[pugets]

I tried to do this on a few different sites, but in my experience, there simply aren't enough good-faith actors. The dirtbag left[0] reigns over the nice fellows in leftist circles on Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. They don't want to engage capitalists in debate... they don't even want anyone in their own ranks playing devil's advocate. They want to call you a chud and take a screenshot of it.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag_left

[ddingus]

There are more ways than devil's advocate to have conversations.

[ddingus]

Secondly, it does not have to be leftists vs capitalists.

There are parts of society well served by markets and other parts that really aren't. Same goes for applying socialist ideas to problems.

Recognizing just that fact is a basis for conversation that can lead somewhere meaningful for all involved.

[zepto]

How do you get leftists to have a conversation on that basis?

[ddingus]

For what it's worth, the same query applies left, right, whatever.

I like to lead with how is it all for you and how did you arrive where you are politically?

Common struggles, life stories, other things help start a conversation.

Then it's give and take.

The idea of any side, particular ideology being right, best fit, one size fits all is crazy! That isn't reality.

Talk about it from there.

Many would agree money in politics is bad, for example. I sure do. Another interesting chat is the for profit motive.

Compare and contrast public utilities. The one where I live is straight up government, runs at cost plus. A few miles down the road it's private. Runs at cost plus margin, plus...

All other variables are the same, and what's the impact?

Power is very reliable where I live. It's not so much down the road. Why?

There are many things to discuss like this and get a sense of where the ideologies apply well and where they don't, and after a time, people begin to realize "their team" is playing them for profit due to corruption.

And they are! Make no mistake!

Gets better from there.

I am having these every chance I get. Every time I get someone out of the ideology as means to better ends trap, that's someone who will consider policy, features, benefits, costs, risks and that's all we can ask for, and all we need.

It's also someone willing to talk about money in politics, legal corruption here and what that all really means in terms of ordinary people getting reputable, meaningful representation.

All of that is a foundation for action later on when this stuff bubbles up into something we can actually act on.

[uabstraction]

If you want leftists to engage with you in good faith, you simply need to ask the right questions. Questions that demonstrate a baseline of familiarity with the history and theory being interrogated.

The Left isn't averse to debate. The Left is averse to repeating the same tired arguments about iPhones and authority and "human nature" until the heat death of the universe. Things that have been addressed in great detail for over a century.

There is actually a lively debate taking place. It just typically doesn't take the form of Zizek vs. Peterson SuperBowl style spectacles. It takes place in literature, and in meetings among organizers trying to actually accomplish their goals. People like that don't give a flying fuck what John Stossel or Ben Shapiro have to say. This mainstream "debate culture" is so far detached from the actual struggles taking place.

[zepto]

I assume you didn’t mean this irrelevant ironically, but it reads as irony.

For what it’s worth if your leftists will only talk to people who already accept their worldview and assume everyone else is like Ben Shapiro, it validates the point that they are not available for the kinds of discussion we are talking about.

[pugets]

I agree with all of that, but I think you’re making the case that leftists are in fact averse to debate. If an outsider can’t interact with a couple people on social media without having already read all the important literature and knowing the “established” answers to pesky questions like “why do attempts at establishing communism so often result in authoritarian conditions,” then the community is not open to being prodded. Many of these communities are intentionally insular. Why would they be open to people questioning their philosophy when most of society does that already?