Your method sounds great, a good socialist is a good listener.
I've found unemployment to be a really good topic for that kind of discussions. All the steps are very simple but the results are pretty deep. For me it's gone something like this:
Imagine a world with 0 unemployment, everyone who wants a job can choose from multiple choises. What would happen to wages? How about profits?
What would the wages rise towards? (Plants the seeds for labor theory of value) What about inflation?
Flip the framing, now the unemployed are a socially necessary role, a reserve army of labor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour)
Examine the welfare trap in this new framing. Talk about how the quality of life of a minimum wage worker has gone down, and will likely continue to go down.
What could be done about it?
This has worked for me, but to be fair I have only tried it on libs. Results with conservatives may vary, but if the topic comes up and the audience seems to be open for honest conversation, I would recommend it.
I like this idea but with conservatives sometimes i feel you need a different approach. Usually when I argue with a conservative i'm just trying to make them a lib or a radlib, because lets be honest that's better than nothing.
If you ever talk to a conservative long enough they will inevitably say "When has the government ever done something well" or "When has the government ever done something better than the private industry".
This is perfect. I always ask them explain what they mean. Alot of the time they will just say "regulations" this is easily debunk-able because they never have a specific regulation and then you can just explain how regulation actually saves every one money and lives (but bring up money first because thats all they care about ).
To answer "When has the government ever done something better than private industry". I usually bring up social security, medicaid, usps, or the military. when i bring up the military I usually focus on how government money was used for research that would not have been done if it wasn't for government spending. I find bringing up the military is a good one because conservatives like the military.
I think that attacking these two ideas does alot in shattering the cognitive dissonance. But i really like the points you brought up, especially trying to plant the seeds of the labour theory of value. the labour theory of value allows socialists not to look like "lazy losers".
In my experience the idea that the unemployed are lazy is very central to a lot of rigth wingers' world views. Attacking that idea could be beneficial, even if you should not expect to turn them into anything resembling a leftist.
If you do not mind me asking how would you attack the idea that the unemployed are lazy?
My attack would be that if we gave people a home, food, and access to higher education they will be able more likely contribute to the economy. for example it's almost impossible to get a job if you don't have a home or can't take a shower. giving people the basic necessities will necessarily make people more valuable for the economy. I know this is reactionary reasoning but if you can get a conservative to even consider federal housing i'd consider that progress. But i do not know if this would be a good line of reasoning so id be interested in your opinion.
I guess that might be hard if the other person does not believe unemployment to be a problem from the point of view of it being bad for the unemployed. I might start with the very mainstream belief that unemployment under 3-5 % would cause massive inflation, making the situation unstable. My approach would really depend on the person, and I don't have much experience of what an american conservative actually belives. Maybe combining your approach with the fact that those 3-5 % need to be kept alive without them working could work?
I think thats a good idea. By pointing out that the system neccessartly needs to have unemployment so there isnt inflation. By definition a large amount of people will b unemploymed so we should take care of them.
Thank you for your input
Your method sounds great, a good socialist is a good listener.
I've found unemployment to be a really good topic for that kind of discussions. All the steps are very simple but the results are pretty deep. For me it's gone something like this:
This has worked for me, but to be fair I have only tried it on libs. Results with conservatives may vary, but if the topic comes up and the audience seems to be open for honest conversation, I would recommend it.
I like this idea but with conservatives sometimes i feel you need a different approach. Usually when I argue with a conservative i'm just trying to make them a lib or a radlib, because lets be honest that's better than nothing.
If you ever talk to a conservative long enough they will inevitably say "When has the government ever done something well" or "When has the government ever done something better than the private industry". This is perfect. I always ask them explain what they mean. Alot of the time they will just say "regulations" this is easily debunk-able because they never have a specific regulation and then you can just explain how regulation actually saves every one money and lives (but bring up money first because thats all they care about ). To answer "When has the government ever done something better than private industry". I usually bring up social security, medicaid, usps, or the military. when i bring up the military I usually focus on how government money was used for research that would not have been done if it wasn't for government spending. I find bringing up the military is a good one because conservatives like the military.
I think that attacking these two ideas does alot in shattering the cognitive dissonance. But i really like the points you brought up, especially trying to plant the seeds of the labour theory of value. the labour theory of value allows socialists not to look like "lazy losers".
In my experience the idea that the unemployed are lazy is very central to a lot of rigth wingers' world views. Attacking that idea could be beneficial, even if you should not expect to turn them into anything resembling a leftist.
If you do not mind me asking how would you attack the idea that the unemployed are lazy? My attack would be that if we gave people a home, food, and access to higher education they will be able more likely contribute to the economy. for example it's almost impossible to get a job if you don't have a home or can't take a shower. giving people the basic necessities will necessarily make people more valuable for the economy. I know this is reactionary reasoning but if you can get a conservative to even consider federal housing i'd consider that progress. But i do not know if this would be a good line of reasoning so id be interested in your opinion.
I guess that might be hard if the other person does not believe unemployment to be a problem from the point of view of it being bad for the unemployed. I might start with the very mainstream belief that unemployment under 3-5 % would cause massive inflation, making the situation unstable. My approach would really depend on the person, and I don't have much experience of what an american conservative actually belives. Maybe combining your approach with the fact that those 3-5 % need to be kept alive without them working could work?
I think thats a good idea. By pointing out that the system neccessartly needs to have unemployment so there isnt inflation. By definition a large amount of people will b unemploymed so we should take care of them. Thank you for your input