"Debating" with Marxists.

Hi everyone,

I am new to the Mises community and was a former leftist and supporter of socialism in Canada until around age 23 when I got hit over the head with real life enough to realize what an abysmal failure socialism is and realized that all of the material prosperity that I enjoy has come from the result of capitalism. Above all, I realized that economic freedom and individual liberty as well as the protection of private property are all necessary conditions for a free society. From there, the hypocrisy, double standards, and blatant logical contradictions on literally every aspect of leftism became very clear to me. Since around 2006 after learning and properly understanding the work of Mises and other scholars of his philosophy I can’t say that I have been challenged intellectually very much. My head used to spin constantly trying to defend the indefensible and now I no longer have this problem.

My question for the community is how do you deal with far-leftists? The type of Marxists who are so fargone that they would define a child running a lemonade stand as “bourgeoisie” and a basketball player making $20 million a year “exploited” given that the former owns the means of production while the latter produces surplus value. Is there an effective method of dealing with these people or would they be classified as possessing a mental illness, rendering them impossible to reason with?

This is the type of self-described “left-communist” who I am referring to. The first thread was written by a libertarian capitalist:

http://forum.bodybuildingpro.com/showthread.php?t=13650

This “rebuttal” was written by a “left-communist”:

http://forum.bodybuildingpro.com/showthread.php?t=11673

Exactly what should I say to make such a person see logic, or is it an impossibility?

Refute the labor theory of value, over and over again. All of Marx’s conclusions stem from his version of the LTV. Once you refute it, all of his conclusions come crumbling down. Next, and this isn’t necessary, though it’s just as effective, refute Marx’s historical materialism (see Mises’ Theory and History).

He wont admit that he lost the debate, but deep down he’ll know, and everyone following your debate will know as well.

Yeah, I’ve heard demolition of LTV does wonders. Also the division of labor. Jeffrey Tucker’s link doesn’t work, so I believe I found the only other place it is posted on the net. And will reproduce here so it doesn’t die [or could he put it up on Mises.org somewhere]. So apologies for the long post. Also class analysis is what I believe got Hans Hoppe - who used to be a Marxist too. [Though I could be wrong on that is what persuaded him]. Anyway, he wrote on Marxist & Austrian Class analysis… rulers vs ruled and it starts off with the Marxists are correct etc.. (so it will get under the Marxists radar a bit..) Fundamentally though, it depends on whether the person is intellectually honest or not. You’re here because you are.

Cooperation: How a Free Market Benefits Everyone



by Jeffrey Tucker



12/31/09

The following will explain the most important idea in the history of social analysis. The notion (actually, it’s a description of reality that is all around us but rarely noticed) has been around for many centuries. It was first discovered by late-medieval monks working in Spain. It was given scientific precision in the classical period. It is the basis of advances in social theory in the 20th century.

In fact, it is an essential part of the case for freedom. It was the basis of the belief of our ancestors that they could throw off tyrannical rule and still not have society descend into poverty and chaos. The failure to comprehend this idea is at the very root of the pervasive bias against liberty and free enterprise in our times, on the left and the right.

I speak of the division of labor, also known as the law of comparative advantage or the law of comparative cost, and also known as the law of association. Call it what you will, it is probably the single greatest contribution that economics has made to human understanding.

This law – a law like gravity, not a law like the speed limit – is a description of why people cooperate and the ubiquity of the conditions that lead to this cooperation. If you can take a few minutes to learn it, you will understand how it is that society functions and grows wealthy even without a visible hand directing its path. You will also see how the criticism that the market economy leads to the strong dominating the weak is actually a sham.

This law shows how it is that people can gain, materially and in every other way, by working together rather than working in isolation. They don’t just gain the sense of satisfaction that comes with participation in solidarity with one’s fellow man; they can actually gain in the real stuff of life, the goods and services that are available to us all.

What’s more, they gain more than the sum of their parts. Through cooperation and exchange, we can produce more than if we work in isolation. This applies in the simplest economic settings as well as the most complex ones.

It helps to lay this out more rigorously so that you can observe the magic of the marketplace at work. (I owe the following exposition to Ludwig von Mises in Human Action, Murray Rothbard in “Freedom, Inequality . . .” and, especially, Manuel Ayau’s Not a Zero-Sum Game.)

Let’s say you and I can both make bagels and pies. But there’s a problem: You make both with incredible efficiency. In fact, you do a better job at making bagels and pies than anyone who has ever lived. You are the world-class, all-time champion.

Meanwhile, I’m not so hot at either. My bagels taste as good as yours, but they seem to take me an age to make. My pies are the same way. I struggle and struggle, but try as I might, I just can’t seem to crank them out the way that you can.

What is likely to happen under these conditions? The intuitive answer, which you will hear in just about every sociology class in the country, is that you will make all bagels and pies. No one else will. You will lord it over the rest of us, and have massive market power. If anyone wants either, he or she must come to you and you alone. You are privileged, favored, rich, powerful, and the rest of us can only sit in awe and beg from you.

But in fact, that’s not what happens at all. Let’s back up a bit and see why.

Let’s say you and I have never met, and we are both making bagels and pies. Here is what happens in a 24-hour period: You make 12 bagels in 12 hours, and 6 pies in the remaining 12 hours. I, on the other hand, only manage to make 6 bagels in the first 12 hours, and a mere 2 pies in the remaining 12 hours.







You



You



Me



Me



Hours



12



12



12



12



Production



12 bagels



6 pies



6 bagels



2 pies

Production in Isolation

If we both work at this pace, the total production is 18 bagels and 8 pies.

In each case, the cost of what you decide to do is the thing you give up. So for you the cost of each pie is 2 bagels, and, likewise, the cost of each bagel is 1/2 of a pie. For me, the opportunity cost of making a pie is 3 bagels, and the cost of making a bagel is 1/3 of a pie.

Just looking at this, you might observe that you have your act together, whereas I’m pretty shabby. What chance in life do I have?

Well, my hope is bound up with the reality that your time and resources are scarce and you want ever more of each. So you began to think about exchange. Even though I’m not very good at either pies or bagles, you can still see that you can make more of one thing or the other by encouraging our cooperation, thereby freeing up your time to do what you do best.

If you specialize in making pies, you still need some bagels. So you plan to exchange pies for bagels from me. With this thought in mind, you increase pie production and reduce bagel production. I, on the other hand, stop pie production completely and devote myself to bagel production in hopes of fobbing them off on you.







You



You



Me



Me



Hours



8



16



24



0



Production



8 bagels



8 pies



12 bagels



0 pies

Production with Cooperation

So you now spend a mere 8 hours on bagel-making, in which time you produce 8 bagels; in the remaining 16 hours of your day, you are able to bake 8 pies. Meanwhile, I can now devote all of my time to bagel-making, and I turn out 12 bagels in 24 hours.

Let’s total up the production. Before cooperation: 18 bagels and 8 pies. After cooperation: 20 bagels and 8 pies.

Thanks for the great replies!

Did anyone glance over the libertarian’s post on unions [excellent post in my view] and the communist’s inane response? In a sense I feel as if I’m discussing this with a person who lives on another planet when I discuss things with this guy. He is just so wrong on every level imaginable. Note that he proposes absolutely nothing in the way of a socioeconomic model that delivers more material prosperity than capitalism does.

Was there one certain thing that turned you around towards the free market? And what directed you to this website? Just curious because we’re always looking for ways to bring new people into these discussions and it’s hard to find ‘easy’ methods of communication.

Argue with him as little as possible. Theleft have an extensive mythology, hundreds of empirical papers, etc. One fallback I always have when I’m done explaining why none of their research or hypotheticals matter is to point out that the Amish are ultra anarcho-capitalists. You can have these little worker communes they idolize… An anarcho capitalist society would not attack them. But if they neighbored a bunch of anarcho-capitalists who were perfect neighbors, would they still attack them and seize the means or production? I never got an answer to this, probably because they know the answer but realize it would make them giant jerks (this is a variant of Stefan Molyneux’s "I won’t attack you, but you would attack me? ): )

Hahaha, another ex-leftie here. It took me a while longer to realize. Its funny because all you describe happened to me. And while I was learning and debating with other lefties, I got exactly the same feeling you do. Its just a bunch of nonsense. Its hard to discuss with someone that just does not want to get it.

Primarily, I realized that it was simply an ideal of mine that the government can fix the problems I was experiencing. My friend who wrote the first thread I originally linked to regarding Safeway unions kept beating me in debate after debate. I knew I was wrong and I knew I had no logical rebuttal to his claims. Finally when my car got broken into after going to the gym it begged the question of where the government was with all the tax dollars I had paid them to help me out? Nowhere to be found. The only thing able to help me was insurance delivered privately. I think it’s clear to everyone that bad things happen in the world. The question then becomes what is the most efficient mechanism to deal with these problems. Somehow I landed on government as being the solution but gradually learned this was not the case.

I also realized that the most prosperous nations in the world were the ones who had the greatest elements of capitalism in their nations. Additionally, I realized the blatant hypocrisy of leftists who demand “equality” but have no problem being among the richest 5-10% of people on the planet. I had to explain to some of them very carefully that the global GDP was only around $10,000 USD per year and that if they truly wanted equality they would give away the money that they had over and above that figure. Since none of them were willing to do that I then attempted to plant the seed that people richer than them merely feel the same way that they do! How on earth these leftists can not get the fact that other people are simply doing the same things that they do is beyond me. In the past four years I have become increasingly more proficient at debating leftists, although occasionally one comes up like “Biffard Misqueegan” from the second thread I linked to above who I think is so painfully wrong he is not even on the same planet. This guy actually believes that a seven year old running a lemonade stand is “bourgeoisie”. Is it even possible to debate with someone who believes such nonsense?

It’s not at all people bettering their situation that socialists are against, well not anyone who really understood it (to each according to his contribution kind of thing). The difference is between someone who has a “number” as Share the Beef said (Shai leBeouf), and one who just wants “more.”

Just wanting more runs the risk of suspending ethics. And then the economy collapses, and you have to ask for a bailout. Really Money Never Sleeps really explains why “we” are anti-corporatist in the first place. The bailout shouldn’t have surprised anyone that was paying attention, it’s the nature of state capitalism; privatize profits, socialize losses.

@OP, welcome. Nice to see another Canadian waking up, and in the best way possible. By recognizing the failure of the state to meaningfully provide on the social contract. You might be interested in checking out Marc Stevens on YouTube.

There are 6 more parts to this.

Everything runs the risk of suspending ethics.

You don’t have to do anything, and economies collapse for specific reasons, not “greed”.

Just so I’m clear about this, I do own the bodybuilding website I’m linking to but I’m by no means attempting to spam my site. In truth, I don’t think an economics forum would even make for effective spamming anyway. :slight_smile: But it’s the only place that has this content online and I don’t want to copy and paste it because it would be huge:

http://forum.bodybuildingpro.com/showthread.php?t=11673

“I guess in the end the fundamental difference between those who defend capitalism and those who struggle against it can be summed up as such: A society that relies on competition will always be one of corruption and classes. A society that supplants the culture of competition with one of co-operation, is the only one which will end the oppression that humanity has experienced throughout its existence.” - Biffard Misqueegan

How does one even begin to address this nonsense? Capitalism is by definition a system of voluntary cooperation. If you don’t like your low wage job at Wal-Mart - Quit! And communists are free to pool their resources together to create a socialist commune should they wish. If what they are saying about socialism is true, their commune would in turn go on to become a huge success. Is Biffard seriously suggesting that there is a socioeconomic model in existence which is superior to capitalism, class structure included? Alright - So where is it? You would think he could at least point to that but he can’t. Also, he gives no explanation as to why he himself chooses to live in one of the most capitalistic societies on earth! What a sheer and utter hypocrite.

Don’t spend time trying to refute or convert everyone. IMO, the people who show interest are worth your time. Develop ideas and share information with them. Conflict is rarely productive.

Also, it’s the internet. Everyone has a voice, and they can promote their bad ideas or silly thoughts without any meaningful consequence. Learn to recognize that because you can go crazy trying to win arguments with people who don’t have any skin in sincere behavior or the outcome.