How to counter common arguments against socialism

Then why was he a leftist? Checkmate, commies.

honestly I feel like this sort of cheat sheet will do more harm than good. Most of these arguments are pretty easy to deal with if you understand the basics of the position you're advocating for. There are some here that I don't know very well (transformation problem and LTV I need to read up on). But my point here is that if you're just reading off answers from some retard on leftypol, you don't really understand what you're saying and you're gonna freeze up real fast in real conversation.

What's the point of this thread? All of these have been refuted over and over through the years.

Can someone just answer it.

Because he saw the violence inherent in the system

It never worked

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

and here are some refutations against communism

youtube.com/watch?v=u0NlF7LRuNg

Thanks.

All these questions need to be approached dialectically, by offering the person thesis and antithesis so they can come to the conclusion (synthesis) on their own

you will never refute people sufficiently if you don't understand theory

Wew.

Our nature as humans depends on our the society we find ourselves in.
No it didn't. This is correct.
If you know about it than argue why it is not, but you're better off just pointing how capitalism's fucking everyone over today and the need for alternative.
Ask them if they really know what it is. Point out that there are many Marxist refutations of said problem and leave it at that unless you really want to get into the mindboggling algebra.
coops ain't socialism and there are examples of successful ones as much as there are examples of failed companies.
Just explain to them what socialism and then communism entails.
No he doesn't. He buys machines and tools made by other workers to have workers produce products that he sells to give himself a larger share. Also LTV if shit gets serious.
Work or starve is not voluntary and not everybody has the same opportunities and abilities to just "start you own company".
capitalism is too.
It has also made many people unhappy. Socialism will make people happier.
No implication of anything.
He had many.

But everyone can just live in the woods if they wanted to!

They can't even do that.

Why not?

...

The woods are private property too.

Then why aren't people perfectly adjusted to whatever society they live in?

There can be no such thing as alienation without human nature.

Not all of them.

Where do you live?

Near a national park.

And people are really allowed to LARP hunter gathering there?
Which country?

USA

You are fucking stupid. You are not allowed to live on national park land. They were specifically set aside so that "unspoiled nature" could be experienced by all americans.

kek

...

you have to make one in the first place retard

The whole point of Marx was to reject the idealism of capitalism and embrace materialism

If the guy is America, say he has never experienced a true revolution. After the first American revolution they had no opposition but stateless savages and plentiful land and resources to exploit with industrial technology of the West not developed by the isolationist East. Only the wealthy class overthrew another wealthy class an ocean away, so a bloody class revolution didn't take place like it did in France or Russia. Instead of going psycho, Germany just got organized and killed the one race they faulted for their economic destruction, only to fall like Rome as their economy was based on conspitious consumption and expansion, basically capitalism and the expense of anyone none German.

After the industrial revolution finally peaked in America and all viable land had already been claimed, shit began hitting the fan pretty fast in America with Boom and Bust economic cycles destroying the "American Dream". This came to a head with the Great Depression, but thankfully we were able to steal all of Imperial Britain's wealth they stole from the Indians and the Chinese. The fact they support a system of returning that wealth to said countries makes them cucks.

Pretty soon the post-WWII USA honeymoon of supremacy is going to be over and they are neither going to find they have the wealth or ethical resources left to counter the rising power of BRIC interests, or the ability to manipulate third world countries for their benefit.

The argument that socialism is incompatible with human nature is particularly hilarious coming from capitalists who espouse an ideology based on the assumption that people are rational, well informed, and will act in their own best interest. You will never find someone more hopelessly naive and idealistic than a capitalist true believer.
That's really the big lie, the deep down corruption at the heart of capitalist theory and morality: Rational Self Interest. It's a denial of human emotion, community, and fallibility which reduces human beings to nothing but empty machines.

but that's exactly what marxists believe

no it isn't.

*deep breath*
If capitalism is in accordance with human nature, why are people miserable under it and have to fight themselves to even work a meaningless job under anyone? Why were worker protection -related regulations sought after? Why was there even a labor movement in the first place? Why wasn't unfettered capitalism maintained?
It has worked on many accounts. What are independent soviet democracies? What are anarchist mass societies and smaller communities? What were the Soviet Socialist Republics? What are, for the most basic model of worker-based ownership and management to think of, cooperatives?
Prove it wrong then.
They are more efficient than corporations in the way they work.
Socialism did have leaders. Who were Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Makhno, Durruti, Castros, Abdullah Öcalan, Tito, Sankara and so on?
At the rate of the boss selling the the product and paying the wage to the worker producing said product, the worker is practically paying the boss to be working, so no.
Which is better: to compete stressfully for the place of the oppressor with the risk of failing and losing your livelihood, or dismantling the oppressive structure altogether?
And capitalism is not? What are police, secret services and the military?
Not the ones working to make ends meet or fighting to find a job and exit the reserve of unemployed people.
There are non-jewish socialists just like there jewish capitalists. Jewishness is no reason to be for capitalism.

webm

Ask them to define "it" and on what conditions it didn't work. This will inevitably result in self-defeating arguments from them and you can move back to arguing for the pragmatic justifications for communism.

Tell them that they're mongoloids and to read: users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

See above; it's a meme.

Also remind them, especially if you happen to be arguing with a nationalist or fascist, that the transformation "problem" was invented by Jewish economists from the Austrian school to defend free international capital trade.

No objections. Coops are the same as any other economic unit, however they generally perform much better and last much longer than conventional firms (I'm sure some marksucc will have this data at hand for you ITT).

Communists do not put primacy on hierarchy as the problem, but the endemic blind sustenance of systems that breed hierarchy and contradiction. You should probably only bother addressing this if you're an anarchist of some kind.

Explain to them what wage labor is and to clarify what the boss's function really is in the economic process.

Tell them starvation as the only alternative is a piss-poor choice to choose from if the only way to go is enrich someone for some scraps in return. Also cite recent data like 8 people own more wealth than half the world's population combined (works well on normies).

Ask them how capitalism isn't, more specifically how "authoritarianism" is really an argument against anything.

Ask them how and allude that it's vapid, consumer-generated happiness built on the misery of the many.

Tell them to kill themselves.

Tell them they can't have an opinion on rape if they haven't raped anyone before themselves.

Is it human nature NOT to be greedy, and therefore try to prevent people from stealing what you produce? :-^)
Does Capitalism work? China is the most succesful economy out there. The USSR aparently was more efficient than the US. So, does capitalism work? (they will deflect this question)
LTV isnt a market value theory. Can you tell me the impact, acording to capitalism, that a product has on the production level economy?
Explain the transformation problem first.
Coops have been proven to be more proffitable than Ltds. Many european countries seem to have been gaining MORE coops as the years go by.
If you mean managers, yeah, to a point. Its better to have a operations department that implements democratic policies.
Again, if you mean manager, yeah.
So you can start your own bank tomorrow? (deflection, start small, just look at Microsoft/Apple/The company from the guy on the Wolf of Wall Street)
Define socialism (t-that's when the state does stuff)
Define coercion. Are taxes coercion? (Y-yeah, we need them small) So is the police coercion? etc.
So did Nazism. And Communism. And the african monarquic nationalist revolutions.
Da joos own the capital. Why would the media hate something against capital so much???
Is being a writer, a journalist, and an editor not a job? (I meant in a factory you cuck) So are you an economist? How come you can talk about the economy? You should just listen to what the economist Garld Margds has to say on this, and shut up.

Is there a reason to counter arguments made against the Labour movement?

Human nature isn't defined by happiness, only its ability to reproduce. Not that I think capitalism is in line with human nature anyway.

Also, if the boss is not needed and his role can be removed, why not just remove this role in a capitalist society and outcompete everybody. They must serve some role.

Personally I do believe that managers do indeed have a role as far as allocating resources and giving "some" direction to the laborers, however capitalism does this all the wrong way. The bossman's labor is nowhere near as intense or important to be worth the surplus of all his employees. Furthermore, under capitalism the manager's decisions are determined by what is profitable rather than what is best for the workers and the consumers or "the people."

Personally I imagine that managers would still exist in a socialist society but their relationship would be completely different from what it is now. Like say, managers worked on a contract basis, limiting his or her ability to determine worker's wages and changing the motivations of the manager from profit to effectively satisfying the needs of the workers and the consumers, as aforementioned.

Also, if the (king, tyrant, fuedal system, slavery) is not needed and his role can be removed, why not just remove this role in a(fuedal, oligarchical, monarchic) society and outcompete everybody. They must serve some role.

Apparently it's human nature to paint everyone with broad strokes.

China is balls deep in derivative assets, foreign debt, heavy smog and human-rights violations.

They've been forcing more to open in order to turn a profit through volume.

Whether or not Marx had a job isn't the point. He died a debt-ridden drunk. He never employed the proletariat. He never practiced what he preached.

This is true, also why I believe that capitalism isn't in line with human nature. Humans have adapted to work for the benefit of groups not individuals.

This is a false equivalence though. In a feudal/despotic/slave society, the serfs/slaves are legally bound to their feudal lord/master. There is no legal bond between a worker and the boss unless an agreed contract is made by both the worker and boss.
I would also go on to say in these societies weapons, nutrition and kknowledge of warfare were not accessible enough that the serfs/slaves ever could effectively protect themselves. Therefore, there was a nessecity of the feudal lords to protect them from other feudal lords/despots. The collapse of the Roman Empire made alot of Europe a very dangerous place to live. Look at the depopulation of the area due to war, famine, disease etc.

The whole feudal system rested on the legitimacy of the king. If you just get rid of the king then you remove the justification for the whole feudal system of government.

How do you argue against hoomean nature though? When all idpol is gone and everyone are united as workers, there are still distinctions between the lazy, the intelligent, the weak, and so on. These distinctions will inevitably lead to the formation of an aristocracy. Moreover, someone with sufficient intelligence and convincing rhetoric could subvert society entirely, especially with help from "natural" aristocrats.

I guess what I am asking is what safeguards are in place to avoid corruption and a regression to capitalism in a communist society?

swear to god i can't understand if this is bait

What safeguards are in place right now to avoid a regression to feudalism?

Workers are legally bound to sell their labor to capitalists, if they want to make legal income.
When the lords were deposed, we discovered new, better ways to organize our society.
Yes power vacuums are bad, that is why there are transitional stages along the way to communism.
Capitalism is an improvement over fuedalism, as socialism is an improvement over capitalism.

Don't argue against people who are particularly ideologically entrenched, unless you are just having fun or interested in their arguments.

It's not productive.

How do you make the distinguishment between woker and capitalist. Is it just ownership of the means of production?
How is a worker legally obliged to sell there labour only to a capitalist and not directly to those who would consume their work.
I own my means of production and I directly sell my work to my customers for example. Does this make me a capitalist?
My final thought is I understand that feudalism comes after capitalism (we see this in history), how can we be sure that socialism is the next stage (towards communism).