What is wrong with having an ethical opposition to capitalism?

[eric922]

First of all, let me say that I do accept the Marxist scientific critique of capitalism and view it as a very accurate description of how capitalism works.

However, before I even read Marx I opposed capitalism on ethical grounds and my opposition to capitalism still is partly an ethical one. I view any system that allows one person who contributes nothing to society to live in luxury while allowing another to spend their entire life working just to survive, to be an unethical system and I view it as unjust as the concept of nobility. Children should not be made to starve simply because it benefits some company's bottom line.

My question, is, what is wrong with this ethical opposition? I, ask, because I've seen some people say that you shouldn't have an ethical opposition to capitalism, only a scientific one.

[Questionable]

There's nothing wrong with having a moral revulsion to capitalism, but I wouldn't go basing any of my arguments on morality because they're highly subjective. I've met several people who were convinced that the bourgeois were morally correct in exploiting their workers because they're taking "risks" by hiring other people.

Morals can bend to serve anyone. Economic facts don't lie.

[erupt]

My question, is, what is wrong with this ethical opposition? I, ask, because I've seen some people say that you shouldn't have an ethical opposition to capitalism, only a scientific one.
My personal answer is nothing at all.

If there was no individual aversion to capitalism by proletarians, because of the many unjust aspects of capitalism, not many people would join labor organizations, Marxist organizations, labor unions, or do any personal research concerning economics and/or sociology to further worker's rights or even a basic concern for workers.

[Eagle_Syr]

I believe that moral principles should always come first, so I agree with you that a moral aversion to capitalism is a good basis for fighting it.

Capitalism is inherently immoral. This alone justifies our fight against it.
Not to mention, scientifically and economically unsustainable. But to me, that is secondary.

Utilitarianism is not a good way to look at the world.

[Rafiq]

Because "ethics" are subjective, meaning logically, yours are not superior than Bourgeois ethics. Also because "ethics" as a concept is inherently Bourgeois.

Now, you can be morally opposed to capitalism, but that can't be the basis of your anticapitalism.

A moral criticism - is the weakest form of criticism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Eagle_Syr]

Because "ethics" are subjective, meaning logically, yours are not superior than Bourgeois ethics. Also because "ethics" as a concept is inherently Bourgeois.

Wrong. Good and evil are objective. There are cultural interpretations of the two concepts, but morality does exist, and it labels the bourgeoisie as the enemy of goodness


Now, you can be morally opposed to capitalism, but that can't be the basis of your anticapitalism.
If utilitarianism is the basis for anti-capitalism, our arguments will crumble

A moral criticism - is the weakest form of criticism.
On the contrary it's the most important form of criticism

[Revolution starts with U]

Eagle are you suggesting Capitalism is better materially for more people than worker's rule? Are you suggesting that if capitalists were more moral the system would work better?

How are good and evil objective? According to whom? Why has the vast majority of human history not matched up with your objective ethics?

[Eagle_Syr]

Eagle are you suggesting Capitalism is better materially for more people than worker's rule? No, but capitalists can and do defend their ideology as such. The point is, if we base things on utility, we lose humanity. What if it was the case that Fascism produced better economic results than socialism? Should we support it?

Utility is the last thing we should consider, because humanity is more important.

Are you suggesting that if capitalists were more moral the system would work better? No, capitalism is inherently immoral.


How are good and evil objective? According to whom? Why has the vast majority of human history not matched up with your objective ethics?

The alternative, that they are subjective, is an anti-humanity position.

[Tim Cornelis]

While moral arguments are subjective, this does not mean they are not effective, and they can very well serve as your basis for criticism of capitalism. Nor is ethics "inherently bourgeois."
I once subjectively preferred state-capitalism and nationalism, and now I do not. One's subjective perception of politics can change.

Looking at historical working class revolts we see they were carried out under the banner of "freedom", "justice", (ethics) as well as "land", "bread" (material self-interest). Ethics can thus serve as the basis of of anticapitalism, and it historically has.



The alternative, that they are subjective, is an anti-humanity position.

A negative is never an argument. You have to substantiate and back up your arguments.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, but capitalists can and do defend their ideology as such. The point is, if we base things on utility, we lose humanity. What if it was the case that Fascism produced better economic results than socialism? Should we support it?

1) Yes. If fascism was proved to be the best way for the proletariat to crush their class enemy, yes, we should support it (if we consider ourselves socialists).
2) That's not what fascism is. Fascism is a bourgeois ideology designed to protect the rule of the bourgeoisie. THat's why we never have to worry about #1.


Utility is the last thing we should consider, because humanity is more important.

The utility is for humanity...
So you're saying that if everybody lived in abject poverty, but we were all nice to each other that this would be an ideal situation?


No, capitalism is inherently immoral.

I'm sure the bourgeoisie don't think so.



The alternative, that they are subjective, is an anti-humanity position.
That is no way to establish the objectivity of morals. How are they objective? Just because it would be unfortunate for them not to be, doesn't make it so.

[Halleluhwah]

I don't see how an impartial system of morality could exist in a society divided into antagonistic classes. I think if we are going to accept historical materialism, then we have to agree with Engels that "a really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life."

Even in such a society, despite the humanity or ubiquity of the moral system, I don't think it would be truly objective or real in the sense of being written in the sky, or lying innately somewhere in our minds.

[Eagle_Syr]

A negative is never an argument. You have to substantiate and back up your arguments. If morals are subjective, then you can find a way to justify any action.




The utility is for humanity...
So you're saying that if everybody lived in abject poverty, but we were all nice to each other that this would be an ideal situation? Better than having some exploit and murder others. Being a good person is more important than being wealthy or living well.

Would you sacrifice a man if it means everybody else in the world would be eternally happy? Utilitarianism would say so. Moral relativism would find some way to justify it. Only moral absolutism would tell you this is an incorrect, unjust action.

Utilitarianism is a morally absolutist principle, as well, actually; but since it is based solely on the principle of maximizing results ("happiness") it would no doubt justify actions such as the sacrifice.

We need established principles that can be regarded as universally and objectively true and good.

I'm sure the bourgeoisie don't think so.
The bourgeoisie are mistaken



That is no way to establish the objectivity of morals. How are they objective? Just because it would be unfortunate for them not to be, doesn't make it so
Again, that means you can find a way to justify just about anything.

Qualities such as fairness, justice, love, compassion - these are objectively and universally good. What promotes these is therefore good; what is against these is therefore evil.

[Halleluhwah]

Qualities such as fairness, justice, love, compassion - these are objectively and universally good.

Aside from the fact that I'm sure you could find a number of people who would disagree that each of those is morally good, they're just empty phrases. The french revolution shows clearly enough how completely different one class's conception of fair is from another's.

[Eagle_Syr]

Aside from the fact that I'm sure you could find a number of people who would disagree that each of those is morally good, they're just empty phrases. The french revolution shows clearly enough how completely different one class's conception of fair is from another's.

But we can all agree that fairness itself is good. These qualities are self-evidently good. They are moral axioms, so to speak.

That does not mean we are not blinded or skewed by our relative positions in life, but that merely affects our interpretation of these qualities; it typically does not abolish them entirely.

Goodness is therefore objective. It comes from within. As human beings with a moral compass, we are objectively aware of good and evil.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If morals are subjective, then you can find a way to justify any action.Bingo! And that's exactly what every ruling class in history has done. For them it's always "might make right" or "History is written by the winners" but cloaked in moralistic arguments.

Morality isn't "universal" for the capitalists, it's "good" if they can maintain this system and they often truly believe that what's good for their class is ultimately good for everyone.


Better than having some exploit and murder others. Being a good person is more important than being wealthy or living well. Then please give me your money and any healthcare access you have - I haven't seen a doctor since around 9/11/2001.


Would you sacrifice a man if it means everybody else in the world would be eternally happy? Utilitarianism would say so. Moral relativism would find some way to justify it. Only moral absolutism would tell you this is an incorrect, unjust action.This is just a weird abstraction. Let's take a real example - I'm against the prison system and the police and think these things are harmful to myself and to people like me, but if a cop shoot someone and is actually arrested for it, I do want to see that cop go to jail. Moralists would say I was being a hypocrite, but I think that from a class-perspective this is justified because the rare occasion of a police being held accountable for their abuses would actually hurt that police and court system, not uphold it (because it would damage the protected ability for the cops to abuse people and get away with it as well as the notion that police actions are "infallable" and "the guy they shot, musta done somthin").


Qualities such as fairness, justice, love, compassion - these are objectively and universally good.And a capitalist would say nothing is more unfair or unjust than the majority taking their ruling status from them. The US slave-owners thought they were totally unjustly robbed of their "property" and slaves - they argued that slavery was moral and just because slaves "couldn't take care of themselves". The US considers dropping the A-bombs in Japan to be morally justified and compassionate.

So morality is subjective induvidually as well as class-based. The only way to find the larger "objective" reality is not through subjective ideas and idealism, but through materialism which means looking at society as it is divided by classes, not as some universal group with the same interests and attitudes and so on.

What is "ethical" is anything that will help workers to consciously take over society and put it in their own hands. This is not universal, it's our class's version of "might makes right" but from the standpoint of wanting human liberation it is the "ethical" position.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But we can all agree that fairness itself is good. These qualities are self-evidently good. They are moral axioms, so to speak.The main argument of capitalist apologists is that wage-work is a "fair arrangement" and that "stealing" the means of production by the working class would be "unfair".

We see the forced prolitarization of the population as unfair; exploitation of the surplus value we create through our labor as unfair.

Morals aren't universal. The cop on the beat thinks "why are people so mean to me, I'm just trying to do my job" and the people on the street think "why is that cop harassing us, we're just trying to live our lives". So in a "moralist" sense they are both correct. The only way to get an objective perspective is to look at the systemic features and class dynamics behind these situations.

[Eagle_Syr]

Bingo! And that's exactly what every ruling class in history has done. For them it's always "might make right" or "History is written by the winners" but cloaked in moralistic arguments. Might makes right is what you are defending. I am the one asserting that might most certainly does not make right


Morality isn't "universal" for the capitalists, it's "good" if they can maintain this system and they often truly believe that what's good for their class is ultimately good for everyone.
They are adapting morality, yes, but not inventing it. There are things universally regarded as wrong by everybody. Murdering an old lady walking down the street, for example.


Then please give me your money and any healthcare access you have - I haven't seen a doctor since around 9/11/2001.
This is a non-point.

My assertion is that it is better to hold to moral principles than to sacrifice them for comfort or advantage.


This is just a weird abstraction. It's an important abstraction. What do you do?


And a capitalist would say nothing is more unfair or unjust than the majority taking their ruling status from them. The US slave-owners thought they were totally unjustly robbed of their "property" and slaves - they argued that slavery was moral and just because slaves "couldn't take care of themselves". The US considers dropping the A-bombs in Japan to be morally justified and compassionate. But don't you see? We still all nonetheless invoke these qualities because we can universally agree that they are good. Morality is based on reason and feeling. The feeling reminds us that it is there, and reason is used to discover what it means to be compassionate, to be fair, to be just.

Morality isn't invented, it is innate. Your interpretation of morality is subjective, yes, but morality itself exists innately.


So morality is subjective induvidually as well as class-based. The only way to find the larger "objective" reality is not through subjective ideas and idealism, but through materialism which means looking at society as it is divided by classes, not as some universal group with the same interests and attitudes and so on.

Then might makes right, and we may as well become Fascists.

[eric922]

. Also because "ethics" as a concept is inherently Bourgeois.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Ethics are not a bourgeois concept, the concept of ethics and what is "good" has been debated for centuries before capitalism and likely before the rise of class society. The question of "How ought we live" is as old as philosophy itself, if not older.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They are adapting morality, yes, but not inventing it. There are things universally regarded as wrong by everybody. Murdering an old lady walking down the street, for example.What do you mean, the drone plane was trying to kill terrorists, it's unfortunate she got in the way.


My assertion is that it is better to hold to moral principles than to sacrifice them for comfort or advantage.What moral principles, whose moral principles?


It's an important abstraction. What do you do?:rolleyes: Ok, if killing Hitler could somehow have changed history and prevented the Holocaust, then, yet it would be morally justified to do so - just as it was justified (from a working class standpoint) for people in the Warsaw ghetto to kill people while trying to escape.

But the world doesn't actually work like that because killing an induvidual doesn't do much and this whole abstract argument is self-contradictory becuse you can't kill someone and make "everyone happy" since that person that you killed is part of "everyone". But "could you go back and time and kill Hitler" is a silly bar-argument about as abstract as the debate of "Bear v. Shark".


But don't you see? We still all nonetheless invoke these qualities because we can universally agree that they are good. Morality is based on reason and feeling. The feeling reminds us that it is there, and reason is used to discover what it means to be compassionate, to be fair, to be just.

Morality isn't invented, it is innate. Your interpretation of morality is subjective, yes, but morality itself exists innately.No, this is just ridiculous. Killing is wrong, most can agree - but what if your life is threatened? Then most would agree that you are morally justified in defending yourself. What if it was your house being broken into - well you don't know what they might do, so if you can't get out, then most would agree that shooting the intruder was justified. What if there's a "suspicious" black kid walking in your gated community?

What if Northern Armies are shooting your neighbors and are going to free your slaves and burn your plantation to the ground - are you morally justified in trying to kill them or are you immoral for having slaves?

Yes, there is nothing wrong with an ethical view of socialism, but it must be secondary. Morality is most often used to obfuscate things and make false-equivalencies. For us all considerations must come from what is best for our class because that class has the power to get rid of class divisions and create a just society where people could create a "universally" agreed apon general framework because our society would no longer depend on there being rulers and the exploited.



Then might makes right, and we may as well become Fascists.[/QUOTE]

[Questionable]

Ethics are not a bourgeois concept, the concept of ethics and what is "good" has been debated for centuries before capitalism and likely before the rise of class society. The question of "How ought we live" is as old as philosophy itself, if not older.

But the idea of what is good has always reflected the interests of the ruling class. In WWI it was "good" to be nationalistic, nowadays it's "good" not to do illegal drugs, during the medieval ages it was "good" to listen to God and your Lord/King, etc.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." - Karl Marx

[Revolution starts with U]

If morals are subjective, then you can find a way to justify any action.

If morals are absolute you can do the same, if you frame absolute morality in your favor. This is the basis of class rule ideology.


Better than having some exploit and murder others. Being a good person is more important than being wealthy or living well.

Says you. The point being that "good" could mean anything. Just look at the recent debates in OI with Fabian...


Would you sacrifice a man if it means everybody else in the world would be eternally happy?
Yes

Utilitarianism would say so. Moral relativism would find some way to justify it. Only moral absolutism would tell you this is an incorrect, unjust action.
So? What's so great about letting everyone live in misery just so they live up to some insane ideal standard that only exists in your mind?


Utilitarianism is a morally absolutist principle, as well, actually; but since it is based solely on the principle of maximizing results ("happiness") it would no doubt justify actions such as the sacrifice.

Tyrants must be sacrificed for liberty to exist.

We need established principles that can be regarded as universally and objectively true and good.

We need something we will never find?


The bourgeoisie are mistaken

Says you.



Again, that means you can find a way to justify just about anything.

So? Does that stop communities from establishing an inter-subjective ethics?


Qualities such as fairness, justice, love, compassion - these are objectively and universally good. What promotes these is therefore good; what is against these is therefore evil.
Why are they universally good, other than you say so?
Is fairness to the bourgeoisie good? Justice in the name of property owners is good? Compassion for slave drivers?

[eric922]

But the idea of what is good has always reflected the interests of the ruling class. In WWI it was "good" to be nationalistic, nowadays it's "good" not to do illegal drugs, during the medieval ages it was "good" to listen to God and your Lord/King, etc.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." - Karl Marx


I'm not necessary arguing against that, I'm arguing against Rafiq's post that ethics are an inherently bourgeois concept. That is simply false. If they were an inherently bourgeois concept, they could not predate capitalism by thousands of years, which they of course do.

[Anarpest]

The problem with most 'ethical' criticisms of capitalism is that they take 'ethics' as something given and hence basically leave the basis of the views untouched, making them at basis emotional reactions, and inherently subjective. So long as the basis of our views is not looked at, they remain basically subjective because we presuppose a certain set of axioms or way of looking at things without actually justifying this over any competing set. Conversely, a purely 'ethical' critique of capitalism can only work if you view ethics and its justification as being purely a matter of ethics, in other words view ethics as an absolutely independent field which bases itself upon only itself. In that case only could we, arguing only through ethics, come to establish the foundations for our ethical critique of capitalism. Of course, for Marxists, who take the view that fields like philosophy, ethics, etc., have no independent development, that thought is founded not upon itself but upon material reality, this is not sufficient. While I may not be a Marxist, I don't think that we can disregard their criticisms on this issue, or revert to a purely 'ethical' anti-capitalism.

[Manic Impressive]

I find it kind of funny that many of these ethical socialists turn out to be Marxist-Leninists. How do you morally defend the soviet union, Albania, PRNK, PRC, etc, etc

[eric922]

I find it kind of funny that many of these ethical socialists turn out to be Marxist-Leninists. How do you morally defend the soviet union, Albania, PRNK, PRC, etc, etc
I'm not a Marxist-Leninist at all. As my tendency says I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

[Sea]

First of all, let me say that I do accept the Marxist scientific critique of capitalism and view it as a very accurate description of how capitalism works.

However, before I even read Marx I opposed capitalism on ethical grounds and my opposition to capitalism still is partly an ethical one. I view any system that allows one person who contributes nothing to society to live in luxury while allowing another to spend their entire life working just to survive, to be an unethical system and I view it as unjust as the concept of nobility. Children should not be made to starve simply because it benefits some company's bottom line.

My question, is, what is wrong with this ethical opposition? I, ask, because I've seen some people say that you shouldn't have an ethical opposition to capitalism, only a scientific one.I think this is a misunderstanding more than anything; not giving regard to the difference between morals and ethics. It's mostly one of connotation, ethics being associated with reasoning and philosophy, and morals an abstract, less reasonable concept of right and wrong.

I don't think many people would have an objection to you saying that capitalism is wrong because of the things you point out in your OP. This is an ethical objection of yours that is soundly based in fact.

The problem would be if you said capitalism is morally wrong just because, and couldn't back it up.

[Rafiq]

Edit: Brb.

For now: Eagle Syr, you're an apologist of Sexism, a sympathizer of Ron Paul, a Nationalist, a self proclaimed Idealist, a Moralist, and you're soft on Fascism. Why are you here?

If you're a socialist only for moral reasons, then you're a disgrace to all three of those Marxists in your profile picture. Ethical Socialists existed before Marx, and they're called Utopians. He wasn't a big fan.

We (Marxists) oppose capitalism, on basis, because we understand it's systemic contradictions, and it's inevitable destruction. If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it.

[black magick hustla]

of course there is an ethical dimension to class war/social war and ultimately communism. the world doesn't work by "ethics" but in the microcosm, people get inspired by things like comradeship, solidarity, magnanimity, bravery, friendship, human kinship, and love. the whole idea that "ethics is subjective," misses the whole point. The ethical dimension of our lives and our struggles is not something you systematize, or you reduce into verbal rules, but it is something that reveals itself in the actions of people and in our everyday lives. The stupid, pseudo-marxist nihilism and claptrap that "ethics is subjective" is alien to marx's deep humanism.

[Rafiq]

is alien to marx's deep humanism.

Of course. Young Humanist Marx wasn't a scientist or a materialist. We do indeed oppose him. Without Engels, in some ways, Marx is obsolete.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Also bmh, I like how you tell us to treat morals objectively, and the reason: Because it's a "moral" thing to do.

You said we shouldn't systemetize ethics. You didn't provide scientific reasoning for such, just that we "should" (a moral).

I mean the cheap romanticism is sounding to the ears (not really) but it amounts to garbage if it's to be taken seriously just because "it would be better". Either way, regardless of how we treat ethics, they are subjective and social constructs which exist in accordance to material conditions.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[black magick hustla]

Also bmh, I like how you tell us to treat morals objectively, and the reason: Because it's a "moral" thing to do.

You said we shouldn't systemetize ethics. You didn't provide scientific reasoning for such, just that we "should" (a moral).

I mean the cheap romanticism is sounding to the ears (not really) but it amounts to garbage if it's to be taken seriously just because "it would be better". Either way, regardless of how we treat ethics, they are subjective and social constructs which exist in accordance to material conditions.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

First, I am talking about ethics, not morality.

There is no such thing as a "science of ethics". Science can't tell you what to do. Science says things as they are. You can't derive what you "ought to do" from a criticism of capitalism either. However, the choice to revolt, has a deep ethical dimension. The choosing of sides is deeply ethical. Whatever are the psychological and historical reasons why someone makes "ethical choices" the fact is that you ultimately have to do them, doesn't matter if you have a bird eye of them or not. Whether there is a material reason we find "bullying" awful, there is no reason to not assert that bullying is awful and we must act against it.

[Le Socialiste]

I know I'm just echoing what's already been said, but ethical opposition to capitalism (while fine) makes for poor debate. Moralism is and can be highly subjective, rendering it useless in one's approach and analysis. People will more readily understand our position if it's based on a firm scientific approach to how and why capitalism is unsustainable and inherently exploitative. If we reduce our arguments to the "evils of the corporation" we may still win sympathy, but our opposition can (and will) be more easily picked apart by individuals moralizing about "taking the money out of politics" and "electing more 'progressive' representatives." Marx and Engels correctly approached the matter from a socioeconomic and political perspective, delving into the inner contradictions that best explained capital's development, expansion, and historical trajectory. They based their analyses in the material, and while I'm sure they and many others opposed the system on some moral level, they understood the importance of looking at capitalism from a position that best reflected its inner development and impact.

[GPDP]

There isn't anything actually wrong about having an ethical opposition to capitalism IMO. However, I believe one must be careful in not basing that opposition solely on ethical or moral grounds, or primarily for that matter. It is, however, a fine way to supplement a critique of capitalism grounded in the material realm, especially when dealing with sympathetic petit-bourgeois types who may not immediately be confronted with the realities of capitalism as workers are.

[black magick hustla]

There isn't anything actually wrong about having an ethical opposition to capitalism IMO. However, I believe one must be careful in not basing that opposition solely on ethical or moral grounds, or primarily for that matter. It is, however, a fine way to supplement a critique of capitalism grounded in the material realm, especially when dealing with sympathetic petit-bourgeois types who may not immediately be confronted with the realities of capitalism as workers are.

Except, that regardless of class, "to revolt" is an ethical choice. Class struggle happens, regardless of what we think of it, but to be a "communist" is definitely an ethical choice. Choosing sides in the class struggle is an ethical choice. There are better things you could do with your time that could objectively help your emotional and material position, than to be a "communist", which comes with all sorts of emotional and material disadvantages.

[Hit The North]

I believe that moral principles should always come first, so I agree with you that a moral aversion to capitalism is a good basis for fighting it.

Capitalism is inherently immoral. This alone justifies our fight against it.
Not to mention, scientifically and economically unsustainable. But to me, that is secondary.

Utilitarianism is not a good way to look at the world.

But the starting-point of utilitarianism is ethical as it depends on an assessment of the greater good or the greatest happiness and happiness is considered to be the most ethical outcome of human action.

I also think that your objection that capitalism is inherently immoral is based on a utilitarian assumption - that it produces good outcomes for only a minority rather than the majority.

That aside, the problem with ethical denunciations of capitalism is that they don't tell us why capitalism is "inherently immoral". For that we need scientific investigation to uncover the exploitative relations at the heart of capitalist accumulation. Only then can we discover what we need to do to move forward. This is the essence of Marx's critique of utopian socialism.

Finally, the problem with arguing for the existence of an objective morality is, firstly, this implies that morality is built into nature, that we exist in a moral universe and, secondly, it is impossible for us as human beings to occupy an objective position that would allow us to identify what is objectively moral. This is why arguments for objective morality have to introduce an extra-human arbiter, typically in the form of a god.

[black magick hustla]

I think the talk of "objective/subjective" ethics is a bit silly and is just obfuscation. The issue here at stake is ethics.

I guess what bothers me of this thread is not so much the idea that there needs to be a scientific approach underlying the analysis of capital, but that some try to shy away of admitting that what they are doing has an ethical dimension. It is silly because i've seen people doing mental gymnastics to try to deny that they are doing an ethical choice, and instead give some boring talk about "self interest" or whatever. Of course partisanship for the liberation of humanity is an ethical choice, anyone outside marxist nerd circles would clearly understand this. Fighting for your own freedom also is an ethical choice. I guess I can see what people mean about moralizing though. i do hate the bullshit talk about corporations are evil, etc. Doesn't mean a scientific analysis rejects an ethical approach to the issue at hand though. I don't want women to have abortions on demand because of some bullshit about "working class solidarity", but because it is what is correct, and ethical. Nobody here is antiracist because of "working class self-interest", that is some hipster, nihilist posing bullshit.

One of the reasons why I am starting to like tiqqun, is because they talk about the ethical dimensions of this issues (in a non patronizing way), and the ethics of what they call, the "global civil war", which frankly, I think is more interesting than the weird mental gymnastics "marxists" do to not address the issue.

[Tim Cornelis]

But the idea of what is good has always reflected the interests of the ruling class.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." - Karl Marx


That is just plain ridiculous. Anti-Vietnam war protesters were convinced that what they were doing was right and good, hardly a reflection of the interests of the ruling class.


I know I'm just echoing what's already been said, but ethical opposition to capitalism (while fine) makes for poor debate. Moralism is and can be highly subjective, rendering it useless in one's approach and analysis. People will more readily understand our position if it's based on a firm scientific approach to how and why capitalism is unsustainable and inherently exploitative. If we reduce our arguments to the "evils of the corporation" we may still win sympathy, but our opposition can (and will) be more easily picked apart by individuals moralizing about "taking the money out of politics" and "electing more 'progressive' representatives." Marx and Engels correctly approached the matter from a socioeconomic and political perspective, delving into the inner contradictions that best explained capital's development, expansion, and historical trajectory. They based their analyses in the material, and while I'm sure they and many others opposed the system on some moral level, they understood the importance of looking at capitalism from a position that best reflected its inner development and impact.

Not necessarily. I always work from the assumption that a person already values freedom and democracy to some degree. If he does not (for example, an ultra-conservative or fascist) I don't bother arguing given that we are too subjectively apart.

If we can use a right-wing libertarian's logic and reasoning into an anti-capitalist critique, it's highly efficient. Likewise, not everyone can easily comprehend a complex, sophisticated, critique of capitalism.

If you walk up to a worker, I doubt anyone would lecture about a falling rate of profit, historical materialism, and the labour theory of value. Rather, one would argue that socialism would guarantee healthcare, eliminate poverty and unemployment, etc.

Incidentally, saying that capitalism is "inherently exploitative" is in itself anti-scientific as it subjective. A capitalist, even agreeing with Marx' critique, would still contend wage-labour voluntary exchange.


There are things universally regarded as wrong by everybody. Murdering an old lady walking down the street, for example.

So no old lady has ever been killed by anyone in the history of humanity? I find that hard to believe.


We still all nonetheless invoke these qualities because we can universally agree that they are good. Morality is based on reason and feeling. The feeling reminds us that it is there, and reason is used to discover what it means to be compassionate, to be fair, to be just.

And is feeling not highly subjective?


Morality isn't invented, it is innate. Your interpretation of morality is subjective, yes, but morality itself exists innately.

Where does innate, objective morality exist? How does it exist? Who invented it?

The only way one can argue in favour of objective morality is to believe in some deity.

[Ostrinski]

There does exist a proletarian morality, as does there exist a bourgeois morality. The problem is that there is no concrete way of measuring which is objective, because as ideas they were given rise to by different conditions. Like all other ideas, they are only as legitimate as their historical and social context can permit them.

And as we've seen throughout the history of class society, the channeling of mere ideas into socially enforced ideology represents these ideas being employed in the name of class interest (ideology is merely a political weapon). So bourgeois morality is not objective, for it can only exist in relation to the bourgeoisie. Take the bourgeoisie out of the picture and bourgeois morality has no function. The same for proletarian morality and the proletariat.

So a moral argument against capitalism is important because it can resonate with people, but not because we are arrogant enough to think that we have the moral high ground. But at the same time, we understand that we have nothing in common with the bourgeoisie, and so do not wish to ideologically compromise with them, but instead crush the existence of their ideology and the circumstances that make it relevant.

[Thirsty Crow]

We (Marxists) oppose capitalism, on basis, because we understand it's systemic contradictions, and it's inevitable destruction.All teleology should be purged from Marxism. There is nothing about the destruction of capitalism that is "inevitable" (or do you think, in a magnificently scientific way, that history is on a predetermined course?)


If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it.
Okay, but then, let me ask you this: why do you find these worthy of bringing about the opposition to capitalism? What's so terrible in the absence of free healthcare, social welfare, in unemployment? On what basis do you conclude that these social problems should be taken as a justification of an oppositon to capitalism?

[Tim Cornelis]

All teleology should be purged from Marxism. There is nothing about the destruction of capitalism that is "inevitable" (or do you think, in a magnificently scientific way, that history is on a predetermined course?)

Indeed, a consistent economic determinist should not advocate socialism at all. After all, materially, neo-feudalism could be succeed capitalism as well (if capitalism destroys resources to such a degree that the productive forces collapse). Economic determinists should not favour socialism over neo-feudalism. They should not make normative claims but be open to any alternative mode of production that could follow capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Indeed, a consistent economic determinist should not advocate socialism at all...
I don't think, actually, that the current of teleological thought in Marxism as evident in Rafiq's post is primarily connected to economic determinism, but probably on some variant of Hegelianism and maybe even on some messianic notions. Not sure though.

[Manic Impressive]

If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it.
Capitalism can still work while providing all of these things and has in some cases.

[Rafiq]

Capitalism can still work while providing all of these things and has in some cases.

Examples? All of the social democratic states failed/are failing.

Anyway, I on my phone right now so ... Brb like I said.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Manic Impressive]

Examples? All of the social democratic states failed/are failing.

Anyway, I on my phone right now so ... Brb like I said.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Soviet Union came pretty close, or so I'm told.

edit: just re-read your post you were looking for current examples, there are none. But the soviet union did not fall because of it's welfare state. The point is that the exploitation of surplus value, accumulation of capital, wage labour, alienation and all the rest of it can still exist even if the proles needs are being met.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Wrong. Good and evil are objective. There are cultural interpretations of the two concepts, but morality does exist, and it labels the bourgeoisie as the enemy of goodness


If utilitarianism is the basis for anti-capitalism, our arguments will crumble

On the contrary it's the most important form of criticism
Comrade, your comments are most un-Marxist. Good and Evil are not objective. You are taking an extreme normative and immensely idealistic perspective on things. Morality exists -- even communist morality exists, but it is not the basis for our criticism of capitalism. Dialectical Materialism is the basis for our arguments against capitalism. It's not really about equality comrade, it's about doing away with generalized want and making the world a better place to live for almost everyone.

[Lucretia]

Comrade, your comments are most un-Marxist. Good and Evil are not objective. You are taking an extreme normative and immensely idealistic perspective on things. Morality exists -- even communist morality exists, but it is not the basis for our criticism of capitalism. Dialectical Materialism is the basis for our arguments against capitalism. It's not really about equality comrade, it's about doing away with generalized want and making the world a better place to live for almost everyone.

Your words betray your supposed reliance on the amoral "objective" science of "dialectical materialism." As you put it, you're trying to make the world a "better place to live"? According to what criteria? Why, your ethical criteria, of course.

Science makes crucial discoveries about the objective world, but the scientific process is always already subjective and perspectival. Moreover, the process of interpreting those findings and putting them into action in the real world is similarly subjective and always already rooted in a perspective that has an ethical dimension.

So the question isn't "ethics or no ethics?" It's "what kind of ethics?" And boatloads of scholars over the years have stressed Marx's moral realism, his debt to Aristotelian virtue ethics, etc.

You, however, seem stuck in some Stalinist 1940s timewarp, where talk of ethics or morality is deemed counter-revolutionary by The Party.

[Kenco Smooth]

it's about doing away with generalized want and making the world a better place to live for almost everyone.

What's wrong with generalised want? Genuine question here, explain without recourse to ethical intuitions what is wrong with the current state of things.

[Rafiq]

Soviet Union came pretty close, or so I'm told.

edit: just re-read your post you were looking for current examples, there are none. But the soviet union did not fall because of it's welfare state. The point is that the exploitation of surplus value, accumulation of capital, wage labour, alienation and all the rest of it can still exist even if the proles needs are being met.

Evidence?

Ill brb tonight, again

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Manic Impressive]

Evidence?

Ill brb tonight, again

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
on which bit? the collapse of the soviet union? coz well fuck that, argue it with someone who cares.

For the rest of it I don't even know why you would think that capitalism could not work if it provided "Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing" for all. I think the onus is on you to prove this assertion first so I have some idea where you're coming from.

[eric922]

[QUOTE=Lev Bronsteinovich;2467838]Comrade, your comments are most un-Marxist. Good and Evil are not objective. You are taking an extreme normative and immensely idealistic perspective on things. Morality exists -- even communist morality exists, but it is not the basis for our criticism of capitalism. Dialectical Materialism is the basis for our arguments against capitalism. It's not really about equality comrade, it's about doing away with generalized want and making the world a better place to live for almost everyone.
This right here is an ethical statement and a rather strong one at that. First of all, you make the ethical choice that we can and should improve the world. Proving that you hold your ethical views to a higher standard than others. Secondly, you move beyond improving the world simply for your friends and family, but rather for people you don't even know and never will. How is that not an ethical statement?

[Rafiq]

First, I am talking about ethics, not morality.

My argument stands, regardless.


There is no such thing as a "science of ethics". Science can't tell you what to do. Science says things as they are. You can't derive what you "ought to do" from a criticism of capitalism either.

There are several problems in this conclusion, though.

For one, we can easily tell that science and ethics are incompatible and there can be no "science of ethics". That's precisely why ethics are opposed by many Marxists. But the point is, though, that conclusions such as the abolishment of capitalism can only come about through objective scientific means, not ethical conclusions. Indeed, ethics are subjective, so they're worthless.


However, the choice to revolt, has a deep ethical dimension. The choosing of sides is deeply ethical.

I think this bizzare logic stems from May 68' in Paris where revolution to some became simply acts of spontaneous disobedience in a petite bourgeois manner.

The choice to revolt, doesn't have to have an ethical dimension. And it does, through science, we can speculate and come to several conclusions about the material conditions which necessiated such a revolt, and in turn, a sort of "ethics" to go with it.

I'll use an example: A proletarian's interests are antithetical t othe interests of a member of the Bourgeois class. Yes, I recognize such a concept may not be favorable to you, but hear me out. The point in saying this is not that every proletarian in existence knows this. The point is to say that eventually, no matter how pampered they are, no matter how much victories the proletariat receives, one class will have to triumph, in that one requries the other to exist, and the other requires the other to crumble. Now a proletarian may choose to "revolt", organize, and so on. But this is a matter of self interest, not ethical benevolence or altruism.

And I'll use another example: Us bourgeois academics, or members of the Bourgeois intelligentisa are always confronted with "Well, why you a communist, if not for ethical reasons?

And I've always said this: Once we Marxists understand the systemic contradictions within capitalism, the point is that whether we act or not, it will make no difference in that a proletarian revolution is not a spontaneous act of benevolence, but a core systemic contradiction, of which is a component of all capitalist modes of production.

So yes, a proletarian revolution is inevitable, in times of crises. The Bourgeois intelligentsia, at times, will simply side with the champions of history, or "the winning side". Or, we can go as far as trying to organize proletarians, join parties, etc., simply out of self interest (Capitalism can no longer sustain our relatively comfortable existence, etc.).

Now don't get me wrong, there are times in which members of the Bourgeois intelligentsia are communists for ethical reasons. Actually, most are. But the point is that such a member can be a communist, from a strictly scientific point of view, without any sort of ethical convictions.


Whatever are the psychological and historical reasons why someone makes "ethical choices" the fact is that you ultimately have to do them, doesn't matter if you have a bird eye of them or not.

You don't have to do them. The Bourgeois classes didn't overthrow Feudalism for ethical reasons, they did so because it served their class interest. And what of their class interest? To exemplify themselves. Indeed, a self interest. And the only difference with a proletarian is that he does not seek to exemplify himself, he seeks to abolish himself and emancipate from himself.


Whether there is a material reason we find "bullying" awful, there is no reason to not assert that bullying is awful and we must act against it.

Sure there is. That doesn't mean it's a position we should hold (As we are Communists). My point is simple: Of course we know Communism is more or less involved with a moral framework (Egilitarian militancy, emancipation, discipline, empowerment, justice, and so on) but the point is to, as scientists, root out the origins of this ethical framework. We should not resort to postmodern garbage, but we should understand that Communism is an ideology, and with it, it has ideological rhetoric, of which is not objective and is indeed simply just rhetoric. It is the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, not some carefully constructed "Idea". So yes, in regards to communism, we should approach it by being elitist pricks and understand it is ideological rhetoric.

Again, what you said did not confirm any sort of argument in favor of objective ethics. They do not exist, and they are indeed subjective.

Man, I wish that Zeronowhere fellow was here. He'd make this thread really interesting, and he was better with this stuff than I am.

[Rafiq]

Except, that regardless of class, "to revolt" is an ethical choice.

No, it's not. It can be purely based on a self interest.


Class struggle happens, regardless of what we think of it, but to be a "communist" is definitely an ethical choice.

This misses the point: Communism in itself is a product of class struggle, and was created by proletarians, not the Bourgeois intelligentsia (unlike Marxism).


Choosing sides in the class struggle is an ethical choice.

Well, not for me it isn't. I do so strictly for scientific purposes.


There are better things you could do with your time that could objectively help your emotional and material position, than to be a "communist", which comes with all sorts of emotional and material disadvantages.


In truth, I can't be anything but. Not because it's an ethical conviction, but because even if I wanted to stop being a communist, I would become one once again. It's because I am what I am, simply because I exist. This is a bit too personal, but I couldn't live my life without knowledge, without this political shit, and so on. Life would be worthless to me. For me, it is indeed about knowledge, not just that, but science.

[Rafiq]

I think the talk of "objective/subjective" ethics is a bit silly and is just obfuscation. The issue here at stake is ethics.

I don't quite catch you. What do you mean?


I guess what bothers me of this thread is not so much the idea that there needs to be a scientific approach underlying the analysis of capital, but that some try to shy away of admitting that what they are doing has an ethical dimension.

We argue that 1: The origin of these ethics is not a matter of "free will", it's grounded strictly with material conditions 2: That these are not objective and that they stem from the interests of classes.


It is silly because i've seen people doing mental gymnastics to try to deny that they are doing an ethical choice, and instead give some boring talk about "self interest" or whatever. Of course partisanship for the liberation of humanity is an ethical choice, anyone outside marxist nerd circles would clearly understand this.

But as a Marxist nerd, I don't hold Communism as the liberation of humanity. Indeed, fuck humanity, a sizable portion (The Bourgeoisie) need to be cleansed from the Earth.


Fighting for your own freedom also is an ethical choice.

I don't want to come off as abrasive, but elaborate. I don't see how it is, in all honesty. Isn't ethics, to some extent, rooted in altruism?


I guess I can see what people mean about moralizing though. i do hate the bullshit talk about corporations are evil, etc. Doesn't mean a scientific analysis rejects an ethical approach to the issue at hand though.

The problem with ethics is that it stresses how morals can exist, in what circumstances are they allowed to, and so on. But it dodges the point: These things are not necessitated by the wills of human beings, but by real, systemic and material movement which creates this will in the first place.


I don't want women to have abortions on demand because of some bullshit about "working class solidarity", but because it is what is correct, and ethical.

Some problems here: To say that women should not have abortions is something which requires effort, to prevent them from doing something. So those who say abortion should be illegal are the ones taking an inherent ethical stance. Now don't get me wrong, there exists and opposing ethical stance, but to say there is no need for such a ban isn't, unlike it's counterpart, inherently ethical.


Nobody here is antiracist because of "working class self-interest", that is some hipster, nihilist posing bullshit.


Sorry, but it is. Anti Racism is inherently a proletarian concept, as the only way to forfill the interests of yourself as a proletariat is to assure that the interests of all proletarians are forfilled.


One of the reasons why I am starting to like tiqqun, is because they talk about the ethical dimensions of this issues (in a non patronizing way), and the ethics of what they call, the "global civil war", which frankly, I think is more interesting than the weird mental gymnastics "marxists" do to not address the issue.

We Marxists may not be sounding to the ears, but we confront things from a scientific basis, whether that's sounding for some is irrelevant.

[Rafiq]

That is just plain ridiculous. Anti-Vietnam war protesters were convinced that what they were doing was right and good, hardly a reflection of the interests of the ruling class.

People always misinterperate the Marx quote. The ruling ideas are not always the popular ideas. What Marx meant was that the ruling ideology, i.e. the default status quo, the unconcious ideological pressuposions, if you will, are the ruling ideas. Some lecturer at Yale fell into the same trap making such an obscure critique.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, first, finding something unethical is merely a subjective personal feeling that is dependent on the material conditions one comes from.

Trotsky is correct, "Marxism denounces the existence of a 'morality'" since a "morality" changes as human society changes with the advances with the productive forces and is in fact different for each different classes of each society.

One's own ethics are dependent on the material conditions one lives in; so for instance the capitalist ruling class has always said (and most likely believe, since that is their reality) that they fight for "freedom" etc., but the majority of working people do not profit from killing their colleagues in Vietnam and so on, hence do not see a reason why they should be killed; have a different and more humanist morality than the capitalists from their class position.

As the material conditions of each system have advanced, pushed by the ruling classes, to swallow up larger amounts of the population, there have always been increasingly larger gaps and trenches of class consciousness and "morality" between the classes. There are many examples of kings and queens not understanding what the people were complaining about when the masses overthrew them, the consciousness of the ruling classes and the ruled classes are different and hence create a different morality.


So we should not just be enemies of capitalism because our "humanist" proletarian morality tells us that its society unjust, but because of the actual scientific reasons to blame for that injustice: classes, i.e. a minority controlling the means for the majority to produce the wealth for society.

[Rafiq]

All teleology should be purged from Marxism. There is nothing about the destruction of capitalism that is "inevitable" (or do you think, in a magnificently scientific way, that history is on a predetermined course?)

Well, I can see why you'd articulate my post in such a manner.

To clarify, no, I don't adhere to teleology. But, if you will, all capitalist modes of production are predetermined to be destroyed, and carry the seeds of their own destruction, including class contradictions. This is in no way something objectively historically necessitated, but it does exist inherently to capitalism. A proletarian revolution is indeed inevitable (Would happen sooner or later, etc.) but that doesn't mean socialism (or whatever replaces capitalism) will, for sure, be functional).

The point I'm trying to make is that with all of capitalism's contradictions, including class contradiction, the system cannot function indefinitely. We've even, even today, reached a deadlock within capitalism.



Okay, but then, let me ask you this: why do you find these worthy of bringing about the opposition to capitalism?

Because without them, for the sake of debate, capitalism would not be able to sustain itself forever, and would indeed collapse, making my position in regards irrelevant. They can't exist because of the several contradictions, and even without those, there still exists a class contradiction.


What's so terrible in the absence of free healthcare, social welfare, in unemployment?

Generally, these things are defined as benchmarks for livable or functional modes of production. With these things, we can pursue the several sciences, academia, etc.

If capitalism didn't carry the seeds of it's own destruction, it would not be so bad, as the answer to the problem would be keysnianism.


On what basis do you conclude that these social problems should be taken as a justification of an oppositon to capitalism?


Well, no, they aren't the basis, not by any means. I used a bad example. My point was, without the systemic contradictions which would necessitate capitalism's demise, I would see no reason to oppose it. Because without these contradictions, hunger, poverty, etc. would be solved and would be of no issue. But of course opposing hunger and poverty is an ethical position, no doubt. I just threw that in there because, I do oppose those things. I just don't pretend that these things are intertwined, inherently, with Marxian science, which allows us to come to those conclusions. What I argue is that you don't need to be opposed to those things to be opposed to capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Indeed, a consistent economic determinist should not advocate socialism at all. After all, materially, neo-feudalism could be succeed capitalism as well (if capitalism destroys resources to such a degree that the productive forces collapse). Economic determinists should not favour socialism over neo-feudalism. They should not make normative claims but be open to any alternative mode of production that could follow capitalism.

Firstly, I want to establish that by "economic determinism" you're simply referring to historical materialism. If you're not, I 'd kindly ask you to elaborate.

capitalism is, for us, proof that Feudalism also carries several contradictions.

Furthermore, we materialists do not separate class struggle from these systemic contradictions. That's where the support for socialism comes in. That proletarian revolution, sooner or later, is inevitable.

[Rafiq]

Soviet Union came pretty close, or so I'm told.

No, it didn't. The Soviet Union couldn't sustain such.


edit: just re-read your post you were looking for current examples, there are none. But the soviet union did not fall because of it's welfare state. The point is that the exploitation of surplus value, accumulation of capital, wage labour, alienation and all the rest of it can still exist even if the proles needs are being met.


I came to such a conclusion because every state which did have such for a period of time, that ran the capitalist mode of production, ended up being devoured by those contradictions. Those things (Free housing, healthcare) will never and can never address the systemic contradictions within capitalism.

[Positivist]

One may become a communist on either ethical grounds or more rational, self motivated ones. While it is often that these ethical grounds will be developed unconsciously according to an individuals material circumstances, they may also be developed through a revulsion to atrocities witnessed indirectly under capitalism. There really is no conflict between the different ways that one develops a communist persepective, and I think we can all agree on that.

[Kenco Smooth]

.
Generally, these things are defined as benchmarks for livable or functional modes of production. With these things, we can pursue the several sciences, academia, etc.


Why should these things be desired? Indeed why should any state of existence be preferred over any other?

[Rafiq]

Why should these things be desired? Indeed why should any state of existence be preferred over any other?

I mean, here is a perfect example:

My point is very simple: It doesn't matter what is preffered by me or any other person. What matters is what is recognized. If capitalism didn't have the contradictions that it did, then it wouldn't have poverty, or lack of those things. It wouldn't have class contradictions. Therefore the proletariat would simply exist comfortably side by side with the Bourgeois class and everything would play out in such a manner, thus not necessitating revolution.

But this isn't the case. A proletarian revolution is indeed inevitable, and is inevitable so long as the capitalist mode of production should exist, no matter where. Then, us scientists do not add flame to the fire, we merely recognize it, and then, I choose to be a Communist as I am not compelled not to be, i.e. I side with the champion class of history in this regards. But with this crises, a lot of us are losing our abilities to even exist, with capitalism destroying itself. Therefore we, as volunteers, influence the proletarian movement via Marxism. See, nothing ethical about that.

[black magick hustla]

No, it's not. It can be purely based on a self interest.


ethics != altruism.




In truth, I can't be anything but. Not because it's an ethical conviction, but because even if I wanted to stop being a communist, I would become one once again. It's because I am what I am, simply because I exist. This is a bit too personal, but I couldn't live my life without knowledge, without this political shit, and so on. Life would be worthless to me. For me, it is indeed about knowledge, not just that, but science.

ethical propositions

[black magick hustla]

My argument stands, regardless.

For one, we can easily tell that science and ethics are incompatible and there can be no "science of ethics". That's precisely why ethics are opposed by many Marxists. But the point is, though, that conclusions such as the abolishment of capitalism can only come about through objective scientific means, not ethical conclusions. Indeed, ethics are subjective, so they're worthless.

there is nothing "scientific" about supporting the "abolition of capitalism", that itself is an ethical statement. i can study the stars but the stars won't tell me whether I want to abolish the stars.




I think this bizzare logic stems from May 68' in Paris where revolution to some became simply acts of spontaneous disobedience in a petite bourgeois manner.


i see that a 10 million strike was a "petit bourgeois disobedience"




The choice to revolt, doesn't have to have an ethical dimension. And it does, through science, we can speculate and come to several conclusions about the material conditions which necessiated such a revolt, and in turn, a sort of "ethics" to go with it.
but it is an extremely ethical question. the bourgeois moral order dictates that workers should be thankful to make money for them. to revolt against that is to make an ethical choice.





I'll use an example: A proletarian's interests are antithetical t othe interests of a member of the Bourgeois class. Yes, I recognize such a concept may not be favorable to you, but hear me out.

i love how arguing about "ethics" means i am "bourgeois". well, i am not.



The point in saying this is not that every proletarian in existence knows this. The point is to say that eventually, no matter how pampered they are, no matter how much victories the proletariat receives, one class will have to triumph, in that one requries the other to exist, and the other requires the other to crumble. Now a proletarian may choose to "revolt", organize, and so on. But this is a matter of self interest, not ethical benevolence or altruism.

I think you don't really get what ethics is. Ethics is not about benevolence or atruism but what is right" or wrong behavior.




And I've always said this: Once we Marxists understand the systemic contradictions within capitalism, the point is that whether we act or not, it will make no difference in that a proletarian revolution is not a spontaneous act of benevolence, but a core systemic contradiction, of which is a component of all capitalist modes of production.

ethics is not benevolence




So yes, a proletarian revolution is inevitable, in times of crises. The Bourgeois intelligentsia, at times, will simply side with the champions of history, or "the winning side". Or, we can go as far as trying to organize proletarians, join parties, etc., simply out of self interest (Capitalism can no longer sustain our relatively comfortable existence, etc.).
proletarian revolution is not inevitable, and to be honest, seems unlikely.


anyway, i think we are repeating each other a lot. I never say revolutions happen because of "ethics" but that revolutions has an ethical dimension. to recognize this is not idealism at all, in fact, the whole thing that one chooses sides "for scientific reasons" is pure empty talk, because science doesn't dictate what you ought to do. nihilism is counterrevolutionary, anyway

[black magick hustla]

I don't quite catch you. What do you mean?

The "subjective/objective" distinction is a continental philosophy obfuscation that is sometimes quite unhelpful in helping to clarify what we are talking about. There is no subjective/objective ethics, there is just ethics. Just because you can trace the historic and anthropological reasons why someone would find certain thing unjust, does not mean it is not unjust.

[StalinFanboy]

If morals are subjective, then you can find a way to justify any action.
the fact that this can even be done demonstrates the subjectivity of morality.

[Manic Impressive]

I came to such a conclusion because every state which did have such for a period of time, that ran the capitalist mode of production, ended up being devoured by those contradictions. Those things (Free housing, healthcare) will never and can never address the systemic contradictions within capitalism.
So your only using historic examples as your basis for this. This is a flaw in your theory. There is no economic reason why capitalism could not fulfill this function. I mean this is why we oppose mutualists because it does not abolish wage labour and the exploitation of surplus value. A utopian form of capitalism could exist where there are no homeless, even no jobless and no sexism or racism too, even no religion. Capitalism is not dependent on these things, it benefits from them but can exist without them.

I think we should probably leave this discussion because it's off topic and you've plenty of others to debate with.

Here's Bordiga on why syndicalism would not be socialism and would not solve the problems of capitalism.
http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-3-amadeo-bordiga-1957

[Thirsty Crow]

To clarify, no, I don't adhere to teleology. But, if you will, all capitalist modes of production are predetermined to be destroyed, and carry the seeds of their own destruction, including class contradictions.
You're confused.
First you claim you don't adhere to a variant of teleological thought, anc then proceed to outline a perfectly teleological approach to capitalism - when saying that they are predetermined to be destroyed. Now, either you don't now what constitutes teleology, or you don't know how to use the word "predetermine". I would guess that the latter is more likely since you went on and stated that capitalism carries the seed of its own destruction - which is perfectly true since capital cannot exist without the working class, the only potentially revolutionary class in modern society. Thouh, I wouldn't exclude the former.


A proletarian revolution is indeed inevitable (Would happen sooner or later, etc.) but that doesn't mean socialism (or whatever replaces capitalism) will, for sure, be functional). Again, this is nothing but teleology, or maybe pep talk. It's very soothing to think of the inevitable insurrection of the global working class, isn't it? It kinda takes off a sort of a burden from your shoulders, and mine, and others'.


The point I'm trying to make is that with all of capitalism's contradictions, including class contradiction, the system cannot function indefinitely. I wouldn't actually know, and nor do I think this question of capitalism functioning indefinitely is anything but a scholastic exercise in speculation. For all I care, even if capitalism could not funciton indefinitely, that still doesn't prove the inevitability of workers' revolution.


Then, us scientists do not add flame to the fire, we merely recognize it, and then, I choose to be a Communist as I am not compelled not to be, i.e. I side with the champion class of history in this regards.
This is just ridiculous, and evidence enough of your unscientific approach to human history.
As if there was an arbiter standing otuside history and determining its champions and losers. As if history had a mind of its own, already predetermined, made up.
You can deny it all you want but your entire reasoning is based on teleological grounds.




I think you don't really get what ethics is. Ethics is not about benevolence or atruism but what is right" or wrong behavior.

Yeah, it sure seems so from the constant assumption that an ethical attitude presuposes: a) a lack of regard for one's own material and psychological condition ("altruism") and b) a universalist judgement based on eternal ethical principles.

To try and cut this Gordian knot, I think that the notions underpinning "scientific socialism" actually relate to the insufficiency of a purely moral condemnation of capitalism. It is not enough to observe the pitiful state of the (most of) world working class and conclude that this is morally reprehensible. The point is to accurately understand the causes of this social condition and trace its trajectory. No kind of an ethical atittude can be useful in this, and communists it is important for communists to adopt this standpoint of actual knowledge of the social problem, and not to remain stuck in merely moral condemnations. I think it's that simple, and this naive and one-sided denunciation of any kind of an ethical stance in people's lives misses the point entirely, even from the perspective of the concrete and scientific examination since it assumes away what is evidently an part of people's lives and conduct.

[Tim Cornelis]

Firstly, I want to establish that by "economic determinism" you're simply referring to historical materialism. If you're not, I 'd kindly ask you to elaborate.

capitalism is, for us, proof that Feudalism also carries several contradictions.

Furthermore, we materialists do not separate class struggle from these systemic contradictions. That's where the support for socialism comes in. That proletarian revolution, sooner or later, is inevitable.

Anyone who holds that proletarian revolution is inevitable is an economic determinist. Those who hold that there are historical inevitabilities and that people are devoid of free will are economic determinists. Those who like to pretend that material conditions act like some kind of external force that magically guides people are economic determinists. While in reality, men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past"

Saying X is inevitable is silly. It could be that neo-feudalism follows capitalism, there is no reason for you to advocate socialism.

[Eagle_Syr]

What do you mean, the drone plane was trying to kill terrorists, it's unfortunate she got in the way. The deliberate murder of an old woman walking down the street

And there are gray areas in moral theory. I don't deny that. But that's not because morality doesn't exist; rather, it's because we are still sorting it out, still trying to find rational and empirical foundations for moral theory.

The question of morality has been around for as long as civilization itself. That leads me to believe that human beings are moral agents objectively - and we tend to agree on moral principles across cultures and time periods. Not all of them, but many of them.


What moral principles, whose moral principles?

Good questions, to be answered by philosophy


But the world doesn't actually work like that because killing an induvidual doesn't do much and this whole abstract argument is self-contradictory becuse you can't kill someone and make "everyone happy" since that person that you killed is part of "everyone". But "could you go back and time and kill Hitler" is a silly bar-argument about as abstract as the debate of "Bear v. Shark".

I am trying to illustrate a point. If you base your support on something purely because of its economic efficiency, then there is no human element to your struggle, or to the system which you propose. If you don't have moral principles, and efficacy alone is your reason...I can not see that serving the interests of people.

A better dilemma: suppose you could conduct medical experiments that would further the cause of science and therefore, ultimately, improve the lives of future generations. However, in conducting these experiments, you put your subjects through extreme agony, suffering, and horrible procedures

Think: Nazi medical experiments

Was that just? Your opposition to them must be moral.


No, this is just ridiculous. Killing is wrong, most can agree - but what if your life is threatened? Then most would agree that you are morally justified in defending yourself. I agree. Thus the distinction between killing, which is neutral, and murder, which is wrong.


What if Northern Armies are shooting your neighbors and are going to free your slaves and burn your plantation to the ground - are you morally justified in trying to kill them or are you immoral for having slaves?

A good question which doesn't so much indicate that morality doesn't exist as much as that morality can adapt, but is still there.


Yes, there is nothing wrong with an ethical view of socialism, but it must be secondary. Morality is most often used to obfuscate things and make false-equivalencies. For us all considerations must come from what is best for our class because that class has the power to get rid of class divisions and create a just society where people could create a "universally" agreed apon general framework because our society would no longer depend on there being rulers and the exploited.

Human beings are moral agents. And revolution or struggle without principles falls flat on its face.



Says you. The point being that "good" could mean anything. Just look at the recent debates in OI with Fabian... There has been more in common between the moralities of different cultures across different time periods than at odds. Morality is not a science, nor is it exact; but its existence is undeniable; its relevance to the human condition undeniable.


Yes

So? What's so great about letting everyone live in misery just so they live up to some insane ideal standard that only exists in your mind?
Then why not sell out your comrades? According to your amoral world, what's best for me, is what I should do. Why even bother with the others of my class? We can reduce your perspective to the individual.


Tyrants must be sacrificed for liberty to exist.
Agreed. But the sacrifice of a tyrant is not wrong.


We need something we will never find?
We can and will. We do so with theories established on rational and empirical foundations.


Edit: Brb.

For now: Eagle Syr, you're an apologist of Sexism

Nope. Just because because I disagreee with your views on gender, doesn't make me an "apologist for sexism"

a sympathizer of Ron Paul I'm a critic of Ron Paul. Just because I don't attack him based on misconceptions and misunderstandings, doesn't mean I sympathize with him

a Nationalist There may well be some lingering nationalism in me, but I do understand that the struggle of the proleteriat is international

a self proclaimed Idealist
Of course. I don't believe we shouldn't always strive for something better

a Moralist I have a moral code, yes

and you're soft on Fascism
I'm not soft on Fascism. Can you provide evidence?

Why are you here?
Because I believe in workers' liberation and classlessness, and I believe this will not be done by working with the system, but working in spite of the system


If you're a socialist only for moral reasons, then you're a disgrace to all three of those Marxists in your profile picture. Ethical Socialists existed before Marx, and they're called Utopians. He wasn't a big fan.
I'm not a socialist only for moral reasons. I'm a socialist primarily for moral reasons.


We (Marxists) oppose capitalism, on basis, because we understand it's systemic contradictions, and it's inevitable destruction. If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it. That's an undisciplined, unprincipled way of looking at the situation which would permit you to sell out your comrades and your ideology if, theoretically, you found something that could "work" for you




I also think that your objection that capitalism is inherently immoral is based on a utilitarian assumption - that it produces good outcomes for only a minority rather than the majority. No. It is inherently immoral, unfair, that some own and some do not, that which they did not labor to produce (as nobody should ever own the land or the factories); and utilize this position in order to extract and exploit those who do not have, who must sell themselves in order to survive.


That aside, the problem with ethical denunciations of capitalism is that they don't tell us why capitalism is "inherently immoral". For that we need scientific investigation to uncover the exploitative relations at the heart of capitalist accumulation. Only then can we discover what we need to do to move forward. This is the essence of Marx's critique of utopian socialism. Capitalism is immoral because it dehumanizes people, alienates people, leaves people desperate, destroys camaraderie, destroys communities, ravages the environment, etc


Finally, the problem with arguing for the existence of an objective morality is, firstly, this implies that morality is built into nature, that we exist in a moral universe and, secondly, it is impossible for us as human beings to occupy an objective position that would allow us to identify what is objectively moral. This is why arguments for objective morality have to introduce an extra-human arbiter, typically in the form of a god.

Not necessarily. The evidence suggesting human beings are moral agents is overwhelming, and evolution explains this pretty well.



Where does innate, objective morality exist? How does it exist? Who invented it?

The only way one can argue in favour of objective morality is to believe in some deity.

See above

How can a justice system operate without morality? Laws are reflections of morals. You can't have an amoral world that doesn't degenerate into dog eat dog (capitalism)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We argue that 1: The origin of these ethics is not a matter of "free will", it's grounded strictly with material conditions 2: That these are not objective and that they stem from the interests of classes.


(1) Free will is not so easily dismissed as you make it out here ... absolute fatalism is more than a little problematic, (2) The class basis of how morality appears to people does not mean morality and ethics are not important ideas. Christianity recognizes as such with Jesus's statement on the rich getting into heaven being more difficult than a camel going through the eye of a needle.



But as a Marxist nerd, I don't hold Communism as the liberation of humanity. Indeed, fuck humanity, a sizable portion (The Bourgeoisie) need to be cleansed from the Earth.
That is an ethical statement. The bourgeoisie need to be "cleansed", you say, but that is an "ethical" statement because you are positing it as a means to some end which you want to pursue over other ends. Ethics don't have to be friendly and nice to be "ethics".

Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if I was a selfish Marxist who was primarily an egoist. Unless I see any possibility of revolution in my lifetime, my material incentive would be to go an continue to exploit labor because I know that the exploitation of labor is the source of a Capitalist's value. In fact, I could use Marxian economics, if it is predictive, to establish which stock buys would benefit me the most. I could, in effect, be the most wealthy Capitalist simply because my analysis of economic patterns would get at which businesses are about to fail, which have the conditions to become wealthy, etc.

Why did Engels become a Communist? Was it really because he was afraid of being shot by the Proletariat someday? Or any of the other petit bourgeois or bourgeois communists in history?



I don't want to come off as abrasive, but elaborate. I don't see how it is, in all honesty. Isn't ethics, to some extent, rooted in altruism?
It's based on the idea that there is (1) a particular end or telos which is better than others, and (2) that there are means for fulfilling that telos which are better than others. The reason most ethical systems refer to altruism on some level is because altruism is a useful idea which appeals to many people as an ethical principle, but one could easily have a non-altruistic ethic. Ayn Rand may not have been a great philosopher by any standard, but she did have an "Ethic". It was just an "Ethic" which is fundamentally opposed to altruism, and one which the critical members of the working class would find disgusting.



The problem with ethics is that it stresses how morals can exist, in what circumstances are they allowed to, and so on. But it dodges the point: These things are not necessitated by the wills of human beings, but by real, systemic and material movement which creates this will in the first place.
However ethics then become an active part of that systemic and material movement. Even if you are a materialist, you need to posit the material origins of ethics, but to do so implies the fact that ethics themselves are materially relevant and have an impact on the world itself. The point of materialism isn't to say that human will does not necessitate things but that the wills of human beings are constantly engaged in the material world.



Some problems here: To say that women should not have abortions is something which requires effort, to prevent them from doing something. So those who say abortion should be illegal are the ones taking an inherent ethical stance. Now don't get me wrong, there exists and opposing ethical stance, but to say there is no need for such a ban isn't, unlike it's counterpart, inherently ethical.
This notion of ethics seems to be an interesting, albeit very problematic, combination of materialism and libertarianism. To put the problem this way, to say that there is no need for it is not strong enough of an argument to say why one should not pass such a law.



Sorry, but it is. Anti Racism is inherently a proletarian concept, as the only way to forfill the interests of yourself as a proletariat is to assure that the interests of all proletarians are forfilled.
Is there no collective advantage then which comes from the ethic of solidarity? As far as I can see, my friends of different races aren't my friends because they see me as fulfilling some material interest which happens to fit us both but because I have active concern and care for their status equal to my concern and care for my own.



We Marxists may not be sounding to the ears, but we confront things from a scientific basis, whether that's sounding for some is irrelevant.It is important to confront things on a policy level on a scientific basis because it gives a rational and empirical standard for action. However this is no reason to discard the ethical, as the scientific is descriptive not prescriptive and we need a way of choosing one set of choices over another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

proletarian revolution is not inevitable, and to be honest, seems unlikely.

That's not exactly a revolutionary statement, is it? :glare:

Of course it's not inevitable (other alternatives being more barbaric), but your latter statement demonstrates your anti-political nihilism.

[Tim Cornelis]

The deliberate murder of an old woman walking down the street

And there are gray areas in moral theory. I don't deny that. But that's not because morality doesn't exist; rather, it's because we are still sorting it out, still trying to find rational and empirical foundations for moral theory.

The question of morality has been around for as long as civilization itself. That leads me to believe that human beings are moral agents objectively - and we tend to agree on moral principles across cultures and time periods. Not all of them, but many of them.

But the point is, objective morality does not exist. Murdering an old lady on the streets, unprovoked, may be immoral to you and me, but a psychopath disagrees.

A psychopath generally doesn't have morality.

Morality is not deontological, it is not subject to human formulation. Morality is subjective, every person experiences it differently.

[Eagle_Syr]

But it is there. Morality exists to the human being. We are able to make value judgements of good and evil.

And again, what's to prevent Nazi medical experiments, if they improve the material conditions of future generations? Your amoral outlook offers only support to the experiments.

[Rafiq]

ethics != altruism.

Is preventing my own death an ethical action?



ethical propositions


You're going to have to elaborate.

[Rafiq]

Either tonight or tommarow is when I'll be back. Just through skimming through, a lot of straw man garbage has been thrown, and I'm nothing short of disappointed.

[Tim Cornelis]

But it is there. Morality exists to the human being.

It's called empathy.


We are able to make value judgements of good and evil.

Yes, but everyone has a different perception of good and evil. A psychpath says everything that benefits me is good (including hurting and disregarding others).


And again, what's to prevent Nazi medical experiments, if they improve the material conditions of future generations? Your amoral outlook offers only support to the experiments.

I oppose Nazism on the basis that it's immoral, but I recognise that this is subjective (albeit that this subjectivity is shared by millions), and I hope to convince everyone to share this subjective moral revilement of Nazism.

[Comrade Jandar]

Individually, there is nothing wrong with having an ethical stance against capitalism. That sense of injustice is what will drive the individual towards self-sacrifice and militant action, despite the risks.

Now, as a movement should communists have ethics and morality as the framework for its critique of capitalism? Hell no. We will never defeat bourgeois ideology if we simply use normative thinking.

[Eagle_Syr]

It's called empathy. So you agree human beings are moral agents?



Yes, but everyone has a different perception of good and evil. A psychpath says everything that benefits me is good (including hurting and disregarding others).

But good and evil still exist, even if our perceptions differ


I oppose Nazism on the basis that it's immoral, but I recognise that this is subjective (albeit that this subjectivity is shared by millions), and I hope to convince everyone to share this subjective moral revilement of Nazism.
The question wasn't about Nazism. It was about medical experiments (such as the Nazi medical experiments) that could potentially improve the material conditions of the future generations; again, what is your reaction? And how do you criticize them without utilizing morality?

If Nazism were more effective than socialism at improving the conditions of the masses, would you support it? Why or why not?

Morality is vastly important. It's what ensures we don't sell out our comrades and our principles. It's why we don't accept concessions by the capitalists.

[Tim Cornelis]

So you agree human beings are moral agents?

No, because not everyone is has empathic abilities


But good and evil still exist, even if our perceptions differ

What do you mean by "exist"? Exist where? They don't exist in nature, they don't exist in the material world, they don't exist in the universe. There is not a law of morality like there is laws of physics. There is no absolute and indisputable, unchanging law of morality floating around in the universe that affects us all.


The question wasn't about Nazism. It was about medical experiments (such as the Nazi medical experiments) that could potentially improve the material conditions of the future generations; again, what is your reaction? And how do you criticize them without utilizing morality?

If Nazism were more effective than socialism at improving the conditions of the masses, would you support it? Why or why not?

Morality is vastly important. It's what ensures we don't sell out our comrades and our principles. It's why we don't accept concessions by the capitalists.

Like I said, I criticise the Nazis (including their horrid experiments) based on moral reasons, my moral reasons. Not a universal moral law, but my personal empathic abilities.

[Eagle_Syr]

No, because not everyone is has empathic abilities
Psychopaths don't count, since they suffer from mental illness.


What do you mean by "exist"? Exist where? They don't exist in nature, they don't exist in the material world, they don't exist in the universe. There is not a law of morality like there is laws of physics. There is no absolute and indisputable, unchanging law of morality floating around in the universe that affects us all.

It's a part of the human world, but in that human world, it does exist objectively in the sense that all human beings are moral agents that make value judgements.


Like I said, I criticise the Nazis (including their horrid experiments) based on moral reasons, my moral reasons. Not a universal moral law, but my personal empathic abilities.
So you criticize Nazism for moral reasons, but support socialism for materialistic reasons? Which is it? There is a clash; if you support socialism because it improves material conditions, then you support improving material conditions, which Nazi medical experiments may well do.

[StalinFanboy]

Psychopaths don't count, since they suffer from mental illness. The idea that psychopaths are "mentally ill" has only existed for a short time in human history.

But this is exactly what a moralist would do, qualify their statement to exclude those that don't fit in with their world view.



It's a part of the human world, but in that human world, it does exist objectively in the sense that all human beings are moral agents that make value judgements. that



So you criticize Nazism for moral reasons, but support socialism for materialistic reasons? Which is it? There is a clash; if you support socialism because it improves material conditions, then you support improving material conditions, which Nazi medical experiments may well do.But he doesn't support them, and doesn't have to. stop trying to fit the world into your stupid box. it doesnt work like that.

there is no morality as an autonomous thing. It is entirely a social construct, and one that should be attacked and destroyed. It is an apparatus for the sake of producing order, which was and is still necessary for the development and proliferation of the commodity form.

what you are confusing for morality are the infinite ways that humans live their lives, and these are what bring some bodies together in friendship and pushes others away in enmity. This is what ethics are.

[Eagle_Syr]

It is inconsistent to support the idea "what improves material conditions is good", and not support Nazi medical experiments if they do indeed improve material conditions.

What's to stop us from selling people out, selling out our ideology, etc? That kind of ethics is what the mafia employs.

[Tim Cornelis]

Psychopaths don't count, since they suffer from mental illness.


It's a part of the human world, but in that human world, it does exist objectively in the sense that all human beings are moral agents that make value judgements.

Apparently, psychopaths are not humans then. Objective morality means that one can objectively establish what is good and what is bad, it does not mean that one can objectively establish that people have an opinion of what is good and bad.

Similarly, there is no objectively favourable wall colour (a colour all people will like), but we can objectively establish that people have favourable wall colours (since they paint their walls).

The point is, while "morality" (empathy) evidently exists, objective morality (a universal law of morality) does not.


So you criticize Nazism for moral reasons, but support socialism for materialistic reasons? Which is it? There is a clash; if you support socialism because it improves material conditions, then you support improving material conditions, which Nazi medical experiments may well do.

I support socialism for moral reasons (because in my opinion it will improve the lives of the vast majority of the world's population), but I recognise that this is subjective.

[Eagle_Syr]

My assertion that morality is objective means that human beings are moral agents and morality, that is, values of good and evil and justice, is universal and social and inherent. It doesn't mean everybody agrees on every little detail.

I just don't think supporting something because it will "improve" anything is a good enough reason. Justice has to be independent of utility, otherwise the points I brought up come into play. The dilemmas start appearing.

[StalinFanboy]

It is inconsistent to support the idea "what improves material conditions is good", and not support Nazi medical experiments if they do indeed improve material conditions.

it is entirely consistent to oppose nazi medical experiments because of how they were carried out. i dont need to make the Nazis "evil" in order for me to justify being against them. All I need to know is that they are on the other team.



What's to stop us from selling people out, selling out our ideology, etc? That kind of ethics is what the mafia employs.I don't know what stops you from "selling people out" (which I'm assuming you mean not snitching on comrades) but what stops me is the fact that that is not how I live my life.

"selling out our ideology" ?? What does this even mean? I used to be a Marxist until I found something that I thought was more useful and more accurate. Does that mean I sold out Marxism? lol what loyalty should I have to ideology? I am interested in the creation of a revolutionary force, not the masturbatory affirmation of "ideologies."

ALSO

"To any moral preoccupation, to any concern for
purity, we substitute the collective working out
of a strategy.
Only that which impedes the increase of our
strength is bad.
It follows from this resolution that economics and
politics are no longer to be distinguished.
We are not afraid of forming gangs; and can only
laugh at those who will decry us as a mafia."

[Tim Cornelis]

it is entirely consistent to oppose nazi medical experiments because of how they were carried out. i dont need to make the Nazis "evil" in order for me to justify being against them. All I need to know is that they are on the other team.

This is incredibly weak. First, why would you object to the manner in which these experiments were conducted if not for ethical reasons? Second, if it had been anarchists or left-communists that had tortured people to death you would cheer it on, apparently (after all you say "All I need to know is that they are on the other team").

[StalinFanboy]

This is incredibly weak. First, why would you object to the manner in which these experiments were conducted if not for ethical reasons? Second, if it had been anarchists or left-communists that had tortured people to death you would cheer it on, apparently (after all you say "All I need to know is that they are on the other team").
I am not arguing against ethics. Clearly my opposition to fascists in general is an ethical one. But this isn't the same as morality. I don't need to deem the fascists to be "evil" to be ethically opposed to them. Saying they are on the other team is to say that they want a completely different world than I do.


Also, why the fuck would anarchists or left-coms be torturing people to death for the sake of medical experiments (seems to be counter to the general ethics of either of those).

[StalinFanboy]

My assertion that morality is objective means that human beings are moral agents and morality, that is, values of good and evil and justice, is universal and social and inherent.

prove it

[Tim Cornelis]

I am not arguing against ethics. Clearly my opposition to fascists in general is an ethical one. But this isn't the same as morality. I don't need to deem the fascists to be "evil" to be ethically opposed to them. Saying they are on the other team is to say that they want a completely different world than I do.

What's the difference between ethics and morality?



Also, why the fuck would anarchists or left-coms be torturing people to death for the sake of medical experiments (seems to be counter to the general ethics of either of those).

It was a thought experiment.

[Positivist]

What's the difference between ethics and morality?



It was a thought experiment.

Hey I seem to remember a definition of morality that you gave when I was still lurking the revleft community, andnit was a pretty good one which I ended up incorporatingninto mu one definition. I haven't beennpaying attention ttonthe whole thread so I apologize if you already have, but maybe repeating said definition would be helpful.

[StalinFanboy]

What's the difference between ethics and morality?

The main difference is that where Morality would say that there are Good things and there are Evil things, Ethics would say that there are only good things and bad things. And that this is determined by cause and effect, materially, rather than by whatever it is that morality determines things (the bible?). I would say that death, torture, pain, illness, etc., all these things that some might consider to be "Evil," to actually be bad, without any sort of extra judgement or value placed on it. This is because in relation to my body, as an example, being sick reduces my power, it negatively affects the composition of my body in some way. But because it is relational, if I were to be in a situation where I had to kill someone because my life or the life of someone I care for was at risk, then the death of whatever enemy would be good for me, because it would eliminate that particular threat against my life or the life of someone I loved, and it would be bad for the person that got killed because it would totally, negatively change the composition of that persons body.

I'm also using power in an unloaded way too. Eating a full, healthy meal is good because it increases my power. Drinking poison is bad because it decreases my power. etc etc.


I have to go to work now, so unfortunately I have to cut this short. Work is bad though.

[Revolution starts with U]

There has been more in common between the moralities of different cultures across different time periods than at odds. Morality is not a science, nor is it exact; but its existence is undeniable; its relevance to the human condition undeniable.

It's existence is as deniable as its subjectivity, that is to say it is not deniable (as you say). That's the point; the democratic approach is going to tend towards representing everyone's interests accurately. This means in ethics too, and concurrently law. Ethics are only as good as you can get people to agree.


Then why not sell out your comrades? According to your amoral world, what's best for me, is what I should do. Why even bother with the others of my class? We can reduce your perspective to the individual.

Amoral doesn't mean immoral. It just means that your ethics might not necessarily apply to me. I, personally, recognize my interests in the interests of my class, especially if I examine it long term, as in my genetics.


Agreed. But the sacrifice of a tyrant is not wrong.

Why not? Do you really think tyrants don't justify themselves with collectivist ethics?


We can and will. We do so with theories established on rational and empirical foundations.

Sure

[Eagle_Syr]

it is entirely consistent to oppose nazi medical experiments because of how they were carried out. i dont need to make the Nazis "evil" in order for me to justify being against them. All I need to know is that they are on the other team. So if it is your own team, it's okay?

You don't think what they did was evil?
You don't think it is important that you think what they did was evil?


I don't know what stops you from "selling people out" (which I'm assuming you mean not snitching on comrades) but what stops me is the fact that that is not how I live my life.
Your moral code



I am not arguing against ethics. Clearly my opposition to fascists in general is an ethical one. But this isn't the same as morality. I don't need to deem the fascists to be "evil" to be ethically opposed to them. Saying they are on the other team is to say that they want a completely different world than I do. But you are opposed to them because, in your view, they are evil. Is that true or not?





prove it

Evolutionary pscyhology demonstrates that human beings evolved morality in order to determine which actions are just, and which are unjust

[Revolution starts with U]

To you last sentence;

How does that make them objective?

[Eagle_Syr]

To you last sentence;

How does that make them objective?

Because it means it is innate. We can't not be moral agents any more than we could stop our hearts from beating.

The values can change across cultures and time periods, but human beings have values. And values are important. They are fundamentally important to any movement or any revolution.

[Kenco Smooth]

Because it means it is innate. We can't not be moral agents any more than we could stop our hearts from beating.

The values can change across cultures and time periods, but human beings have values. And values are important. They are fundamentally important to any movement or any revolution.

Know what else is 'innate' (taking this term to mean evolved behaviour which displays particular near universality across cultural groups)? Group violence on a massive scale with zero fucks given by the perpetrators. The human capability for abhorant and gleeful violence is no less universal than the capability to empathise with a small in-group.Does this justify it?

Of course not. Is/ought, and so on. Evolutionary psych could potentially inform a moral system in terms of providing a better understanding of which situations and structures best enable human flourishing, but it simply does not stand up as the basis of such a system. You need to look somewhere else.

[Eagle_Syr]

We do. Reason, empiricism, and emotion. Philosophy has been concerned with the question of justice for ages.

[Revolution starts with U]

Because it means it is innate. We can't not be moral agents any more than we could stop our hearts from beating.

The values can change across cultures and time periods, but human beings have values. And values are important. They are fundamentally important to any movement or any revolution.

So how, again, does this make ethics objective? Preference is innate too, is it objective now?

[Magón]

Because it means it is innate. We can't not be moral agents any more than we could stop our hearts from beating.

The values can change across cultures and time periods, but human beings have values. And values are important. They are fundamentally important to any movement or any revolution.

Firstly, don't confuse values and morals together, they're not the same thing. You could value what Hitler and the Nazi Party gave us, as something to show for how sickening racism and hate can go when not impeded by a counterbalance. That doesn't mean you think they were right or wrong at all in what they did though.

Secondly, if morals change with culture and periods, then that doesn't make them a Universal truth, or show that morals actually exist in the Universe. Morals are nothing more than a man-made construct, meant to fit into the narrow view of what is perceived for the time. Which nobody should narrow their view of things so small, they're blind to everything else around them that's happening. That's where ignorance comes from.

Back in Ancient Egyptian/Greek, etc. times, their morals were vastly different than to contemporary ones people hold today. But does that make Ancient morals wrong? No, because there is no morally wrong choice, just a matter of how you perceive what was happening, as good or bad. Either way, it's just an opinion, and can be debated in a number of ways that can say it was right or wrong.

You might argue that in Ancient Egypt, they weren't wrong for having slaves because that's what their economy's labor ran on. I on the other hand, could say that it was wrong because they instilled their absolute will upon another human who didn't want to take part as a overworked laborer their entire life.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Morals can bend to serve anyone. Economic facts don't lie.

First sentence: an unspoken truth. Second sentence: a dangerous path to go down. Economic 'facts', strictly speaking, exist only in the realms of academia, totally separated from the 'facts on the ground'.

[Halleluhwah]

When you say that morals (or ethics: I personally have difficulty making this distinction) are innate, are you suggesting that the capacity to make moral judgments and to hold moral values is innate, or that the values and judgments themselves are innate, and therefore objective?

Personally, I would agree that most people (with the possible exception of sociopaths; I don't really know much about sociopathy at all) hold values and are incapable of acting without a) consulting those values, b) finding some way to rationalize their actions so that they are (apparently) consistent with those values, or c) modifying their values so that they are consistent with their actions. For example, I think it's telling that many people who act selfishly today feel the need to defend their actions through philosophies like Ayn Rand's.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to appeal to ethics, but I also feel that it would be naive to expect every person to agree with the moral claims implicit in your argument. Additionally, ethics alone is not enough. If I tell somebody that capitalism is bad because it is founded on exploitation, it is maintained through oppression, and it leads to alienation, they are still going to be left wondering what capitalism is, whether it is one mode of production or the eternal mode of production, and how it could possibly be overcome. Without historical materialism, these questions can't be answered, and we're in a position no better than that in which the utopian socialists found themselves.

[wsg1991]

i don't think , on ground of personal interest , i will be here ,

after all , i am son of a shop owner , and a medical student .

i got no personal interest in Socialist revolution of any kind , or even a public healthcare ( which i strongly support )

my support is based on inequality i some time face , the fact i live in a lower middle class environment ,

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Your words betray your supposed reliance on the amoral "objective" science of "dialectical materialism." As you put it, you're trying to make the world a "better place to live"? According to what criteria? Why, your ethical criteria, of course.

Science makes crucial discoveries about the objective world, but the scientific process is always already subjective and perspectival. Moreover, the process of interpreting those findings and putting them into action in the real world is similarly subjective and always already rooted in a perspective that has an ethical dimension.

So the question isn't "ethics or no ethics?" It's "what kind of ethics?" And boatloads of scholars over the years have stressed Marx's moral realism, his debt to Aristotelian virtue ethics, etc.

You, however, seem stuck in some Stalinist 1940s timewarp, where talk of ethics or morality is deemed counter-revolutionary by The Party.

Marx's neo-classicism is interesting, for sure. I however, am stuck in the oddest Stalinist time warp -- the one that is for internationalism, for the complete independence of workers' parties and where Trotsky is revered. If only. . .

Perhaps to clarify, I do not deny that ethics are involved in some way -- but not on some kind of simple good vs. evil. Marxists are humanists -- so we try to figure out what will work better for humanity than the current system and also be possible under current historical conditions. But is subjective judgment involved in some way? Of course it is. The difference with Marxian "ethics" is that they are rooted in the material circumstances of the time.

[hatzel]

ITT: lots of people who don't really seem to know what exactly 'ethics' means nowadays and who therefore believe that 'ethics' and 'morality' are (pretty much?) synonymous...

[Halleluhwah]

ITT: lots of people who don't really seem to know what exactly 'ethics' means nowadays and who therefore believe that 'ethics' and 'morality' are (pretty much?) synonymous...

Honestly, I've heard at least three different ways to differentiate between the two concepts, and none of them really seem all that useful to me. Would you care to explain what exactly you mean by each term?

[Lynx]

Ethos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos)

Clearer now?

[Halleluhwah]

Yeah, I guess what hatzel meant by "nowadays" was ancient Greece.

[Lynx]

Some definitions stand the test of time, despite popular usage.

[Rafiq]

there is nothing "scientific" about supporting the "abolition of capitalism", that itself is an ethical statement. i can study the stars but the stars won't tell me whether I want to abolish the stars.

What an awful analogy. For one, it is a scientific statement because the action itself (supporting it's abolition) was done so only as a conclusion made by a scientific analysis.

If you were to say that capitalism must be abolished solely because of "inequality", that would be an Ethical statement and you'd have to explain to us why "inequality" is inherently "immoral".

If I were to say it must be abolished because it carries the seeds of it's own destruction, and that the only way out is through the proletarian class (communism) then I could furtherly explain why this is a "bad thing" because it puts us all into shit and into some kind of danger. I don't know what twisted definition of ethics you adhere to, but it's alien to Marxism. Ethics is the concept which proposes to establish social mechanisms in which a "morality" can thrive, when we Marxists know very well that humans can never establish these social mechanisms at will or intentionally, because these social mechanisms are products of the mode of production. Bourgeois morality was not a morality created by someone because fuck all, it was established as as reflection of the capitalist mode of production and the social relations within it. It was also established as rhetoric on behalf of several classes in Feudalism which joined together and would later become the Bourgeois class.



i see that a 10 million strike was a "petit bourgeois disobedience"


No, I'm referring to the several student movements and unorganized youth movements which were brought as a result. The mass strike itself was ineffective as it wasn't organized nor did a real mass party movement precede it. But that's a different debate for a different day.

The point I was trying to make is simple: Sure, it's an ethical choice to go and revolt if you're a well off student (Like you and I) but this isn't a form of class struggle, it's petite bourgeois disobedience (spontaneous). It's hipster garbage.

We can only go out and revolt, as students, when there is a clear form of class struggle occurring. We can join in. Without this proletarian class struggle, any "revolt" is useless.



but it is an extremely ethical question. the bourgeois moral order dictates that workers should be thankful to make money for them. to revolt against that is to make an ethical choice.

But it's this ideological mystification which requires a strong mode of production. In times of crises, such a mystification grows weak and inevitably workers revolt. That doesn't have anything to do with a choice that is isolated from direct material conditions. Indeed, it is material conditions (Times of crises, if you will) that give birth to workers revolting, not Ideas or ethical choices. Everything else is a product.


i love how arguing about "ethics" means i am "bourgeois". well, i am not.


No, you misread me. In another thread, you mentioned how you oppose the concept of a proletarian as a homogeneous class interest or something of that nature, so by me saying a proletarian's interest is antithetical to that of the Bourgeoisie, I presumed you may have qualms with such a statement.


I think you don't really get what ethics is. Ethics is not about benevolence or atruism but what is right" or wrong behavior.


No, that's morals. Ethics are the mechanisms in which morals can operate freely. It's a garbage concept, really, firstly because ethics do not give birth to morals, but modes of productions do, and the interests of classes do.

And self interest cannot be a "moral" choice in that, that's survival. Anyone who suggests otherwise is bringing up semantics bullshit.


ethics is not benevolence


Well to be a communist and to "revolt" is not something which is a moral choice, in that it's inevitable and it's a core systemic component of the capitalist mode of production. It's not our choice at all.


proletarian revolution is not inevitable, and to be honest, seems unlikely.


Well, what do you mean "inevitable"? It's certainly not objectively carved by the gods somewhere in the heavens, but looking at the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions, it's extremely likely. That's why communists exist, because communists themselves are a component of the capitalist mode of production.


anyway, i think we are repeating each other a lot. I never say revolutions happen because of "ethics" but that revolutions has an ethical dimension.

They do have a moral dimension, sure (As all ideology does) but not necessarily an ethical one.


to recognize this is not idealism at all, in fact, the whole thing that one chooses sides "for scientific reasons" is pure empty talk, because science doesn't dictate what you ought to do. nihilism is counterrevolutionary, anyway

Science doesn't dictate what proletarians will do, it dictates, however, how we analyze the structures which compel them to do things. We can analyze what determines workers to revolt, but this science itself is not going to influence their decisions. That was my point. And for me, who is not a worker, to make the decision to be a Communist is nothing short of academic and or theoretical. It's part of my identity.


The "subjective/objective" distinction is a continental philosophy obfuscation that is sometimes quite unhelpful in helping to clarify what we are talking about. There is no subjective/objective ethics, there is just ethics.

Ethics stress the social mechanisms in which morals can roam freely. That is inherently subjective in that different imaginary "Social mechanisms" inherently stress different morals. It relies on the notion that there is an objective morality, which is nonsense.


Just because you can trace the historic and anthropological reasons why someone would find certain thing unjust, does not mean it is not unjust.


Something "unjust" doesn't exist objectively. We are a bunch of mechanical apes, and our "brilliance' amounts to the organization of matter in somewhat of a complex way. But none the less, we are an accident, and universally and objectively, the death of me or you is no different from the, or of less importance than the destruction of a planet or the implosion of a star. We simply exist, and there is nothing more to it. Everything else is a social construction.

A member of the Bourgeois class finds taxes unjust. Who are you to tell him otherwise? Who are you to tell a slave owner, whom finds it unjust that his "property" is taken away, that he is wrong? You cannot. There is nothing. There is only class interest and force.


So your only using historic examples as your basis for this. This is a flaw in your theory. There is no economic reason why capitalism could not fulfill this function.

Yeah, there is. It's called Marx's theory of value and what leads to the Crises theory and Falling rate of profit. Capitalists need to abolish things like social welfare and taxes in order to maximize production.


I mean this is why we oppose mutualists because it does not abolish wage labour and the exploitation of surplus value.

Who is "we"? I oppose them because they're a bunch of moralist, Utopian, and Idealist scum bags. If they could scientifically show us how this would be possible, instead of telling us that it's not "Immoral", I wouldn't have such a steaming hatred for those bastards.


A utopian form of capitalism could exist where there are no homeless, even no jobless and no sexism or racism too, even no religion.

Well, sorry to break it to you, but anything "Utopian" is impossible and cannot exist (As material conditions and the material world doesn't exist to for fill our will and any sort of system will be over run by material conditions).


Capitalism is not dependent on these things, it benefits from them but can exist without them.


You have abstract garbage and I have scientific theory backed my mathematics and historical examples. The capitalist mode of production is not antithetical to those things (Social welfare) of course, and it can exist alongside them. The question is, for how long. It can't sustain those things.

I think we should probably leave this discussion because it's off topic and you've plenty of others to debate with.


Here's Bordiga on why syndicalism would not be socialism and would not solve the problems of capitalism.
http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-3-amadeo-bordiga-1957

What's your point?


You're confused.
First you claim you don't adhere to a variant of teleological thought, anc then proceed to outline a perfectly teleological approach to capitalism - when saying that they are predetermined to be destroyed.

Stop being so thick headed. It's not me whose confused, it's you whose incompetent in reading my posts. Capitalism systemically carries the seeds of it's own destruction, and of course, nothing is objectively determined (When I say inevitable, it's loose), but nothing historically, from day one, predetermined capitalism itself. That's ot teleological at all (Which would come to the conclusion that capitalism is just an inevitable stage of human development).



Now, either you don't now what constitutes teleology, or you don't know how to use the word "predetermine".

Or you don't know how to interperate what I said, which clearly lacked teleology.


I would guess that the latter is more likely since you went on and stated that capitalism carries the seed of its own destruction - which is perfectly true since capital cannot exist without the working class, the only potentially revolutionary class in modern society. Thouh, I wouldn't exclude the former.

Capital cannot exist without the proletarian class, and it is indeed the only potentially revolutionary class (To abolish itself). However, it doesn't end there, in that a class contradiction (Class warfare, feuds with Bourgeoisie) are always inevitable. One could come to the conclusion that, although not objectively, a proletarian revolution is inevitable (in the way Marx put it).


Again, this is nothing but teleology, or maybe pep talk. It's very soothing to think of the inevitable insurrection of the global working class, isn't it? It kinda takes off a sort of a burden from your shoulders, and mine, and others'.


You're missing the point: We as Communists are what is inevitable (in capitalism), us, our action. If we just sit and do nothing, as theoreticians or academics, it makes no difference, the fact that proletarians all over will refuse to do so. They lack the comfort and luxury to do so, or will, in the coming years.



I wouldn't actually know, and nor do I think this question of capitalism functioning indefinitely is anything but a scholastic exercise in speculation. For all I care, even if capitalism could not funciton indefinitely, that still doesn't prove the inevitability of workers' revolution.

Specifically, that doesn't. But class contradiction all on top of this does. And if you think capitalism could function indefinitely, you're greatly mistaken. I mean, even today, what the hell is the solution to this, within the constraint of capital? Tell me, what's the way out? War? It would end in a Nuclear holocaust. State Capitalism? Ready to crumble in China. It's a dead end. The great depression was the end, and the war delayed. Now we're back eating shit.


This is just ridiculous, and evidence enough of your unscientific approach to human history.
As if there was an arbiter standing otuside history and determining its champions and losers.

Provide evidence as to where I said such a thing. History never determined what "Champions" will be (SORRY FOR USING the FUCKING WORD) and it never determined you'd be typing on this shit, or capitalism existing. That's because history, as you put it, doesn't fucking exist. History is merely the entanglement of several interests trying to achieve their own ends.


As if history had a mind of its own, already predetermined, made up.
You can deny it all you want but your entire reasoning is based on teleological grounds.

Don't piss me off. I clearly stated capitalism was never "Predetermined" but systemically, the system itself carries the seeds of it's own destruction. I pointed out that objectively, a proletarian revolution is not inevitable but it's more than likely enough for someone like Marx to say so, given capitalism's systemic contradictions.

Oh, and how convenient of you to back up your argument: "EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU STILL HOLD THE POSITION THAT I ATTRIBUTED TO YOU". That's pathetic.



Yeah, it sure seems so from the constant assumption that an ethical attitude presuposes: a) a lack of regard for one's own material and psychological condition ("altruism") and b) a universalist judgement based on eternal ethical principles.

What a shit semantics debate. Ethics is the stressing of a social mechanisms in which your beloved morality can exist. It's a shit concept considering that it doesn't matter what you fucking stress, it's not up to you. Modes of productions give birth to this, and they are certainly not products of "imagination" or whatever. If you do think so, you may as well stop pretending to be a Marxist.


To try and cut this Gordian knot, I think that the notions underpinning "scientific socialism" actually relate to the insufficiency of a purely moral condemnation of capitalism.

No, it's just that whatever moral assertion you may propose, scientifically, it's garbage and it's no better than when White Supremacists say how interracial marriage is "Immoral" or whatever.


It is not enough to observe the pitiful state of the (most of) world working class and conclude that this is morally reprehensible. The point is to accurately understand the causes of this social condition and trace its trajectory. No kind of an ethical atittude can be useful in this, and communists it is important for communists to adopt this standpoint of actual knowledge of the social problem, and not to remain stuck in merely moral condemnations. I think it's that simple, and this naive and one-sided denunciation of any kind of an ethical stance in people's lives misses the point entirely, even from the perspective of the concrete and scientific examination since it assumes away what is evidently an part of people's lives and conduct.

So much you've attributed to me.... We all know very well people have moral convictions for reasons traced by the mode of production. That's the fucking point, to some extent, of scientific socialism.


Anyone who holds that proletarian revolution is inevitable is an economic determinist.

Okay, then I'm an economic determinist.


Those who hold that there are historical inevitabilities and that people are devoid of free will are economic determinists.

Trying to squeeze me into your constrained Idealist fantasy land, are you? First of all, historical inevitabilities is a broad term. I don't think things are objectively inevitable, but all chocies made can be traced back to a material mechanism which compelled them to do so. Khruschevs revisionism was a product of Old Stalinism's inability to address new material conditions and developments, and this is nothing short of to be expected.

Secondly, free will is a bourgeois concept exclusive to Moralists and religious. Now listen, Tim, if you think free will exists, then you must come to the conclusion that Poor people are poor based on their own decisions. Because it is within their realm to "try" and get rich. You can't be fucking inconsistent here.

Free will cannot exist in that we are constrained by our material surroundings, in that our brain is nothing short of a mechanical device, a product of matter. If you're a religious who thinks that there's some kind of spirit inside of us which controls our bionic, organic bodies then you're full of shit. All choices and all "Will" has to be treated in accordance with material conditions. Otherwise, you may as well criticize Alexander the great for not using his Free Will to construct an Airplane, and so on. Free will doesn't exist, and can never exist. Will itself is something that is constrained and determined.


Those who like to pretend that material conditions act like some kind of external force that magically guides people are economic determinists.

Stop shit slinging. I said that Material conditions, like Engels said, are the entanglement of individual interests and individual wills which entangle to become something that no one willed. That's a very loose definition but it partially constitutes as material conditions.

Unless you can provide us evidence, a quote from me, which states that I said there exists a magical force like material conditions (I can provide quotes from me saying otherwise, and so can Revolution Starts With U), you best shut the fuck up and stop talking out of your ass.


While in reality, men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past"

Human beings are indeed hte only people capable of "making history" but that doesn't mean they make it intentionally. No man decided that he wanted capitalism the way it is today, that he wants airplanes, computers, and so on. No one willed the exact structure of the capitalist mode of production, it simply developed through men and women achieving their own ends. No one willed the state to come about, it just sort of occurred naturally, not by force (As Engels noted) but gradually and naturally until people realized what became and called it a "state".

Furthermore, no one "Willed" that humans would even exist, ape became man, to some extent, though an upright posture (To achieve it's own ends) and it became something he did not will.

Read up on materialism before your sensitivities are barred down with "economic determinism".

one of the biggest infestations on this website to date is "Soft materialism". It's garbage.


Saying X is inevitable is silly. It could be that neo-feudalism follows capitalism,

no, Neo Feudalism cannot follow capitalism. With all the structures in place within the capitalist mode of production, there can't be a reversion.


there is no reason for you to advocate socialism.


I don't advocate socialism, I support socialism. I support socialism as a movement, not a blueprint for a future society. And whatever abstract garbage you have to offer is irrelevant to me in that it exists, class struggle exists. And that's what I support. Why? Because I recognize capitalism's inherent systemic contradictions.


(1) Free will is not so easily dismissed as you make it out here ...

Well, it's dismissed by any serious Marxist... Or fuck, any materialist, soft or not.


absolute fatalism is more than a little problematic,

Bourgeois thought tells us that there is only two choices: Free Will, or Historical Determinism or "fate". These are all within the constraint of boureois thought. No, what exists is a will, but a will necessiated by interests, and interests entangled to become something no one willed. A poor man robs a store not because he had a "Bad" will, but because material conditions, or relative economic circumstances compelled him to do so. The point is, the fact that social mechanisms didn't exist that would compel him to do so is what is to blame, not his choices.

When a CEO starts a conflict somewhere in Uganda for precious metals, the existence of CEO's, the system which necessitates and requires them to exist si what is to blame, therefore, his will is irrelevant in that someone else would come and replace him. There is nothing "Free" about his will, it's the systems or modes of productions which allow us to articulate what is our "will" and what is not.

Slavoj Zizek: We think we are free because we lack the required mechanisms to articulate our own unfreedom.




(2) The class basis of how morality appears to people does not mean morality and ethics are not important ideas.

Since they are subjective, yours are no more of worth than that of Ayn Rand.


Christianity recognizes as such with Jesus's statement on the rich getting into heaven being more difficult than a camel going through the eye of a needle.

Who cares? We aren't communists because we hate Rich people. We are communists because we hate the Bourgeois class. Micheal Jordan is a proletarian. It is about class interest, not ethical convictions.


That is an ethical statement. The bourgeoisie need to be "cleansed", you say, but that is an "ethical" statement because you are positing it as a means to some end which you want to pursue over other ends. Ethics don't have to be friendly and nice to be "ethics".

The Bourgeoisie has to be cleansed because should a proletarian revolution exist, they will be the remnants of the old order and cleansing them will secure the class interest of the proletarian class, of whom's struggle I support (for scientific reasons, mind you). The questions is why did they develop such moral rhetoric, why did Felix Dzerzhinsky develop the moral convictions that he did, not did he? Or Will he?


Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if I was a selfish Marxist who was primarily an egoist. Unless I see any possibility of revolution in my lifetime, my material incentive would be to go an continue to exploit labor because I know that the exploitation of labor is the source of a Capitalist's value.

If I had a fucking factory, sure, why not. I wouldn't give a shit.


In fact, I could use Marxian economics, if it is predictive, to establish which stock buys would benefit me the most. I could, in effect, be the most wealthy Capitalist simply because my analysis of economic patterns would get at which businesses are about to fail, which have the conditions to become wealthy, etc.

Ha, so? Sounds good. Just note that if you don't quit this shit sometime, you'll be hanged by the proletarian class. But yeah, I won't "morally criticize" you for it. Your action wasn't an abomination or anything.


Why did Engels become a Communist? Was it really because he was afraid of being shot by the Proletariat someday? Or any of other petit bourgeois or bourgeois communists in history?

Engels was a communist because he was a scientist and a theoretician. He drew his conclusions from that analysis, not because things are "immoral". He did, after all, own a fucking factory.


It's based on the idea that there is (1) a particular end or telos which is better than others,

"Better" being more fit for "morality" to exist. That's Idealist garbage. Saying it could exist is different from stressing it must exist for that reason. The latter is ethical, the former is not.


and (2) that there are means for fulfilling that telos which are better than others.

No, stressing that 'Telos' would be ethical, not saying it could exist or does exist.


The reason most ethical systems refer to altruism on some level is because altruism is a useful idea which appeals to many people as an ethical principle, but one could easily have a non-altruistic ethic.

No, the establishment of a concept which exists beyond your own survival. Survival is not ethical, it's instinct.


Ayn Rand may not have been a great philosopher by any standard, but she did have an "Ethic". It was just an "Ethic" which is fundamentally opposed to altruism, and one which the critical members of the working class would find disgusting.

She wanted a mechanism in which all people could for fill their own self interest (supposedly). That's pretty fucking altruistic and extends beyond self interest.


However ethics then become an active part of that systemic and material movement.

Oh well that's just fucking ludicrous. Cut this new age shit. It's not true, material movement and conditions are defined very strictly and objectively. They are conditions devoid of will.


Even if you are a materialist, you need to posit the material origins of ethics, but to do so implies the fact that ethics themselves are materially relevant

They are superstructural, and as a concept they do exist. But so does "Creation science". Doesn't mean anything.


and have an impact on the world itself. The point of materialism isn't to say that human will does not necessitate things but that the wills of human beings are constantly engaged in the material world.

Human will is overriden by material conditions and such movement. It is therefore not a material condition in itself, but a product of such.


This notion of ethics seems to be an interesting, albeit very problematic, combination of materialism and libertarianism.

Bastardize socialism all you want, but the hell if Materialism will ever be tainted with such Ethically absolutist, moralist, garbage. Materialism is inherently an amoral concept. (Like Marxism).


To put the problem this way, to say that there is no need for it is not strong enough of an argument to say why one should not pass such a law.


Laws require effort, and this one in particular is done so for "Moral" reasons. If we knock down that moralism with feirce materialism and science, the hell if it's not. Banning abortion requires effort, and there must be justification for that effort. Rending the justification obsolete does not mean you are doing so with the other spectrum of moralist garbage.


Is there no collective advantage then which comes from the ethic of solidarity? As far as I can see, my friends of different races aren't my friends because they see me as fulfilling some material interest which happens to fit us both but because I have active concern and care for their status equal to my concern and care for my own.

I have friends because it's boring being alone. I don't particularly care for the reasons you do. I have friends from a magnitude of races, and no, we aren't in an "ethnic solidarity". We make fun of each other with jokes, etc. It's because our "friendship" (hate the word) is not some awkward and politically based alliance to show that we aren't racist.


It is important to confront things on a policy level on a scientific basis because it gives a rational and empirical standard for action. However this is no reason to discard the ethical, as the scientific is descriptive not prescriptive and we need a way of choosing one set of choices over another.

The whole point is fucking this: Our choices are irrelevant. That was my point. Material conditions, not ethics, necessitate such class based choices.

__________________________________________________ ______________


Christ, I'm starting to wish the revleft purges never happened. Also, Leeb Rocks: You're the most repulsive idealist shtibag to ever step foot on this site. Or at least one of them. You've liked, in the past threads, all posts which are aimed at discrediting materialism.

[Rafiq]

I'm not a socialist only for moral reasons. I'm a socialist primarily for moral reasons.

Still a very shitty reason.

Change your avatar, though. It's almost offensive seeing such a Idealist-Bourgeios moralist like yourself uphold them.


That's an undisciplined, unprincipled way of looking at the situation which would permit you to sell out your comrades and your ideology if, theoretically, you found something that could "work" for you


Well, I can't. Also, I'm a student, not a worker. My choices are pretty fucking irrelevant.

[Rafiq]

What a disgusting thread. I mean, just a year ago, we had some of the most disciplined of Marxian materialists, and now we have a bunch of rabble shit slinging Idealist nonsense (and no, I'm not referring to the people I responded to, besides Eagle Syr).

[Eagle_Syr]

So how, again, does this make ethics objective? Preference is innate too, is it objective now?
Maybe I should rephrase my argument. Humans being acting as moral agents is inevitable. We don't invent morality; it is a part of our psychology.

When you say that morals (or ethics: I personally have difficulty making this distinction) are innate, are you suggesting that the capacity to make moral judgments and to hold moral values is innate, or that the values and judgments themselves are innate, and therefore objective? I mean the former, although I would not dismiss the latter so easily. Historically, the same moral values have been seen as "good" across different cultures and generations. They have been applied differently. Things like bravery, honesty, steadfastness, empathy, have been regarded as good by many different cultures and peoples. Surely there is some reason for this.



I think it's perfectly legitimate to appeal to ethics, but I also feel that it would be naive to expect every person to agree with the moral claims implicit in your argument. Additionally, ethics alone is not enough. If I tell somebody that capitalism is bad because it is founded on exploitation, it is maintained through oppression, and it leads to alienation, they are still going to be left wondering what capitalism is, whether it is one mode of production or the eternal mode of production, and how it could possibly be overcome. Without historical materialism, these questions can't be answered, and we're in a position no better than that in which the utopian socialists found themselves. I agree, which is why I never said moral arguments are sufficient. Moral arguments against capitalism are important, however.


Still a very shitty reason. Not at all. I oppose injustice. Why are you so opposed to my opposition to injustice?



What a disgusting thread. I mean, just a year ago, we had some of the most disciplined of Marxian materialists, and now we have a bunch of rabble shit slinging Idealist nonsense (and no, I'm not referring to the people I responded to, besides Eagle Syr).
So I can't think capitalism is exploitative and wrong?
There is justice and injustice.

[Rafiq]

Not at all. I oppose injustice. Why are you so opposed to my opposition to injustice?

Who the fuck are you to confirm what is injust and what is just?

Here's a little secret for you: There is nothing. The death of a human being isn't an objective abomination to the universe. Indeed, it is just part of the motion of matter. That isn't to say death is not to be opposed, it is merely to say that Objective morality is garbage, and cannot stand as a basis for any sort of criticism of capitalism.



So I can't think capitalism is exploitative and wrong?


You can think whatever you want, but in reality it amounts to nothing more than ideological rhetoric. It's not even communist rhetoric, though, it's Nationalist and Chauvinistic moralist dogma rooted in cheap conservativism.


There is justice and injustice.


That's an Idea, and so long as it is such, it only remains in the minds of an exclusive few. You have no right, no divine authority to tell us what is Just and Unjust, considering that different classes have different interperiations of what is "Just" and "Unjust".

How do you take yourself seriously, positing as some sort of "Defender of Justice", thinking your justice is somehow absolute, omnipotent and universal? You use the argument that several civilizations have had the same definition of morality, and although that isn't necessarily true (Sacrificial ceremonies among the Aztecs come to mind), it still doesn't take into account the fact that the organizational structure of the mode of production developed relatively similarly in those specific occurrances.

[Rafiq]

Maybe I should rephrase my argument. Humans being acting as moral agents is inevitable. We don't invent morality; it is a part of our psychology.


Oh, and this little bit is fucking laughable.

We do invent morality. Or, social mechanisms in place compel us to invent morality (Class interests, and things of that nature). To suggest that it's something hard wired into us is not only ludicrous, it's an abomination to any serious sociological studies made by intellectuals in the past, say, century or two.

Though, it's hardly suprising for a moron such as yourself to adhere to such nonsense, considering you're a self declared idealist who thinks that there already exists Ideas within us that shape and move the material world. Really, have you read anything by Marx and Engels? What about Lenin's take on the subject?

Just what do you admire about Marx, Engels and Lenin that isn't inherent to Utopian Communists and Socialists who preceded them? What is it about them that you like that several Anarchist thinkers lack? Nothing. You, most likely, come from an SSNP asslicking family, who most recently became interested in Soviet propaganda songs or whatever, all of that 20th century communist rhetoric, and decided to declare yourself a Red.

To call you a Utopian socialist is an insult to all Utopian socialists. No, you're just a reactionary, if not, a rigid conservative moralist.

[Eagle_Syr]

Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument.

Morality has existed for millions of years. It is simply how we behave, in a manner that is to the benefit of others and ourselves.

It is evolutionary. It is natural.

[Rafiq]

Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument.

No, they're a sign of, in this context, losing patience with scum such as yourself.


Morality has existed for millions of years.

Name me a morality that didn't exist simply as a result of class interest.


It is simply how we behave, in a manner that is to the benefit of others and ourselves.


No, it's not "simply how we behave". There is a reason which doesn't simply amount to "Lawl just becuz". It's not "natural", it was something developed over the course of human history in accordance which single class interests.


It is evolutionary. It is natural.


Fuck? Are we just declaring things, now? You completely disregarded and were incompetent in addressing my post, above. This is the response you give me? Fucking insulting... More so than any personal attack I could ever throw at you.

It's not evolutionary, firstly. What is evolutionary, however, is the various modes of production we engage in, and the movement of the different classes that such gives birth to. There is no natural ghost that necessitated morality. There is nothing inside humans which necessitated morality. Class interest, on the other hand, necessitated a form of morality simply as an ideological weapon. If you're not going to bother to address what I leveled against you, and dismiss it as a "personal attack" (something my opponents do when they're incompetent in responding to me) then you can go ahead and fuck off, and while you're at it, keep your mouth shut, else you should be prepared to deal with people like me who would intellectually render you bankrupt. It's atrocious to say there is an "Objective" good and bad, that this is universal, passed from the gods, to adhere to ethical absolutism and render something "immoral" with the justification that "well, it's just naturally bad" is nothing short of intellectual laziness. But one couldn't expect more from a clown like yourself.

Also, fuck this concept of "nature" as some kind of harmonies natural order. Reactionaries of all likes, claim that the natural order of things is evident in human organization. Trouble is, those same people existed in a time called Feudalism, where a king was a king, to many, because it was a "natural order". Actually, when French Revolutionaries executed King Louis, one of the biggest arguments leveled against them was that it was an abomination to the natural order. Indeed, fuck your natural order. Not suprising. Anton Saadeh, your personal hero, adhered to such a concept, as he was a social darwinist and a Fascist . It's no surprise you'd pathetically carry out such an atrocious legacy.

[Eagle_Syr]

No, they're a sign of, in this context, losing patience with scum such as yourself. That's not very nice


Name me a morality that didn't exist simply as a result of class interest.
So, murdering old harmless women is wrong because of the mode of production we live in?

Would it be okay under a classless system?
I mean presumably we would still outlaw murder, right?



No, it's not "simply how we behave". There is a reason which doesn't simply amount to "Lawl just becuz". It's not "natural", it was something developed over the course of human history in accordance which single class interests.
No. Hunter-gatherer societies needed morals in order to keep the group going.



It's not evolutionary Yes, it is. A good comparison would be the domestication of dogs. Those dogs who had a natural tendency to be docile and sociable survived with human assistance, and propagated.

Antisocial human beings would not have survived in hunter-gatherer societies.


There is no natural ghost that necessitated morality. There is nothing inside humans which necessitated morality. Class interest, on the other hand, necessitated a form of morality simply as an ideological weapon. So are you opposed to morality itself (even inter-subjective) or simply objective morality/absolute morality?

Surely there are things you find immoral, are there not?

[Rafiq]

So, murdering old harmless women is wrong because of the mode of production we live in?

That's the origin of morality. If you don't like it, that's too fucking bad. It's not just our mode of production, it's the several modes of production that have existed in history.


Would it be okay under a classless system?


I don't know anything of a class system, and neither do you.

And :laugh: what an emotional-sensationalist shit example you've tried to deploy there. We Marxists have no appeal for such, and will not fall victim to such nonsense. I don't see a reason as to why it's necessary to murder an "old harmless women" but it's at the most, apparent to us materialists that you Idealist scum have some kind of psychotic fetish for murdering harmless people, in which your precious ideological pressuposions are the only things keeping you from doings so.


I mean presumably we would still outlaw murder, right?


Who the fuck is "we"? Most likely, but that's irrelevant. The point is that such a mode of production would necessitate murder to be outlawed, but only in certain cases. In the capitalist mode of production "murder is outlawed" only to the extent in which it satisfies capital. Who are you to say that, in a war, no murder occurs? You are not. And in a post revolution, the butchering of counter revolutionaries is "murder", though, that doesn't mean It would be opposed. If it is to forfill the class interest of the proletariat, so be it.


No. Hunter-gatherer societies needed morals in order to keep the group going.


That's still, to a certain extent, within the context of a class interest that I was referring to. It was still a material interest. And hell, "morals" in a so called stateless and classless hunter gatherer society (Which was shitty, by the way) would be a hell of a lot different than morals in a stateless, classless, post capitalist society. But that's irrelevant to my point: That morals are subjective.

What a shit job you've done at addressing my post.


Yes, it is. A good comparison would be the domestication of dogs. Those dogs who had a natural tendency to be docile and sociable survived with human assistance, and propagated.

What? You realize it was pretty fucking difficult to domesticate dogs, right? And what the fuck does that have to do with "morals" being "natural"?


Antisocial human beings would not have survived in hunter-gatherer societies.


What the hell is an antisocial human being? We aren't here to replicate hunter gatherer societies, you know. That would be idealist (which makes it something exclusive as a goal to the likes of yourself).


So are you opposed to morality itself (even inter-subjective) or simply objective morality/absolute morality?


I oppose Objective Morality and the concept that Morality is the basis for one to oppose capitalism. Moral criticisms are the weakest of all criticisms. I'm not going to criticize you for owning a factory, but I will not tear for you when workers cut your head off and dance around with it or whatever they did in the French Revolution.


Surely there are things you find immoral, are there not?


Not objectively or universally, no, immorality does not exist. My Marxism is amoral, but obviously as a Communist there are some "Moral views" I may have, but who gives a fuck?

[Kenco Smooth]

What? You realize it was pretty fucking difficult to domesticate dogs, right?

Nah brah, strong enough selection pressure and they domesticate pretty easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

[Rafiq]

Nah brah, strong enough selection pressure and they domesticate pretty easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

First of all, those aren't dogs.

Second of all, yeah, it's pretty fucking simple to do today, but it wouldn't have been back then.

[wsg1991]

First of all, those aren't dogs.

Second of all, yeah, it's pretty fucking simple to do today, but it wouldn't have been back then.

compare wolfs to dogs ,
they just pick up more dependent wolfs , after few generations you got domesticated dogs , nothing that hard about it

[Halleluhwah]

Dude, calm the fuck down. I don't know if you see yourself as some master polemicist or what, but to me you're just coming across as an egocentric asshole who feels the need to make everybody around him or her feel stupid. Are you really that upset over a minor disagreement on an internet forum?

[Rafiq]

compare wolfs to dogs ,
they just pick up more dependent wolfs , after few generations you got domesticated dogs , nothing that hard about it

:rolleyes:

This misses the point: That it's not something "destined" or "natural". It took effort.

[Lynx]

RevLeft - home of the idealists.

[Kenco Smooth]

First of all, those aren't dogs.


Depends where you draw that arbitrary line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis)but ultimately doesn't particularly matter, similar enough cases that it really requires you close your eyes and ears to bring it up as a contention. Oh and the small fact that modern domestic dogs (Canis Lupus familiaris) didn't cease to evolve sometime shortly before domestication. Early stages of domestication would have taken place on wolves.



Second of all, yeah, it's pretty fucking simple to do today, but it wouldn't have been back then.

Want to back that statement up? Because the fact that notabely domestic remains can be found from up to 31,000 years ago (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440308002380) (with the ancestral split from wolves estimated at upwards of 100,000 years (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/276/5319/1687.abstract) in certain cases) and the fact that a seriously entertained hypothesis on domestication being an accidental process (http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-early-evolution-of-the-domestic-dog/) exists both seem to point to the fact that the process was not one of extreme difficulty. Given that and the fact domestication seems to have occurred several times across completely unrelated groups (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/2541.full.pdf) the evidence seems to suggest the domestication of dogs was not an exceedingly difficult process.

[wsg1991]

What is wrong with having an ethical opposition to capitalism? domesticating dogs

i think we are going the right way ,

[Revolution starts with U]

The point is that basing your anti-capitalism solely or mostly on moral opposition you stand on very shaky ground. Think about Churchill's quote; "if you're not a commy when you're young you have no heart. If you're not a cappie when you're old you have no brains."

That's what an old person says when, as a youngin, they had a mostly/solely ethical opposition to capitalism. To truly have a strong opposition you have to understand its inefficiency and need for periodic collapse, its contradictions, and its class-based nature.

For yourself you need to be scientific. But for propaganda reasons, ethical opposition can often go much farther than scientific analysis.

[Raúl Duke]

Not sure if this has been already mentioned but...

While the "scientific," Marxist, or etc analysis may be objective in some way, exploitation might be an economic fact of capitalism, and indeed we see classism (prole vs bourgie) objectively within this economic mode of production...There's still a bit of subjectivity and ethics involved in why socialists, anarchists, et al. oppose this system. After all, we're only human.

To the capitalists, capitalism works great and just fine and dandy. It suits their needs. To the working class, they're the brunt of the brutal realities of "economic facts" but their opposition to the system rests on seeing it as "injust," "unfair," "ineffective" system (all subjective, perceptual qualities in varying degrees; effectiveness being the most objective of the 3). Marxist analysis has taken all this into account, it views the opposing dynamic between the classes to be an economic fact within every classist economic system, but within that dynamic, like any dynamic between people, there's still an element of subjectivity; opposition arises as long as most of the working class perceives that the system is unfair, ineffective, unjust.

Thus here's where Marx's quip about "the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class," the ideas of the situationists and Gramsci, come into play. The elites/the system itself will attempt through ideological, etc means, to replace the working class's natural perception (of being exploited, oppressed, etc due to the system) with their own perception or a more positive perception of the system ("it's a success! Everyone can be anyone! Climb the social ladder, anyone can do it").

[Rafiq]

Depends where you draw that arbitrary line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis)but ultimately doesn't particularly matter, similar enough cases that it really requires you close your eyes and ears to bring it up as a contention. Oh and the small fact that modern domestic dogs (Canis Lupus familiaris) didn't cease to evolve sometime shortly before domestication. Early stages of domestication would have taken place on wolves.

Obviously.... What's your point?




Want to back that statement up? Because the fact that notabely domestic remains can be found from up to 31,000 years ago (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440308002380) (with the ancestral split from wolves estimated at upwards of 100,000 years (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/276/5319/1687.abstract) in certain cases) and the fact that a seriously entertained hypothesis on domestication being an accidental process (http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-early-evolution-of-the-domestic-dog/) exists both seem to point to the fact that the process was not one of extreme difficulty. Given that and the fact domestication seems to have occurred several times across completely unrelated groups (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/2541.full.pdf) the evidence seems to suggest the domestication of dogs was not an exceedingly difficult process.


The fact that it was an accident is enough to show not many people would have known how to do that. You know, it takes time to study the behavior of wolves, etc.

But anyway, I want to know how this relates to the subject of this particular thread.

[black magick hustla]

man i am not going to reply to that huge gargantuan post of rude proclamations because honestly, you don't really know what ethics is. you are young and you need to vary a little bit your readings and you'd realize things are not as simple as stating we are a "bunch of mechanical apes". the whole problem of deriving "ought of is", i.e. what you should do because of SCIENCE, is a very old philosophical problem discussed by a lot of people. but whatever man, people can read the thread and make their own assumptions

[Eagle_Syr]

And what an emotional-sensationalist shit example you've tried to deploy there. We Marxists have no appeal for such, and will not fall victim to such nonsense. I don't see a reason as to why it's necessary to murder an "old harmless women" but it's at the most, apparent to us materialists that you Idealist scum have some kind of psychotic fetish for murdering harmless people, in which your precious ideological pressuposions are the only things keeping you from doings so. Your approach cannot determine right from wrong action based on anything more than material conditions, which as I have pointed out, could justify many actions that violate individual dignity. Only morals and ethics based on axiomatic principles independent of material conditions can determine right and wrong. Therefore you need morals and ethics if you are to determine right from wrong, and you need to be able to determine right from wrong in a society for it to function. For laws to work.

A set of principles, axioms, must therefore be established using all the intellectual means at our disposal. Science cannot tell you right from wrong.


That morals are subjective. Even if they are, they are still necessary


What? You realize it was pretty fucking difficult to domesticate dogs, right? Evolutionary evidence suggests otherwise


What the hell is an antisocial human being? We aren't here to replicate hunter gatherer societies, you know. It doesn't matter. Whatever society you do have, will have morals and ethics at play.






But anyway, I want to know how this relates to the subject of this particular thread.
It means that behaviors and personality traits evolved in the direction of improving survival. This is the Darwinian explanation of human morality. These qualities tend to be universal, although different situations and different societies will adapt them differently.

[electrostal]

Nothing, no one would blame a Marxist for having an "ethical" opposition to capitalism if he/she "operates" from a scientific, that is Marxist, "background".

[Halleluhwah]

Eagle_syr, what "intellectual means" besides science do we have at our disposal, which you would use to derive moral principles? You claim that science cannot tell us right from wrong, and therefore we must rely on a set of axioms, but it seems to me that these axioms would necessarily be arbitrary. The fact that you reject science as a source of moral knowledge indicates that you agree an "ought" cannot be derived from an "is," so where would moral truths come from?

More importantly, how would we convince somebody who is opposed to our moral claim that they are wrong and we are right?

[Kenco Smooth]

Obviously.... What's your point?


My point is that your complaint that foxes aren't dogs does not mean the cases aren't analogous in a basic sense.





The fact that it was an accident is enough to show not many people would have known how to do that. You know, it takes time to study the behavior of wolves, etc.

...What? Because people didn't intend to domesticate dogs the knowledge used to do so must be specialised? Is that what you're saying?


But anyway, I want to know how this relates to the subject of this particular thread.
You made the mistake of making a falsifiable claim for once. One that the evidence doesn't support so I figured I'd try and point that out.

[Thirsty Crow]

This kind of a discussion always ends up in a clusterfuck. People talking (and shouting and name calling) past each other while operating with different definitions of the terms in question. No wonder.

So let's try something else: http://www.answers.com/topic/ethics-legal-term

Here's a broad range of "definitions" of the term. Some people here should take a look at it. For our purposes, it is possible to summarize and state that "ethics" refers to a systematic reflection on the rules and regulations of human conduct and intercourse (not intercourse as in sexual intercourse, but that as well). It concerns value judgements, encapsulated in the "right or wrong" form (probably the most simple one). Now, we can conclude that human interaction is probably impossible without one form or another of these value judgements and rules of conduct, regardless of their institutionalization. And of course, as Marxists and materialists, it goes without saying that a particular set of these rules stands in relation with a particular class domination even though these rules appear in their mystified form in ideological discourse as eternal and immutable. As society changes, so do its ethical systems (notice the plural; another point is that these rules and regulations do not actually constitute a homogenous block), but again to stress the point, the origin of social change is not to be looked for in changes in mindsets and value systems, but rather in concrete material practice which is constituted as a particular form of class domination.

So, proceeding from here, it is pretty much clear that, when observing the forms and patterns of modern class struggle, revolutionaries necessarily perform value judgements, but the point is that these are only effective if they are based on a rigorous and critical examination of concrete reality of class domination and exploitation.
So what does that mean that we perform value judgements? It merely means that we choose sides.
How else could you understand the opposition to social phenomena such as poverty, the lack of healthcare and its consequences and so on and so on. The results of scientific inquiry do not necessitate such an orientation. And again, this doesn't presuppose "altruism" or a lack of regard for one's own self-interest - it is in fact built on this self-interest since there is no reason why we should face such conditions other than the mere existence of the ruling class.



Stop being so thick headed. It's not me whose confused, it's you whose incompetent in reading my posts.
That's actually not the case. Only if by "competent" you actually mean "able to read mind" since you use a particular word in an ambiguous way. But how does that compute with the incessant insisting on "science"? Do you think that scientific discourse, language, works that way? Or would you like other users to endlessly pontificate on the meaing of your proclamations?


Capitalism systemically carries the seeds of it's own destruction, and of course, nothing is objectively determined (When I say inevitable, it's loose), but nothing historically, from day one, predetermined capitalism itself. That's ot teleological at all (Which would come to the conclusion that capitalism is just an inevitable stage of human development). Yes, it's pretty much loose, and that's the problem. You do realize that such communication breeds misunderstanding?


Or you don't know how to interperate what I said, which clearly lacked teleology. I shouldn't have to interpret what you say since communication rests on clarity of expression.



Capital cannot exist without the proletarian class, and it is indeed the only potentially revolutionary class (To abolish itself). However, it doesn't end there, in that a class contradiction (Class warfare, feuds with Bourgeoisie) are always inevitable. One could come to the conclusion that, although not objectively, a proletarian revolution is inevitable (in the way Marx put it). Yes, capital cannot exist without the working class.
But the problem is your play with words here. If a proletarian revolution is "inevitable", but not "objectively", how is it then inevitable? "Subjectively"? But what does that even mean? Is it "subjectively" inevitable that if I hold an apple and drop it at some point, it will fall to the ground? Is it "subjectively" inevitable that if Nero is a dog, and all dogs are mortal, that Nero is mortal? That's why I said you're confused, because of such word juggling.

I think we can agree that class conflict in capitalism, in one form or another, is inevitable. But that doesn't mean that a particular form, or outcome of this struggle and conflict, proletarian revolution, is inevitable.




You're missing the point: We as Communists are what is inevitable (in capitalism), us, our action. If we just sit and do nothing, as theoreticians or academics, it makes no difference, the fact that proletarians all over will refuse to do so. They lack the comfort and luxury to do so, or will, in the coming years.
Sorry, but here you're being just vague.
First you state that communists are inevitable in capitalist society - and as I've said above, I do think that class conflict is inevitable, in one form or another, in capitalist society, so it might be the case. No real argument here.
But what do you mean by "the fact that proletarians all over will refuse to do so""? What will proletarians refuse? And how does your final sentence relate to that?
By the way, I'm not actually being dishonest here. I simply can't make sense of the sentences.


Specifically, that doesn't. But class contradiction all on top of this does.
Again, there is nothing inevitable about a specific outcome or form of this struggle based on the actual antagonisms rooted in the relations of production.


And if you think capitalism could function indefinitely, you're greatly mistaken.I said what I think about such a quasi-problem. Precisely this, that it is a quasi-problem and a bait for scholastic speculation. The point is that I don't think there is any need to pose the problem in such terms, and that this is actually problematic in itself.


I mean, even today, what the hell is the solution to this, within the constraint of capital? Tell me, what's the way out? War? It would end in a Nuclear holocaust. State Capitalism? Ready to crumble in China. It's a dead end. The great depression was the end, and the war delayed. Now we're back eating shit.
I can't provide a detailed and specific answer to this.
However, judging from historical experience, devaluation in either form - outright physical destruction or prolonged capital assets devaluation (which both entail significant social costs, and the working class will bear the brunt of it) - can and did lay the basis for a renewed accumulation cycle, so there is no reason to assume that such practices (which would, of course, in its concrete measures differ from those of the past since concrete conditions are also different) are basically impossible today, just as there is no reason to assume that a generalized war would necessarily entail mutual nuclear destruction.


Provide evidence as to where I said such a thing. History never determined what "Champions" will be (SORRY FOR USING the FUCKING WORD) and it never determined you'd be typing on this shit, or capitalism existing.
You stated:


A proletarian revolution is indeed inevitable, and is inevitable so long as the capitalist mode of production should exist, no matter where. Then, us scientists do not add flame to the fire, we merely recognize it, and then, I choose to be a Communist as I am not compelled not to be, i.e. I side with the champion class of history in this regards.
Just to briefly note, again the convoluted syntax. You're not compelled not to be a communist, which basically means that you enjoy freedom of political orientation (since you wouldn't have any option if you were compelled not to be a communist). You basically say you choose sides because you can, which isn't an explanation, but merely a cop-out.

Now, with regard to this champion stuff, first you state that a proletarian revolution is indeed inevitable, which just means that the result, the outcome of class struggle is predetermined.
The next step is to show just how, by what, it is predetermined. Why is the working class in capitalism a "champion class of history"? Who or what made it so? What makes the proletarian class a champion of history and proletarian revolution inevitable?



Don't piss me off.
You might wish to consult the rules of the board with regard to conduct in debate (and that doesn't specifically relate to this quote, but to your general attitude ). It really doesn't do your argument any favor.


I clearly stated capitalism was never "Predetermined" but systemically, the system itself carries the seeds of it's own destruction. I pointed out that objectively, a proletarian revolution is not inevitable but it's more than likely enough for someone like Marx to say so, given capitalism's systemic contradictions. When you say that proletarian revolution is inevitable, you're effectively stateing that capitalism is predetermined to undergo this change. You don't need to explicitly state this for you to be effectively arguing so.
But okay, you're speaking of likelihood here. And I guess this is really the point.
Though, again, I don't think it's useful to confuse inevitability for a supposed high degree of likelihood since it introduces confusion and can be seen as an ideological mystification. I honestly don't know how to approach the problem of likelihood, I don't know if proletarian revolution is that extremely likely, and I don't think this is important.


Oh, and how convenient of you to back up your argument: "EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU STILL HOLD THE POSITION THAT I ATTRIBUTED TO YOU". That's pathetic.

No, that's simple logic and a coherent use of words.



What a shit semantics debate. Ethics is the stressing of a social mechanisms in which your beloved morality can exist.
What could anyone make of such a confused "definition"? Ethics is a "stressing of a social mechanism"? What does that even mean?


It's a shit concept considering that it doesn't matter what you fucking stress, it's not up to you.
It's not up to me to "stress" and reflect upon the mutually recognized guideliness to interaction which directly concern me? That doesn't make any sense. It's up to whom then? Do you mean that people shouldn't reflect upon the way they organize their interaction? That this somehow springs forth as fully determined and formed from the workings of the "mode of production"?
How could you then explain the problem of real life where, let's say, a friend of mine accuses me of doing her wrong? This necessitates an ethical consideration - a consideration of the basis on which a relationship is built by the parties directly involved.


Modes of productions give birth to this, and they are certainly not products of "imagination" or whatever. If you do think so, you may as well stop pretending to be a Marxist.
The social interaction of concrete individuals living in a particularly organized social formation gives birth to this - which doesn't mean that these individuals do not, or should not, think about the ways these interactions are organized and therefore might intervene in their continued practice.