Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
9th June 2009, 08:16
Communist philosophy illuminates the wage slavery in modern society. When confronted with this information, the capitalist denies the existence of such theft or, in other cases, openly mocks the worker. The worker lacks the ability or will to do anything about their mistreatment, and the capitalist realizes this fact. They do not feel threatened.
If we demand our rights, through revolutionary action, we realize that we will ultimately be compelled to violence to achieve our goals. However, this violence will ultimately be responsive.
Does this change the moral implications of our choice? Consider other circumstances. A wealthy individual cheats you. All realistic mechanisms of reacquiring your wealth are taken away. You will be jailed unless you actively kill him and dispose of the body. How much was wealth he stole, a relatively low amount, worth a response? We certainly can't expect you to sit in jail on a principle of nonviolence, can we?
That being said. What gives us the moral legitimacy, those of us in well off nations, to act against capitalism. We know they will ultimately choose to protect their wealth through violence. We can avoid violence, respect their life, and simply suffer. This seems ridiculous.
I am not sure how to spell out a response to this idea. I think there is one. I am also rather confused. If someone stole a dollar from you, and they did it out of greed, could you kill them if only that means would allow you to reacquire that dollar? I would like to think not unless you were starving.
Are we really starving, suffering, et cetera, enough? Will they ultimately respond because of greed or ignorance? Most rich people seem to be legitimately ignorant and see no exploitation occurring. Or is this false?
If we demand our rights, through revolutionary action, we realize that we will ultimately be compelled to violence to achieve our goals. However, this violence will ultimately be responsive.
Does this change the moral implications of our choice? Consider other circumstances. A wealthy individual cheats you. All realistic mechanisms of reacquiring your wealth are taken away. You will be jailed unless you actively kill him and dispose of the body. How much was wealth he stole, a relatively low amount, worth a response? We certainly can't expect you to sit in jail on a principle of nonviolence, can we?
That being said. What gives us the moral legitimacy, those of us in well off nations, to act against capitalism. We know they will ultimately choose to protect their wealth through violence. We can avoid violence, respect their life, and simply suffer. This seems ridiculous.
I am not sure how to spell out a response to this idea. I think there is one. I am also rather confused. If someone stole a dollar from you, and they did it out of greed, could you kill them if only that means would allow you to reacquire that dollar? I would like to think not unless you were starving.
Are we really starving, suffering, et cetera, enough? Will they ultimately respond because of greed or ignorance? Most rich people seem to be legitimately ignorant and see no exploitation occurring. Or is this false?