8 Dialectical Tips to Speaking with Liberals
I’ve been thinking a lot about dialectics lately. I still consider myself a novice, but I think that what I’ve learned is applicable to discussing a topic with someone that has a differing opinion than you. Since the majority of people that you will encounter are liberals, I’ll try and aim this towards leftists talking with a liberal. It should be said that this is a specific application of dialectics. While I think that I’m generally correct, it’s also important when thinking dialectically to think of being correct as a process that will evolve. Perhaps if you try some of these tips in the real world, you’ll be able to improve on these, and so will I.
1. People have contradictory ideologies
If you accept one premise of leftist thinking that capitalism, and by extension, liberalism are inherently self-contradictory, then it immediately follows that anyone who believes in capitalism and liberalism (a.k.a. most liberals) have contradictory ideologies. And by the way, we as leftists have contradictory ideologies, dialectical thinking is about embracing these contradictions as opportunities to self-improve. If you want to gain support of people, they need to see some of their beliefs reflected in (y)our movement. You need to talk to these people and figure out what is good in their contradictory ideologies and improve your own against them.
Apolitical people are also very good for this. Many apolitical people out there are liberals, some are fascists, and some may even be anarchists and communists and not have the terminology to describe it. People develop their ideologies from a mix of propaganda, personal experience and random electric impulses in the brain. Your ideology is too, but the point is that we need to sharpen our ideologies with dialectical thinking. Out of the random ideology you have, carve out a sharp edge that you can use politically, if you do so dialectically, it will be effective. I personally believe that if you think dialectically, it will necessitate a leftist ideology, and if not, you will be playing a part in a much larger dialectic that will take place that I believe must result in a leftist movement.
2. Don’t get mad. You’ll never change a mind that way and you won’t learn.
If you’re getting mad, you aren’t listening. While you’re getting mad, the person you are talking to probably is too, or at least getting very smug because they made you have an emotional reaction. Either way, they aren’t listening to you. The simple solution is to not get mad, and don’t make your conversational partner mad either. This is definitely easier said than done, but it’s something that can be achieved if you are thinking dialectically. If you assume that you are wrong in some aspect from the start. Don’t dismiss their views and make sure they don’t dismiss yours. Don’t be a pushover, but don’t be a bulldozer. For the proper dialectic to take place, you need to meet your negation with equal force, and make sure to confront the difference. Never ignore your primary disagreement, this is where the dialectic is taking place.
The dialectic is a form of logic. While it is certainly okay to have emotions, it is important to remember that when you are arguing based on emotion, it’s very difficult to engage in and see the dialectic. If you find yourself getting emotional about a topic, and you aren’t sure why, it may be a good exercise to try to figure out why. Obviously, be careful not to cause any mental anguish on yourself while you do this, but you would try to look for how you may be materially connected to the particular topic. It might help you make your case more objectively next time.
3. Explain your viewpoint in a simple manner and define basic terms.
When talking with someone, never assume they understand specific terminology. The average person does not know what exploitation is in the context of Marxism. The average person doesn’t know what socialism or communism mean. Explain them in basic terms. Yes, getting someone to understand your viewpoint may take hours and hours to explain, but it’s not about that. If you can get someone to understand one thing well, you’ve already made more progress than most.
Never get tired of explaining, especially to the people we are trying to reach. It is the job of anybody on the left to be able to get the working class people on our side, which means class conscious. If you are spending endless time trying to get your friends that are heavily invested in the liberal political system, it is a waste of time. These people believe that if they vote Democrat (or for that matter Republican) every couple of years, things will get better. These people are wrong, but it is very difficult to convince them otherwise, since their political identity is tied to and weighed down by this assumption. And they tend to get angry at you if you question whether they have any real political power at all. You should focus on people that are already disillusioned or disenfranchised from the liberal order. These people are the ones that can likely be convinced.
4. Never directly contradict their viewpoint.
Don’t assume you know everything, there is truth to the negation of your arguments. What I mean by this is the Hegelian concept of the “double negation”. You put forward a statement, which is negated by another statement that claims your statement is incorrect. This second statement is negated (hence, the double negation) and gives rise to a new statement that is not the first or second, but contains a higher truth. For example, take the following statements:
- Up in the sky, look! It’s a bird! (The object in the sky is being identified as a bird)
- It’s a plane! (Negating the first statement, the object in the sky is being identified as a plane)
- It’s Superman! (Negating the second statement, and coming to the higher truth of the object in the sky)
You can see the first statement and the second are both incorrect, in this case in approximately equal measure. This need not be the case, sometimes the first statement can be mostly right, but the double negation is more universal. Remember, “correctness” is a process.
Therefore, you shouldn’t negate their arguments with your original arguments, that can never be effective. Negate the negation of your arguments with a different, new perspective. In what way was your original argument flawed? Change it. Was it a lack of explanation? State it in a different way. Did you not consider something? Consider it and then adjust your original argument. This is the dialectic in action, there is a beauty to it if you let it work. Instead of thinking of your conversational partner as an opponent, it may help to think of them as a “friend” trying to make you think more critically.
5. Reevaluate your ideas.
Don’t aim to convince, aim to sharpen your ideas. Imagine your viewpoint is a dull sword, and the person you are talking with is a dull rock (believe it or not, I’m not trying to insult anyone here). The primary purpose of talking with others is to evolve your ideas, so use the rock as a whetstone and begin to sharpen your sword to a razor-sharp edge. The sword smoothes the rock, the rock sharpens the sword. If you let the dialectic work, the natural conclusion will be a stronger stance than you had before, and that may be enough to convince some, or at least make them consider something they hadn’t before. Eventually, your argument may just be refined enough to actually start convincing people, but you should always try to refine your positions.
6. Be intellectually honest. If you don’t know, just admit it.
There is nothing more arrogant and annoying than making up something on the spot about facts. Don’t do it. Then the argument becomes looking up random things on Wikipedia, and if you’re wrong, then you get dismissed. It’s okay to argue on imperfect knowledge, by definition, everyone does. If everyone had perfect knowledge, there would be no arguments, there would only be facts and fictions. But you need to acknowledge this. Say words like “I could be wrong” or “I’m not sure about this,” even if it makes your argument seem “weaker” because the point is that you want to learn. Learn until you can explain something in a clear manner.
I also find that people (when speaking in good faith) respect you if you admit you don’t know something. This is a point when someone might make a negation of your original statement, and just as I mentioned before, you will need to consider this negation, and the negation of this negation.
7. Don’t assume there is bad faith unless there is some specific reason to.
Let’s be honest, there is a lot of people arguing in bad faith, and points unintentionally made in bad faith. But sometimes it could be someone arguing in good faith that has picked up a bad faith argument or doesn’t know why it’s a bad argument. Show patience and explain why. Ask them why they assume certain premises are true. Try and talk about small things at a time. If someone is truly arguing in bad faith, you will not be able to convince them anyway. If someone has picked up a couple of bad faith points, it may take many conversations to shift their view even slightly. The best thing you can do, until you are fairly confident that someone is arguing in bad faith, is to try and slowly take down these arguments one at a time. If you are fairly confident of bad faith, just walk away, it’s not worth your time, when you could be talking with other people that might hear you.
8. Point out false equivalences and false common ground.
Just because you seem to be acting nice and yielding some points, be careful not to yield to false equivalences and false common ground. There’s a difference between accepting a point and accepting a talking point. Here’s an example of false common ground: If you are arguing against capitalism from an anti-capitalist perspective, a “common ground” is for the liberal to point at Scandanavian or European social democracy. But you should always be pointed out that this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled, “friendlier” capitalist system, but it has all the same issues as any capitalist system, since it doesn’t solve the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Usually these “common grounds” will just be naïve “averages” of positions. When discussing in this dialectic manner, true common ground usually isn’t an average, it’s a gestalt, a true unity of opposites. False equivalences are also something you need to point out. Because of WWII and the Cold War, there is an extremely common false equivalence between fascism and communism. I’m not going to get into it here, but if you are on the left, learn the difference. You don’t need to defend 20th century socialist states if you don’t want to, but you should be able to point out why making a false equivalence trivializes and rehabilitates fascism. I’m not going to get into it here, but regardless of what kind of leftist you are, liberals who make this false equivalence will try to connect you to 20th century socialism, and then equate you to a Nazi. If you don’t want this to happen to you, you’ll need to read about your own ideas and ideology more, as well as some history. Besides, if you can’t explain the difference between yourself and a Nazi, you really should make sure you can, since the left has always been diametrically opposed to the far right ideologies.
Over time, you should hopefully be able to recognize these talking points before you hear them stated fully. Make sure that you clearly state your opposition and your counterargument (that you have hopefully been gradually developing). This will allow you to sharpen your argument and blow through the dismissive talking points that many liberals bring up.
Some Last Thoughts
Hopefully, some of these tips help you speak to people you disagree with, and help you refine your political ideas. Remember not to get discouraged, learning is a (dialectical) process. You can read and read about politics all you want, but you will never solidly grasp them unless you talk to other people about them.
