So basically in my English Comp class the teacher decided that we should chose two topics of an issue and write a simple five paragraph argumentative essay for one side of the issue. Because the teacher wanted us to do that she made everyone of us in class say what we wanted to write about in class. I stated nervously I wanted to write about socialism vs capitalism and literally everyone in class including the more classcucked people in class wanted to read an essay like that.
The thing is I have an anxiety disorder and I have problems organizing essays before hand so it is hard to think about what exactly I'm going to write. So far there are three topics I'm thinking about writing about. Specifically those topics are automation, economic instability, and efficiency in distributing resources. So far I think that I will write about how capitalism treats these issues and how socialism treats them in order to argue that socialism is better than capitalism, since the topic seems to imply that's what I'm arguing for. So I need data to back my arguments up (if you post studies make sure to post link to the journal they came from and make sure the study is peer reviewed/from a reputable source), I need some suggestions on what arguments I should make as well as some arguments/contradictory data to debunk, and finally I just need some general advice on how I should outline my essay (topics, supporting details, things that will make the essay more convincing etc…) I am thankful for anyway you comrades can help.
Help With College Assignment
Other urls found in this thread:
Why the fuck would you choose such a broad topic?
see scihub or libgen and google Bordiga
Are you in high school? First paragraph contains the thesis and outlines points for the following 3 paragraphs. Last paragraph is a summary of the previous 3 paragraphs tied back to your thesis. 3 paragraphs in the middle make up your 3 areas of focus. Automation is a dumb topic since I presume you will be addressing the profit driven nature of capitalism destroying lives in the second "economic instability" paragraph- and other than that there is no difference between capitalist and communist attitudes to building machines that make life easier. I would suggest swapping it out for a paragraph on idpol and how racist and sexist injustice cannot be solved through "ethical" capitalism and would not exist under communism
From what he said, he can narrow down the topic. However, I agree. A short college essay should pinpoint one particular issue and do it well.
Try and find ONE specific problem to focus on, OP. The most important thing is to organise your argument and its backing evidence before you write.
How is your class politically, OP? Are they more liberal, conservative, or socdem? That should influence the way you approach this
The amount of sources you would need to just argue against the black book of communism meme/defending mao/stalin/etc. Maybe you could phrase it as capitalism vs socialism and then really make it about historical materialism. Briefly throw in successful attempts at socialism, how they failed due to external forces and maybe how no one demonizes John Locke for liberalism as opposed to Marx's communism.
...
Not to be a heretic, nor to support it, but the Spanish Inquisition was not nearly as bad as it's made out to be
I don't know why you would want to argue this but I, personally, would focus on one part, and not the generality of socialism. I would focus on wealth inequality, and I would talk about how capitalism directly causes it through its "design". You can talk about contradictions of Capitalism, problems with trade, maybe you get fancy and talk about currency. The most important part, if you want to convince people, is to relate it back to them. If you write a line of theory, write at LEAST a line that connects it to reality. The fact is that most people don't really understand theory/theory doesn't really move them. I think if you take the theory and submerge it in reality, you will easily educate.
Since you are a student, it may be possible to anticipate topics that your peers will connect with. I would use those topics, the connection to reality will cover the theory, like a lubricated condom, making the theory easier to stomach.
Honestly, one of my biggest anxities was that the topic of socialism vs capitalism is pretty broad, and while I did say that most people in the class wanted to read an essay about socialism vs capitalism it is probably a good idea to write about a more specific issue that relates to the topic such as poverty or use on of the supporting details for this essay as the main topic since they are specific issues that whole essays can be written about.
I would say most of the class so far seems to be liberal and socdem with a few people that are different. One of the kids I'm pretty sure is a lolbert of some sort since he mentioned the Mises institute once, and another kid might be a straight up socialist.
The first one is a pretty good suggestion tbh. I've already done some research, but I specifically asked for papers because a significant portion of my results ended up being vague and not exactly what I was looking for.
This here seems like it would be a good suggestion, and I will consider especially since I was already trying to go for a more materialist that argues that capitalism is impractical bound to fail than a moralist one that argues it is immoral therefore it should be abolished. My only fears with this suggestion would be that it could easily result in me getting off topic, it might still be too broad of a subject, and it could also alienate the reader if I am not careful that I write something with overly technical the language.
Unironically go full wolff pointing out the authoritarianism of capitalism.
I would dedicate a paragraph detailing that reform isn't going to work or something like that
Try to explain capitalism sort of like in capital or in the law of value video series and explain breifly what socialism (the real movement to abolish the present state of things)
You are going to want to narrow it down to something more specific than just capitalism vs socialism. I think automation is a great topic.
Here is an outline for how I would do it:
P1: Intro.
P2: Introduce historical context, specifically the Luddites during the early years of the British labor movement. Explain how this is an expression of capitalism's inherent contradictions: machines that should be able to improve the standard of living for workers by decreasing their working hours, instead destroyed peoples livelihoods.
P3: Introduce modern automation technology, and make the same argument you made in P2, about how it will destroy the livelihoods of the working class, when it should really improve the living standards of everyone. Mention how eventually, automation under capitalism will cause unemployment yo rise to such a degree that there will be no demand for what is being produced, and this will eventually lead to a crisis.
Here is Richard D Wolff talking about this:
youtube.com
P4: Explain how socialism would deal with automation, and how under socialism, automation technology could be used for the benefit of the workers.
P5: Summarize your overall argument and conclude your essay.
This is probably the best suggestion within this entire thread. I am already very much fascinated by automation, and I think it's probably one of the most important issues in modern society as well as one of the best platforms to argue for socialism with. I have narrowed my topic down enough to make my essay clear and precise now. I am very thankful to all who have helped me, and I love you all. I've got to go now, I hope to see y'all later.
This. Don't make it overly complicated. Don't talk about Marxist theories of the falling rate of profit. You have to start with the assumptions people have, the arguments people have already heard a million times, show to how they are misleading and relate things to their normal lives. Don't do what says, or nobody will understand what you mean.
The way the standard apologist rhetoric for the system works is that the people doing it are establishing a very narrow spectrum of opinions one can possibly have, they do that at the very start of the debate (one can say that they are doing it before, because people are already indoctrinated with that every day). Take talking about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Now, we all know that equality of outcome is not what we have here, but this doesn't logically imply at all that we have equality of opportunity. That's a sleight of hand. By putting you in the corner named "equality of outcome", it is implied without explicit and logical argument, that you are against equality of opportunity, as if those two were literally pure opposites. And there is some degree of conflict between these concepts, but you tell me, how in hell is free education up to and including university an example of being against equality of opportunity? And we all now where right-wing anti-socialists who talk about equality of opportunity stand on that issue.
Another phony pair, this time in fake harmony instead of fake conflict, is meritocracy and the particular income inequality of the particular society we live in. Just because I agree that people should get paid more if they work more hours, doesn't mean that I agree that absentee landlords should be stinking rich. (By the way, it is much easier to bring up landlords as an example of people who just receive without producing, than doing that with managers or small business owners, where this extraction is mixed up with productive activity in a way that you can't easily show how big the extraction part is).
I'm not sure whether going back that far in history and talking about it at length is a good idea, but it does make sense to point out a tension that still exists today when thinking about technological advances. As consumers we all like when things we own and control ourselves get improved, but as workers we are worried about being displaced and so on. This is not an irrational fear. There is potential benefit for society at large, but even capitalism fans will admit that in the short term it often sucks, which brings resentment. In a society with a strong social net and the means of production being under public control, the technical advances bring benefits to the general population immediately.
ITT:OP commits intellectual suicide
shitty essay topic tbh
Be nice or else m'kay?
Whoah, thanks to OP for posting this! I'm in an ENG102 class in college and we've also just been assigned an argument paper for whatever we want to do, but mine has to be 5 pages and cite 5 scholarly journal articles.
So, question for:
And any other anons in the thread: do you think a 5 page essay is long enough to do a Socialism vs Capitalism topic? Or should I also do something more specific?
bamp
It depends how well you can keep yourself straying off on irrelevant ideas. I think you might be able to do it, if you keep every page to a specific problem.
Nice thing about citations is that you can claim whatever the fuck you want and then refer to the article where they talk about it without needing to explain yourself too much.
Wow, a step above writing about why cannabis should be legalized.
lol, I have noticed this too when writing my first research paper. it's kind of funny then that papers with citations are considered "scholarly" just because they cite something else by someone who may have done the same thing.
What would be a better topic related to socialism to you, then?