HOW TO DEFEAT BIG MONEY'S ARGUMENTS
[Also please read "Make Your Reform Effort Even Stronger"]
[Also please read "Why Be Openly Revolutionary"]
Whenever we the people try to oppose what Big Money wants, Big Money always responds with one or more arguments in its defense.
Here's just one example, and I'm sure that it will illustrate the countless other ways that Big Money argues against what we the people want, and how we the people can defeat such arguments. The example is when residents of a neighborhood oppose a zoning variance that would allow a big real estate developer to build something with far too many expensive luxury condominiums or rentals and far too few that are affordable. The residents know that when their neighborhood is filled with new mainly luxury housing then the rents and property tax will rise and many people who've lived in the neighborhood for generations will be forced to leave because they're unable to afford the higher rent or property tax; this is gentrification. To counter the residents' opposition to this gentrification, the Big Money developer may argue something like this:
"It's not possible to make a reasonable profit unless I have lots of luxury units in the new building. No other developer would be able to make a reasonable profit with fewer luxury units than what I intend. If you want more housing you've got to accept that it will be mainly luxury housing."
This Big Money argument is a pretty strong argument IF one accepts its unstated premise, which is that our society not only is, but ought to be, based on the profit principle of capitalism. Any effort to increase the proportion of affordable units in new developments will come up against this Big Money argument. And unless its premise is explicitly and aggressively and persuasively refuted, this argument will very likely persuade many good people (people who would indeed like lots more affordable housing) to grudgingly accept the truth of the argument, and grudgingly accept that the new development will have far fewer affordable units than otherwise.
This is why it is so important for we the people to reject the premise that society ought to be based on the profit principle of capitalism.
But in order to reject the profit principle of capitalism, at least to do it confidently, it is necessary to be confident that there is a better principle on which our society can and ought to be based.
There is such a better principle. It is NOT Communism or Socialism, as I explain here but something very different described here. It is the egalitarian principle on which the economy of an egalitarian society is based. It is the principle: "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire, with scarce things equitably rationed according to need" (this is the "no-rich-and-no-poor" principle.) Click here to read an introduction to how a society's economy can work based on this principle, indeed work much better than when based on the profit principle.
When we the people are confident that we want society to be based not on the profit principle but on the egalitarian no-rich-and-no-poor principle, then consider what will happen when Big Money throws its argument at us. Instead of being put on the defensive, and seeing many good people decide to grudgingly accept the Big Money plan, we will be able to go on the offense. We'll be able to refute the Big Money argument by clearly rejecting the premise it rests on. This is what becomes possible when we the people have decided to explicitly aim for removing the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor.
Clearly aiming for no rich and no poor is the way to refute all of the other Big Money arguments. For example, what happens when the capitalist owners of a business with lots of employees says,
"Sorry, but we have to move this business overseas where labor is cheaper or else we'll be unable to compete with our competitor and remain profitable."
If the employees agree to accept that our society ought to remain based on the profit principle, then they will not have a strong rebuttal to the capitalists' argument. But if the employees are confident in wanting to reject the profit principle and base society on the no-rich-and-no-poor egalitarian principle, then they will be able to say, "We don't give a damn about your profit," and do everything in their power to prevent the capitalist from moving the enterprise overseas.
This illustrates that there is a short-term importance for aiming for an egalitarian society; it's not just about the long term. Aiming for an egalitarian society makes us stronger in standing up against the capitalists today.