Question to strict anti-moralists

[RGacky3]

What I mean by strict anti-moralists is someone who baleives not only that there are not objective ethical values or truths but also that ethical judgements are not valid and meaningless.

Why do YOU advocate socialism?

side note: Often find that those who call themselves anti-moralists are the first to use words like "capitalist scum" or "bourgeois degeneracy" or "Capitalist dirtbags," without any sense of irony.

[The Douche]

Because it is in my material interests. I don't call myself an "anti-moralist", because I am more of a moral-relativist, but I think people who are moralists would call me one.

[RGacky3]

You live in the United States, it actually would be in much more of your material interests just to play along would'nt it?

But Moral relativism is'nt the same, moral reletavists generally don't consider moral judgements meaningless.

[Zav]

Because it is in my material interests.

Greed is good?

[The Douche]

Play along? With what? I make like $13,000 a year, thats not a lot of money, man. How is socialism not gonna help me? Why did I come into OI?


I think moral judgements are pretty much meaningless because I don't believe in any sort of universal morality. I don't expect others (especially the bourgeoisie) to see me as "moral", and I don't think their behavior is "moral" by my standards, but I recognize that they have a different morality than I do.

[The Douche]

Greed is good?

Yeah essentially. I am not a socialist because its "fair", "just", or "equal". I am a socialist because it means a better world for me and the people I care about...

[Tychus]

Not sure if I can speak on behalf of other anti-moralists but most of us don't advocate 100% moral relativity, but rather a simple and linear code of honor, also known as the golden rule.

I don't mess with other people because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. However, that still doesn't stop assholes from readily fucking with me and wasting my time, but instead I'm the asshole when I retaliate, and somehow they are the victims.

And all these pathetic dirtbags were people in a position of power which they abused readily at convenient opportunities.

Thus, my anarchist beliefs stem from wanting an end to this hierarchical system, because I'm tired of sick, tiny, lifeless fucking ugly inbred people with their jealousy, inferiority complexes and all kinds of mental problems insisting that I must share their misery. JUST FUCK OFF.

Unfortunately, I recognize that there must be law and order, which can't realistically work in an anarchist society (and it eventually will end up becoming an more oppressive hierarchy than before) which is why I lean towards liberal/socialist states that try to give equal power to everybody and maintain order.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is exactly why I don't want some powerful multinational to become the new government and proceed to prescribe their code of acceptable behavior on me and tell me how to live my life.

[The Douche]

Unfortunately, I recognize that there must be law and order, which can't realistically work in an anarchist society (and it eventually will end up becoming an more oppressive hierarchy than before)

I don't think anarchy means what you think it means...

[RGacky3]

Play along? With what? I make like $13,000 a year, thats not a lot of money, man. How is socialism not gonna help me? Why did I come into OI?


I think moral judgements are pretty much meaningless because I don't believe in any sort of universal morality. I don't expect others (especially the bourgeoisie) to see me as "moral", and I don't think their behavior is "moral" by my standards, but I recognize that they have a different morality than I do.

Well, I mean play along in the sense as go to university and try and get a degree in finance or something (if you have the opportunity).

But fighting for socialism would make things worse, you might even end up in prison, the probability you'll get socialism is pretty damn small.

Universal morality is'nt needed, for example you can think actions are moral, because YOU think they are moral, and you thus take moral actions, or you consider morality to be something that if you hold you should not by hypocritical, and hold yourself to that.


Not sure if I can speak on behalf of other anti-moralists but most of us don't advocate 100% moral relativity, but rather a simple and linear code of honor, also known as the golden rule.


Thats fine, but I don't consider that anti-morality at all.


Unfortunately, I recognize that there must be law and order, which can't realistically work in an anarchist society (and it eventually will end up becoming an more oppressive hierarchy than before) which is why I lean towards liberal/socialist states that try to give equal power to everybody and maintain order.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is exactly why I don't want some powerful multinational to become the new government and proceed to prescribe their code of acceptable behavior on me and tell me how to live my life.

I absolutely agree, I don't hold capitalists to any moral standard, because I don't believe that I can assume to place any moral standards on them, even if there ARE objective morals there is nothing you can do to require other people to follow them, other than withdraw your respect.

But systemic institutions can be held to a moral standard of "do they do what they proport to do," and if it does'nt, what does it do? ALso is that outcome something most people are OK with.

Even most Capitalists hold to some kind of morality that socialists hold to, but they reconcile capitalism by trying to re-interperate the system or create some moral justification, or argue that the negative outcomes of capitalism (which almost everyone judges to be morally bad) are NOT due to capitalism.

[Tychus]

I don't think anarchy means what you think it means...

It does not matter what it purports to be and dream to achieve. Any attempted implementation of anarchy will result in a much worse system of stratification and dictatorship by the individual.

[RGacky3]

Except we had empirical evidence that what your saying is'nt the case. When Anarchism has been tried, everytime, it did what it proported to do.

[The Douche]

Well, I mean play along in the sense as go to university and try and get a degree in finance or something (if you have the opportunity).

University isn't free here, that opportunity doesn't exist, nor am I smart enough to get a degree in something like finance or another sort of high demand, high paying job.


But fighting for socialism would make things worse, you might even end up in prison, the probability you'll get socialism is pretty damn small.

I think the odds of me seeing socialism are about the same as the odds of me going to jail for anything other than misdemeanors.


Universal morality is'nt needed, for example you can think actions are moral, because YOU think they are moral, and you thus take moral actions, or you consider morality to be something that if you hold you should not by hypocritical, and hold yourself to that.

I think the expropriation of wealth from the bourgeoisie and its distribution to the community is moral (because I have a revolutionary and a communist morality), but a member of the bourgeoisie would consider such a position highly immoral, and would call such an act "theft".

So I am immoral and moral, depending on who you ask, and so is the capitalist. So morality is meaningless in my mind.


It does not matter what it purports to be and dream to achieve. Any attempted implementation of anarchy will result in a much worse system of stratification and dictatorship by the individual.

So you don't know anything about anarchism as a political movement in action?

[Tychus]

I absolutely agree, I don't hold capitalists to any moral standard, because I don't believe that I can assume to place any moral standards on them, even if there ARE objective morals there is nothing you can do to require other people to follow them, other than withdraw your respect.

But systemic institutions can be held to a moral standard of "do they do what they proport to do," and if it does'nt, what does it do? ALso is that outcome something most people are OK with.

Even most Capitalists hold to some kind of morality that socialists hold to, but they reconcile capitalism by trying to re-interperate the system or create some moral justification, or argue that the negative outcomes of capitalism (which almost everyone judges to be morally bad) are NOT due to capitalism.

No one should hold anyone to a moral standard other than to not do unto others what they wouldn't want done to them, and that if they break this rule, to expect the same to be done unto them and not ***** about it when it does.


Except we had empirical evidence that what your saying is'nt the case. When Anarchism has been tried, everytime, it did what it proported to do.

Where? Within some tribe in Africa?

[RGacky3]

University isn't free here, that opportunity doesn't exist, nor am I smart enough to get a degree in something like finance or another sort of high demand, high paying job.


Common now, do you really think laurence summers or tim geightner are smart??

But I get the point,

So if the punishment for advocating socialism was bad enough you'd abandon it?


I think the odds of me seeing socialism are about the same as the odds of me going to jail for anything other than misdemeanors.


I don't know man, if your from the united states history would tell you otherwise. protesters go to prison, sometimes get blacklisted, and so on.


I think the expropriation of wealth from the bourgeoisie and its distribution to the community is moral (because I have a revolutionary and a communist morality), but a member of the bourgeoisie would consider such a position highly immoral, and would call such an act "theft".

So I am immoral and moral, depending on who you ask, and so is the capitalist. So morality is meaningless in my mind.


Not necessarily, just like you saying "chocolate is delicious" is not meaningless.

But the bourgeoisie only considers such acts theft because they use false premises (I'm not saying that they can be convinced, I'm saying that their morals are not actually different then yours, they just invent false premises to justify their moral judgements, and these premises can be shown to be false.)

[The Douche]

So if the punishment for advocating socialism was bad enough you'd abandon it?

The only reason I don't shoot police officers is because of the consequences, not because of some sort of issue with taking their lives. If simply thinking a certain way, or belonging to an organization or doing propaganda carried a serious risk of long term imprisonment or death then I would have to seriously consider whether I would continue to be a socialist militant.


I don't know man, if your from the united states history would tell you otherwise. protesters go to prison, sometimes get blacklisted, and so on.

You're exaggerating. People rarely ever, in modern history in the US, get felony charges for political work, unless that political work is violent.


But the bourgeoisie only considers such acts theft because they use false premises (I'm not saying that they can be convinced, I'm saying that their morals are not actually different then yours, they just invent false premises to justify their moral judgements, and these premises can be shown to be false.)

How're their premises false? The property is theirs, it belongs to them, I want to take it away without compensation. By the standards of this society, that is theft.

[The Douche]

Where? Within some tribe in Africa?

*sigh* please read this http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

feel free to start with this section:

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

[Frank Zapatista]

I consider myself an anti-moralist of sorts, I suppose. I dont believe in any universal morality, I do however believe in what I refer to as evolutionary morality, things that shouldnt be done because they endanger the future of the human race, this is where I see any sort of natural morality as having stemmed from, a mental block of sorts in most people stopping them from doings things like killing. I propose socialism because it is the best thing for the human race and I see Capitalism as being the source of most of humanities ills . I disagree with racism, homophobia and sexism (amongst other forms of discrimination) because I see it as wrong not for moral reasons but for all kinds of logical reasons. Race is a social concept, gender differences are created by society and homosexuality isnt a choice and it harms no one. I hope that made sense.

[Tim Cornelis]

The problem with ethics is that people attempt to make it deontological (either prescriptive or descriptive) and therefore many come to the conclusion that "morality" does not exist. You cannot quantify morality, just like you can't love. This is because ethics = projecting your empathy unto others. You cannot be an "anti-moralist" in the sense that you believe morality does not exist, unless you're a psychopath with no empathy.

Everyone has a sense of ethics (except those without empathy), for example:




Cops and mobsters are shitty human beings, the movie demonstrated that pretty well.

cmoney apperently has a standard by which to judge people and categorise them in good and bad (or shitty and not-shitty), i.e. ethics.

Advocating socialism because of your personal material interests is another thing, of course.

[The Douche]

The problem with ethics is that people attempt to make it deontological (either prescriptive or descriptive) and therefore many come to the conclusion that "morality" does not exist. You cannot quantify morality, just like you can't love. This is because ethics = projecting your empathy unto others. You cannot be an "anti-moralist" in the sense that you believe morality does not exist, unless you're a psychopath with no empathy.

Everyone has a sense of ethics (except those without empathy), for example:





cmoney apperently has a standard by which to judge people and categorise them in good and bad (or shitty and not-shitty), i.e. ethics.

Advocating socialism because of your personal material interests is another thing, of course.


But both cops and mobsters are operating perfectly within their own morality...

Cops especially have their actions usually viewed as moral by the majority of society, whereas I wouldn't be sad if every cop was in the bottom of the Atlantic. So am I immoral for wanting to see massive amounts of people gone/dead? What about the fact that it is my morality that leads me to this position?


Look, like I said elsewhere on the board recently, philosophy doesn't make any sort of sense to me. I'm not against morality, I have my own, as I said in this thread, but I think morality is kind of useless or whatever because there is no objective morality. Nothing is "right" or "wrong" outside of how individuals or groups of individuals see it.

[RGacky3]

I consider myself an anti-moralist of sorts, I suppose. I dont believe in any universal morality, I do however believe in what I refer to as evolutionary morality, things that shouldnt be done because they endanger the future of the human race, this is where I see any sort of natural morality as having stemmed from, a mental block of sorts in most people stopping them from doings things like killing. I propose socialism because it is the best thing for the human race and I see Capitalism as being the source of most of humanities ills . I disagree with racism, homophobia and sexism (amongst other forms of discrimination) because I see it as wrong not for moral reasons but for all kinds of logical reasons. Race is a social concept, gender differences are created by society and homosexuality isnt a choice and it harms no one. I hope that made sense.


Not really.

1. that one should worry about the human race is an ethical judgement.
2. that people should care about humanities ills is an ethical judgement.
3. The fact that we should apply logic to ethical quesions, and what the basis of those logical equations should be are all ethical judgements.
4. The fact that we should accept something if it is'nt a choice and harms no one is an ethical judgement.


How're their premises false? The property is theirs, it belongs to them, I want to take it away without compensation. By the standards of this society, that is theft.

Their premisis and arguments of the moral grounds for property are all falsified, and have never really been fixed, the best is the homestead argument, or the applied labor argument, all of which can be ripped up by any socialist.


The only reason I don't shoot police officers is because of the consequences, not because of some sort of issue with taking their lives. If simply thinking a certain way, or belonging to an organization or doing propaganda carried a serious risk of long term imprisonment or death then I would have to seriously consider whether I would continue to be a socialist militant.


So if you had the ability to go to university you WOULD be a capitalist, ideogically, so essencially you just need to get paid off :), also if there was a major risk then ideologically you'd give up socialism.

Hell the whole basis of having and ideology is an ethical basis.


Everyone has a sense of ethics (except those without empathy), for example:



cmoney apperently has a standard by which to judge people and categorise them in good and bad (or shitty and not-shitty), i.e. ethics.

Advocating socialism because of your personal material interests is another thing, of course.

Exactly my point.


But both cops and mobsters are operating perfectly within their own morality...


Based on falsifiable premises.

Their morality when you get down to it are the same as yours, most of them also believe that you should'nt unjustly kill innocents (they just have a false definition of an innocent and/or how to justify).

But either way, its morally repugnant TO YOU, meaning you HAVE morality and YOU MAKE moral judgements.


Cops especially have their actions usually viewed as moral by the majority of society, whereas I wouldn't be sad if every cop was in the bottom of the Atlantic. So am I immoral for wanting to see massive amounts of people gone/dead? What about the fact that it is my morality that leads me to this position?


Not because people have different moralities, but because people understand the action of cops differently.

For example where you see a cop re-enforcing a system of oppression and unjustly taking away people's freedom and terrorizing a community, other people see criminals taken of the streets.

You both believe the former is wrong and the latter is ok (basically), yet your understanding of the reality and how it relates to your morality is different.


Look, like I said elsewhere on the board recently, philosophy doesn't make any sort of sense to me. I'm not against morality, I have my own, as I said in this thread, but I think morality is kind of useless or whatever because there is no objective morality. Nothing is "right" or "wrong" outside of how individuals or groups of individuals see it.

That may or may not be the case, its an ontological question, but no one can deny that individuals make moral judgments and that moral judgements are valid even if just your own opinions.

[Decolonize The Left]

RGacky3, and anyone else in this discussion, may be interested in Nietzsche's On The Genealogy of Morals (http://records.viu.ca/%7Ejohnstoi/nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm).

- August

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Because it is in my material interests. I don't call myself an "anti-moralist", because I am more of a moral-relativist, but I think people who are moralists would call me one.

Is it really in your individual material interests to actively campaign for socialism? If you put all the hours you've spent on revleft or learning about socialism or campaigning for it into something else, it is likely you would be better off.

[Misanthrope]

I am against forcing morals on your peers. I am a communist because I'm for human advancement. Capitalism is halting that. As state before, communism is in the material interests of humans as a collective.

[The Douche]

Is it really in your individual material interests to actively campaign for socialism? If you put all the hours you've spent on revleft or learning about socialism or campaigning for it into something else, it is likely you would be better off.

I dunno why people say this, especially people who are communists.

You just told me, work hard enough and you'll succeed in capitalism...

[Black_Rose]

I am against forcing morals on your peers. I am a communist because I'm for human advancement. Capitalism is halting that. As state before, communism is in the material interests of humans as a collective.

I don't know what do you mean by "peers", but a socialist society would certainly impose restrictions on personal conduct such as restricting the ability of its citizens to interact with foreigners and prohibition of the ownership of private property.


Cops especially have their actions usually viewed as moral by the majority of society, whereas I wouldn't be sad if every cop was in the bottom of the Atlantic. So am I immoral for wanting to see massive amounts of people gone/dead? What about the fact that it is my morality that leads me to this position? I view most cops as either pawns or knights, and so does the members of the elite class who merely perceive them, not as moral agents with respectable material and social interests, but as instruments necessary for maintenance of the capitalist social order. The police in an inegalitarian liberal democracy or repressive state are not seen by the economically privileged as people who pursue a morally laudable vocation, but as a valet service that physically protects them from the restive underclass through the credible threat (intimidation) and exercise of necessary, usually flagrantly excessive, force. I am too mentally and politically acute and cynical to naively believe the disingenuous fantasy that the cops are moral because they allegedly "protect and serve" the general public.

(this is a good rant: http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/12/20/hi-officer-bob/  )

As a socialist, I am against bourgeois morality, but we should not dismiss the value of ethics within a socialist society.

[The Douche]

I didn't mean the wealthy see cops as morally right warriors, its usually middle class/racist workers who view them this way.

I'm not saying we should (or can) dismiss ethics/morals, I'm saying there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong morally, it is all up to interpretation.

[Rafiq]

What I mean by strict anti-moralists is someone who baleives not only that there are not objective ethical values or truths but also that ethical judgements are not valid and meaningless.

Why do YOU advocate socialism?

side note: Often find that those who call themselves anti-moralists are the first to use words like "capitalist scum" or "bourgeois degeneracy" or "Capitalist dirtbags," without any sense of irony.

Because I recognize the internal contradictions within capitalism and therefore want to solve them before society implodes and I die of starvation, so I advocate the workers get their shit together and form something better so I can have a better life.

This is so easy :laugh:

[RGacky3]

The chances of a socialist revolution in the US is pretty damn small, so if you were truely amoral you would get yours in the society your in now.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know what do you mean by "peers", but a socialist society would certainly impose restrictions on personal conduct such as restricting the ability of its citizens to interact with foreigners

why?

[Rafiq]

The chances of a socialist revolution in the US is pretty damn small, so if you were truely amoral you would get yours in the society your in now.

But I'm not amoral. Marxism is amoral but that just means that if you want to have political morality you have to add a sepearate moral framework if you're a marxist, which tends to be a revolutionary communist one. Not that it matters, though.

Everybody listen up.

Gacky abuses terms.

Moralism and having moral views are not connected at all.

Moralism is the belief that Morals are the basis of society, so if a society is doing bad economically, this is tied to the "Morals" of it's citizens.

We materialists say it's the other way around, that "Immorality" in the revolutionary sense stems off from the bad material conditoins of that society, in which morals a mere reflection.

This is why the Bourgeois pigs tend to be such moralists, they want to blame the faults of society on "Bad morality" (Then comes in their religious opportunism) rather than a systematic problem inheritly existent in the system. A true revolutionary understands that moral criticism is the weakest form of criticism, as morals are merely a result of conditions that enable people to do such acts. We must target the system in it's root, from it's heart , the basis of the actual problem.

Now, Universal morality does not exist. So when someone sais they have moral views, those moral views are a reflection of the interests of a certain class, nothing more. They are not universal nor are they enscribed into the very heart of the heavens, the very core of earth itself.

Proletarian morality exists. We oppose the bourgeoisie, we oppose exploitation, sexism, racism, etc.

But we must ask ourselves: How do we bring about such moral demands? Through systematic means, i.e. The abolition of a system in which Sexism, racism, are a necessity for it to function.

So next time, Gacky, don't talk out of your ass and abuse terms you have no idea about.

[Rafiq]

And gacky, it's not like everyone in the U.S. can just become "rich". I am already pretty well off, by the way. But my support for socialism is scientific, not moral.

[Ocean Seal]

What I mean by strict anti-moralists is someone who baleives not only that there are not objective ethical values or truths but also that ethical judgements are not valid and meaningless.

Why do YOU advocate socialism?

side note: Often find that those who call themselves anti-moralists are the first to use words like "capitalist scum" or "bourgeois degeneracy" or "Capitalist dirtbags," without any sense of irony.

I'm not an anti-moralist I suppose from a personal sense, but I'm definitely an anti-moralist when it comes to justifying the actions of the revolution. We do not expropriate the bourgeoisie because it is moral to do so, we do it because that is what is necessary for the working class to win power. We aren't claiming that proletarian violence in the streets is justified, or that a red terror against counter-revolution is morally just. Solely that those actions are necessary for our working class revolution. Capitalists try to reason that the pigs beating down protesters is justified, in my opinion it just makes them look ridiculous. There is a war, there are two sides, and you are on one or the other.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I mean by strict anti-moralists is someone who baleives not only that there are not objective ethical values or truths but also that ethical judgements are not valid and meaningless.

Why do YOU advocate socialism?I advocate socialism because it's in my interests as a worker and a human on this planet to do so. Capitalism is unstable and hurts my life directly and prevents me from having a fulfilling life - part of which would also include the survival of the earth and our species and everyone I love.

"Universal morals" are really bourgeois morals, but capitalism isn't actually a moral system - it's Machiavellian and might makes right for all ruling classes. So killing is wrong if you do it during a bank robbery, but you get a Presidential accommodation if you do it in a war so that the US ruling class can steal a country. A moralist would say that both are wrong - any killing is wrong. But I'd say it's not wrong for a slave to kill his master if that was the only way to escape - the morals of the 19th century would have said otherwise (and many Libertarians in the 21st century would agree with the antebellum moralists).

So my "morals" are guided by politics, class politics, and what will help the working class move closer to achieving self-emancipation by any means appropriate to accomplishing this. So, for example, I'd consider it a grave sin for radicals to spread information they knew to be incorrect even if it mobilized workers to take a positive action. It's wrong to lie in this way because it's elitist and manipulative and doesn't help workers gain their own confidence and self-leadership, it leads workers like a demagogue or dictator does. But if a radical was arrested by police, it would be a grave sin for him/her to tell the truth to the cops about planned worker actions or a strike or whatnot.

So there's truth and lies and then there are truth and lies. It's Prol-allity, not Morality.


side note: Often find that those who call themselves anti-moralists are the first to use words like "capitalist scum" or "bourgeois degeneracy" or "Capitalist dirtbags," without any sense of irony.I call people (bad) names to be descriptive or cutting. I call scabs "scabs" and bosses "motherfuckers" and the like in movements to help build the confidence of people on our side. I don't think most bosses actually have fucked their mothers... where's the profit in that? Hmmm, sleeping to the top maybe. That's where all those trust-funds come from... motherfuckers!

Sorry yall, I need to get some sleep.

[Rafiq]

Where is Rafiq

:confused:

[Ostrinski]

:confused:Sorry, I made that post before I even looked on the second page. I always like your posts on moralism.

[DinodudeEpic]

I don't for freedom because it is moral. I rather fight for freedom because it helps create a prosperous and rational society.

[RGacky3]

Moralism is the belief that Morals are the basis of society, so if a society is doing bad economically, this is tied to the "Morals" of it's citizens.


Well then NO one, literally no one, is a moralist, if your defining it in that narrow way. I have never mett one person that believes that things go wrong economically its because people have bad morals, almost everyone argues systemically, left and right.


We materialists say it's the other way around, that "Immorality" in the revolutionary sense stems off from the bad material conditoins of that society, in which morals a mere reflection.


How the hell can there be "immorality" in any sense if morality is a senseless notion.

Btw if thats what "materialism" is then basically everyone is a materialist, liberals, conservatives, communists and so on.

Its the understanding of the material conditions that are different.


This is why the Bourgeois pigs tend to be such moralists, they want to blame the faults of society on "Bad morality" (Then comes in their religious opportunism) rather than a systematic problem inheritly existent in the system. A true revolutionary understands that moral criticism is the weakest form of criticism, as morals are merely a result of conditions that enable people to do such acts. We must target the system in it's root, from it's heart , the basis of the actual problem.


No sense of irony in the use of "bourgeois pigs" when discussing not having morality???

Also its not all black and white, plenty of unsophisticated socialists also argue based on bad morality (the wrong approach), as to unsophisticated capitalists.

Sophisticated socialists AND capitalists make arugments from systemic issues, all the time.

Also "all true revolutionaries?" You don't see the inherent moralism in that statement?

What your saying by the way is totally uncontraversial, NO ONE argues that emotional moral arguments are a way to approach economics, no one argues that at all.


Now, Universal morality does not exist. So when someone sais they have moral views, those moral views are a reflection of the interests of a certain class, nothing more. They are not universal nor are they enscribed into the very heart of the heavens, the very core of earth itself.

Proletarian morality exists. We oppose the bourgeoisie, we oppose exploitation, sexism, racism, etc.


Those moral views are a reflection of many many many things, some of which may be related to class.

As far as Universal morality, their may well be things that are universally accepted as moral or immoral.

(Btw, there are plenty of sexist and racist proletarians).


But we must ask ourselves: How do we bring about such moral demands? Through systematic means, i.e. The abolition of a system in which Sexism, racism, are a necessity for it to function.


Ok, so it IS based on morals, just the morals you claim are class based.

No one argues we should not approach things systemically, your arguing against a strawman.


And gacky, it's not like everyone in the U.S. can just become "rich". I am already pretty well off, by the way. But my support for socialism is scientific, not moral.

Scientific and moral ARE NOT OPPOSITES, they arn't even related, one is the "how" question the other is the "why."

If your well off then your support for socialism makes no sense from a non moral standpoint, its not in your interests at all!!!


I don't for freedom because it is moral. I rather fight for freedom because it helps create a prosperous and rational society.

And wanting a prosperous and rational society is a moral judgement.


"Universal morals" are really bourgeois morals, but capitalism isn't actually a moral system - it's Machiavellian and might makes right for all ruling classes. So killing is wrong if you do it during a bank robbery, but you get a Presidential accommodation if you do it in a war so that the US ruling class can steal a country. A moralist would say that both are wrong - any killing is wrong. But I'd say it's not wrong for a slave to kill his master if that was the only way to escape - the morals of the 19th century would have said otherwise (and many Libertarians in the 21st century would agree with the antebellum moralists).


No an unsophisticated moralist would say all killing is wrong.

You would say in the case of a slave his killing is justified morally so its still a moral judgement.


So there's truth and lies and then there are truth and lies. It's Prol-allity, not Morality.


These are all moral judgements, but your jutsifications are different and understanding of the situation is different.

Its stil the same morality, but with different understandings of this situation.


I call people (bad) names to be descriptive or cutting. I call scabs "scabs" and bosses "motherfuckers" and the like in movements to help build the confidence of people on our side. I don't think most bosses actually have fucked their mothers... where's the profit in that? Hmmm, sleeping to the top maybe. That's where all those trust-funds come from... motherfuckers!

Sorry yall, I need to get some sleep.

Your implying that the problem is that the rulers are "bad people" or something is morally wrong with them. The whole "Bourgeois scum" phrase implies that the capitalists are somehow less people than everyone else, when really they are just responding to the material conditions like everyone else and are no more or less scum than a worker going on strike.

[Rafiq]

Well then NO one, literally no one, is a moralist, if your defining it in that narrow way. I have never mett one person that believes that things go wrong economically its because people have bad morals, almost everyone argues systemically, left and right.

A lot of anarchists believe the faults of society are because of authoritarianism and hierarchy, which could translate in "Bad morals".

Also, you probably haven't met a lot of religious people.

Universal morality enthusiasts are also moralists.




How the hell can there be "immorality" in any sense if morality is a senseless notion.

Poor gacky, so incompident in understanding the posts of others.

I said within the framework of revolutionary communsit ethics, hence:

"Immorality" in the revolutionary sense


Btw if thats what "materialism" is then basically everyone is a materialist, liberals, conservatives, communists and so on.

No, they're not. They are inconsistent. There is more to materialism than that. Conservatives, on one hand, think that spreading religious dogma will cure the faults of society, more morality. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that "Idea's" and "belief" will "Change" the world. Hence they are Ghandi asslickers.

And then a lot of communists believe that the material conditions of society will adjust itself to their ideology (communism).

I can go on.

Read. Fucking. materialism.

You obviously have no clue what it is.


Its the understanding of the material conditions that are different.

no, that's not true. Materialists believe material conditions override human consent. You, on one hand, blame the failure on the Russian revolution on the choices the bolshevik leadership made. But a materialist would say that it was the material conditions that forced them to make those choices. If not, then you have to be consistant and blame the faults of capitalism on the choices of the bourgeoisie, too.

And then, we can come to the conclusion that all we need is a "Moral" bourgeoisie and this will solve the problem of commodity production, of class war, etc. But it's bogus.



No sense of irony in the use of "bourgeois pigs" when discussing not having morality???

We oppose them because they are our natural class enemy, for selfish reasons. Just as the snake is the enemy of the hawk.


Also its not all black and white, plenty of unsophisticated socialists also argue based on bad morality (the wrong approach), as to unsophisticated capitalists.

Yes, unsophisticated socialists such as yourself.

I know it happens, that is why I am posting as we speak.


Sophisticated socialists AND capitalists make arugments from systemic issues, all the time.

Yes, materialists. However most of the time, those socialists tend to be of the Marxist current. Anarchists do blame the system. But they go deeper and blame the faults of the system to something much bigger, Ideas. Authoritarianism and Hierarchy.


Also "all true revolutionaries?" You don't see the inherent moralism in that statement?

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. A true revolutionary is someone who's goal is to bring about the destruction of the present state of things. Whatever the reason for that is their buisness.


What your saying by the way is totally uncontraversial, NO ONE argues that emotional moral arguments are a way to approach economics, no one argues that at all.

But of course! That is the whole point of me accusing others of moralism, no? Because it happens unknowingly. A person who approaches economics with emotions and moral arguments most likely is unaware that he is doing so.




Those moral views are a reflection of many many many things, some of which may be related to class.

They are all reflections of class. All of them. A proletariat could hold the moral views which reflect off the bourgeois class, and so on.


As far as Universal morality, their may well be things that are universally accepted as moral or immoral.

You don't know what universal morality means. It means morality that exists indifferently from the existence of human conciousness, i.e. It means that morals are something that have been enscribed in the very hearts of us, before civilization existed as we know it.

And no, I don't think there is anything that is considered moral or immoral on a universal scale for all civilizations. And I mean that.


(Btw, there are plenty of sexist and racist proletarians).


Have you ever heard of class concioussness? There are plenty of fascist proletarians, too. That doesn't mean they are exerting, or are aware of their class interests, though.



Ok, so it IS based on morals, just the morals you claim are class based.

It's not based on morals, but the moral demands exist. The whole point of the revolution is not to fulfill those moral demands, rather it is the proletarian class realizing the limitations of the capitalist system in regards to fulfilling their interests. Sexism, etc. are, in modern times in capitalism, inheritly bourgeois (Only in capitalism, for example, it is not bourgeois sexism in feudalism).


No one argues we should not approach things systemically, your arguing against a strawman.

You do it and you don't catch yourself doing it. Of course it is not something you or any other bourgeois-socialists would know they are doing. They do it unknowingly.




Scientific and moral ARE NOT OPPOSITES, they arn't even related, one is the "how" question the other is the "why."

That's not true and it's inconsistent to say. For example, Science can explain why things happen from drawing conclusions from other things.

They are opposites in regards to our conversation. You can approach the problem scientifically, or in your case, morally.


If your well off then your support for socialism makes no sense from a non moral standpoint, its not in your interests at all!!!

Though I recognize the inevitability of proletarian domination so I choose to side with the future champions of history, rather than the forces of reaction. Besides, without supporting socialism, my life is boring and meaningless. I support socialism from a non moral standpoint, but that doesn't mean I believe morals will dissapear.

[StalinFanboy]

Their premisis and arguments of the moral grounds for property are all falsified, and have never really been fixed, the best is the homestead argument, or the applied labor argument, all of which can be ripped up by any socialist..
They dont need any moral grounds for property. Those that come up with those are liberal humanist wiener douche bags.

If you have the power to keep something from other people, it is yours. The land that is known as the USA doesn't belong native americans. it belongs to the US because they have the guns and the propaganda to jack that shit.

rights dont exist. moral codes dont exist (not to say that people dont have their own ethics - or way of living their life). the only thing that exists is power.

[StalinFanboy]

I dunno why people say this, especially people who are communists.

You just told me, work hard enough and you'll succeed in capitalism...
its because most people on the left have a martyr complex.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I dunno why people say this, especially people who are communists.

You just told me, work hard enough and you'll succeed in capitalism...

You'll definitely have more chance of "succeeding." than if you put those hours into campaigning for something which likely isn't going to happen in your lifetime, and which your actions will have no influence on whether it does or not.

[RGacky3]

A lot of anarchists believe the faults of society are because of authoritarianism and hierarchy, which could translate in "Bad morals".

Also, you probably haven't met a lot of religious people.

Universal morality enthusiasts are also moralists.


Authoritarianism and hierarchy are systems of organization, its not at all bad morals, its systemic failures.


Poor gacky, so incompident in understanding the posts of others.

I said within the framework of revolutionary communsit ethics, hence:

"Immorality" in the revolutionary sense


Which according to you is meaningless because its absolutely arbitrary.


No, they're not. They are inconsistent. There is more to materialism than that. Conservatives, on one hand, think that spreading religious dogma will cure the faults of society, more morality. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that "Idea's" and "belief" will "Change" the world. Hence they are Ghandi asslickers.

And then a lot of communists believe that the material conditions of society will adjust itself to their ideology (communism).


Some conservatives believe that religious dogma will cure the faults of society, but they are few and far between.

Ghandi's pacifism was a tactic, AND IT WORKED, and he did'nt think that "ideas" or "belief" change society, he thought civil action did, and thats what he did.

No communist things he can change society without changing the material conditions because that is what society is.


no, that's not true. Materialists believe material conditions override human consent. You, on one hand, blame the failure on the Russian revolution on the choices the bolshevik leadership made.

Not at all, I blame it on the organizational structure they implimented, the material conditions that came out of their structure.

You believe their organizational structure was perfect just some outside forces or some imagenary "bourgouis degenerancy" (idealism at its worst) brought it down somehow.

I understand that it failed because it was systemically flawed, just like capitalism is systemically flawed.


But a materialist would say that it was the material conditions that forced them to make those choices. If not, then you have to be consistant and blame the faults of capitalism on the choices of the bourgeoisie, too.


I say that the faults of capitalism come from capitalism, and the faults of bolshevism come from bolshevism.


And then, we can come to the conclusion that all we need is a "Moral" bourgeoisie and this will solve the problem of commodity production, of class war, etc. But it's bogus.


No socialist EVER argues that, and I don't argue that if we just had someone else but Lenin and Stalin it would have been fine, the system was a failure itself.


We oppose them because they are our natural class enemy, for selfish reasons. Just as the snake is the enemy of the hawk.


I thought you were pretty well off, and live in the US, it sounds to me like your natural class enemy is someone else.


Yes, materialists. However most of the time, those socialists tend to be of the Marxist current. Anarchists do blame the system. But they go deeper and blame the faults of the system to something much bigger, Ideas. Authoritarianism and Hierarchy.


Authoritarianism and Hierarchy are no more ideas than Capitalism is an idea. THey are ACTUAL material conditions.


No, as a matter of fact, I don't. A true revolutionary is someone who's goal is to bring about the destruction of the present state of things. Whatever the reason for that is their buisness.


"All true revolutionaries see moral criticism as the weakest form of criticism" is what you said origionally .... now match that with what your saying now ....


But of course! That is the whole point of me accusing others of moralism, no? Because it happens unknowingly. A person who approaches economics with emotions and moral arguments most likely is unaware that he is doing so.


Well I think you have no idea what your talking about and don't know it :).


They are all reflections of class. All of them. A proletariat could hold the moral views which reflect off the bourgeois class, and so on.


No, actually you can trace different forms of phenomenon like racism or sexism to many many different things, some of which are class some of which are semi class.

A wealthy white guy might be racist because he sees other races as savages, a poor white guy might be racist because he see's aother races as competition, its not all black and white.

A wealthy guy might not be sexist, or he might be, a poor white guy might be sexist because its the only relationship where he has power, there are many different reasons.

Your view on the matter is simply dogmatic and unthoughtful.


It's not based on morals, but the moral demands exist. The whole point of the revolution is not to fulfill those moral demands, rather it is the proletarian class realizing the limitations of the capitalist system in regards to fulfilling their interests. Sexism, etc. are, in modern times in capitalism, inheritly bourgeois (Only in capitalism, for example, it is not bourgeois sexism in feudalism).


The fact that getting rid of sexism is someting positive is based on morality, i.e. your disdain for "bourgeois" morality (and just pinning what you consider immoral things on the bourgeois arbitrarily and without any justification, how scientific of you.)

Yet you are willing to work against YOUR OWN class interests to fight for some other classes interest!!!????


You do it and you don't catch yourself doing it. Of course it is not something you or any other bourgeois-socialists would know they are doing. They do it unknowingly.


ok :rolleyes:


That's not true and it's inconsistent to say. For example, Science can explain why things happen from drawing conclusions from other things.

They are opposites in regards to our conversation. You can approach the problem scientifically, or in your case, morally.


In social sciences you cannnot seperate the two.

Science cannot explain what is the desirable outcome, morals cannot explain how things work.


Though I recognize the inevitability of proletarian domination so I choose to side with the future champions of history, rather than the forces of reaction. Besides, without supporting socialism, my life is boring and meaningless. I support socialism from a non moral standpoint, but that doesn't mean I believe morals will dissapear.

:laugh:

Ok, so revolution will come in your life time IN THE UNTED STATES, and you think that it is inevitable, and your life just sucks unless your fighting against your class interests.

Its hillareous that you claim to be a non-moralist, and think everything is class based 100%, yet you are personally going against your own interests.

I can just imagen you in a group of revolutionaries, "I don't actually have any moral obligation to anyone, I don't think socialism is right or wrong, and if something better comes my way I will take it right away, also I'm gonig against my own class itnerests and doing it only because I'm pretty sure you guys will win, if I think you won't I'll change my mind, also I'm bored, so thats why I'm with you guys as a revolutionary."

Face it, your doing it because you think its the right thing to do. Either that or your just dicking around.

[#FF0000]

Well then NO one, literally no one, is a moralist, if your defining it in that narrow way. I have never mett one person that believes that things go wrong economically its because people have bad morals, almost everyone argues systemically, left and right.

No hahaha. You never heard anyone blame people for the crisis because they took out bad loans?

[Robert]

You never heard anyone blame people for the crisis because they took out bad loans?Yes, but the blame isn't laid on a moral basis. (Except as against "the people" at Fannie and Freddie and inside the local bank, but I don't think you mean those people.)

If you default on a mortgage with no down payment and a note greater than 33% of your net income, or a variable rate mortgage of any kind, or with some vision that idea that you're gonna "flip" the house for a quick profit, I'd say you and your bank were "asking for it," but I'd call that poor planning, reckless lending, over-optimism ... anything but "immorality."

[#FF0000]

Yes, but the blame isn't laid on a moral basis. (Except as against "the people" at Fannie and Freddie and inside the local bank, but I don't think you mean those people.)

Yeah it is, though, because they're blamed for not having the right "values" in hard work, self-determination, etc. etc. etc.

y'all are either disconnected as fuck or are just being obtuse to make your wrong points work.

[Robert]

Yeah it is, though, because they're blamed for not having the right "values" in hard work, self-determination, etc. etc. etc.Do you subscribe to a tea party newsletter?

Most of the "blame" (of a moral type) that I hear is directed at Clinton, Bush, unscrupulous and discriminatory bankers, housing speculator/flippers, most of them hardly working class, and bureaucrats at Fannie and Freddie. Since I read threads here, it's clear I don't get all my input from the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.

p.s. Oh, and I doubt Gacky III will take kindly to your associating his arguments with mine, if that's what you're doing. :lol:

Happy new year.

[#FF0000]

Do you subscribe to a tea party newsletter

No but there's a fair number of that sort around here.


p.s. Oh, and I doubt Gacky III will take kindly to your associating his arguments with mine, if that's what you're doing. :lol:

hes a big dummo so w/e


Happy new year.

h8 u robert

[ed miliband]

No hahaha. You never heard anyone blame people for the crisis because they took out bad loans?

Or various different "socialists", including those claiming to be Marxist, talking of how we need to build a "fairer economy" or whatever.

[RGacky3]

No hahaha. You never heard anyone blame people for the crisis because they took out bad loans?

Yeah, but there people that do that are just dumb, its not an economic argument at all.


Or various different "socialists", including those claiming to be Marxist, talking of how we need to build a "fairer economy" or whatever.

Yeah .... BUt thats not an economic argument or analysis, its a goal.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, but there people that do that are just dumb, its not an economic argument at all

Uh, it's someone blaming the economy on people's immorality/bad values which is exactly what you said didn't exist. It does. It does everywhere. People use it a lot.

[Elysian]

Socialism has always been a failure because it has been amoral. That which is not based on morality will never succeed. That's why socialism,despite its noble aims, fails all the time. Doesn't mean I am a cappie. I am a socialist but my socialism is based upon Christian morality.

[hatzel]

Socialism has always been a failure because it has been amoral. That which is not based on morality will never succeed. That's why socialism,despite its noble aims, fails all the time. Doesn't mean I am a cappie. I am a socialist but my socialism is based upon Christian morality.

No offense or anything but you seem to like saying lots of really silly things. Christian chauvinist things. Not cool.

[Elysian]

No offense or anything but you seem to like saying lots of really silly things. Christian chauvinist things. Not cool.

My silly things are backed up by historical facts. Socialist revolutions have always failed, always. Even reactionary islamists have more success than socialists - goes on to show how pathetic socialists are. This is because people are normally motivated by morals - to do good, to end exploitation and poverty, to end wars etc., not because it's in their interests but because it's the right thing to do. Since socialists leave morality out of the equation, there's absolutely no motivation to do anything. Hence the failure...

[Robert]

Quote:
No hahaha. You never heard anyone blame people for the crisis because they took out bad loans?
Yeah, but there people that do that are just dumb, its not an economic argument at all.

Not an economic argument? This is your thread, so you know what it's about, right?

Thanks for the positive message in your sig, though. Too bad yours is such a lonely voice on the left.

[The Insurrection]

Because it is in my material interests.

But you realise that's an ethical position. You're making a consequentialist moral argument - that you do an action because of the consequence of it. I.e. you are a socialist because it makes your life better. While there are no absolute moral/ethical truths, you cannot escape ethics in terms of how you conduct your behaviour and form your ideas.


Yeah essentially.If you don't think we can or should reject morals or ethics, why do you prefer to take a positive moral position towards greed over not being greedy?


I am not a socialist because its "fair", "just", or "equal".But why? What is wrong with fairness, justice and equality?


I am a socialist because it means a better world for me and the people I care about.Why don't you go and live in a commune then? I've done it. You can create "socialism" for you and your family and friends quite easily.

[The Insurrection]

What I mean by strict anti-moralists is someone who baleives not only that there are not objective ethical values or truths but also that ethical judgements are not valid and meaningless.

Why do YOU advocate socialism?.

Do people really reject moral/ethical judgments as invalid and meaningless? I think if anyone actually said that, they would demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of ethics.

[Robert]

The thread is about morality, not ethics.

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-defense-lawyer.htm). Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-defendant.htm) would potentially lead to more crime.

Morality deals more with "what is right and wrong?" or at least what one believes is right and wrong, and ethics is more "how should we live and behave?

Hard to draw a bright line unless you're rigidly doctrinaire like many here.

[RGacky3]

Uh, it's someone blaming the economy on people's immorality/bad values which is exactly what you said didn't exist. It does. It does everywhere. People use it a lot.

Ok, there are people that argue that, but no serious economist does.


The thread is about morality, not ethics.

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-defense-lawyer.htm). Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-defendant.htm) would potentially lead to more crime.

Morality deals more with "what is right and wrong?" or at least what one believes is right and wrong, and ethics is more "how should we live and behave?

Hard to draw a bright line unless you're rigidly doctrinaire like many here.

Morals are just personally imposed ethics.

[JustMovement]

The difference between science and morality is the difference between is and ought. It is possible to be a Marxist and avoid morality if you understand Marxism as merely a scientific description of society. But as soon as you are part of "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things" than you are necessarily confronted with the problem of morality.

Marx dismisses morality as merely an ideological expression of the current system of production (base/superstructure). The modern, liberal, ideas of the atomized individual with his rights and duties, with his de jure equality before the law, with his greatest possible freedom as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others, etc etc. these are bourgeois ideas.

So where, for Marx, are we to find the motivation for political action, for social revolution? In class consciousness, or our self-interest (a question Marx does not answer is why should we act in our self-interest) as generalized amongst those who are in our same position in the process of production. So now we have proletarian interests against bourgeois interests.

But if capitalist society, like feudal society before it, had its own morality, does this mean that socialist society will have a new, proletarian morality? And if it does, will the new morality have any greater metaphysical validity than its predecessors? Or, in other words, will it be any truer than bourgeois morality?

[Bronco]

I'm not sure if you can seperate the morality of our movement from it's ideology in a meaningful sense. When we talk about Communism/Anarchism being of benefit to humankind is that not a moral argument? What about when we talk about Capitalism enslaving people and making workers merely a commodity? Or in the way that the Left stands against racism, sexism, homophobia? Are these not all moral arguments to some extent?

[The Douche]

You'll definitely have more chance of "succeeding." than if you put those hours into campaigning for something which likely isn't going to happen in your lifetime, and which your actions will have no influence on whether it does or not.

Success in capitalism relies on a lot of things which I don't have. Things like a good education, good connections to people with some power, some sort of pre-existing capital or at least collateral, and good luck.

The odds of me gaining a substantial increase in my standard of living and my quality of living under capitalism are slim. I will probably be able to buy a small, modest home at some point, me and my girlfriend will probably each be able to have decent cars, and we'll probably be able to afford a kid or two. We'll work our whole lives, until we're in our 60s, we'll retire with social security and little to no savings, our kids won't be able to go to college unless they get scholarships, we won't be able to buy them cars when they turn 16, they'll have to get jobs while in high school.

This is the average life for working people in the US. I do not have the means to change this, and any argument to the contrary is essentially suggesting that I "pull myself up by the bootstraps", which is not an uncommon suggestion, but it is rather strange to hear from communists.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Success in capitalism relies on a lot of things which I don't have. Things like a good education, good connections to people with some power, some sort of pre-existing capital or at least collateral, and good luck.

The odds of me gaining a substantial increase in my standard of living and my quality of living under capitalism are slim. I will probably be able to buy a small, modest home at some point, me and my girlfriend will probably each be able to have decent cars, and we'll probably be able to afford a kid or two. We'll work our whole lives, until we're in our 60s, we'll retire with social security and little to no savings, our kids won't be able to go to college unless they get scholarships, we won't be able to buy them cars when they turn 16, they'll have to get jobs while in high school.

This is the average life for working people in the US. I do not have the means to change this, and any argument to the contrary is essentially suggesting that I "pull myself up by the bootstraps", which is not an uncommon suggestion, but it is rather strange to hear from communists.

No doubt, and there is no guaranteeing of your success. however, if you are in it for yourself and only yourself, then it strikes me that no matter how bad you feel your chances of doing well in a capitalist society, they are far, far greater than the chances that you will be involved in a communist revolution that will not of happened had you not been involved. So if you are only in this communism game in hope that somehow your actions will play a significant role in revolution, you are far better off devoting the time you spend on it into either attempting to improve your situation, which may not be possible, or just getting drunk or watching tv or reading or something.

[The Douche]

I don't think or hope that my actions will play a significant role in any revolution. I, like the people who will one day make communism, am motivated by my material conditions. My desire is to see a better life for me and my family, that can only be attained through communism. You seem to have some illusions in the capitalist system, that if one works hard enough they just might make it, my life experience hasn't shown that to be true. Everything good that has happened in my life has come about more by luck than by hard work.

And by the way, most of my day, and probably most of anybody's day is spent getting drunk, watching tv, or reading...

[Black_Rose]

Success in capitalism relies on a lot of things which I don't have. Things like a good education, good connections to people with some power, some sort of pre-existing capital or at least collateral, and good luck.

The odds of me gaining a substantial increase in my standard of living and my quality of living under capitalism are slim. I will probably be able to buy a small, modest home at some point, me and my girlfriend will probably each be able to have decent cars, and we'll probably be able to afford a kid or two. We'll work our whole lives, until we're in our 60s, we'll retire with social security and little to no savings, our kids won't be able to go to college unless they get scholarships, we won't be able to buy them cars when they turn 16, they'll have to get jobs while in high school.

This is the average life for working people in the US. I do not have the means to change this, and any argument to the contrary is essentially suggesting that I "pull myself up by the bootstraps", which is not an uncommon suggestion, but it is rather strange to hear from communists.

What you said is an accurate evaluation of the predicament of average person in the United States. I used to hold you in contempt* (although privately for remarks you stated in this thread) for being an anti-capitalist for selfish reasons, but enlightened self-interest certainly is respectable, valuable, and necessary for revolutionary action. We need more working class people that comprehend that their dire economic prospects is due to the incorrigibly oppressive character of the system, as opposed to one's personal flaws, such as a lack of talent or work ethic. What perplexes me is that most American working class people defend the system, and believe that it is innately capable of producing material prosperity and a just distribution of wealth, instead of just fatalistic accepting their miserable lot in life.

Proper political education is important, and in another post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-morals-virtues-t166955/index.html), I conflated education with socialist virtue. We need to possess epistemological certitude that socialism is capable of providing a better life to the working class, and it is not a utopian arrangement of the political economy, or a failed idea incapable of being realized due the depravity of humans. For instance, Stephen Gowans recent article about the former socialist states shows that such a vision can be practically realized.


*I still think the best revolutionaries are those who act primarily out of mercy and sympathy for the working class (as opposed to advance their own interests), and are willing to sacrifice so others can enjoy a dignified and content livelihood.

[Skooma Reborn]

Morals are just strongly held preferences. It is wrong to say they are meaningless. "I like ice cream" is not meaningless, and "I don't like killing" is not meaningless. The latter is just a more strongly held preference.