How can something be wrong if it's right for someone else?

[und]

I know this is a philosophical issue, but as this is my first post, I thought I'd put it in the Learning section.

I find it difficult to understand what all of these political arguments are about. Why doesn't everyone just stop arguing and try to get the most out of life, even though it may not be the best possible.

Think about it like this. Most people on this forum probably assume that nobody can make them change their political standing from "left" (the real left) to right. So why bother trying to argue against someone who will also come across as a brick wall?

Arguing about these deep political seems to get us nowhere, so why don't we just stop, and as I said, try to get the most out of life?

This post is merely intended to start a philosophical debate and not necessarily to reflect my full view on this topic. I would just like to see what people think.

und

[Post-Something]

How can something be wrong if it's right for someone else?

Hmm.

Well, I guess a Marxist answer would be: Class.
We act according to our interests within a certain society. People in the ruling class tend to take actions which imposeon the freedoms of the classes below.

We happen to be living in a capitalist society, which promotes and creates greed, inequlity and poverty. These things are socially harmful and unnessesary, so we try to propose an alternative society which provides the most freedoms and standard of living.

Look up Class Strugle.

[und]

How can something be wrong if it's right for someone else?

Hmm.

Well, I guess a Marxist answer would be: Class.
We act according to our interests within a certain society. People in the ruling class tend to take actions which imposeon the freedoms of the classes below.

We happen to be living in a capitalist society, which promotes and creates greed, inequlity and poverty. These things are socially harmful and unnessesary, so we try to propose an alternative society which provides the most freedoms and standard of living.

Look up Class Strugle.

Isn't the Marxist idea that the working class will eventually unite and create a socialist society which will then develop into communism? Sorry for not being clear in my question, but it was mainly focussed on why we have an urge to argue, why we can't just give it up and focus on uniting as the working class.

[Code]

I argue about politics to make mine, and other's, theories stronger and more complete.

[Post-Something]

Isn't the Marxist idea that the working class will eventually unite and create a socialist society which will then develop into communism? Sorry for not being clear in my question, but it was mainly focussed on why we have an urge to argue, why we can't just give it up and focus on uniting as the working class.

Why? Because we differ in the application of Marxist analysis. People have different theories of the optimum method this can be done. The working class has united many times over the past century, but all revolutions have failed pretty much. By debating, we can find out why this has happened, and in what way we can improve our strategy.

Simply because we argue online by the way, doesn't mean that we aren't active in real life.

[Pogue]

I argue about politics to make mine, and other's, theories stronger and more complete.

Emphasis mine.

Wrong approach weakling! WE MUST AIM TO COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE OUR OPPOSITION IN ALL ARGUMENTS.

[und]

I argue about politics to make mine, and other's, theories stronger and more complete.

Where does that end? When, if ever, are any of our theories put into practice? And we've seen what's happened when some theories are forcibly encouraged on people...

[und]

Emphasis mine.

Wrong approach weakling! WE MUST AIM TO COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE OUR OPPOSITION IN ALL ARGUMENTS.

That is, in itself, an opposing argument.

[und]

Can a moderator change the topic of this conversation to "Why debate?" please?

[manic expression]

For revolutionaries, it's not about what's "right" or "wrong" on an objective basis, it's about who you stand with. When it comes down to it, we're arguing over the direction of society, how our future will look; it's very hard to compromise on these issues because the positions are oftentimes directly opposed to one another.

If I own a factory and you want the workers in that factory to own it, how can we possibly agree? Of course neither of us are going to budge very much, but if you go to those workers and show them that they should own that factory instead of just me, you'll have a better chance of forcing me to accept your changes. After all, all capitalist property is backed by violence, so the workers need to use force to assert their interests as well.

Basically, it's not about winning over the people who will never agree to revolutionary ideas, it's about convincing those who have the least to lose and the most to win, the working class, that revolution is possible, necessary and ultimately beneficial.

[Code]

Emphasis mine.

Wrong approach weakling! WE MUST AIM TO COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE OUR OPPOSITION IN ALL ARGUMENTS.

I meant others as in comrades, not opposition.

[und]

For revolutionaries, it's not about what's "right" or "wrong" on an objective basis, it's about who you stand with. When it comes down to it, we're arguing over the direction of society, how our future will look; it's very hard to compromise on these issues because the positions are oftentimes directly opposed to one another.

If I own a factory and you want the workers in that factory to own it, how can we possibly agree? Of course neither of us are going to budge very much, but if you go to those workers and show them that they should own that factory instead of just me, you'll have a better chance of forcing me to accept your changes. After all, all capitalist property is backed by violence, so the workers need to use force to assert their interests as well.

Basically, it's not about winning over the people who will never agree to revolutionary ideas, it's about convincing those who have the least to lose and the most to win, the working class, that revolution is possible, necessary and ultimately beneficial.

Then is it right to use violence against some people who might not know better than the society they are engulfed in? It's only society, mainly the education that it provides, that pushes people to a certain belief. If that could be changed, then there would be no need for a revolution, society would arrange itself.

I'm going to come back to this with some sleep, as I'm knackered, I have school on Tuesday, and I can't think properly...

[el_chavista]

Then is it right to use violence against some people who might not know better than the society they are engulfed in? It's only society, mainly the education that it provides, that pushes people to a certain belief. If that could be changed, then there would be no need for a revolution, society would arrange itself.
Did you at least realize that capitalists are a mafia that managed to historically expropriate the rest of mankind's from their means of economic production and now they are some social parasites that earn money without working due to their certificates of ownership of those means of production?

[manic expression]

Then is it right to use violence against some people who might not know better than the society they are engulfed in? It's only society, mainly the education that it provides, that pushes people to a certain belief. If that could be changed, then there would be no need for a revolution, society would arrange itself.

Not necessarily. Capitalists, those who own the means of production, have plenty of good reasons for supporting capitalism. They get rich off the system of exploitation, why would they want to change it? As workers begin to demand better conditions, more benefits and ultimately control of their own workplaces, the capitalists will oppose them because they don't want to lose their method of self-enrichment. We assume capitalists will not agree with us because history has shown that they (as a class) never do. Society will not rearrange itself by itself, because society is at war with itself. We must decide who to stand with in this conflict: the capitalists (the rich minority) or the workers (the exploited majority).

On violence: the question is not of using force against those who don't know better, the question is whether or not to use force against those who refuse progress for the working class. We must remember that the bourgeoisie will protect its interests with force and violence, so the workers cannot expect to argue away capitalist oppression, they must defend themselves.

I hope that makes sense, let me know if I didn't explain myself well enough.

[Blackscare]

that is, in itself, an opposing argument.

and teh only valid one noob!

[und]

and teh only valid one noob!

I think what I said was misunderstood. I meant that it's an argument between comrades, so goes against what he/she is saying.

[und]

Not necessarily. Capitalists, those who own the means of production, have plenty of good reasons for supporting capitalism. They get rich off the system of exploitation, why would they want to change it? As workers begin to demand better conditions, more benefits and ultimately control of their own workplaces, the capitalists will oppose them because they don't want to lose their method of self-enrichment. We assume capitalists will not agree with us because history has shown that they (as a class) never do. Society will not rearrange itself by itself, because society is at war with itself. We must decide who to stand with in this conflict: the capitalists (the rich minority) or the workers (the exploited majority).

On violence: the question is not of using force against those who don't know better, the question is whether or not to use force against those who refuse progress for the working class. We must remember that the bourgeoisie will protect its interests with force and violence, so the workers cannot expect to argue away capitalist oppression, they must defend themselves.

I hope that makes sense, let me know if I didn't explain myself well enough.

I still don't think violence is an answer to anything. In fact, it's exactly what we're trying to get away from, isn't it?