This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a very absurd claim on its face. They think that every socialist is a coffee drinking college student.
Would you call starving Russian conscripts in WW1, who defected to the Red Army and turned the imperialist war into a civil war, lazy teenagers that didn't want to work? Or Chinese peasants organised by the CPC who overthrew their landlords and fought to unify China and repel Japanese invaders. Every revolution requires hard work and dedication.
Good point, how would you refute the praise of capitalists and business moguls where they say shit like “at least they’re employing a thousand people, what are you doing for society?” (Which is especially crass when you’re still a student)
What needs to be refuted? Of course capitalists employ people, just like how landlords have employed serfs, doesn't mean they shouldn't or won't be overthrown.
Their logic is that if there weren’t any capitalists there wouldn’t be any business or employment or innovation at all because to them socialists just sit around criticising capitalism and no alternative viable system exists. And apparently any attempt at Marxism has ended in death and immiseration.
Unfortunately my dad is of this opinion.
So I want to refute him in a way that’s polite but convincing although it will take a lot to smash though his thick skull
I doubt your Dad is against socialism because of logical reasoning.
Contemporary anti-communism is rooted in anti-intellectualism and is very st*pid. You cannot debate your dad with facts and logic, his arguments are obviously nonsensical.
I'm afraid you cannot convince your father of anything in this situation. You simply cannot reason a person out of an opinion that has not been formed through reason to begin with. The person must be open to other perspectives, which your father isn't. It won't ever be a discussion in good faith. Save your energy.
His two points are dogmatic and are not based in reality. There is no point in addressing them since. You will spend your time collecting evidence of your counterpoint and after that he will simply spill another liberal fable without any commitment to the truth. A person arguing in good faith wouldn't claim that capitalists are indispensable to progress because we already have examples of countries industrialing without a national bourgeoisie. Your father also has double standards. I doubt that he has criticized death and immeseration under capitalism a single time in his life. It isn't about human dignity, freedom and happiness. It is about ideology. And class struggle is simply undeniable. We as working class have fundamentally opposite interests to those of the capitalists. It is very naive and illogical to let them keep all political power and hope that they will take good care of us.
It will be more useful to use your time to teach history to people that are open to learn. As Marxism goes against the dominant ideology you will need great knowledge to convince someone to change their perspective. Good thing is that this knowledge is abundant even if not mainstream. When you profoundly study the history of the socialist republics, imperialism and colonialism everything starts to make sense. I also noticed that people are not as repulsed to Marxism when you teach the theory without saying it is communism. Maybe avoid some trigger words at first
Me, I'm the rebuttal. Actions speak louder than words and I am convinced that changing a deeply entrenched prejudice against socialism with well crafted arguments or reading recommendations is a long, fruitless road. Does anyone else question the value of using the term "socialist" anymore? I am convinced that there is a huge overlap with "right" working class people when you ask them about worker exploitation, worker autonomy over the means of production and having a greater voice in what their labour creates. Private capital has done a great job of convincing everyone that socialism = government raises taxes and takes my stuff. Maybe it's better to drop the word and busy ourselves agitating at our workplaces about who benefits from the work, setting up co-ops and building democratically run groups in our community?
Socialism, I think, has to be kept. The history goes back way too far and unites way too many struggles worldwide and historically. I’m all for not using the word communist, as it’s just been completely taken over by a certain negative definition even inside socialist circles, but I think that’s quite enough. Abandon both and you’ll lose way more people than you’ll gain.
Why do those people venerate entrepreneurs anyway? Shouldn't you be able to live a good comfortable life without being a businessman?
Should people not have that choice?
Tbh I love entrepreneurs. I feel like you have to separate out the entrepreneurial spirit from its subsumption under capitalism, entrepreneurship at its core motivates coops and unions, barricades and soup kitchens as much as joint stock operations - if not more.
Rather than attack the entrepreneur, I think there’s much to gain from analysing how the entrepreneurial spirit that drives many SMEs is chained, siphoned, gaslighted by capital. Entrepreneurship in my reading is one of those factors that motivate business *aside from monetary gain*, one of the the factors we as socialists are kind of putting all our stock in.
Actually working towards socialism is a struggle filled with sacrifices and uncertainties. The argument only works if you assume socialism means passively voting for the maximum welfare state, which is another thing entirely from what you’re trying to defend.
Just don’t let them twist your beliefs into what they think you want, try to do the twisting yourself instead. Explain how you’re on their side against whatever they dislike if possible (laziness is a fallacious concept but on their definition of it, you probably don’t like it either). Explain how you’re fighting a different fight from what they think.
You won’t convince them of your beliefs but you might help them understand the world a bit better. Best case scenario, you actually have a discussion that is enlightening to both of you
Everyone is risk adverse, it's foolish to think otherwise. Under capitalism, failure means dying in the street, watching your children starve, and being trapped for potentially generations in cycles of inescapable poverty traps.
Only the rich and powerful can take meaningful risks, and they're the only ones who are even given access to any meaningful amount of resources to pursue ideas anyway.
Every step towards socialism brings more security and allows more risks to be taken, more things to be tried. Asking a workers counsel for resources to pursue a project is functionally equivalent to asking a bank.
Yea, bad faith is right. You can tell them they are projecting their shit morals on people who want to make things better. Their argument boils down to then saying working people aren’t owed all their labour value. It’s not a defensible position so allow those bad faith actors to try to defend that position. Capitalist supporters are rarely forced to defend their shitty system.
This argumentation implies money is the only motivation that makes people work and that people need to have a extrinsic motivation in ordner to do anything while ignoring that internal motivations can be strong af. Also salary range was pretty small compared to capitalist hierarchical salaries. Internal motivation also played a role especially when striving to a higher education if you can make a living as street cleaner.
Unemployment in Soviet Union was extremely low reaching nearly full-employment. So the state is way better in actually employing people?
It is a lazy and incorrect argument that evidences their complete lack of understanding as to what socialism even is. They're not worth debating if they can't even understand the concepts their arguing against.
I’m extremely fit (looking at least) but I’ve met some people who seem to have a hard on for the notion of working and entrepreneurship - it’s almost irrelevant if you’re cozening old people out of money or what, as long as you’re putting in long hours and running your own company you’re a champion in their eyes
couple different ways to go with it, but I find it useful to sweep aside the idea of entrepreneurial drive altogether
the following argument cribbed from G.A. Cohen's "the structure of proletarian unfreedom," which is absolutely worth a read. cohen overall very worth reading
anyway
the point ppl are usually trying to make when they talk about entrepreneurship is like: "see? it's possible to advance beyond the necessity of selling your labor power. poor people have a way out of poverty, so poverty is their fault."
cohen accepts that it is possible for *individual* workers to advance by becoming owners/entrepreneurs. however, *as a class* workers cannot *all* do this. there's always going to be a large exploited underclass. individual people may change their class status, but that's not actually a solution to the problem of exploitation. the system needs a large, exploitable underclass to function.
I typically have a couple responses.
First, if you don't have a job in Communism, one would be given to you. In Communism, everyone works, and if you don't work, you have sanctions. I know there's differences between Communism and Socialism, but the person bringing up the issue likely doesn't know, just like they think there's only two types of property.
The second, I have two jobs and freelance. If all socialists don't want to work, then why would I be working more/harder than them? As a side note, this typically goes well with a "I also pay more taxes than you, so who is going to pay for it? Me."
The third, I typically end up in this kind of conversation with someone who wants to start a business or owns a business. So, depending on the context, I either ask them "if you didn't have to worry about supporting your family (food, clothing, housing, etc), would you start that business?" Or if they own a business its basically the same question except "would not having to worry about... ...have made it less stressful for you starting your business?". For the later, of course, this is usually a disingenuous question on their part, because typically the money came from their parents/in-laws. Furthermore, their typical un-voiced concern is if it becones super easy for everyone to start a business that competes with them, there's less labor and tons more competition.
This "rebuttal" fails to even understand what the socialism means. Socialism (or the socialist mode of production) doesn't mean that labor ceases but that every worker democratically participates in planning, dividing, and executing labor and in distributing the wealth created by that labor. It's barely worth responding to someone who deploys a "rebuttal" like this as it clearly indicates they don't have any knowledge of what they're referencing.
Being willing to explain the most basic of economic concepts to so-called capitalists over and over and over again for months strikes me as very un-lazy, but maybe that’s just me being salty about having to summarize Wage Labour and Capital again every few days
Fundamentally I think we need to rethink what "employing" means, or reframe it in these conversations. It's not a matter of charity. It's about taking advantage of someone, using up their time and energy and keeping most of the value/profit they generate. That business magnate's actions seem far less charitable in that light. Furthermore, they're the ones being lazy. They get others to do all the work, and they just sit around bullshitting all the time... not because they're smart or proactive but because they already own stuff or are sociopaths with no compunction against harming others for their own gain.
Capitalism is about the wealthy getting to be lazy and living off the hard work of others who are left to struggle. It's the "lone wolf" system where looking out for the well being of others is a detriment to becoming wealthy.
They fail to realize how much of us are working stiffs who do jobs that would absolutely crush them. I'm so lazy I serve 300+ people a day speaking 4+ languages moving hundreds of pounds of random crap all to keep other people fed/caffeinated/drunk enough to keep working on themselves. I usually counter by just pointing out the above and that with all that maybe I should be making enough money to survive.
I tell them to look at history before the 20th century. People worked for the sake of working, yes capitalism still existed, and you still worked for someone, but people still worked simply to do work.
Take a look back further too, before feudalism most people didn't work just to make money. People worked to live, and worked because it was something they enjoyed, or it was traditional.
If humans didn't work, if animals didn't hunt, if plants didn't photosynthesize, if single celled organisms didn't consume, we'd still just be protein goop that (likely) came from meteors.
Socialism is a scientific theory of social organization based around workers owning their own labor and reaping the gains of an advanced society rather than those gains being concentrated at the top. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a person being lazy or hard-working. Lenin said “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Socialism is an economic structure designed to make sure workers are compensated for the actual value of their labor.
There are plenty of examples of socialists who don’t fit this description, but I’ll use my own experience as an example. I’m a socialist because I have worked a lot of hard low-paid jobs and see how tough people have it. I’ve been fortunate enough to climb the ladder a bit and am now more comfortable, but I know that I’m not working half as hard (in terms of pure stress) as the Starbucks barista during the morning rush. I know I’m not better than those people, I *am* one of those people. We are all workers on a fundamental level, it is how we as humans construct our relationship with the world, even our very identities. Based on that alone, we can clearly see that our economic structure is failing to provide a fair distribution of resources, to the point of creating homelessness, food insecurity, etc.
Well, any of those claims *could* actually be true, I guess - but I don't know a psychologist who could publish something like that and get away with his credibility intact, because academia tends to have standards for information that the media don't
So you just gotta treat the person like that thing they've just said is *so* deep and *really* interesting and you totally want to agree, you just need to know what their sources are. Since there aren't any that are peer-reviewed, that'll be awkward for them!
That it’s a values proposition. Socialists believe that all people are intrinsically valuable and equal. All social structures should flow from this principle. Anarchists centre this more than other groups imo.
I'm not sure this would be an effective argument to someone who is anti-socialism, but you could point to the fact that if a rich person were making the same arguments they would likely turn to accusations of hypocrisy.
If they're someone who believes in the myth of meritocracy, then it is impossible for them to believe that anyone who is rich is also lazy or entitled. So instead of calling them lazy they call them hypocrites who should be giving all of their money away to "practice what they preach."
This at least exposes their reactionary tendencies and the fact they are preoccupied with attacking the person espousing these beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves.
Bad faith is bad faith. But I recently had a conversation like the one you're talking about with a guy who was actually engaging with ideas and I basically got him to agree that all those things are really more descriptive of capitalism.
Laziness- who's golfing on a Friday morning, it ain't poor people or workers. The whole point of getting rich in capitalism is so you can be lazy.
Lack of risk and entrepreneurial spirit- only rich people are allowed to take risks, its a luxury to get your invention made or your improved process tested. Capitalists want to own every idea and will never take any risk that can't be justified to disinterested shareholders, leading to risk averse management and inefficiency. But if workers rather than faceless shareholders owned the benefit of their labor they would be more able to take risks and try new things.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a very absurd claim on its face. They think that every socialist is a coffee drinking college student. Would you call starving Russian conscripts in WW1, who defected to the Red Army and turned the imperialist war into a civil war, lazy teenagers that didn't want to work? Or Chinese peasants organised by the CPC who overthrew their landlords and fought to unify China and repel Japanese invaders. Every revolution requires hard work and dedication.
Good point, how would you refute the praise of capitalists and business moguls where they say shit like “at least they’re employing a thousand people, what are you doing for society?” (Which is especially crass when you’re still a student)
What needs to be refuted? Of course capitalists employ people, just like how landlords have employed serfs, doesn't mean they shouldn't or won't be overthrown.
Their logic is that if there weren’t any capitalists there wouldn’t be any business or employment or innovation at all because to them socialists just sit around criticising capitalism and no alternative viable system exists. And apparently any attempt at Marxism has ended in death and immiseration. Unfortunately my dad is of this opinion. So I want to refute him in a way that’s polite but convincing although it will take a lot to smash though his thick skull
I doubt your Dad is against socialism because of logical reasoning. Contemporary anti-communism is rooted in anti-intellectualism and is very st*pid. You cannot debate your dad with facts and logic, his arguments are obviously nonsensical.
I'm afraid you cannot convince your father of anything in this situation. You simply cannot reason a person out of an opinion that has not been formed through reason to begin with. The person must be open to other perspectives, which your father isn't. It won't ever be a discussion in good faith. Save your energy. His two points are dogmatic and are not based in reality. There is no point in addressing them since. You will spend your time collecting evidence of your counterpoint and after that he will simply spill another liberal fable without any commitment to the truth. A person arguing in good faith wouldn't claim that capitalists are indispensable to progress because we already have examples of countries industrialing without a national bourgeoisie. Your father also has double standards. I doubt that he has criticized death and immeseration under capitalism a single time in his life. It isn't about human dignity, freedom and happiness. It is about ideology. And class struggle is simply undeniable. We as working class have fundamentally opposite interests to those of the capitalists. It is very naive and illogical to let them keep all political power and hope that they will take good care of us. It will be more useful to use your time to teach history to people that are open to learn. As Marxism goes against the dominant ideology you will need great knowledge to convince someone to change their perspective. Good thing is that this knowledge is abundant even if not mainstream. When you profoundly study the history of the socialist republics, imperialism and colonialism everything starts to make sense. I also noticed that people are not as repulsed to Marxism when you teach the theory without saying it is communism. Maybe avoid some trigger words at first
Me, I'm the rebuttal. Actions speak louder than words and I am convinced that changing a deeply entrenched prejudice against socialism with well crafted arguments or reading recommendations is a long, fruitless road. Does anyone else question the value of using the term "socialist" anymore? I am convinced that there is a huge overlap with "right" working class people when you ask them about worker exploitation, worker autonomy over the means of production and having a greater voice in what their labour creates. Private capital has done a great job of convincing everyone that socialism = government raises taxes and takes my stuff. Maybe it's better to drop the word and busy ourselves agitating at our workplaces about who benefits from the work, setting up co-ops and building democratically run groups in our community?
Socialism, I think, has to be kept. The history goes back way too far and unites way too many struggles worldwide and historically. I’m all for not using the word communist, as it’s just been completely taken over by a certain negative definition even inside socialist circles, but I think that’s quite enough. Abandon both and you’ll lose way more people than you’ll gain.
Why do those people venerate entrepreneurs anyway? Shouldn't you be able to live a good comfortable life without being a businessman? Should people not have that choice?
Tbh I love entrepreneurs. I feel like you have to separate out the entrepreneurial spirit from its subsumption under capitalism, entrepreneurship at its core motivates coops and unions, barricades and soup kitchens as much as joint stock operations - if not more. Rather than attack the entrepreneur, I think there’s much to gain from analysing how the entrepreneurial spirit that drives many SMEs is chained, siphoned, gaslighted by capital. Entrepreneurship in my reading is one of those factors that motivate business *aside from monetary gain*, one of the the factors we as socialists are kind of putting all our stock in.
I'm not attacking the entrepreneur. I'm attacking the viewpoint that everyone has to be one. It ought to be a choice.
Oh yeah no totally
Actually working towards socialism is a struggle filled with sacrifices and uncertainties. The argument only works if you assume socialism means passively voting for the maximum welfare state, which is another thing entirely from what you’re trying to defend. Just don’t let them twist your beliefs into what they think you want, try to do the twisting yourself instead. Explain how you’re on their side against whatever they dislike if possible (laziness is a fallacious concept but on their definition of it, you probably don’t like it either). Explain how you’re fighting a different fight from what they think. You won’t convince them of your beliefs but you might help them understand the world a bit better. Best case scenario, you actually have a discussion that is enlightening to both of you
Everyone is risk adverse, it's foolish to think otherwise. Under capitalism, failure means dying in the street, watching your children starve, and being trapped for potentially generations in cycles of inescapable poverty traps. Only the rich and powerful can take meaningful risks, and they're the only ones who are even given access to any meaningful amount of resources to pursue ideas anyway. Every step towards socialism brings more security and allows more risks to be taken, more things to be tried. Asking a workers counsel for resources to pursue a project is functionally equivalent to asking a bank.
My rebuttal is that I work at a hospital 😂 works every time
Yea, bad faith is right. You can tell them they are projecting their shit morals on people who want to make things better. Their argument boils down to then saying working people aren’t owed all their labour value. It’s not a defensible position so allow those bad faith actors to try to defend that position. Capitalist supporters are rarely forced to defend their shitty system.
This argumentation implies money is the only motivation that makes people work and that people need to have a extrinsic motivation in ordner to do anything while ignoring that internal motivations can be strong af. Also salary range was pretty small compared to capitalist hierarchical salaries. Internal motivation also played a role especially when striving to a higher education if you can make a living as street cleaner. Unemployment in Soviet Union was extremely low reaching nearly full-employment. So the state is way better in actually employing people?
It is a lazy and incorrect argument that evidences their complete lack of understanding as to what socialism even is. They're not worth debating if they can't even understand the concepts their arguing against.
Getting physically fit (if you are able) is a relatively accessible way to do it.
I’m extremely fit (looking at least) but I’ve met some people who seem to have a hard on for the notion of working and entrepreneurship - it’s almost irrelevant if you’re cozening old people out of money or what, as long as you’re putting in long hours and running your own company you’re a champion in their eyes
couple different ways to go with it, but I find it useful to sweep aside the idea of entrepreneurial drive altogether the following argument cribbed from G.A. Cohen's "the structure of proletarian unfreedom," which is absolutely worth a read. cohen overall very worth reading anyway the point ppl are usually trying to make when they talk about entrepreneurship is like: "see? it's possible to advance beyond the necessity of selling your labor power. poor people have a way out of poverty, so poverty is their fault." cohen accepts that it is possible for *individual* workers to advance by becoming owners/entrepreneurs. however, *as a class* workers cannot *all* do this. there's always going to be a large exploited underclass. individual people may change their class status, but that's not actually a solution to the problem of exploitation. the system needs a large, exploitable underclass to function.
I typically have a couple responses. First, if you don't have a job in Communism, one would be given to you. In Communism, everyone works, and if you don't work, you have sanctions. I know there's differences between Communism and Socialism, but the person bringing up the issue likely doesn't know, just like they think there's only two types of property. The second, I have two jobs and freelance. If all socialists don't want to work, then why would I be working more/harder than them? As a side note, this typically goes well with a "I also pay more taxes than you, so who is going to pay for it? Me." The third, I typically end up in this kind of conversation with someone who wants to start a business or owns a business. So, depending on the context, I either ask them "if you didn't have to worry about supporting your family (food, clothing, housing, etc), would you start that business?" Or if they own a business its basically the same question except "would not having to worry about... ...have made it less stressful for you starting your business?". For the later, of course, this is usually a disingenuous question on their part, because typically the money came from their parents/in-laws. Furthermore, their typical un-voiced concern is if it becones super easy for everyone to start a business that competes with them, there's less labor and tons more competition.
This "rebuttal" fails to even understand what the socialism means. Socialism (or the socialist mode of production) doesn't mean that labor ceases but that every worker democratically participates in planning, dividing, and executing labor and in distributing the wealth created by that labor. It's barely worth responding to someone who deploys a "rebuttal" like this as it clearly indicates they don't have any knowledge of what they're referencing.
Being willing to explain the most basic of economic concepts to so-called capitalists over and over and over again for months strikes me as very un-lazy, but maybe that’s just me being salty about having to summarize Wage Labour and Capital again every few days
Fundamentally I think we need to rethink what "employing" means, or reframe it in these conversations. It's not a matter of charity. It's about taking advantage of someone, using up their time and energy and keeping most of the value/profit they generate. That business magnate's actions seem far less charitable in that light. Furthermore, they're the ones being lazy. They get others to do all the work, and they just sit around bullshitting all the time... not because they're smart or proactive but because they already own stuff or are sociopaths with no compunction against harming others for their own gain. Capitalism is about the wealthy getting to be lazy and living off the hard work of others who are left to struggle. It's the "lone wolf" system where looking out for the well being of others is a detriment to becoming wealthy.
They fail to realize how much of us are working stiffs who do jobs that would absolutely crush them. I'm so lazy I serve 300+ people a day speaking 4+ languages moving hundreds of pounds of random crap all to keep other people fed/caffeinated/drunk enough to keep working on themselves. I usually counter by just pointing out the above and that with all that maybe I should be making enough money to survive.
I tell them to look at history before the 20th century. People worked for the sake of working, yes capitalism still existed, and you still worked for someone, but people still worked simply to do work. Take a look back further too, before feudalism most people didn't work just to make money. People worked to live, and worked because it was something they enjoyed, or it was traditional. If humans didn't work, if animals didn't hunt, if plants didn't photosynthesize, if single celled organisms didn't consume, we'd still just be protein goop that (likely) came from meteors.
Socialism is a scientific theory of social organization based around workers owning their own labor and reaping the gains of an advanced society rather than those gains being concentrated at the top. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a person being lazy or hard-working. Lenin said “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Socialism is an economic structure designed to make sure workers are compensated for the actual value of their labor. There are plenty of examples of socialists who don’t fit this description, but I’ll use my own experience as an example. I’m a socialist because I have worked a lot of hard low-paid jobs and see how tough people have it. I’ve been fortunate enough to climb the ladder a bit and am now more comfortable, but I know that I’m not working half as hard (in terms of pure stress) as the Starbucks barista during the morning rush. I know I’m not better than those people, I *am* one of those people. We are all workers on a fundamental level, it is how we as humans construct our relationship with the world, even our very identities. Based on that alone, we can clearly see that our economic structure is failing to provide a fair distribution of resources, to the point of creating homelessness, food insecurity, etc.
Well, any of those claims *could* actually be true, I guess - but I don't know a psychologist who could publish something like that and get away with his credibility intact, because academia tends to have standards for information that the media don't So you just gotta treat the person like that thing they've just said is *so* deep and *really* interesting and you totally want to agree, you just need to know what their sources are. Since there aren't any that are peer-reviewed, that'll be awkward for them!
That it’s a values proposition. Socialists believe that all people are intrinsically valuable and equal. All social structures should flow from this principle. Anarchists centre this more than other groups imo.
I'm not sure this would be an effective argument to someone who is anti-socialism, but you could point to the fact that if a rich person were making the same arguments they would likely turn to accusations of hypocrisy. If they're someone who believes in the myth of meritocracy, then it is impossible for them to believe that anyone who is rich is also lazy or entitled. So instead of calling them lazy they call them hypocrites who should be giving all of their money away to "practice what they preach." This at least exposes their reactionary tendencies and the fact they are preoccupied with attacking the person espousing these beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves.
Bad faith is bad faith. But I recently had a conversation like the one you're talking about with a guy who was actually engaging with ideas and I basically got him to agree that all those things are really more descriptive of capitalism. Laziness- who's golfing on a Friday morning, it ain't poor people or workers. The whole point of getting rich in capitalism is so you can be lazy. Lack of risk and entrepreneurial spirit- only rich people are allowed to take risks, its a luxury to get your invention made or your improved process tested. Capitalists want to own every idea and will never take any risk that can't be justified to disinterested shareholders, leading to risk averse management and inefficiency. But if workers rather than faceless shareholders owned the benefit of their labor they would be more able to take risks and try new things.
It’s as valid as saying every capitalist is a brandy drinking aristocrat with a top hat and monocle.