Yeah, I'm not sure if a Second Thought video would work. IIRC Second Thought is more of a "inoffensive and accessible intro to anti-capitalism for well-meaning but clueless libs" kind of youtuber. I don't remember him talking about any substantial deeper leftist theory about how to organise a post-capitalist/communist society.
The guy's not really clueless. He learned about communism/socialism from our really Marxist jurisprudence uni lecturer (who was pretty cool; would lecture about other more traditional jurists like Austin, Hart or Dworkin, and then immediately dunk on them using Marxist theory. I used to be a lib before then), and really got into debating against the viability of communism.
Well, if people like my friend can be debated into agreement, I would like to know the method myself. I've been debating him on the same issues for over 3 years now and he's still a liberal/neoliberal (which isn't that bad in the context of my country, where the relevant political powers are somehow all openly racist, socially-conservative, and/or hypercapitalist, and the communists/socialists have either been massacred or exiled decades ago, or are kept in permanent irrelevance).
I partially blame Anglo-American legal theory, thinking and education, which he is completely enamoured with.
I agree with you that most (if not all) people do have to live within or at least come into regular contact with the contradictions to "get" the appeal of socialism/communism. That's why many of the most committed leftists are from marginal or oppressed classes, and none of them are billionaires, CEOs. or nobility. The practical usefulness of good faith theoretical debate and discussion, I think, is as personal exercise to ensure our critique is focused and purposeful while also growing to include the experiences of others, or for teaching and learning the vocabulary to communicate lived experiences. In other words, debate and discussion is useful so that people who are alienated by capitalism or other types of oppression don't become nihilists, fundamentalists or fascists. But I don't think debate can ever convince people who are not already convinced deep inside themselves by their lived experience.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah, I'm not sure if a Second Thought video would work. IIRC Second Thought is more of a "inoffensive and accessible intro to anti-capitalism for well-meaning but clueless libs" kind of youtuber. I don't remember him talking about any substantial deeper leftist theory about how to organise a post-capitalist/communist society.
deleted by creator
I'm with you, but maybe they don't think the lib in question is totally clueless?
The guy's not really clueless. He learned about communism/socialism from our really Marxist jurisprudence uni lecturer (who was pretty cool; would lecture about other more traditional jurists like Austin, Hart or Dworkin, and then immediately dunk on them using Marxist theory. I used to be a lib before then), and really got into debating against the viability of communism.
deleted by creator
Well, if people like my friend can be debated into agreement, I would like to know the method myself. I've been debating him on the same issues for over 3 years now and he's still a liberal/neoliberal (which isn't that bad in the context of my country, where the relevant political powers are somehow all openly racist, socially-conservative, and/or hypercapitalist, and the communists/socialists have either been massacred or exiled decades ago, or are kept in permanent irrelevance).
I partially blame Anglo-American legal theory, thinking and education, which he is completely enamoured with.
I agree with you that most (if not all) people do have to live within or at least come into regular contact with the contradictions to "get" the appeal of socialism/communism. That's why many of the most committed leftists are from marginal or oppressed classes, and none of them are billionaires, CEOs. or nobility. The practical usefulness of good faith theoretical debate and discussion, I think, is as personal exercise to ensure our critique is focused and purposeful while also growing to include the experiences of others, or for teaching and learning the vocabulary to communicate lived experiences. In other words, debate and discussion is useful so that people who are alienated by capitalism or other types of oppression don't become nihilists, fundamentalists or fascists. But I don't think debate can ever convince people who are not already convinced deep inside themselves by their lived experience.