most of the time, debating online is just useless. frustrating. pointless. who cares if somebody is wrong on the internet.

Just dunk on them and refuse to elaborate, it's simple really.

Plant the seeds. Don't get dragged into a protracted argument if it doesn't turn into a good faith conversation. Take a deep breath. It's ok. Things take time.

for your own mental health, set some limits on how much you engage with this sort of thing

it's fine to make an effort post/response on occasion, but do not assume you are going to convince anyone really, just write for the lurkers

do not get drawn into the shit, just make your points/refutations as clear and concise as possible

the internet traffic flows based on a 'best effort' protocol, so just make a best effort if you feel compelled, but don't keep getting 'baited' by shit libs

Funny thing is that he considered himself a socialist even though he admitted to not like marx and called himself a pre-marxist socialist?

Any time someone identifies with some outdated or obscure ideology you already know the conversation isn't going anywhere useful.

I migrated here from Reddit because half of my comments was paraphrasing Marx and Lenin.

One time I tried to talk to someone about communism in general to get him to understand exactly what it stands for, I realised 15 min into the conversation that the guy was some kind of libertarian/fascist. I still tried to get my point across for another 15 min, but he wouldn't hear any of it, always referring to the same shit over and over again. I left while I could still stay sane.

On the other hand, I successfully deprogrammed my coworker (I don't know if that's the correct term in English) and introduced him to marxist ideas and over time he went from borderline fascist to socialist. It took time and effort but I think it was worth it.

Some people are just lost, don't know why they think what they think and it's hard work to get our point across and for that point to be properly understood but its not lost on everyone, it's tiring but it's necessary. I guess the main thing is to know when you're wasting your time and energy.

The fight is not fought and won in debates online, as much as liberals love to think that. It is a slow process that will take decades of real changing material conditions and we are in the second century of that struggle. But history is inexorably heading in the direction of a victory for comrades and liberals will go the way of the Roman slave owners or the feudal lords. Or I guess to be more accurate, they will go the way of the bootlickers of Roman aristocracy or the bootlickers of feud lords.

I honestly think those kinds of debates are useless. They tire you, make you sad and despondent, and accomplish nothing. We don't bring people over with angry arguments with liberals about how Marx felt about jews. We don't make progress on the revolution by dunking on liberals online on minutia about the history of the USSR.

Let's take a look at how it played out in the past we could have some pointers on what is an useful controversy.

When Lenin debates Kautsky in writing, does that resemble what we do in online debates? When Marx debates Proudhon, is it the same thing we are doing? I would argue that it isn't at all.

First of all, Marx and Lenin are engaging with people they perceive to be in the same camp as they are. They are not debating hostile outsiders. They are addressing what they perceive to be errors within the same movement. They also do, of course, address theoretically and practically the actual enemies of their camp. But they rarely do so nominally and point by point. They do so more generally, when building their own theory.

Second of all, they are doing so in long form writing. Not point by point argument with immediate response. This is important. It allows you to build an actual argument, enriched with data, enriched with a thorough reading of the thesis of the person you're addressing. It also doesn't have the same dynamics where the other person can move goal posts freely.

Third, were them hoping to convince their opponents? Was mit directly addressed to the other side in hopes of bringing them over? They weren't.They were writing to an audience that will read both texts and hope to make that audience see the problems with the thesis the other side is defending and propose alternatives. The audience is the target to be convinced, not the opponent. If they see the error of their thinking, good! But that's not likely to happen by the very nature of debate.

I think we should emulate this. And this is what I see, for example, online agitators doing (for example on YouTube). They don't engage directly with the liberals. They collect the liberal thought they see online and respond in long form, with a thorough take down, well supported by data and theory, aimed at the audience, not at the people they're responding to.

Also, we need to remember that liberals are not on our camp. Addressing them is not a weeding out of errors by our comrades that we hope to prevent from spreading. They are our enemies. Remember they are the ones that will side with the bourgeois state to kill us, like they did with Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

I understand that it's difficult to resist when you see people saying shit online and not respond. I do it all the time myself. It's also not without value to not allow the shit to stand there to be read by people without response. But I would advise you to only do so if you have the time and fortitude to engage non-emotionally with it, without any hopes of convincing the other person, but only of not allowing the record to go on without correction. Remember: you're not talking with that person. You're talking to someone reading that thread. Disconnect emotionally from the process because this will take a toll on you.

Repeating: online angry debate have never and will never bring anyone over to our side. Nobody ever became a socialist after being "convinced with facts and logic" in an angry online debate. As I said, if it has a function, it's only function is to not allow the other side to have full control of the online record.

But where and how do we actually convince people? I'd argue that it is one-on-one conversations and with a lot of love and patience. Spend your energy talking one-on-one with people. Listen to them, understand their problems, and discuss the problems they bring to you. Stick to topics they care about. Don't dump a bunch of theory and history of the USSR on their head. Patiently listen and use theory to guide you on how to address the things they complain about and show them that there's an alternative world that is possible. Point their anger towards the real problems that prevents this world from existing. Do this and this person will naturally come towards socialism. And do it out of love and care. With a patient attitude. It's not a debate anymore. You're talking to a fellow worker about making their life better. You're not trying to win a debate. You're trying to win a person.

And most important of all: don't sacrifice your mental health in the process. Burning yourself down trying to debate liberals online will not accelerate the revolution. It serves no purpose but wearing a motivated comrade down. And that's to their advantage.

If they are unsure of themselves and amicable, engage with respect, patience, and compassion. If they are sure of themselves and are only seeking to smugly school you or attack you for sport, do not engage, unless you suspect there are silent onlookers who may be swayed by your words.

Have you questioned why they argue so vociferously on the side of Israel and not Palestine? Why do they identify with one and not the other?

It could be they don't understand, or it could be they do understand and side with the entity that represents them and their interests most.

Is this a post seeking in-group reassurance and/or an attempt to divide and dogpile? What are you hoping to achieve here?

Regardless of your political point of view, good faith discourse and debate, including disagreements, is healthy and should be encouraged.