The idea that capitalism and liberal representative (I refuse to use the word democratic) government are the only viable option are so ingrained. It makes it difficult to engage anyone in serious discussion of alternatives.

What I do is point out injustice when you come across it and suggest a socialist solution. Don’t mention socialism, talk about unions, worker ownership, workplace democracy, social housing, structural injustice.

If you get pushback I will say something like “I feel like our political system is so focused on capitalist solutions that often good sensible policies don’t get considered”

With people you interact with frequently this approach will usually, over time, result in them no longer thinking you’re a crackpot and often soften them up for a more detailed discussion in which you can discuss revolutionary change.

This is the best I have been able to do. Interested to see other responses.

People are brainwashed into not knowing the difference between big “S” socialism and " Capitalism with a strong social safety net".

There isn’t a single developed western nation that is the first. They’re all the second. We’re not “socialist” and less free than the good ol’ Murica. We just know that your capitalism runs better if your population isn’t struggling…

From a logical standpoint, I think sticking to fundamentals and, like Cowbee says, letting common sense do some legwork is a good approach.

There are so many learned misconceptions whether through propaganda or simple ignorance. I really think the best way to combat it is by explaining them away one by one, building from fundamental concepts on up.

Like the other day I realized a lot of people think communism or a social economic structure means everyone “makes” the same amount, regardless of labor. I thought this at one point. Conveying the correct concepts may seem straightforward from a socialist understanding, but there can be so much more to clear up along the way for a person that has never thought into it at any level.

Again, as Cowbee points out, the sensible analysis will show through, and I think it’s finding a good approach to conveying that analysis that is so hard. As with teaching anything, a good grasp of the person’s worldview/values/beliefs is key to walking through that analysis in an effective way for them to digest. The secondary issue is having a good enough grasp on it yourself to connect the dots that you might find intuitive or take for granted, which someone else does not.

I’m kind of obsessed with the “theory of understanding”, for lack of a better term, so I hope I didn’t ramble too much. Thinking about thinking is fun lol.

I’ve noticed a pattern with this sort of thing, that when people are complicit in systems that they benefit from, they’ll put forward arguments they don’t really believe in because they’re obligated to by their own cognitive dissonance. I was first introduced to a term for this pattern of behavior by PhilosophyTube: a phantasm.

It’s a way of organizing feelings, selective observations and misrepresentations. A way of intepreting the world that also does things to the person using it.

Okay, that’s a bit vague. The video essay goes on to provide some cohesive examples, but if I could try to summarize it:

A phantasm is a self propagating system of incoherent beliefs that a person generates to willingly deceive themselves about their own complicity in systemic oppression of others in order to alleviate cognitive dissonance and maintain the belief that they are a “good” person.

I’ve seen this behavior most notably in alt-right, anti-vax, and conspiracy theorist types, but I’ve also seen it a lot with anti-vegans.

One of the main symptoms of this self deception is to blindly parrot bad arguments that perpetuate their own deception, even when they don’t believe their own arguments are coherent.

I think, sometimes, depending on the severity of the phantasm, this behavior can also be a search for a refutation. Part of them might want to reject the phantasm, and given sufficiently well gounded arguments and/or evidence, some people are capable of rejecting the phantasm.

In any case, I think there’s a lot more going on psychologically than simple willful bad faith. Phantasms are incredibly hard to dislodge when people are emotionally invested in maintaining them, and I don’t have a good answer about the correct approach, or even if there is any sort of generalized right way. It may well be that every single instance requires a unique solution.

Correct ideas bore out in reality. This is undeniable. Correct analysis will be correct, and flawed analysis will not. This works out in Marxism’s favor, because it is an extremely powerful analytical tool.

With regards to speaking to non-Marxists, following the previous paragraph, you can describe concepts without giving away their origin. Point out Monopoly Capitalism as it relates to Modern Imperialism and is the driving factor of modern conflicts, without pointing out that it was Lenin that put pen to paper on it a century ago.

You can also take advantage of “common sense.”