I keep hearing people shout at the hill tops the whole "I work hard for my money, why should I give it to someone who doesn't work" canard more and more these days. When confronted with such an assertion, how would you guys respond? I am so flabbergasted by this comment that it leaves me like a deer in headlights sometimes. I mean I just never thought that people could be so selfish that I am left with a response. How do you guys handle that?

What would be a lucid, cogent response in a matter that is not only kind but razor shop logic?

I completely agree with this sentiment, which is why I demand the abolishment of bosses, the wage/profit system, and capitalism. I create the wealth but the boss keeps part of it? The lazy jerk didn't even work for my money...

That would take a lot of explaining. They'd look at me with a blank stare.

Tell them that socialism has nothing to do with giving money to people who refuse to work and to stop watching that airhead Glenn Beck. It's about giving everyone the opportunity to work without the products created by their own labour being stolen by investors, bosses and politicians who push paper around and tell you to work harder, performing no socially necessary labour.

Ask him how he'd like to work 10%, maybe even 20% less hours and retain his standard of living. I'm sure he'll say yes, and then ask "how?" So, how is it possible? Those are the rates of unemployment (the first is the official statistic, the second includes people that have given up looking for work) in the US. If everyone could get a job, then everyone would have to work less. It's that simple. Not to mention, since we'd need a whole lot less excess, wasteful positions like manager, CEO, hedge fund manager, stock trader, etc, under socialism, we would have even more people to work, and he would need to work even less. Heck, if he wants money so badly, you could phrase it to him as getting more for the same amount of work because of increases in production! So much for having to work harder to support those who can't work because of a stupid economic system (the Real American definition of socialism).

This just goes to show how those of us in America need to put the most emphasis on explaining what socialism is. This is a real problem here. That is to say, if you say something like "libertarianism" or "anarchism," the first things that come to people's minds are unrestrained capitalism. You can't build a popular socialist movement if people think it's come straight from the depths of Hell (or Washington D.C.) I talked about this previously with trying to start a "Socialists Against Obama" campaign, but I've come up with some other ideas. Like something that says "Down with big government, down with taxes, down with Obama, long live Socialism!" and "Communist? Libertarian? Why not both?" and have a picture of the red and black flag. Or maybe "When are we getting control of the economy, Obama? I thought you were a socialist..."

Probably you'd be better off asking some of the reformist blokes in OI, they're probably more experienced when it comes to debating this question.

Tell them that the wage they receive was negotiated before they worked (labour power). Hence, they are not being paid for their work (labour), but rather the expectation of their work (labour power). Consequently, there is a discrepancy between the actual value of the work they perform, and the value they are being paid for.

It stands to reason then that if a worker is against giving "his/her" money to someone who does not work for it, they should inherently be opposed to the capitalist mode of production.

But it's the main lesson that they need to hear. The people who produce the wealth generally don't own it, and the people who own the wealth generally don't produce it. A statement like "I shouldn't have to give my money to people who won't work" only makes any sense when the comment is aimed at the wealthiest people. Poor people are immensely productive in most cases. The wealthy contribute nothing at all and are entirely sponges. If that would take a lot of explaining, and you don't have the time to do that, there's no point in talking to them at all except to comment on the weather.

Capitalism creates the need for social programs. It creates false scarcity so there will be people without no matter what. Capitalism creates perpetual unemployment, is prone to crisis, massive outsourcing which exploits foreign labor and creates domestic debt for workers and the gross exploitation of those who do have jobs that pay enough to live on. Capitalism is the problem and most people in a socialist system who are able to work would work. That's the thing- there would be no false scarcity, no crisis and no perpetual unemployment under socialism. The goal of socialism is to let people keep the full value of their labor but not unequally. No one would be more or less important. Right now capitalist bosses/owners steal more wealth from the employee than any tax which goes to help the impoverished. Hell, taxes for war take up most of our budget. War would also be a thing of the past under conditions of abundance.

Most of them dot his because of their misconceptions of what socialism is. Socialism is not charity, is not welfare which people can exploit, it requires overturning the system all together.

These people are worried about people they perceive to be exploiting the system. While they may have legitimate concerns, they've just been fed information to make them think that is socialism.

If they are open minded, and I'm assuming that if you live in Texas they might not have some who would be willing to listen, this is an interesting quote about socialism

~August Bebel

If you give them that Bebel quote they'll just say that happens now, because America is a free country, and anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough.

Also, the whole charity/welfare argument was already discussed here somewhat: http://www.revleft.com/vb/charity-ar...158/index.html

It really depends on how they interpret it, but the point was that socialism isn't about "gubmint takin mah tax dollars for welfare mommas". Though I know a lot of them might see it in regards of taking from the "middle-class" and giving it to the poor, but I believe Bebel at the time was referring to capitalists who were getting a large amount of wealth back from doing pretty much nothing, at least compared to working men.

But again it relies on the degree of open-mindedness these people have. If they're the typical run of the mill, bitter middle-class types, I doubt they will get this poor understanding out of their hreads.