“The current financial crisis is a testament to the failure of the free market."
Actually, I don’t believe this, but this is what socialist/communist morons have been saying. They are practically jumping for joy at the occurrence of the credit crunch.
I would like people to post comprehensive rebuttals of this statement, so that if I ever were to engage one of these Marxist idiots in an argument, I’d be able to demolish their arguments with ease.
We don’t have free markets, it’s that simple.
The rebuttal is easy if you believe in logic:
What we have is not a free market. Therefore the financial crisis can offer no information about the success or failure of the free market.
The problem is that the Marxist doesn’t believe in logic. Therefore it is impossible to convince the Marxist of anything using logical reasoning - his theories don’t use those tools.
Well if this is the biggest failure the free market leads to..then the free market aint so bad. my life is still uneffected, more or less meh
Ask and ye shall receive…
“I would like people to post comprehensive rebuttals of this statement, so that if I ever were to engage one of these Marxist idiots in an argument, I’d be able to demolish their arguments with ease.”
Hi Marco
To refute their “argument” (- smoking hash, quoting Marx and Che and proclaiming that “Capitalism’s failure is self evident”, is not really an argument), make them pronounce their argument explicitly. Many of the Socialist I’ve debated on the subject often dig their own graves - since all they know is how to make bold statements without much understanding of the theory behind it.
So that’s Nr.1 - Make them state the the flaw in Capitalism - explicitly, and then you take it from there. Do NOT argue against abstract implications from their quotes.
If you get the usual “Well the Capitalist are really enslaving the working class, man. inhaling a new puff of weed - The crisis are just the result of the corporate fat cats f**k up”, then just don’t bother wasting your time on them. There is nothing coherent behind this “argument” at all.
If you - on the other hand, find a coherent Socialist out there (I hear there are some), there are some techniques you should be aware of.
Nr. 2 - If you wish to debate people, you have to know your logical fallacies. Learning this technique has been by far, the greatest help for me in debates.
For example:
You: “Under Capitalism everyone will be rewarded on the basis of his own ability”
Socialist: “Right, so under capitalism the rich will get richer and the poor will only suffer more because of their inabilities!”
This is the “Straw man” argument, and it is an attempt to create a weaker argument that looks like its an implication from your statement. Don’t fall for this stuff.
There are allot of logical fallacies out there - check out these podcasts for the most frequent.
Right, so now you know your logical fallacies and you won’t get trapped. Now its just one more step left.
Nr.3 - Study the theories. I know, I know it sounds so tiresome when you put it like that, but there is a difference between reading a blog post about a subject and really studying it. There is a big advantage to studying the theory: Once you learn the principles - you don’t need any help applying them to real-life examples.
If you spend 10 minutes reading an article, you may very well be able to defend a theory from a certain angle just by memorizing the article. But what if its a slightly different angle, what if there is another factor to the argument? Then you must find a rebuttal to that other argument, ad infinitum. You are then just mirroring other people in your debates, and this is a slippery slope.
So instead of spending 10 minutes on an article, spend 3-4 nights a week reading up on the basic theory. Then you will find that you have complete confidence when arguing on the subject. Then you can as you said completely “demolish their arguments with ease”.
I know that this sounds like time consuming and straining work, but there are really no easy ways to be a good debater - however, these steps is a good way to start.
Good luck!
/H
What has failed is the finance economy, not Capitalism and free enterprise. The finance economy has failed precisely because it is not free.
Well if this is the biggest failure the free market leads to..then the free market aint so bad. my life is still uneffected, more or less meh
Yeah, and we even managed to get the mortgage (FHA - very bad of us 
)
Thanks for all the answers so far. However, consider the following hypothetical exchange between myself and some Marxist moron.
Me: “Communism has ostensibly failed. History proves this, the collapse of the Soviet Union proves this, North Korea proves this, the 100 million deaths due to the likes of Stalin, Mao and Pal Pot prove this, etc etc……”
Marxist: “We have never had true communism. True communism would have worked.”
Me: “The reason we have never had the “communist/socialist utopia” you speak of, is due to the inherent flaws within communism (i.e. It is inefficient as the Economic Calculation Problem demonstrates, the LTV is patently absurd and flawed, communism doesn’t account for human nature, etc) Simply put, communism will never work due to its very – fundamentally flawed - nature.”
Now, consider this:
Marxist: “Capitalism has failed.”
Me: “We do not have a free market, hence it cannot possibly have failed.”
Marxist: “The reason we have never had the “free market” model you speak of, is due to the inherent flaws within Capitalism. Hence, the need for a whole multitude of rules and regulations.”
Your thoughts……
Erm, to ask the Marxoid to actually substantiate his position and prove that there was 1) a free market and 2) that it needed regulating, and stop asserting things?
-Jon
Dont speak too soon, the worst is yet to come I think.
So what are some of the best books to read to get a deeper understanding of Marxism (besides the obvious Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, etc)?
A not so obvious but excellent choice would be Todd May’s “The Political Philosophy of Post-Structrualist Anarchism”; it gave a great historical analysis on Marxism / Socialism, how & why they faield throughout the 20th century, while also distinguishing between Leninism, Stalinism, etc., as well as including the evolution of marxist / socialist thought (The Critical Theorists, Autnomist’s, etc.).
A bonus on this historical analysis is how he ties some problems of socialism with anarchism, & how post-structuralist anarchism seeks to remedy this (I haven’t gotten that far yet, I just got into the 3rd chapter which only begins to explore the main thesis of the book).
[Links]
Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=tpRCFDC-g-UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=todd+may+anarchism&client=firefox-a
Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Political-Philosophy-Poststructuralist-Anarchism/dp/0271010460
This is a no brainer.
The market is not a ‘free market’.
Those who rejoice at the current ‘free market’ failure blaming capitalsim and it’s ultimate downfall need to understand that we are not in a truly capitalist society. In a truly capitalist society the ‘free market’ runs on capital - not credit. You can’t have capitalism without the capital. We have credit which is government controlled, not free. A true free market and a true capitalist society work perfectly - a situation we have not had for a long time. On the other hand credit, government controlled markets and socialism are all the results of not having a truly free and capitalist market.
Matt