The thing I don't like about these subreddits is all the arguments are out there, in about every language and form, from memes to essays to political tracts already.

So inevitably what happens is people wander in and pour on this sickly sweet politeness to the "other side," from which - they say - they hope to learn about opposing points of view.

I am deeply disturbed not at the idea that someone might change their mind or find a new way of seeing things, but at the idea that it takes this sort of format and forum to do that. You know, leftie critics of Libertarianism have a point: you all should read Marx's Capital at very least.

And more importantly, you should read it without prejudice. I do not know whether or not it is possible for a really opinionated person to read something with a truly open mind, but I do know this: without a forum to "perform for," without people to "win over," in the safety of your own living room, you've got a far better chance of seriously considering the concept that all of human history is a story of struggle between classes. Only if you sort of trick yourself into accepting this premise as true, can you really understand where the left is coming from. Most people start from a "debunking" mindset which has a direct impact on whether the material can be understood at all.

Most libertarians have read criticisms of source material they themselves haven't read, and for every libertarian that does understand socialism as the socialists mean it -- as class struggle, as the stepping stone between the historical inevitability (really important) of the transition from capitalism to communism -- there are about 50 who have no fucking idea what they're talking about. For their part, socialists also speak as if they believe that anyone who understands socialism will necessary be a socialist, which is their conceit as well. And, man, there's a shitload of jargon-heavy Marx stuff out there. No matter how much you do understand it, they'll keep moving the goalposts because you haven't read, I don't know, Gramsci or some shit: no matter how much you know, the only reason you could possibly reject it is because you don't understand it.

Talking is fine, but I have noticed this tendency of people who make a big effort to show everyone how open minded they are, that they're just hard-nosed advocates of a different sort.

As someone who came out of a Marxist political science department as a libertarian, the absolute best possible thing any libertarian can do is read source material, and - in particular - spend time around the Left for awhile, to understand the degree to which personality tics drive the average ideologue (absolutely 100% true of libertarians, too.) The unifying principle of radicalism is, "I am dissatisfied with my life -- it must be the system."

Ideology is usually presented as this carefully considered schema on which society can be implemented. From what I can see, it's the psychologies of a lot of dysfunctional people leaking out and playing dress up.

Before enlightenment, chop wood.

After enlightenment, chop wood.

Good luck, though.