You must log in or register to comment.
The thing is most countries don’t go around declaring themselves “we are a capitalist nation, we follow the capitalist ideology”, so this seems pointlessly vague.
Capitalist: No no, what you really hate is socialism.
Citizen: Why do I hate socialism?
Capitalist: Because socialism causes [lists problems created by capitalism].
Citizen: Wow, I sure do hate socialism.
But also,
Citizen 2: [lists actual socialist policies while avoiding certain key words]
Capitalists: I can get behind that.
Socialists are fans of socialism. Capitalists are persons who own capital, not fans of capitalism.
Call it solidarity. And cote exemple like Mondragon corp. And then a capitalist understand socialism.
Let me fix that for you,
Citizen 1: I can get behind that.
Capitalists: You shouldn’t, that’s communism! Think of all the money you have to waste when you get rich!
And that’s the core of it.
Every poor moron thinks that one day they will get rich and they don’t want to ruin things for their future rich self. The don’t actually DO anything to get rich, they don’t have a plan, resources, much intelligence, they’re not doing anything to improve their life, go to school, seek a better job, learn about finances. But one day, they’ll be rich. They believe this until they get to about 50-60, their health issues start creeping up, then it starts to dawn on them that they’re over the hill and have no real future beyond the current state of affairs–same life, but just older, sicker and weaker. THEN they sometimes wake up and see the bullshit, but it’s too late.
Some of these people pick up a modest inheritance from their dead parents, but they usually piss it away in a few years, certainly aren’t going to invest it, use it to build anything or have any expectation of creating generational wealth. They buy a big pickup truck and some assorted stupid shit, and it’s wasted in a flash.
The other core is “I’d rather die of preventable diseases so long as black people suffer more”
Then some socialist buds in and says “actually socialism isn’t when the government does stuff!” and then I say “it is if it’s a democratically elected government” and then they say “This isn’t real democracy!” and then I agree and point out that actually the REAL root of all these problems is the lack of democracy, and then they get mad.
I would also argue that few people have made a very good case connecting peoples concerns to capitalism. So to many it has a Southpark-ish ring to it: capitalism is bad. Don’t do capitalism. It’s an abstract thing, and abstract opponents make people feel despair and impotence.
The most persuasive people I’ve seen don’t use that word often. They directly link peoples concerns to inequality (unfair taxation and employment laws), climate ( fossil fuel companies) and unregulated abusive businesses such as big tech.
Those are not faceless, abstract entities, so people can organise their (justified) anger better.
Has anybody else heard good approaches for helping people understand ?
I’ve found “You work all day and get a small salary. The business owner sits around, and gets a huge payout. Does that seem fair?” is moderately effective.
You often get “they risk their money!” (so is gambling now something financially good?) or “they worked very hard to get there” (so why aren’t they as burned out as the rest of the “less hard working” workers?)
If you’re willing to go “you’re absolutely right! What a good point!” every time the person you’re talking to aligns with you even a little bit like “you’re absolutely right, you work so hard it’s completely unfair you’re taxes are so high… and the taxes of the wealthy are so low in comparison!” they feel smart and validated and might not even notice you tacked on your own commentary and also avoid buzz words it’s actually not that difficult to talk to people in an effective way.
Presenting as a truck driving blue collar good ole boy before subtly bringing up how much we lose to income tax while the wealthy pay next to nothing is my technique. If they defend the wealthy they’re lost to the boot polish, but that’s pretty uncommon in my experience.
The most persuasive people I’ve seen don’t use that word often. They directly link peoples concerns to inequality (unfair taxation and employment laws), climate ( fossil fuel companies) and unregulated abusive businesses such as big tech.
This is the way. Lefty movements have rightly been criticized for being too academic. Expressing people’s concerns in a more relatable and practical way gets more people on board.
totally. my latest ex is pretty socialist and anticapitalist, and i agreed with them on pretty much everything they said, but they drank the coolaid on using classical communist jargon to talk about stuff. half the time they would use definitions for words that were, to be generous, at odds with commonly accepted definitions. then they would get pissy and the discussion would devolve into semantics because they would only accept those definitions, while i was trying to use the normal definitions because of fucking course i would. so would almost everyone else. so in order to talk to them about government or politics without causing some kind of misunderstanding i would have to read a bunch of communist literature from the 1800s. i confronted them with the fact that this is a problem for the movement in general and they should be more straight forward with their words, but they just got pissy again.
it really sucks as a situation because theyre right, they just cant fathom that you cant expect people to read a bunch of old ass books in order to understand wtf theyre saying. add to that the jargon has been coopted and memed to death so every conservative gets triggered like a sleeper agent hearing the code word to execute their mission, we should probably abandon it and just talk in simple practical terms people can understand.
I can see why they’re your ex.
every conservative gets triggered like a sleeper agent hearing the code word to execute their mission, we should probably abandon it and just talk in simple practical terms people can understand.
Hard agree.
Exactly. We don’t need “socialism”. It’s just a word, one that has been deeply tainted through generations of propoganda. We can discard the label if it doesn’t help good outcomes… Material conditions are what matter, no matter what you call them
I love to fight someone forced to directly defend unaffordable housing and medical care. Please, tell me more about how you hate the common people and want us all to die. Speak up for the camera
Everyone likes socialism, as long as it isn’t called socialism. Two sides of the same coin. We’ve been duped.
Everybody likes a mix of capitalism and socialism. Nobody likes 100% one or the other.
Everybody who has experienced it likes socialized medicine. Public education just makes sense. The idea of having to pay a contract to get private fire service seems absurd.
At the same time, nobody wants to stand in a bread line, or for the law to forbid an artist to profit from creating art. We like certain forms of capitalist activity, like a mom and pop shop, or a restaurant, or a good mechanic, or a lemonade stand.
Every country that believes in capitalism still has a mix of socialist elements. And, every supposedly “communist” country has realized that it doesn’t make any sense to forbid artists and craftsmen from owning their own tools and selling the things they made. The real question is where to draw the line.
The problem, as always, is the rich and powerful. Capitalism was supposed to be an improvement on feudalism because it required capitalists to compete, rather than just collect rents. But, that requires anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws, and for those laws to be enforced firmly and fairly. If a company has no competition, it can go right back to collecting rents and not doing any work. Communism also fails when “the state” owns everything, but really “the state” is a single dictator, or is a bunch of oligarchs who see that they get more than the rest.
As if you can simplify it to one single cause
No seriously, if you pull off enough masks all of societies problems are just money and xenophobia in varying degrees.
I just spent 7 weeks researching organ shortages in the US for a class. Turns out live donations go up dramatically if you reimburse people for the money they lose while doing the procedures and families are more willing to donate the organs of the dead if they are told they’re going to a similar demographic as them.
Homelessness? “Those people” don’t deserve human rights and they don’t have the money for housing. Xenophobia and money.
Opioid crisis? The pharma companies knew there were addictive and factored that into their push to get doctors to prescribe them like candy. This has been proven by internal documentation released in court. Money.
White supremacy? Don’t even have to explain it. Xenophobia.
Rise of Facism? Xenophobia exploited for money.
Pay gaps between men and women? Xenophobia because women aren’t taken seriously and money because it benefits the company to pay someone less.
Stagnant wages? Xenophobia because rich people don’t think poors deserve money and money because they get more if we get less.
Racism in America? Xenophobia and money. Most racists are just raised to hate by previous generations. If you go back far enough for those you find that the hate came from considering the other as property and by turning them into people you hurt the owner’s money. The seed was money and the fruit is xenophobia.
Christian nationalism? It looks like xenophobia but Surpise! It’s money. Religious capitalism is the idea that God rewards those w who are holy and what better reward than wealth? So if you’re poor, it’s because god doesn’t like you which means you’re evil.
It is literally money and hate all the way down.
What many people hate about what is happening now is not even capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system characterized by the private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of profit.
Of course pure, laissez-faire capitalism has arguably never existed on a national scale. Modern economies are defined by their specific balance of market freedom and government oversight, but that is not what I mean.
Traditional capitalism was historically driven by equity. Owners investing their own capital or retained earnings into production to generate profits through goods and services. In contrast, the modern economy is increasingly driven by debt.
If capitalism implies a system driven by equity investment in production and disciplined by the risk of bankruptcy, the modern leverage-heavy economy deviates significantly. It functions as a hybrid system where financial extraction and state-backed credit have superseded productive investment and market discipline as the primary engines of economic activity.
Everyone
