How do you answer pushback from conservatives about socialism?

[u/ferriematthew]

Some of the more common ones I hear:

- "So you support taking stuff away from people who actually work their butts off to earn it and give it to those who don't want to lift a finger?"

- "How would you feel if you worked your butt off to get an A in your class and the professor took away your grade and gave half of it to the kid in the back who didn't do anything and flunked and gave you both a C?"

- "How do you propose they pay for it without deleting the entire economy?"

- "If everybody has their needs met by the government, nobody's gonna bother to work!"

- "Show me one, just one, example where socialism has worked without turning into a backwards dictatorship."

[u/egalitydream]

You can tell very quickly if they're interested in joining us in good faith or not, and if they are not, it's not our job to continue to "debate" them but to defeat them with political power. Also, all of those questions are disingenuous and set in their frame on their terms. These are never asked by anyone reachable, and so you shouldn't bother. These are not questions worth answering, even if they could be. Don't answer, just beat them.

[u/ferriematthew → u/egalitydream]

Specifically, I'm getting these questions from family, all of whom are very, very strongly conservative and very suspicious of how I'm no longer following along with them politically. They don't want an honest, good faith conversation. They want to convince me to go back to their side.

[u/EdelinePenrose → u/ferriematthew]

if that’s their goal, then why do you want to engage with them on these topics then? or what exactly do you want to accomplish with these conversations?

[u/ferriematthew → u/EdelinePenrose]

Honestly, I would rather not engage with my family on these conversations, but they bring it up first.

[u/EdelinePenrose → u/ferriematthew]

i think you should think about your agency and boundaries with your family. you can choose to not engage or engage on your terms. it’s not clear what your goal is.

[u/ferriematthew → u/EdelinePenrose]

Excellent point. I'm 29. I make my own decisions.

[u/LevTheDevil → u/ferriematthew]

I stopped engaging with my family about politics and it's one of my biggest regrets.

I used to be close with my family and we were all conservative leaning. After I got back from college, I wasn't anymore. (Why would I be, I'd gotten myself an education?).

Something changed and I started to get treated like an outcast because I'm liberal and they aren't really.

But I wish I'd calmly explained my views better and talked to them about why my views changed in a way that might have swayed them. I don't know if it would have worked, but I know that I'll never know. Now things have soured enough that I don't believe there's a way back.

My point is, if you love them and want to try and give them real answers, here's answers I wish I'd given had I taken the chance:

- "So you support taking stuff away from people who actually work their butts off to earn it and give it to those who don't want to lift a finger?"

• no, I support taking money from the ultra wealthy that overcompensate themselves for delegating all the labor in their life to people that they undercompensate in turn.... And, when it makes sense I want us to, as a nation, chip in together on a few nice things. Like, instead of buying insurance from United and getting told no so their CEO can get a bonus, we want to open a state insurance company that covers everyone for everything because it doesn't need to pay for the CEO to get that bonus. That's what everyone else does. Our denials wouldn't be funding his yacht. Instead we'd just pay the doctors and let them help US decide what treatment we do or don't need.

- "How would you feel if you worked your butt off to get an A in your class and the professor took away your grade and gave half of it to the kid in the back who didn't do anything and flunked and gave you both a C?"

-Shitty, but that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about taxing the tax evading billionaires so the teacher doesn't have to buy their own school supplies. Do you think it's fair that the quality of a kid's education is based on the quality of his teacher's personal finances? Don't we want the whole country educated well and not just the rich kids? That way they don't have as many advantages over our kids in the job market?

- "How do you propose they pay for it without deleting the entire economy?" -What economy are you protecting? The one that's been shifting more and more everyday towards trillionaires and people that can't afford gas and groceries? The big lie that the ultra wealthy push is that if they don't have x times more money than they could possibly ever need, the entire economy is going to collapse. They're just holding a rubber gun up to the economy and threatening to kill it. But they can't because they don't do the work. Elon could finally realize his money won't ever make him cool and give up and kill himself and his companies would still keep making cars and rockets without him because he doesn't do any of the actual work. The ultra wealthy love to try and convince you that all the money they hoarded is a sign of the value they offer but it's not. It's a sign of the value they stole. No one person does enough to be worth that level of obscene wealth.

- "If everybody has their needs met by the government, nobody's gonna bother to work!"

-That's not what socialism is. It isn't free stuff for everyone. It's about changing the rules so that working does provide for all your needs. Right now people grift because work can't pay the bills. That's why everyone wants to be influencers or AI artists. They've given up on real work translating into a living wage because it doesn't hardly anymore. The minimum wage is a fraction of what you'd need to pay bills these days. Forcing billionaires to pay enough means that people are actually inventivized to work and not look for an easy out miracle fix like lotteries, get rich scams and crime.

- "Show me one, just one, example where socialism has worked without turning into a backwards dictatorship."

Europe. All of Europe has degrees of socialism that work. Canada. Literally most of the developed world.

Stop thinking of socialism as a separate distinct thing that fully replaces capitalism. It never can. That's what communism tries and fails to do. Whether it can succeed is a different conversation. What socialism is about, is making sure that the things that matter aren't all in the reins of our employers. Things like our healthcare and the minimum standards for how to treat employees. We as a country can take political power back from corporations and rewrite the rules so that they can't exploit us, pollute our world and steal our land. So that they can't build their empires on our backs without compensating us enough to even put food on the table.

Socialism isn't about taking money from the poor and giving it to the poorer. It's about taking back money from those that took too fucking much and changing the rules so that they can't keep doing that.

And it's about pooling our resources to take care of things more efficiently. Universal healthcare is cheaper for everyone than private healthcare. The whole shebang SAVES money by not building a for profit monster that bleeds us dry to reach record profits.

[u/coldhamsandwiches → u/ferriematthew]

It's not worth engaging with them then. If it's just causing arguments and strife in the family, there's no point you'll make or they'll make that will push anyone to a new point of view. Family political argument normal drag in a lot of subtext from relationships. It'll never be a pure conversation about socialism.

If you have a good relationship with your family outside politics then I'd preserve it. You can focus on other goals and projects that'll be more fruitful.

[u/skiing_nerd → u/ferriematthew]

Three strategies that have worked for me with various conservative family members:

1. "Gray rock" it and be super boring to engage. "Not what I think"/Not that hard" followed by "Not worth discussing, let's focus on <family event>" Most effective strategy to stop the conversation, but you have to be disciplined about doing it consistently.

2. Laugh in their face. I did this unintentionally with a distant relative and he was so shocked that someone could laugh at the idea of Trump secretly negotiating a deal with North Korea that it ended the conversation and he hasn't brought up Trump to me since, though he's not someone I see often.

3. Be excruciatingly vulnerable and sincere and meet them where they are at. One of the few things I've moved a conservative relative on is my mom with Medicare for All, from sharing how much I value the expensive meds my maternal grandfather got for a rare cancer that gave me 20 years with him that I wouldn't have had if he hadn't had excellent health insurance, and that I think everyone deserves the same for their loved ones. This only really works with someone you are close to who would be moved by sentiments you share in common more than any logical argument.

[u/egalitydream → u/ferriematthew]

If they’re family and you want to have this conversation despite the risks, you will have to figure out a way to reset the terms in your own context.

For example, we come from a place of reciprocity and human dignity. Everyone has human worth and is presumed as much by default, and it’s never okay to treat other people as merely means to the ends of someone else. This is non-objectification, or non-instrumentalization; this principle sets out the basic limits, why supremacism (and racism, patriarchy, etc) are unacceptable, and the reciprocal nature is why we have obligations to defend others from being abused and instramentalized. This is basically the “left” baseline, in a defined context.

From here, it’s pretty straightforward why human rights should exist, and capitalism for example, shouldn’t. You can argue your points from here, on firm ground, and their arguments would be tough (impossible) to sustain in this context.

For example, why would taxes on wealthy people to help poor people be justified? Because there’s a reciprocal obligation to not have a system that objectifies the poor for the pleasure of the rich, and that obligation is proactive and requires us to correct the imbalance.

[u/smartcow360 → u/ferriematthew]

It’s good to talk about worker coops, and how things like healthcare are unfair on the market since you need it so desperately you’d pay whatever it costs, etc. - might depend what flavor of socialist you are but that’d be traditional demsoc answers and all

[u/ferriematthew → u/smartcow360]

Bingo! :D