's book The Divide for more info on this topic
They talk about the failure of socialism, but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?
:fidel-balling:
I heard someone say those countries are corrupt like the western corporations bribing their politicians aren't also part of that coruption
Another angle for that one is "What, are you saying the people in those countries have some sort of predisposition to corruption? Now what does that sound like?"
"Is it the economic system that is out of touch? No, it is the blacks who are wrong!"
My favorite retort to this is that capitalism sounds like shit on paper and still doesn't work.
The appropriate response to liberalism is not more liberalism. You're trying to do a "by your own logic" argument. You will not defeat liberalism with liberal thinking.
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
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?”
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."
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.
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.
you’re right but I think it’s very important to do outreach and I’d like to be able to say something that at least sows a seed of doubt in their minds
Everything that happens in the economy is caused by people making choices. When there is a crash, it is because enough people chose to act in a way that caused a crash. If people lose their jobs, it's because someone chose profits over labor. There are no "natural" laws of the market. It is not a physical system governed by physics. It is a series of human choices. On paper, the market is a physics sandbox where there are laws of gravity and friction and momentum that all markets must obey. This isn't true. It's all people making decisions. If you can decide that profit is important above all else because profit is survival and prosperity for your business, then you can decide to value labor and realize that you don't have the resources to take care of your employees and aren't entitled to own a business. On paper, there's nothing the employer can do, they can only react to the market. In real life capitalists have agency.
- Every country on the planet has established regulations on pure, unrestrained capitalism. They did so because we used to live in a less regulated world, and it was awful. If capitalism worked in practice, we wouldn't have all these regulations, or we'd at least see a few countries without them.
- Regulations are not some evolved, less harmful form of capitalism -- they are either antithetical to capitalism, or are captured by capitalism to further concentrate private ownership of wealth. If capitalism worked in practice, we wouldn't need to constantly battle it to keep it in check.
- Capitalism relies on infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet. If capitalism worked in practice, it would have some way of internally ensuring it doesn't destroy the only planet we have, and it wouldn't bet the future of humanity on fantastical technologies that do not yet exist.
The liberal response to number 2 is, unfortunately, to agree that total unbridled capitalism "doesn't work". They will then move on to say some crap about "we need to regulate capitalism and mix what's best from capitalism and socialism".
Liberals doesn't read theory so they believe that Capitalism With a Human Face is possible, even preferable to other systems. Number two is leading liberals to support capitalism with means tested gruel rations for the poor, not socialism.
They will then move on to say some crap about “we need to regulate capitalism and mix what’s best from capitalism and socialism”.
This is why it's crucial to stress that regulations (depending on which one you're talking about) are either antithetical to capitalism or are captured by it. Because capitalism will corrode or compromise any restraints people attempt to put on it, regulating capitalism is just kicking the can down the road. This fits well with point 3: if at some point you have to do away with a key component of capitalism to do something as basic as keep the planet habitable, the scope of regulation that would actually "fix" capitalism would effectively dismantle it. So you can get to the conclusion that we just need to do away with capitalism altogether by that route, too.
Do you want to refute the idea that “communism only works on paper” or argue that "capitalism only works on paper"?
You can argue that, but ultimately the theory (whether it works or doesn't) isn't as important as how it looks in practice. You could have endless debates with someone over whether capitalism works on paper, and if finally beat them down on every single point, they'll just fall back to "but look at America; it's capitalist and it's the wealthiest country in the world" or some such bullshit.
So you're better off just starting with "capitalism doesn't work in practice." That's where the conversation will eventually go, anyway, and then you're skipping a bunch of theoretical stuff that the vast majority of people don't understand well enough to persuade or be persuaded on.
I don't really engage in sincere argument with anyone that thinks capitalism is good. If that's coming at me I just go full tank and am a dismissive prick to them. I'm lucky enough to engage with radlibs at worst most of the time. With full libs, they're probably not willing to engage with your ideas anyway and you're usually just chipping away capitalist realism, they may get there over time but you will more or less never be the person that says the one magic phrase that will undue a lifetime of conditioning. The only way you might is if they are sincerely interested in engaging and approach you about it. Otherwise, partially for the sake of my own sanity I usually just go direct and hope it takes a notch into the lib brain that helps it eventually break, plus I'm good at making people feel guilty.
For real arguments I'm way better at friendly sectarianism.
Don't compromise your views because of who you're talking to. There are plenty of radlibs for that. Just express yourself as you are and literally are and the rest follows. It's not up to you to make every lib you meet a communist.
but you’re not gonna stop me from trying and I don’t care if they don’t get all the way
I don’t really engage in sincere argument with anyone that thinks capitalism is good.
Good luck building a socialist movement in the imperial core, then. Being a dismissive prick isn't that good of a way to change anyone's opinion -- it's just good for not wasting time or sanity on trolls and lost causes.
Do you actually want to achieve socialism or do you just want to do epic dunks on twitter?
Do you really think putting time and effort into explaining socialism is actually useful to literally anyone but a few? I mostly deal IRL with homelessness and addiction issues cause they affect me, people are swayed by what affects their day to day material conditions. Explaining the finer points of Engels to a lib online is the exact opposite of advancing socialism, I don't have twitter and i don't engage online politically anywhere but here becaue it's pointless. Once again, fuck off.
Do you really think putting time and effort into explaining socialism is actually useful to literally anyone but a few?
Yes? Is this a serious question? Exactly that sort of thing has been a key part of every successful socialist movement. At some point we're going to have to get people who don't currently buy into socialism to become socialists, and you're telling me you have no interest in doing that.
Obviously you have to speak to material issues that directly affect people, but that's pretty easy to do if you're explaining why socialism is a good thing. Obviously getting into a reddit debate about the finer points of some obscure socialist text is not productive, but it's pretty easy to make the case for socialism to non-socialists without falling into that. Being an asshole to people -- especially if you're doing it in person, not even online -- is a shitty way to get them to agree with you. It's prioritizing what makes you feel good over what might actually get more people to seriously consider socialism.
but look at America; it’s capitalist and it’s the wealthiest country in the world
That could be a good starting point for a critique of capitalism. The US is extremely rich but it still sucks ass for the people.
Exactly -- the reality of the situation is even more favorable for socialism, so let's just start there. Capitalism, regardless of what anyone says about the theory, doesn't "work" by any definition that most people would find meaningful.
I can provide two examples of how capitalism in theory fails:
Tendency toward monopoly
Although proponents of capitalism tout the wonders of the free market it is in reality a self-defeating principle.
As enterprises compete in the market some of them will be more successful than others and and they will use this success to buy out or bankrupt the less successful enterprises, over time this leads to concentration of production in ever smaller number of enterprises until entire market is controlled by just one enterprise thus eliminating competition altogether.Tendency of the rate of profit to fall
As enterprises compete in the market they seek to improve efficiency of production by investing in ever more advanced machinery, by doing this they gain temporary advantage in being able to produce more cheaply and gain more sales, but soon the rest of the competitors will catch up and the advantage dissolves and profits go back to previous levels but the production is now done with more expensive machinery and thus ratio of profit to capital invested decreases, that is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Over time the rate of profit falls towards zero, thus making production unprofitable leading to stoppage of investment, hoarding of money and breakdown in production. This proves that capitalism cant continue forever, eventually production for profit will be impossible and capitalism will collapse
Please post corrections if you think there are some errors or you could make it more readable
On monopoly one thing that is rarely discussed is the point that, if a new innovative technology arises, it will displace the old entrenched corporations or make them obsolete, so in the larger picture innovation and the like make sure that no monopoly lasts. However, the thing is that new companies need investing and finance, and what happens in most cases is that the people who own the companies dominating the market, are also the ones that have the money to invest in R&D for new technologies, or buy out these newcomers. In the end even if a given company fails and is overtaken by another, the people who own these companies ultimately remain the same.
I think part of the problem with this is that the question needs "for whom". Who does capital work for? Not everyone, but it does work for the capitalists and those who are comfortably wealthy.
Communism takes away capitals ability to exploit underclass and minorities, which they see as a failure of the system and removing capitalist efficiency.
