I've been on a tear against Capitalism lately, and a refrain I've heard often but have thus far been unable to rebut is, "So how will you buy stuff without money?" I can explain why that's a facile argument until I'm blue in the face, sure, but when I put myself in the shoes of my opponent and look back at myself, well...
I've got a stainless steel Apple Watch with an expensive band on my wrist. I'm wearing Duluth or Carhartt with a Lockwood51 belt. I've been tapping on an iPhone 14 Pro, I'm wearing Japanese eyeglasses (which are too small for my big-ass American headshape), carrying a Fujifilm X-Pro 3 with a $400-$1200 lens on it, with Peak Design straps and cuffs and bags, wearing Sony XM4 headphones...
No wonder they think this argument is valid. To them, I probably look like a damn hypocrite. Yes, I'm a huge tech nerd, I LOVE SHINY THINGS, and my interests skew towards expensive electronics for gaming, home theater, music listening, computing, you name it. All of this is to say I couldn't really answer their question, because I didn't quite know what the answer was. Like, obviously Capitalism doesn't mean the end of money...right?
Enter "How Capitalism Ends" by Steve Paxton, a book that helped fill in a lot of my own gaps regarding the history of the Capitalism economic model as well as prepare me to answer these questions. One of the biggest lessons it taught me was that it's worth actually considering my opponent's perspective when they make an argument with receptive conviction, because it's my opening to actually try and change their perspective. As Steve repeats throughout his book (and that I'll paraphrase here): it's not our obligation to defend progressive policies aimed at improving life for all; rather, it's the responsibility of the opponent to explain how justice, equality, democracy, and humanity are improved for everyone by preventing the change.
Let's start with money...