Counterpoint: right libertarians have somehow convinced a lot of people that a stateless capitalist society can exist while money and private property (as we understand it today) are still a thing, so clearly people aren't all that critical of utopian shit.
Actual historical materialism: any post-capitalist society will produce its own contradictions and future comrades will need to find a way to square that circle. But that's not an argument you have with a clueless lib.
Counterpoint: right libertarians have somehow convinced a lot of people that a stateless capitalist society can exist while money and private property (as we understand it today) are still a thing, so clearly people aren’t all that critical of utopian shit.
Right libertarians usually just argue for a "small state", but you're right that people often aren't that skeptical. Unfortunately, usually it's "good thing = utopia", so they're still unlikely to be convinced by talk of far-off communist society.
I was being mostly facetious. Of course we need to make strong arguments for the world we want to live in. That said, we shouldn't fall into the debate bro trap and leave out ideas that may seem wildly hopeful right now.
The far off hypothetical society stuff is so unconvincing that I regularly see folks on our side get blindsided when liberals start poking holes in it. Granted, liberals critique it from the framework of "you can't possibly fix every single problem so we shouldn't even try" but our side falls into the trap and tries to go after "actually we can fix every problem." It's such a misstep we should avoid and it should be obvious we can't promise utopia, we can offer concrete direct political goals right now. Probably mixed in with optimistic hopeful rhetoric too.
Seriously, nothing more really needs to be said (at least for Marxists) than "it's far in the future and we don't know how we'll address all these problems yet. The important part is the transitional state, which can take care of people while working towards communism."
What I've fallen back on is the idea that even if some hypothetical communist future never comes, at the very least we can liquidate landlords and leash the bourgeoisie, because those are proven methods of increasing quality of life. The mere act of chasing a communist future grants the population a better present. So why not chase after it?
Right libertarians don't occupy a very stable political niche in America and I don't think the average person gives them much credence or had even heard of them. I'd wager they also come across as utopian cranks to most people, perhaps less than us because "communist" carries more connotations.
Counterpoint: right libertarians have somehow convinced a lot of people that a stateless capitalist society can exist while money and private property (as we understand it today) are still a thing, so clearly people aren't all that critical of utopian shit.
Actual historical materialism: any post-capitalist society will produce its own contradictions and future comrades will need to find a way to square that circle. But that's not an argument you have with a clueless lib.
Right libertarians usually just argue for a "small state", but you're right that people often aren't that skeptical. Unfortunately, usually it's "good thing = utopia", so they're still unlikely to be convinced by talk of far-off communist society.
I was being mostly facetious. Of course we need to make strong arguments for the world we want to live in. That said, we shouldn't fall into the debate bro trap and leave out ideas that may seem wildly hopeful right now.
The far off hypothetical society stuff is so unconvincing that I regularly see folks on our side get blindsided when liberals start poking holes in it. Granted, liberals critique it from the framework of "you can't possibly fix every single problem so we shouldn't even try" but our side falls into the trap and tries to go after "actually we can fix every problem." It's such a misstep we should avoid and it should be obvious we can't promise utopia, we can offer concrete direct political goals right now. Probably mixed in with optimistic hopeful rhetoric too.
Seriously, nothing more really needs to be said (at least for Marxists) than "it's far in the future and we don't know how we'll address all these problems yet. The important part is the transitional state, which can take care of people while working towards communism."
What I've fallen back on is the idea that even if some hypothetical communist future never comes, at the very least we can liquidate landlords and leash the bourgeoisie, because those are proven methods of increasing quality of life. The mere act of chasing a communist future grants the population a better present. So why not chase after it?
Exactly. Even if communism never is achieved, practically speaking worldwide socialism would be so many orders of magnitude better than we have now.
Anarchists call this "prefiguration" and it's great and people should do more of it.
Right libertarians don't occupy a very stable political niche in America and I don't think the average person gives them much credence or had even heard of them. I'd wager they also come across as utopian cranks to most people, perhaps less than us because "communist" carries more connotations.