Morality

[MaximMK]

I saw a topic about morality and communism elsewhere on the forum and since im restricted wanted to post my question here. On the other topic i saw people denying morality saying that its against marxism.

I see this as not true. Isn't morality a human concept of what is right and what is wrong? Can't it aid in the goal for reaching communism. In my opinion communism is the most morally just society. I understand that moral values differ with every person and that our political opponents may have different moral values.

But isn't it your moral values that make you care about the worker being exploited?

Apart from accepting Marxism as the best historical analysis of social progress and how our society will progress even more eventually into communism because of the material conditions and the control over the means of the production by the bourgeois eventually sparkling a workers revolution don't u slighlty orient towards the left because u find it morally right to care about the workers being exploited, to care about people being oppressed just because they belong to a different nationality, race or sexual orientation?

Apart from realizing Marxism as the correct materialist theory don't your moral values influence you to become a communist at least slightly instead of totally rejecting moral values as part of the left?

[BIXX]

I think the best way to refute claims that morals have a place in socialist ideas is that morality is all subjective.

I have more to say on this subject, but not enough time to say it, but There are numerous threads on the subject.

[G4b3n]

It would not be true to say that morality is against Marxism.
One must first ask, "what is morality?"
Morality is essentially a doctrine of conduct. One must also consider that morality is an abstraction and what that means in the Marxist scheme of things. Of course this means that it is a result of material conditions, the mode of production, and more specifically the ruling class. Engels, using the materialist dialectic, concluded that "the class that has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production". I agree with this conclusion and would argue that morality is essentially regulated and distributed by the ruling class in some sense.

[MaximMK]

Of course but people can develop their own moral system of values that is contradictory to that of the ruling class. Isn't ones belief that achieving a society of equality and collective ownership of the means of production is a good thing what makes him a communist and inspires him to fight for it?

[Sotionov]

One can be a socialist because he is an (enlightened) egoist, or because he is altruist, or a utilitarian, or a prioritarian, or because the theory of justice that he holds, or because of the theory of natural rights that he accepts, or because of theory of property that he holds is true, etc. etc. and those are all obviously ethical ideas.

[Klaatu]

Allow me to offer this link to a paper on Karl Marx and Charles Dickens (a contemporary of Marx) and morality

About the Human Condition in the Works of Dickens and Marx
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1689&context=clcweb&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddickens%2520marx%26source%3Dweb%2 6cd%3D4%26ved%3D0CD8QFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%2 52Fdocs.lib.purdue.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi %253Farticle%253D1689%2526context%253Dclcweb%26ei% 3DHnX8UbGYC_f_4AOZooCwCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEbCeFHeLRhX fKuXE8rOvhafstJ-w%26bvm%3Dbv.50165853%2Cd.dmg#search=%22dickens%20 marx%22


Abstract: In their article "About the Human Condition in the Works of Dickens and Marx" Ami E.
Stearns and Thomas J. Burns contribute to the study of Charles Dickens's Industrial Revolution-era
fiction by examining his novels in relation to Karl Marx's social philosophy. Stearns and Burns
postulate that Dickens relies on Marxist concepts of class consciousness, sacrifice, revolution, social
antitheses, and social injustice to weave his narratives and compare and discuss six of Dickens'
novels: A Tale of Two Cities, A Christmas Carol, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, and Great
Expectations with three works of Marx: Grundrisse, The Communist Manifesto, and Capital. Their
analysis suggests that the fictionalized world of Dickens parallels the fundamental social theses in
Marx's writings. Further, their study reveals that the narratives of Dickens present Marx's concepts as
relevant and accessible within popular imagination.

[G4b3n]

Of course but people can develop their own moral system of values that is contradictory to that of the ruling class. Isn't ones belief that achieving a society of equality and collective ownership of the means of production is a good thing what makes him a communist and inspires him to fight for it?

A bourgeois apologist would argue that communism, more specifically revolution is inherently immoral because it initiates force. Though they do not take into account that the bourgeois social order was born out of bloody class struggle.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think the actual position being represented was that moral arguments form a much weaker and limited basis for one's political views, than a material reality which involves disadvantage and suffering at the hands of a ruling elite.

Yes white people can be anti-racist, yes men may be feminist, yes straight people may argue for gay rights, and yes the super rich may argue for class equality; the problem is that all of these positions (reached perhaps through a moral stance) are going to be weaker than those who are actively involved in these struggles. Their morality may be swayed much easier than the actual daily realities of those directly affected.

The follow up was that the main force of moral arguments often favours the bourgeoisie. They have more control over media, over policy, and over other sources of influence. Your work place will have you agree to act and think in a certain way; this is a powerful influence.

As we are concerned primarily with a material basis for change, rather than a fickle concept of right or wrong (one which is in part out of our hands) then we are better focusing solely on the material aspect. The implication was that the moral aspect was intellectual, and for those with weaker material ties to an issue; those directly affected do not need the same moral argument as they are already affected.

This was not my position, I am just trying to outline the opposition without setting up a straw man.

[Sotionov]

than a material reality which involves disadvantage and suffering at the hands of a ruling elite.
A view that one should be concerned with the suffering of others is also an ethical view.

[LovingEmbrace]

morality comes from society. society comes from individuality. individuality is a prison. a prison is a holding pen. a holding pen has a lock. we need to break the lock.

morality builds on the concept of separatism. i am separated from you, that's the illusion. the triumph of individuality is civilization. civilization brings laws, judges, labour times, traffic lights, windows, cars, hats, policemen, concrete and corporate suits.

that's a lie.

a hideous lie.

A LIE!

we are all being lied to. you are not you. you are all me. our bodies and our primordial spirits (which we can access through hallucinogenic drugs) are truly built upon the oneness principle. all energy is awareness, all life is just one life. the Universe is a huge meta-consciousness and Communism means the destruction of individuality to allow creative energies to flourish freely and without restraint, all human beings being lovers and sisters.

then morality will be abolished.

[danyboy27]

I saw a topic about morality and communism elsewhere on the forum and since im restricted wanted to post my question here. On the other topic i saw people denying morality saying that its against marxism.

I see this as not true. Isn't morality a human concept of what is right and what is wrong? Can't it aid in the goal for reaching communism. In my opinion communism is the most morally just society. I understand that moral values differ with every person and that our political opponents may have different moral values.

But isn't it your moral values that make you care about the worker being exploited?

Apart from accepting Marxism as the best historical analysis of social progress and how our society will progress even more eventually into communism because of the material conditions and the control over the means of the production by the bourgeois eventually sparkling a workers revolution don't u slighlty orient towards the left because u find it morally right to care about the workers being exploited, to care about people being oppressed just because they belong to a different nationality, race or sexual orientation?

Apart from realizing Marxism as the correct materialist theory don't your moral values influence you to become a communist at least slightly instead of totally rejecting moral values as part of the left?
The biggest problem with morality is that, its quite subjective.
It might seem very disgusting to you that children are working in India for 5 rupee per day but for other peoples this is actually progress.

The main reason why its flawed to use morality has the main argument for a more equal society is that, your opponent will be able to twist your argument to fit their own version of morality.

I dont deny the existance of morality (IE: dont kill or rape) but using it to push your argument isnt always gonna work well.

Making people hopeful about a possible outcome that could be benefitial to them (more services, foods etc) tend to work better than making them disgusted about the moral failing of capitalism.

Right now its a shitfest everywhere around the globe, people need some kind of hope, they dont want to feel pain or hate, they already know who the bad guys are, and they want solutions.

[Richard Roth]

It is the liberal aspects of Marxist ideology that are "immoral".

Democratic control of the economy is arguably a "moral" aim because it is sharing. Morality is about emotion and exercising self control with the aim of bringing out the best in the individual and the collective.

De Levey's satanism actually has a lot in common with mainstream liberalism. Liberals tend to believe in rampant individualism and selfishness whilst also strongly being in favour of hedonism and parties. Many mainstream "centrist" liberals believe in an individualism which is John Stuart Mill's harm theory meets Adam Smith's economics, which is also just like De Leveys satanism.

I haven't read Friedrich Nietzsche's "genealogy of morality" but I think we get a lot of our morality from pre-Enlightenment feudal ideology and religious philosophy. The Church, which is a dying institution, is the last bastion of "morality" in a secular world. I don't believe in "bourgeoisie morality." The bourgeoisie may espouse Christian morality but they were hypocritical. The classical liberal bourgeoisie were even worse than the feudal bourgeoisie because they didn't even pretend to subscribe to Christian morality. They are arrogant and proud, believing that money is superior to morality, which is the ultimate blasphemy.

Morality and religion tames arrogance, and its the chipping away of morality by liberals that has made egoism and selfishness acceptable. Friedrich Nietzsche called classical liberalism a "pig philosophy." Personally I have more respect for the warrior aristocracy than the liberal bourgeoisie because they are less arrogant, and more intellectual, appreciative of the arts and more appreciative of morality. I disagree with Marx, who claimed to admire the Tories over the Whigs. Marx is misunderstood as being a complete anti-capitalist, but he was quite partial to the pig philosophy himself, claiming to admire capitalism. I prefer Hegel's utopian socialism which is more romantic and less scientific.

Morality is important because morality is about emotions and emotion is far superior to reason. Art is also emotion and the arts are the greatest defence against capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course but people can develop their own moral system of values that is contradictory to that of the ruling class. Isn't ones belief that achieving a society of equality and collective ownership of the means of production is a good thing what makes him a communist and inspires him to fight for it?

Well I think in a way this is true. The problem with morality is whose morality are we talking about. Within a capitalist view, hard-work and induvidual economic responcibility is "moral". You can not have a functioning society without clam among the masses and diciplined people working and holding to their various contacts and the expectations on them... but this is only "moral" if we accept that there is no possible way of organizing society other than with present (capitalist) relations. If people protest or strike or riot is causes "disorder" in the system, disrupts things and this hurts some people - the people that matter to capitalists, the owners. On the other hand, if a company is doing poorly and is bought-out by a competator and the redundant workforce is laid off; if investment slows and capitalist sit on their money while people suffer; if laid-off workers for no fault of their own can't make rent or debt or mortgage payments and get kicked out on the street... all of this is "disorder" for workers (and some may see it as "immoral") but it is not a moral issue for capitalism, they might see it as sad, but not immoral.

So it's really a question of what morality: working class morality. What is that based on? Eliminating power and control over the working class and this implies a lot of smaller political issues and principles (which I guess can be called a kind of morality) such as not supporting oppression of other workers or even non-workers because this increases the power of the ruling class and makes the working class a weaker force in society.

But I don't really favor using the term morality to describe this because morality usually implies a kind of universal morality and IMO no such thing can exist in a class-divided society beyond some very basic things. We can all agree that killing is bad, but what does that mean in a practical sense - killing to preserve the social order by police is not only not immoral to our rulers, but moral, the same with wars to ensure that our rulers can shape the world; but it's when the oppressed fight back against military occupations or people riot against injustice that violence is once again seen as "immoral" by capitalist society even if they concede the "cause is just". They tell us "turn the other cheek", but when has any military power ever done that?

I think these considerations for workers are better described as "political" not moral. This is because I think morality means a sort of iron dictate whereas a political principle or argument needs to be rationally understood. We should do X, not because it is abstractly "right" or "good" but because it is right and good for Y and Z reasons.

[RedBen]

A bourgeois apologist would argue that communism, more specifically revolution is inherently immoral because it initiates force. Though they do not take into account that the bourgeois social order was born out of bloody class struggle.
necessary evil in my opinion, almost self defense when you consider the crushing reality that many starve to death every hour of every day because of lack of access to resources many of us take for granted. the only thing preventing homeless people and empty homes coming together is the monetary system. the only thing preventing hungry people from access to food in a world where we throw away enough to feed the hungry, is the monetary system. when you have someone living in a multi million dollar condo downtown and a homeless person at the bottom of the building begging for food, something's got to fucking give

[Ose]

Of course but people can develop their own moral system of values that is contradictory to that of the ruling class. Isn't ones belief that achieving a society of equality and collective ownership of the means of production is a good thing what makes him a communist and inspires him to fight for it?It's more that the creation of such a society would be beneficial to the class of which one is a member. This, of course, would not be beneficial to the antagonistic class (the bourgeoisie). Expediency is the primary motivator; the ethics/morality involved is utilitarian. The idea of objective morality of external origin is what we oppose.

[#FF0000]

Morality is important because morality is about emotions and emotion is far superior to reason. Art is also emotion and the arts are the greatest defence against capitalism.

Probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

You weirdo radical traditionalists are truly the dumbest.

I'll post again for content later since i just got back from work.

[BIXX]

It is the liberal aspects of Marxist ideology that are "immoral".

Democratic control of the economy is arguably a "moral" aim because it is sharing. Morality is about emotion and exercising self control with the aim of bringing out the best in the individual and the collective.

De Levey's satanism actually has a lot in common with mainstream liberalism. Liberals tend to believe in rampant individualism and selfishness whilst also strongly being in favour of hedonism and parties. Many mainstream "centrist" liberals believe in an individualism which is John Stuart Mill's harm theory meets Adam Smith's economics, which is also just like De Leveys satanism.

I haven't read Friedrich Nietzsche's "genealogy of morality" but I think we get a lot of our morality from pre-Enlightenment feudal ideology and religious philosophy. The Church, which is a dying institution, is the last bastion of "morality" in a secular world. I don't believe in "bourgeoisie morality." The bourgeoisie may espouse Christian morality but they were hypocritical. The classical liberal bourgeoisie were even worse than the feudal bourgeoisie because they didn't even pretend to subscribe to Christian morality. They are arrogant and proud, believing that money is superior to morality, which is the ultimate blasphemy.

Morality and religion tames arrogance, and its the chipping away of morality by liberals that has made egoism and selfishness acceptable. Friedrich Nietzsche called classical liberalism a "pig philosophy." Personally I have more respect for the warrior aristocracy than the liberal bourgeoisie because they are less arrogant, and more intellectual, appreciative of the arts and more appreciative of morality. I disagree with Marx, who claimed to admire the Tories over the Whigs. Marx is misunderstood as being a complete anti-capitalist, but he was quite partial to the pig philosophy himself, claiming to admire capitalism. I prefer Hegel's utopian socialism which is more romantic and less scientific.

Morality is important because morality is about emotions and emotion is far superior to reason. Art is also emotion and the arts are the greatest defence against capitalism.

Top lels


However the only part worth responding to is the last bit, where you screwed up a lot.


You are mistaken, because morality is subjective. One person will not have some "universal morals", that coincide with everyone else's morals.

[Richard Roth]

You are mistaken, because morality is subjective. One person will not have some "universal morals", that coincide with everyone else's morals.

Morality is subjective but most of us can agree than murder is wrong and naked selfishness like stealing is immoral.

Morality has an actual basis in psychology and biology. It is beneficial to share and to not be selfish. Before the industrial revolution European peasants for centuries worked and shared the results of their labour in a simple way because they did not know anything else.

Technology is not necessarily our best friend. Liberal individualism is a corruption and a nihilist anti-philosophy that attempts to justify the unjustifiable (capitalism, industrialisation, alienation) using reason and nothing else. Liberal individualism use of "reason" gives it a faux-intellectual sense of rightness and pride in mass exploitation, alienation and bringing out the absolute worst in humanity to forward technology and profit, unlike "morality" which is about bringing the best out of society, being humble and gracious, and it is rooted in our biology and psychology.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Morality is subjective but most of us can agree than murder is wrong and naked selfishness like stealing is immoral.But these things do not exist outside of society and specific contexts. Murder is unpleasant, but is it wrong to murder a slave-owner if you are a slave? Is it wrong to murder in self-defense? Then what is self-defense - is a regualrly beaten child or spouce using self-defense if the pre-plan the murder of their abuser... what about the defense of a particular society or government like in war?


Morality has an actual basis in psychology and biology. It is beneficial to share and to not be selfish.Well if we are speaking of band societies, then there is much more of a possibility of a "universal view of morality". Most of this took the form of custom, but people could generally agree on what is ethical and benificial because members of the group benifited from what was good for the group. In societies with large class inequalities, this is not the case because what is good for the ruling generally comes at the expense of the exploited class.


Before the industrial revolution European peasants for centuries worked and shared the results of their labour in a simple way because they did not know anything else. Well also because they had a common interest in making sure that the common land was available and maintained and they had larger social networks for maintaining their communities (as opposed to us who have larger social networks for socializing, but maintaining ourselves is induvidual or the responcibility of small family units). So IMO this shared custom or morality came out of a shared way of making a living, i.e. shared class interests. When we look at the aristocracy vs. the pesantry, we see that the upper classes always thought that the peasants were crude and immoral and brutish. A woman who defied enclosures so that she could keep her way of making a living off the common land was not only considered immoral, but crazy or possibly a witch.


Technology is not necessarily our best friend. Liberal individualism is a corruption, imposed from above. It aggressively corrupts the will of the people by slandering them with an incredibly misanthropic and false view of human nature. Only technology and the industrial revolution made it possible, because before the industrial revolution if humans had behaved in a liberal individualist way they would have regressed to the stone age. Liberal individualism relies completely on technology and capitalism, rather than being rooted in our biology and psychology like morality is. Sorry I just don't believe there is a "morality" gene. Things that were considered moral in ancient Greece were immoral in Christian Europe, some of what was moral in feudal christian europe was considered immoral in capitalist christian europe and vica versa. Money-trading was totally immoral for christians in feudalism... not with the rise of the capitalist class, then making money became moral.

[Anarcho Jackson Jones]

What constitutes "morality" in a capitalist society stems from superstitions of religion, law, and authority that was deliberately invented by exploiters, priests, conquerors, and bosses. Our natural moral sense is mutual aid. Even in the worst and most despotic societies, individuals continue to help one another and cooperate. This is morality.

[liberlict]

I saw a topic about morality and communism elsewhere on the forum and since im restricted wanted to post my question here. On the other topic i saw people denying morality saying that its against marxism.

I see this as not true. Isn't morality a human concept of what is right and what is wrong? Can't it aid in the goal for reaching communism. In my opinion communism is the most morally just society. I understand that moral values differ with every person and that our political opponents may have different moral values.

But isn't it your moral values that make you care about the worker being exploited?

Apart from accepting Marxism as the best historical analysis of social progress and how our society will progress even more eventually into communism because of the material conditions and the control over the means of the production by the bourgeois eventually sparkling a workers revolution don't u slighlty orient towards the left because u find it morally right to care about the workers being exploited, to care about people being oppressed just because they belong to a different nationality, race or sexual orientation?

Apart from realizing Marxism as the correct materialist theory don't your moral values influence you to become a communist at least slightly instead of totally rejecting moral values as part of the left?

This is a good post, if I may say so. I think communism is the most morally just society. I'm a little bit too pessimistic about things to believe it could be realized, but I would love to see it so. I would love to participate in a communist type society--- It's kinda the way I live already.

[NGNM85]

You are mistaken, because morality is subjective. One person will not have some "universal morals", that coincide with everyone else's morals.

Is there subjectivity in ethics? Certainly. However to adopt a relativist position, to completely abandon ethics, as an enterprise, is lazy, misguided, and, ultimately, doomed.

[nominal9]

I don't know..... I'm new to this revleft.....I'll say this much.... I detest and despise any sort of censorship.... I"ve personally instituted a thread-line called "Nominal9"s Censorship Hall of Shame" WHERE I DAMN INTERNET CENSORS TO AN ETERNITY IN HELL... mostly moderators and sysops and the like
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/nominal9$20Censorship$20Hall$20of$20shame/epistemology/sRay1bqoHbo/na9DchMjwm8J
Anyway... I'm new here (as I said) and quite a few of my posts, that I'm fairly certain were properly submitted, have yet to clear the moderators and appear... I've been told that moderation of posts is normal for new members for a while....Well... if this is just a normal lag in doing your jobs.... moderators.... kindly get on the ball and clear your "holding bins".... If it's already due to something I've tried to post that was objectionable.... I honestly can't begin to think what it might be.....Frankly, seeing this thread here and surmising that revleft censors fairly often.... you folks already have one foot in my personal Hell.... tread carefully.... HAR

Anyway.... morals are value judgments... that's all... everyone makes them.... even Communists....

Let's take the example of politis on the large, general scale as a combination of Government / Economy (an offshoot of Ockham's sign theory) ... put that in Aristotle's square of logical opposition and you get something like the following... I've added my own moral or ethical value judgments (with which you are all free to agree with, or not)

Euro. model....................Fascism

Democratic / Socialism......Totalitarian / Capitalism
GOOD...........GOOD..........BAD.............BAD

(A square in middle)

GOOD...........BAD.............BAD...........GOOD
Democratic / Capitalism.....Totalitarian/ Socialism

U.S. model......................Communism


There you are.... Morals......

[Remus Bleys]

I don't know..... I'm new to this revleft.....I'll say this much.... I detest and despise any sort of censorship.... I"ve personally instituted a thread-line called "Nominal9"s Censorship Hall of Shame" WHERE I DAMN INTERNET CENSORS TO AN ETERNITY IN HELL... mostly moderators and sysops and the like
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/nominal9$20Censorship$20Hall$20of$20shame/epistemology/sRay1bqoHbo/na9DchMjwm8J
Anyway... I'm new here (as I said) and quite a few of my posts, that I'm fairly certain were properly submitted, have yet to clear the moderators and appear... I've been told that moderation of posts is normal for new members for a while....Well... if this is just a normal lag in doing your jobs.... moderators.... kindly get on the ball and clear your "holding bins".... If it's already due to something I've tried to post that was objectionable.... I honestly can't begin to think what it might be.....Frankly, seeing this thread here and surmising that revleft censors fairly often.... you folks already have one foot in my personal Hell.... tread carefully.... HAR

Anyway.... morals are value judgments... that's all... everyone makes them.... even Communists....

Let's take the example of politis on the large, general scale as a combination of Government / Economy (an offshoot of Ockham's sign theory) ... put that in Aristotle's square of logical opposition and you get something like the following... I've added my own moral or ethical value judgments (with which you are all free to agree with, or not)

Euro. model....................Fascism

Democratic / Socialism......Totalitarian / Capitalism
GOOD...........GOOD..........BAD.............BAD

(A square in middle)

GOOD...........BAD.............BAD...........GOOD
Democratic / Capitalism.....Totalitarian/ Socialism

U.S. model......................Communism


There you are.... Morals......
You make good points (I think), but this is hard to read. Can you..... you know.... stop..... typing like.... this?

[nominal9]

You make good points (I think), but this is hard to read. Can you..... you know.... stop..... typing like.... this?

Hello Remus Bleys.... Nice to make your acquaintance.

The dots [....] are a bit of a signature quirk, with me. I was always taught in school and such to use "proper grammar and punctuation". But when I ruminated about how I "think" and understand all manner of things. I realized that proper grammar and punctuation often confuse that (sic...what) I am trying to say. So, instead, I use the dots to separate my "meaning segments" in a way to give all components of my sought communicated meaning their "proper" separation and independent signification importance....Substance over Form (or Style)... if you want to consider it that way..... a well turned phrase, more often than not, makes an impression on the "addressee", even though ... it really doesn't say much of anything....

So, sorry for the dots, but I think they're going to stay.
No offense to you, though....I ask all never to take offense... just state the disagreement....maybe one or the other will be convinced.....
But there are usually at least four sides to every question..... more with the lies....

[Lowtech]

it is my opinion that communism should not be defined in ideological/political terms, or even ethical, but rather in a very simplified scientific and economic language.

it is very easy for proponents of capitalism to sneer at terms like exploitation, surplus value, bourgeois, class warfare, etc. so what we need is direct observation of capitalism's mathematical failures and inability to sustain a civilization. endless debates regarding sociological definitions of economics, politics, society, property, human nature, etc keep us distracted from debating the real inadequacies of capitalism.

[Sotionov]

it is my opinion that communism should not be defined in ideological/political terms, or even ethical, but rather in a very simplified scientific and economic language.
It can be defined so, but never advocated. Once you advocate something, you've entered the ethical sphere (all ideological/ political goals are in there).

[synthesis]

It can be defined so, but never advocated. Once you advocate something, you've entered the ethical sphere (all ideological/ political goals are in there).

Why? Because you say so?

[Remus Bleys]

Why? Because you say so?Why should you advocate it?
The reasons all eventually boil down to ethics, which the enlightened Left thinks they are absent of for some reason.

[synthesis]

I don't know..... I'm new to this revleft.....I'll say this much.... I detest and despise any sort of censorship.... I"ve personally instituted a thread-line called "Nominal9"s Censorship Hall of Shame" WHERE I DAMN INTERNET CENSORS TO AN ETERNITY IN HELL... mostly moderators and sysops and the like
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/nominal9$20Censorship$20Hall$20of$20shame/epistemology/sRay1bqoHbo/na9DchMjwm8J

This link is literally the most hilariously insane thing I've ever read.

[Sotionov]

Why? Because you say so? Yes, calculation is in the sphere of mathematics "because I say so". It simply is, just like this.

Once one sees the systematization of ethical theories that exist (in their three broad categories of virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism), it becomes clear that there can be no argument for any "ought" statement that isn't an ethical argument. That's simply the nature of "ought" statements, if you think that something should be done, your reason for thinking so is going to fit into one of ethical theories.

[synthesis]

Why should you advocate it?
The reasons all eventually boil down to ethics, which the enlightened Left thinks they are absent of for some reason.

So if I'm fabulously wealthy, and I argue for lower taxes for myself, I'm operating from ethics? Or is it more likely I'm just appealing to ethics when I argue for it?

Is self-interest inherently ethical? If not, then collective self-interest is also not inherently ethical.

[zoot_allures]

I think the best way to refute claims that morals have a place in socialist ideas is that morality is all subjective.
Really? How does that work? (That is: how does the subjectivity of morality refute the claim that morality has "a place in socialist ideas"?)

[synthesis]

Yes, calculation is in the sphere of mathematics "because I say so". It simply is, just like this.

Once one sees the systematization of ethical theories that exist (in their three broad categories of virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism), it becomes clear that there can be no argument for any "ought" statement that isn't an ethical argument. That's simply the nature of "ought" statements, if you think that something should be done, your reason for thinking so is going to fit into one of ethical theories.

Again, you must have a pretty broad definition of "ethics" if you think that, for example, advocating for something exclusively for your own individual self-interest is "ethical."

[BIXX]

Is there subjectivity in ethics? Certainly. However to adopt a relativist position, to completely abandon ethics, as an enterprise, is lazy, misguided, and, ultimately, doomed.

Why?

Also I am not really arguing for a total abandonment, more just trying to quit using them to convince people communism is the way to go.


Really? How does that work? (That is: how does the subjectivity of morality refute the claim that morality has "a place in socialist ideas"?)

Because people having morals that state "whites are the best race" are not compatible with socialist ideas. I'm not saying that socialism isn't moral (it certainly is from a labour standpoint) but that not everyone will agree so we should be convincing people via other means. I mean, a lot of people think communism is a good idea, but that it won't work. We should simply be showing why it'll work and it'll increase their quality of life.

Another point is like to make is that if we are fighting for communism simply because it is moral, that implies we are fighting for it because we feel it is our duty. We this implies that we think we need to have to, and what another comrade described to me as "trying to make it so the proletariat do not liberate themselves".

[zoot_allures]

Is there subjectivity in ethics? Certainly. However to adopt a relativist position, to completely abandon ethics, as an enterprise, is lazy, misguided, and, ultimately, doomed.
Firstly, in what way does adopting a relativist position imply "completely abandon[ing] ethics"? (We need some clarification here before you answer. Just what do you have in mind with "relativism"? There are all sorts of relativisms about ethics, some of which are pretty much truisms: for example, descriptive ethical relativism is obviously true.)

Secondly, you need to be careful not to conflate subjectivity with relativity. Ethics can be objective, yet relative. Suppose there are objective ethical values. Well, it might turn out, for example, that these are relative to particular cultures: e.g. so that these objective values judge that female infant circumcision is okay in that culture, but not okay in this culture.

Ethics can be subjective, yet non-relative: I can judge that female infant circumcision is always wrong, is every culture, while nevertheless believing that this judgment isn't objective.

[Remus Bleys]

Is self-interest inherently ethical? Its a form of ethics, albeit a stupid one. Ever hear of Egoism?

[synthesis]

Its a form of ethics, albeit a stupid one.

Then we're at a semantic impasse, because we are using the word "ethics" in different ways. You're working from the academic definition (as is Sotionov) whereas I am working from its colloquial usage. I would argue that they are both correct in their proper context.

[Sotionov]

Again, you must have a pretty broad definition of "ethics" if you think that, for example, advocating for something exclusively for your own individual self-interest is "ethical."
Egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory, yes, and has many different forms with different opinions about what is really one's self-interest.

[Sotionov]

Mistake, a double message, sorry.

[synthesis]

Here's the semantic issue: If I (subjectively) disagree with the philosophical theory of egoism, then I can say (subjectively) that self-interest is not inherently ethical. Yet I can still argue for Marxism on the basis of (collective) self-interest, not on my personal set of ethics. Therefore, by that definition of the term, I am promoting working class politics not because of their ethical value to me, but because it is ultimately in my self-interest as a worker.

This might seem like nitpicking, but I do think it's important to distinguish between the usage of the term "ethics" as a broad philosophical field of study and the usage of the term as an individual's figurative compass of right and wrong in life. Words can have more than one meaning.

[Tim Redd]

This is a good post, if I may say so. I think communism is the most morally just society. I'm a little bit too pessimistic about things to believe it could be realized, but I would love to see it so. I would love to participate in a communist type society--- It's kinda the way I live already. My grade school sisters, brothers, cousins and neighborhood chums practiced communism when each put the money we had in a common pot and shared what we could buy equally. Except for not truly practicing to each according to need, we were aware that this was what was claimed to be practiced in Russia and China.

[Sotionov]

This might seem like nitpicking
Man, you can nitpick all you want, but one you say that something should be done, you're making an ethical statement.

If you think that something should be done because it is an expression of some sublime moral value, you're accepting virtue ethics; if you think that something should be done because doing it is good it itself, you're accepting deontological ethics; if you think that it should be done because it will bring some consequences that you consider good, you're accepting consequentialist ethics.

[Lowtech]

I would love to participate in a communist type society--- It's kinda the way I live already.

bullshit. if you buy commodities and work for an employer or own "assets," you are partaking in capitalism and "live" economically nothing like a person would in communism. i would study some economics before you attempt to make such assertions.

[Lowtech]

i am happy to give a non ethical argument for communism.

the "economy" is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain an entire civilization, not a system limited to sustaining a plutocratic minority.

the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items. this basic process does not require markets, money, nor the rich. further, the maximum throughput of any economic system cannot be realized without removal of the profit mechanism, or more specifically, anything that produces artificial scarcity.

and as markets, money and the rich are not required and in fact inhibit the maximum throughput of any economic system, these things both have no economic purpose and are economically invalid.

capitalism cannot be mathematically, economically nor ethically legitimized, therefore communism is by default, the most suitable economic system for a truly modern society.

[Remus Bleys]

i am happy to give a non ethical argument for communism.

the "economy" is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain an entire civilization, not a system limited to sustaining a plutocratic minority.

the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items. this basic process does not require markets, money, nor the rich. further, the maximum throughput of any economic system cannot be realized without removal of the profit mechanism, or more specifically, anything that produces artificial scarcity.

and as markets, money and the rich are not required and in fact inhibit the maximum throughput of any economic system, these things both have no economic purpose and are economically invalid.

capitalism cannot be mathematically, economically nor ethically legitimized, therefore communism is by default, the most suitable economic system for a truly modern society.
Why should we use the most suitable economy?

[Lowtech]

Why should we use the most suitable economy?

because there is no reason we shouldn't.

more so, not moving to the most suitable system means we are choosing to sit on some deprecated method, be it capitalism, feudalism or some other agricultural-based caste system that is designed to perpetuate plutocratic society.

the current observed society is inherently dystopian and this fact is offhandedly defended by apologetics (neoliberalism). when a sickness is diagnosed, it is procedural to develop a treatment, ongoing social-economic problems are no different.

[Remus Bleys]

because there is no reason we shouldn't.

more so, not moving to the most suitable system means we are choosing to sit on some deprecated method, be it capitalism, feudalism or some other agricultural-based caste system that is designed to perpetuate plutocratic society.


Your argument is "We should move to the most effective economy because we should." You can't use something to justify itself. Why shouldn't we just sit on a deprecated model. There may be no reason we shouldn't, but why should we? Give me a positive response, not a negative one.

the current observed society is inherently dystopian and this fact is offhandedly defended by apologetics (neoliberalism). when a sickness is diagnosed, it is procedural to develop a treatment, ongoing social-economic problems are no different.
I agree with you. But why is living a dystopia bad? Why not live in a dystopia? Why should we cure this sickness?

[Lowtech]

Your argument is "We should move to the most effective economy because we should." You can't use something to justify itself. Why shouldn't we just sit on a deprecated model. There may be no reason we shouldn't, but why should we? Give me a positive response, not a negative one.i haven't used something to justify itself, you've asked me why i feel we should move to the most suitable economic system, and i countered with there being no reason not to. if all the reasoning i have previously shown (see my above posts) stand, what further debate is there? so, again... unless you can define an actual argument, my response stands.
I agree with you. But why is living a dystopia bad? Why not live in a dystopia? Why should we cure this sickness?

capitalism is "bad" because it's adverse effects vastly outweigh it's supposed benefits. this fact is mathematically observable.

[Remus Bleys]

capitalism is "bad" because it's adverse effects vastly outweigh it's supposed benefits. this fact is mathematically observable. You completely missed that. Why should we stop doing something because its bad?
To be rational, of course. Your not wrong. A world in which capitalism continued would be hell. But why shouldn't we live in hell?
I'm not saying we should live in hell, but saying "We shouldn't" is an ethical statement.

[Lowtech]

You completely missed that. Why should we stop doing something because its bad?
To be rational, of course. Your not wrong. A world in which capitalism continued would be hell. But why shouldn't we live in hell?
I'm not saying we should live in hell, but saying "We shouldn't" is an ethical statement.

hmm... i get what you're saying. although its easy to interchange ethics with morality and worse, for people to treat ethics to be something that is a matter of personal preference. those that do refer to it as subjective do not realize that if you are a bridge designer, or some other civil engineer, the level of safety designed into projects is not a matter of personal preference, because your responsibility to others dictate your "ethics."

proponents to capitalism presume we have no social responsibility at all. this notion makes no sense and is criminal.

[Philo]

I saw a topic about morality and communism elsewhere on the forum and since im restricted wanted to post my question here. On the other topic i saw people denying morality saying that its against marxism.

I see this as not true. Isn't morality a human concept of what is right and what is wrong? Can't it aid in the goal for reaching communism. In my opinion communism is the most morally just society. I understand that moral values differ with every person and that our political opponents may have different moral values.

But isn't it your moral values that make you care about the worker being exploited?

Apart from accepting Marxism as the best historical analysis of social progress and how our society will progress even more eventually into communism because of the material conditions and the control over the means of the production by the bourgeois eventually sparkling a workers revolution don't u slighlty orient towards the left because u find it morally right to care about the workers being exploited, to care about people being oppressed just because they belong to a different nationality, race or sexual orientation?

Apart from realizing Marxism as the correct materialist theory don't your moral values influence you to become a communist at least slightly instead of totally rejecting moral values as part of the left?

I think part of the problem is that "morality" is a somewhat slippery concept. Depending on what we mean by "morality," I would say we leftists do (or should) reject one conception, and hold another. For simplicity's sake I'll focus on two conceptions of "morality"

1. A transcendent set of imperatives, overriding all or most other imperatives, which are "read off" from reality and guide/legislate individual behavior, acting in accordance with "rationality" or "moral reality."

2. A broadly normative dimension of life that allows us to compare states of affairs as being more or less desirable on some basis not simply reducible to the idiosyncrasies of individual taste.

Basically, I think we generally do, and rightly should, reject 1[1] but should not accidentally reject 2 along with it. That is, we can and should reject the idea of "morality" as a set of individual "laws of behavior," as absolute, as in some sense "true" of some independent, moral reality, values as being foundationally universal[2], the idea that there are distinctly moral as opposed to a plurality of nonmoral goods, etc. But I don't think that means we have to -or should- say that beliefs like "we should have communism" are as arbitrary and have the same level of normative force as "I prefer vanilla ice cream."

[1]Not simply because it isn't intellectually/rationally tenable, but because it's actively politically pernicious. Critics have rightly pointed out that what often goes under the name "morality" is ruling-class ideology, a mechanism of social control. I think the notion of "morality" as a set of individual "laws of behavior" is exactly this, as it goes "who cares about systematic, structural political and economic failures? As long as you individually are acting in accordance with the moral law, you're above all that."

[2]Philosophically-inclined readers will recognize this as a form of pluralistic naturalism about values. Pluralist in the sense that different people might have different sets of values and that many of those sets of values are incommensurable and yet no more or less "rational." Naturalistic just in the weak sense that the "good" is just a label for a collection of nonmoral goods (such as health, pleasure, freedom, whatever) and that the source of normativity is just the collection of nonmoral goods. There is no distinctly moral good, no distinctly moral "ought," etc.

[liberlict]

My grade school sisters, brothers, cousins and neighborhood chums practiced communism when each put the money we had in a common pot and shared what we could buy equally. Except for not truly practicing to each according to need, we were aware that this was what was claimed to be practiced in Russia and China.

A family unit kinda operates on communistic principles, and I'm certainly a family person. Also me and my friends have each others backs when there is any strife.

But if you want to generalize this kind of ethic to the world economy, I see a lot of problems.

[Lowtech]

A family unit kinda operates on communistic principles, and I'm certainly a family person. Also me and my friends have each others backs when there is any strife.

But if you want to generalize this kind of ethic to the world economy, I see a lot of problems.

yes. for the rich.

[liberlict]

bullshit. if you buy commodities and work for an employer or own "assets," you are partaking in capitalism and "live" economically nothing like a person would in communism. i would study some economics before you attempt to make such assertions.

I did say "kinda". But yeah, I still buy stuff and own stuff.

Appreciate your purism.

[nominal9]

This link is literally the most hilariously insane thing I've ever read.
Thank you for the favorable "review", synthesis.... nice to make your acquaintance.

[nominal9]

Its a form of ethics, albeit a stupid one. Ever hear of Egoism?
Hello Remus....and hello synthesis...

This question between you is a common one, there's a (what I call) "thematic" dialectic underlying it....I've plugged in my own "value judgments (as corresponding to the recommended social or cultural mores)...

Selfishness / do for oneself...... Altruism / do for another
BAD............BAD....................GOOD......GO OD

(Aristotle square in middle)

BAD.............GOOD..................GOOD......BA D
Selfishness / do for another.......Altruism / do for oneself


Frankly, synthesis and Remus Bleys, I think that you both (as well as very many people) use certain words... like "Egoism" or "individual vs. group".... to characterize the whole duality of the underlying "things" you are talking about... separate it out and at least you both (all) know where the actual difference of opinion resides....I think...

[Sotionov]

i am happy to give a non ethical argument for communism.

the "economy" is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain an entire civilization, not a system limited to sustaining a plutocratic minority.
Why?

[Lowtech]

I did say "kinda". But yeah, I still buy stuff and own stuff.

Appreciate your purism.

understanding economics doesn't make me a "purist."

and i didn't say stuff, i said buying commodities or owning assets.

assets do not produce value, they are a social construct that facilitate deriving economic value from others; it is exploitation. the rich produce no value yet they consume the majority of it. this is economically invalid.

i would love to hear you try to legitimize that.

[Lowtech]

Why?

the economy is something we all depend on, a public utility (an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service), and it in turn depends on our proper participation (work). proper participation offsets our consumption. and since this utility has enough economic value propagated within it to sustain everyone, there is no economic basis to limiting resources to the rich. especially as the rich produce no value.

as the economy is the culmination of our collective work, we all have a right to it's collective benefit. no matter how selfish one believes themselves to be, unless one lives in he woods and cloth and feeds oneself without contact with others, one is part of the group economically and with it comes social responsibility.

the rich believe ownership of assets defer their obligation to work. and worse, while the rich produce no value, they consume several times more than they need for a healthy, happy and worthwhile life.

a truly civilized society is one that recognizes the fact that everyone is interdependent and that all modern problems have socioeconomic causes.

we all have an influence on global politics, via our economic footprint. and what ties it all together is how resources are used and how people interact economically. the few exploit the majority via economic subjugation and this miss-use of resources/economic value historically and currently leads the majority into poverty, wage slavery, war, class struggle. all modern social problems stem from our archaic abuse of the economic process.

the economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items. this basic process does not require money, markets, nor the rich. people, being a social species, are dependent on this process. the rich exploit our dependence on this by introducing an exchange medium that distorts value (money) and a mechanism to derive economic value from the worker (profit, assets, capital).

the rich maintain control partly through division. as long as the rich have all of us oblivious to the economic subjugation imposed on us, making us think with the mentality of the employee/consumer, believing the illusion of free choice, keeping us from questioning plutocratic rule, we can never mobilize to stop the economic exploitation and chaos that puts us in perpetual war, class struggle and wage slavery.

[liberlict]

understanding economics doesn't make me a "purist."

and i didn't say stuff, i said buying commodities or owning assets.

assets do not produce value, they are a social construct that facilitate deriving economic value from others; it is exploitation. the rich produce no value yet they consume the majority of it. this is economically invalid.

i would love to hear you try to legitimize that.

I don't understand how something that is physical, like an asset, say a house or a bit of land, can be a "social construct".

[Sotionov]

the economy is something we all depend on, a public utility
You do realise that utilitarianism is an ethical theory?


as the economy is the culmination of our collective work, we all have a right to it's collective benefit.
If you think that we have that right per se, then you're espousing a deontological ethical theory, if you think that we have that right because of the benefit that having that right brings, then you're espousing some consequentialist ethical theory.


the few exploit the majority via economic subjugation and this miss-use of resources/economic value historically and currently leads the majority into poverty, wage slavery, war, class struggle.
Why are those problems? Why are they bad? Any reason you can have to opposse such things will be an ethical one. Benevolence, solidarity, self-interest, aggregate happiness, justice, right to life, or to full product of one's labor, or to full value of one's labor, those are all ethical theories, virtue theories, consequentalist and deontological theories.

[Lowtech]

I don't understand how something that is physical, like an asset, say a house or a bit of land, can be a "social construct".

The ownership of the asset is the social construct. Assets do not produce value, they derive or transfer value from someone to the owner. The condition that allows assets to do this is artificial. The rich have encoded into law magical things called assets that allow the rich unregulated welfare that is funded by the labor of the worker.

[Lowtech]

You do realise that utilitarianism is an ethical theory?


If you think that we have that right per se, then you're espousing a deontological ethical theory, if you think that we have that right because of the benefit that having that right brings, then you're espousing some consequentialist ethical theory.


Why are those problems? Why are they bad? Any reason you can have to opposse such things will be an ethical one. Benevolence, solidarity, self-interest, aggregate happiness, justice, right to life, or to full product of one's labor, or to full value of one's labor, those are all ethical theories, virtue theories, consequentalist and deontological theories.

Global economics is hardly a theory. And I dont have "reasons to oppose" I have shown plutocratic rule to be economically invalid.

The real economic process is the converting of resources into usable items and materials. This basic process does not require, money, markets or the rich.

Capitalism has never had a logical standing, What it has is Neoliberalism garbage invented to legitimize economic subjugation the few impose on the majority.

[Remus Bleys]

Global economics is hardly a theory. And I dont have "reasons to oppose" I have shown plutocratic rule to be economically invalid.

The real economic process is the converting of resources into usable items and materials. This basic process does not require, money, markets or the rich.

Capitalism has never had a logical standing, What it has is Neoliberalism garbage invented to legitimize economic subjugation the few impose on the majority.
Again, why should we do the most sufficient thing?
Because utilitarianism.

[liberlict]

The ownership of the asset is the social construct. Assets do not produce value, they derive or transfer value from someone to the owner. The condition that allows assets to do this is artificial. The rich have encoded into law magical things called assets that allow the rich unregulated welfare that is funded by the labor of the worker.

Ahhh. Gotcha.

[Lowtech]

Again, why should we do the most sufficient thing?
Because utilitarianism.

i have an extensive response to you, that is well beyond the scope or topic of this thread so i gave it it's own here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-economically-invalid-t182804/index.html?p=2654838#post2654838)

[Sotionov]

Global economics is hardly a theory. And I dont have "reasons to oppose" I have shown plutocratic rule to be economically invalid.
Invalid for what? It is perfectly valid for enriching the capitalists. You oppose that validness of the economy, but don't want to answer why.


The real economic process is the converting of resources into usable items and materials. This basic process does not require, money, markets or the rich. So? It not requiring it making those things bad? Eating is a physiological process of converting food into nutrients that sustain the body. This basic process doesn't require cakes, juices or chefs. Does that mean that I should eat cakes, drink juices, that we should abolish all such stuff, and also abolish chefs? I'm not defending capitalism, I'm just point out the nonsensicality of your 'argument' against it.


Capitalism has never had a logical standing, What it has is Neoliberalism garbage invented to legitimize economic subjugation the few impose on the majority.Slogans don't argument your position. You still haven't answered the question why oppose capitalism.

[Lowtech]

Invalid for what? It is perfectly valid for enriching the capitalists. You oppose that validness of the economy, but don't want to answer why.i have provided "why" in nearly every post where i call capitalism economically invalid. but i am happy to oblige you with the answer again.

the economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization. everyone in a civilization contributes to or benefits from the economy in some fashion and that economy is only as sufficient as the input it's provided minus the consumption of the actors. it is economically invalid for a group to consume the majority of value while producing no value at all, yet this is exactly what the rich do. everything written in support of capitalism have been created to mitigate the adversity capitalism produces, while the actual function of capitalism, when observed, fails to validate itself economically
So? It not requiring it making those things bad? Eating is a physiological process of converting food into nutrients that sustain the body. This basic process doesn't require cakes, juices or chefs. Does that mean that I should eat cakes, drink juices, that we should abolish all such stuff, and also abolish chefs? I'm not defending capitalism, I'm just point out the nonsensicality of your 'argument' against it.your analogy doesn't match my reasoning at all. but i will play your silly little game. your comments would better match my reasoning in some alternate reality where cakes, juices or chefs produced no value while subjecting people to wage slavery and poverty. but we don't live in a world where your above comment makes sense.
Slogans don't argument your position. You still haven't answered the question why oppose capitalism.i haven't explained an opposition to capitalism. i simply expose it's inability to function as a legitimate economic system. now, do you have any useful input for me, or more insubstantial criticism?

[Sotionov]

the economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization.Says who? Obviously in our system economy is utiliy whose intented purpose is to enrich the owners and exploit the poor, and it's doing a good job at, the exploiter are eve making the most of the poor tolerate such a system. Why should someone accept your opinion?


it is economically invalid for a group to consume the majority of value while producing no value at allWhy would it be economically invalid?


your comments would better match my reasoning in some alternate reality where cakes, juices or chefs produced no value while subjecting people to wage slavery and poverty.They produce no value to the process of eating (a physiological process of converting food into nutrients that sustain the body) but waste one's money, produce obesity and all kinds diseases related to it; therefore we should abolish cakes, juices and chefs.

[Lowtech]

Says who?says everyone dependent on global economics.

the economy is something we all depend on, a public utility (an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service), and it in turn depends on our proper participation (work). proper participation offsets our consumption. and since this utility has enough economic value propagated within it to sustain everyone, there is no economic basis to limiting resources to the rich. especially as the rich produce no value.
Obviously in our system economy is utiliy whose intented purpose is to enrich the owners and exploit the poor, and it's doing a good job at, the exploiter are eve making the most of the poor tolerate such a system. Why should someone accept your opinion?direct observation of capitalism is not an opinion. capitalism is not itself an economic system, rather it deviates from or manipulates the real economic process. plutocratic society would not exist without the introduction of artificial scarcity (also refereed to as surplus value). all social construct surrounding money, markets and the consumerist paradigm are specifically used by the rich to manufacture consent for brutal plutocratic rule.
Why would it be economically invalid?endless why-loops is getting tiresome. why do you insist on debating economics while you have no concept of it?

it is economically invalid for a group to consume the majority of value while producing no value of their own - it should be obvious to you that if you do not produce value to offset your own consumption, you are dead weight economically and serve as a determent to everyone else. if the rich came to you and said "give me the majority of your livelihood because i believe myself to be superior to you and i believe you should suffer scarcity because you are the lower class" you would tell them to go fuck themselves, however when they manipulate the entire economic process for billions of people in order to manufacturer consent for their ridiculous request, it becomes the most devious charade in the history of mankind.
They produce no value to the process of eating (a physiological process of converting food into nutrients that sustain the body) but waste one's money, produce obesity and all kinds diseases related to it; therefore we should abolish cakes, juices and chefs.food is not the same as an economic actor; food is not out for it's own gain as are the rich. your analogy still makes no sense but is making me hungry.
why?see above
why?please review my previous posts
why?...

[Decolonize The Left]

Lowtech, I think the real point being made is that saying something is 'economically invalid' is equivalent to making a moral claim against it, you are merely phrasing it in non-moral terms.

[Sotionov]

says everyone dependent on global economics.
Argumentum ad populum?


direct observation of capitalism is not an opinion. capitalism is not itself an economic systemOnly if you redifine the term "economic system" to suit your opinion.


, rather it deviates from or manipulates the real economic process. If one accepts your authority on what "real economic processes" are.


all social construct surrounding money, markets and the consumerist paradigm are specifically used by the rich to manufacture consent for brutal plutocratic rule.So, is capitalism bad because it's brutal?


endless why-loops is getting tiresome.Restating your views is nor argumenting them. You still haven't concrenely said why do you think that capitalism is bad and why do you think that it should be abolished.


it is economically invalid for a group to consume the majority of value while producing no value of their ownWhy would it be?- it should be obvious to you that if you do not produce value to offset your own consumption, you are dead weight economically and serve as a determent to everyone else.


if the rich came to you and said "give me the majority of your livelihood because i believe myself to be superior to you and i believe you should suffer scarcity because you are the lower class" you would tell them to go fuck themselvesYeah, but they don't do that. They don't come to me at all. They're rich. I have to come to them and ask to work for them for a wage because they own all the means of production, and because I'm poor.


see aboveplease review my previous posts...You're not making any arguments against capitalism, you're just rephrasing your slogans.

[Tim Redd]

assets do not produce value Can't assets be used as capital and thus produce value?

[Lowtech]

Can't assets be used as capital and thus produce value?

that is a fantastic question. i would find that no, an asset used as capital would not produce value. 'the need' for capital is in actuality another condition of artificial scarcity, whereas one would believe they need x amount of capital to buy x amount of goods, but this is actually an inflated cost as everything in capitalism is sold at a profit. without the condition of artificial scarcity, that original cost as mentioned would be less.

also, for something to be an asset, it must take in more than it produces (profit). if something consumes more than it produces, any value it produces is negated mathematically; it effectively produces no value. this is true of all assets the rich "own".

[Lowtech]

Argumentum ad populum?blah blopulum?


Only if you redifine the term "economic system" to suit your opinion.will you humble yourself and explain exactly HOW my definition of an economic system is incorrect? please do not degenerate revleft into a youtube comment stream of shit.
If one accepts your authority on what "real economic processes" are.again, how am i incorrect? would you mind "articulating" your argument?
So, is capitalism bad because it's brutalre-read my posts.
Restating your views is nor argumenting them. You still haven't concrenely said why do you think that capitalism is bad and why do you think that it should be abolished.no one that can read would agree with you
Yeah, but they don't do that. They don't come to me at all. They're rich. I have to come to them and ask to work for them for a wage because they own all the means of production, and because I'm poor.if you've consoled yourself to just being poor and see no socio-economic reason for the condition you experience, contemplating economics just isn't for you.
You're not making any arguments against capitalism, you're just rephrasing your slogans.nothing i say will increase your IQ points, so i suggest you stop making an obvious moron of yourself.

[Sotionov]

If anyone is making a moron out of himself, it is the one that makes meaningless puerile reactions when someone points out to him that he used a fallacy.


blah blopulum?will you humble yourself and explain exactly HOW my definition of an economic system is incorrect?
Economic system is a system for producing, distributing and consuming goods and services. Capitalism does that. It is an economic system.

You haven't stated the reason to why you think that capitalism should be abolished.

The only thing near that was saying that it "failed" and you didn't answered my question- failed at what? Is capitalism bad because of injustice, unfairness, suffering, poverty, incorrect view on property?

You still haven't articulated your view as to why you think capitalism should be abolished, let alone argumented it- proved that capitalism necessarily produces the reason to why you think it's bad.

But first you need to give us that reason, then argument the position that one should accept such a reason, and then argument that the reason is the necessary consequence of capitalism.

[Lowtech]

If anyone is making a moron out of himself, it is the one that makes meaningless puerile reactions when someone points out to him that he used a fallacy.i'm not here to make enemies, but if you're going to walk around with your dick hat on, people are going to push your buttons. as far as "pointing out" that i used a fallacy is incorrect. people are very dependent on our economic system as a public utility. they being dependent on the economy is a fact, and not the same as me taking a popular opinion as true. copy pasta of latin doesn't help your position when you're wrong.
Economic system is a system for producing, distributing and consuming goods and services.you're a veritable machine gun of assumptions. you just said "goods" and "services." these things exist in market based economies. markets are not an axiom of economics and i am not debating market dynamics with you.
Capitalism does that.no, people do that. capitalism introduces the idea of profit so that the rich may derive economic value from the worker. no where is profit necessary in "producing, distributing and consuming goods and services"
It is an economic system.introducing profit in order to live off the labor of the worker is not a legitimate "economic system."
You haven't stated the reason to why you think that capitalism should be abolished.i have clearly shown why it is economically unnecessary and therefore it's ill effects are in turn unnecessary. how does that NOT justify abolishing something?
The only thing near that was saying that it "failed" and you didn't answered my question- failed at what? Is capitalism bad because of injustice, unfairness, suffering, poverty, incorrect view on property? mathematics has nothing to do with "fairness." the rich produce no value. their interference with the economic process has no mitigating factor. their ill effects on the rest of us is the same as that inflicted onto a host by a parasite.
You still haven't articulated your view as to why you think capitalism should be abolished, let alone argumented it- proved that capitalism necessarily produces the reason to why you think it's bad. i don't believe i can make it any simpler for you. i can't make you accept the truth.
But first you need to give us that reason, then argument the position that one should accept such a reason, and then argument that the reason is the necessary consequence of capitalism.observation of capitalism is accessible to everyone. read some history, study some anthropology. hell, read an economics text book.

then come back and tell me how is it economically valid for the rich to produce no value yet consume the majority of it?

[Sotionov]

Man, I'm trying to help you out here. I was a "libertarian" and became a libertarian socialist because of rationalist arguments. I'm just saying that you're not making any arguments, with what you're saying you're not going to make any rationalist consider libertarian socialism, and I want to help you make your arguments for LibSoc heard. Right now they are not heard, being that it's not even clear why you think that capitalism should be abolished. You have to make your position clear and concrete and then likewise clearly and concretely argument it.


as far as "pointing out" that i used a fallacy is incorrect. You gave a definition of economy as having a specific purpose. I asked "says who?", to which you answered "says everyone dependent on global economics." That's the fallacy that I mentioned.


you just said "goods" and "services." these things exist in market based economies.In every economy. In market economies goods and services become commodities. Goods are tangible products, such as food, tools, furniture etc. and services are intangible products such as fixing plumbing, providing protection, hairdressing etc. They exist in every economic system, good or bad.


no where is profit necessary in "producing, distributing and consuming goods and services"So what? Are you assuming that minimalism is an imperative, and that we have a duty to abolish everything that is not neccessary?


introducing profit in order to live off the labor of the worker is not a legitimate "economic system."Now you're talking- capitalism is not a legitimate economic system. Now all you have to do is give a reason as to why you think it's illegitimate- is it incompatible with fairness, solidarity, equality, freedom, aggregate happiness, legitimate notion of property, efficiency, spirituality, or something else? All these, and more, are reasons that people oppose capitalism. You haven't a formulated a concrete reason as to why you oppose capitalism. Please do.


i have clearly shown why it is economically unnecessary and therefore it's ill effects are in turn unnecessary. how does that NOT justify abolishing something?One, there is no imperative that everything unnecessary should be abolished. Two, this is the first time you talk about the "ill effects". You have to define why are they ill and argument it. Because obviously capitalism doesn't have ill effects on everyone, the rich are doing pretty well. Please consider the list of reasons I gave why most people oppose capitalism. Do you agree with some of those reasons?

[Lowtech]

Man, I'm trying to help you out here. I was a "libertarian" and became a libertarian socialist because of rationalist arguments. I'm just saying that you're not making any argumentswhere and what do you not consider an argument? you're so obscure with your comments, without my quotes, people would have no idea what you're referring to.
with what you're saying you're not going to make any rationalist consider libertarian socialismif a "rationalist" reads my comments and has your response, i don't much care, i am not here to educate arrogant idiots.
and I want to help you make your arguments for LibSoc heard. Right now they are not heard, being that it's not even clear why you think that capitalism should be abolished. You have to make your position clear and concrete and then likewise clearly and concretely argument it. again, where and what do you disagree with and why? sneering and offhandedly calling my reasoning slogans and not explaining why, makes your comments look bad, not mine.
You gave a definition of economy as having a specific purpose. I asked "says who?", to which you answered "says everyone dependent on global economics." That's the fallacy that I mentioned.right. you saw "says" and decided to over simplify my response. you side stepped "everyone dependent on global economics." i am proud that my comments are actually so concrete that you sidestep them.
In every economy. In market economies goods and services become commodities. Goods are tangible products, such as food, tools, furniture etc. and services are intangible products such as fixing plumbing, providing protection, hairdressing etc. They exist in every economic system, good or bad.incorrect. human usable items and materials are not identical to products/goods/services. things made for and in the context of markets are not items made for use value. it is important to make this distinction because the survival of capitalism is contingent on proponents' ability to embed capitalism into economics; i.e. defining economics based on supply, demand and the need for capital. if you and others cannot successfully defend markets as an axiom of economics, you in turn cannot validate capitalism.
So what? Are you assuming that minimalism is an imperative, and that we have a duty to abolish everything that is not neccessary?we do have a duty to abolish something unnecessary when the thing unnecessary produces hunger, poverty, wage slavery, war and economic inequality. did someone just randomly sit you in front of revleft and you're trying to figure out what it is we're all talking about?
Now you're talking- capitalism is not a legitimate economic system. Now all you have to do is give a reason as to why you think it's illegitimate- is it incompatible with fairness, solidarity, equality, freedom, aggregate happiness, legitimate notion of property, efficiency, spirituality, or something else? All these, and more, are reasons that people oppose capitalism. You haven't a formulated a concrete reason as to why you oppose capitalism. Please do. i have clearly explained my position here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2654763#post2654763), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2654479#post2654479)and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2653530#post2653530).
One, there is no imperative that everything unnecessary should be abolished. Two, this is the first time you talk about the "ill effects". You have to define why are they ill and argument it. Because obviously capitalism doesn't have ill effects on everyone, the rich are doing pretty well. Please consider the list of reasons I gave why most people oppose capitalism. Do you agree with some of those reasons? you make very little sense. i have clearly said many times that the rich produce no value yet they consume the majority of it. of course its very good for them, the issue isn't who capitalism is good for, the issue is that it is inadequate for the whole of mankind and has no mitigating factor.

i'm glad you're content with playing forum games while capitalism destroys our planet and puts us into a volatile adolescence as a species that we likely will not survive.

if you really want to "help" me, re-read my posts and when you understand my position, re-write it so its sound in the eyes of forum-folk that use all the latin logical fallacy things.

[Baseball]

.incorrect. human usable items and materials are not identical to products/goods/services. things made for and in the context of markets are not items made for use value. it is important to make this distinction because the survival of capitalism is contingent on proponents' ability to embed capitalism into economics; i.e. defining economics based on supply, demand and the need for capital. if you and others cannot successfully defend markets as an axiom of economics, you in turn cannot validate capitalism.

Of course such items are produced for "use" in a capitalist community. That is the whole point of production. Consumers do not purchase goods and services for which they have no "use." In a capitalist community, that translates as a capitalist not accruing profit on produced goods or provided services.

[Decolonize The Left]

Of course such items are produced for "use" in a capitalist community. That is the whole point of production. Consumers do not purchase goods and services for which they have no "use." In a capitalist community, that translates as a capitalist not accruing profit on produced goods or provided services.

Incorrect. People buy things they have no use for all the time. For example, why buy another car when you already have one? Or another toaster, or another computer? You have no "use" for the secondary item which is redundant as the first is perfectly capable of performing whatever function you need.

People buy these things due to the "symbol value" rather than the "use value" of the item. Example: A Honda drives just as good, if not better than, a BMW or a Lexus or a Benz. Why buy the other cars? And why buy them after you already own a Honda? Not because they have any use, they don't - your Honda is as useful as you need it to be. They buy the other cars because those cars represent a symbol of success.

Capitalists profit off underpaying labor for the value of that labor themselves; whatever they sell the product for afterwards is secondary to the fact that the real profit comes in the production process when the wage slips are paid out.

[Baseball]

Incorrect. People buy things they have no use for all the time. For example, why buy another car when you already have one? Or another toaster, or another computer? You have no "use" for the secondary item which is redundant as the first is perfectly capable of performing whatever function you need.

People buy these things due to the "symbol value" rather than the "use value" of the item. Example: A Honda drives just as good, if not better than, a BMW or a Lexus or a Benz. Why buy the other cars? And why buy them after you already own a Honda? Not because they have any use, they don't - your Honda is as useful as you need it to be. They buy the other cars because those cars represent a symbol of success.

You do not know this. This is nothing more than your judgement, based upon what you need, and do not need. It is not true for all people, for all time.

And even if true for some people, for some time, what exactly does socialism do about it?

[Decolonize The Left]

You do not know this. This is nothing more than your judgement, based upon what you need, and do not need. It is not true for all people, for all time.

And even if true for some people, for some time, what exactly does socialism do about it?

No, actually it is true. There is no qualitative difference in "needs" between a Honda and a BMW: what you need is a vehicle. That is, a structure with wheels and an engine to move you around. You don't "need" a BMW, ever. You want one.

You need to learn about how to separate your wants from your needs.

[Baseball]

No, actually it is true. There is no qualitative difference in "needs" between a Honda and a BMW: what you need is a vehicle. That is, a structure with wheels and an engine to move you around. You don't "need" a BMW, ever. You want one.

You need to learn about how to separate your wants from your needs.

Yet again, that is YOUR judgement call on the subject, for YOU.
It is a perfectly rational judgement on your part.

And yet again, what does socialism propose to do about it?

[Decolonize The Left]

Yet again, that is YOUR judgement call on the subject, for YOU.
It is a perfectly rational judgement on your part.

No, it isn't my judgement; needs are not subjective (wants are). Needs are objective: food, water, warmth, shelter as basis. Expanded to: work, clothing, transportation, health, safety, etc...

So you may need a car because there aren't any buses near you and you can't walk to work and get there on time. That is an objective need. But you don't need a BMW. That is a subjective want. Make sense?

And yet again, what does socialism propose to do about it?[/QUOTE]

Do about what? Needs, wants, or symbol value?

[Baseball]

Do about what? Needs, wants, or symbol value?

About the problem of a person "wanting" a BMW, but in somebody else's considered opinion not really "needing" a BMW.

[tuwix]

About the problem of a person "wanting" a BMW, but in somebody else's considered opinion not really "needing" a BMW.

In higher phase of communism using a BMW will be "accordin to the needs' of individual.

[Sotionov]

human usable items and materials are not identical to products/goods/services.
Yes, they are.

In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), a good is a material that satisfies human wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Want). A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property) (also called goods) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29), which are non-physical.

In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wants) or needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needs).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities#cite_note-1) Economic commodities comprise goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29).


if you and others cannot successfully defend markets as an axiom of economicsMarkets per se (for goods and services) not being oppressive and exploitative are nothing to be abolished, and it is you who advocates their abolition has to argument such advocacy. Note that markets can exist without any oppression or exploitation, as in mutualsm and anarcho-individualism.


we do have a duty to abolish something unnecessary when the thing unnecessary produces hunger, poverty, wage slavery, war and economic inequality.Finally, something that looks like an argument against capitalism. Couldn't you say this right away? Capitalism is bad because existance of the rich produces hunger, poverty and war for a lot of people. That's a concrete view about why capitalism is bad, and this is the first time that you articulated it.

When someone asks you "why should we abolish capitalism?" saying "basic economic process doens't need the rich" is not an answer. It's going to make every sane person wonder "wtf is this guy talking about, who cares about what the basic economic process needs".

But when if you were to say "it produces poverty and hunger and war" and argument your positions, people are going to think "well, this guy has a point, hunger and poverty and war are bad things, and if capitalism produces them, then let's abolish capitalism".

Not the average worker, not any philosopher or even any economist, man, virtually no one is going to be like "yeah, this guy is totally right- the rich are unnecessary to the basic economical process of converting recourses into materials, so let's abolish capitalism".


i have clearly said many times that the rich produce no value yet they consume the majority of it.And you didn't say once why you think that is bad, until now.

[Decolonize The Left]

About the problem of a person "wanting" a BMW, but in somebody else's considered opinion not really "needing" a BMW.

That want is dependent upon modern capitalism and the production of symbol value. When the means of production are in the hands of the working class this will necessitate a new set of values and standards. "Luxury vehicles" are a product of modern capitalism and hence human desires for them are dependent upon this economic context.

[Baseball]

That want is dependent upon modern capitalism and the production of symbol value. When the means of production are in the hands of the working class this will necessitate a new set of values and standards. "Luxury vehicles" are a product of modern capitalism and hence human desires for them are dependent upon this economic context.

Why, when the "means of production are in the hands of the working class" will this "necessitate a new set of values and standards"? How will this come about?

[Rafiq]

More specifically, when the current mode of production is replaced, it will necessiate a new set of values and standards because the basis of life itself resides within the mode of production, all values which are not useful to the fulfillment of capital were done away with and replaced. The enlightenment did not precede capitalism.

[Lowtech]

Yes, they are.

In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), a good is a material that satisfies humanagain, within the context and function of a market, goods or commodities are designed foremost for exchange value, not to meet need. this is why iphones can't feed or house people, yet more are produced each day than people are being born.
wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Want). A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property) (also called goods) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29), which are non-physical.you are describing market dynamics. markets are not an axiom of economics.


In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wants) or needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needs).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities#cite_note-1) Economic commodities comprise goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29).i am not debating market dynamics with you.


Markets per se (for goods and services) not being oppressive and exploitative are nothing to be abolished, and it is you who advocates their abolition has to argument such advocacy. Note that markets can exist without any oppression or exploitation, as in mutualsm and anarcho-individualism.in the context of abolishing capitalism, yes, markets should be abolished being that capitalism requires markets and markets foster capitalist sociology.
Finally, something that looks like an argument against capitalism. Couldn't you say this right away?couldn't you read or at least sample the body of human history? i am not required to fill-in the gaps in your knowledge of capitalism and it's role in history.
Capitalism is bad because existance of the rich produces hunger, poverty and war for a lot of people. That's a concrete view about why capitalism is bad, and this is the first time that you articulated it.correction, the first time i filled in the gaps in your understanding.
When someone asks you "why should we abolish capitalism?" saying "basic economic process doens't need the rich" is not an answer. It's going to make every sane person wonder "wtf is this guy talking about, who cares about what the basic economic process needs". my reasoning, terms and verbiage is a direct answer to neoliberalism, which attempts to mitigate or excuse the ill effects of capitalism.
But when if you were to say "it produces poverty and hunger and war" and argument your positions, people are going to think "well, this guy has a point, hunger and poverty and war are bad things, and if capitalism produces them, then let's abolish capitalism".suggestion well taken, i agree i should take into account the lay person.
Not the average worker, not any philosopher or even any economist, man, virtually no one is going to be like "yeah, this guy is totally right- the rich are unnecessary to the basic economical process of converting recourses into materials, so let's abolish capitalism".people are very subconsciously aware that capitalism is very dire thing. they toil away waiting for Friday, they hope for more time with family and they distrust the plutocracy. organizing into unions, protesting. it is capitalist's ability to obscure the real economic process and make us believe markets are themselves economics that has secured capitalism up until now.
And you didn't say once why you think that is bad, until now.correction, i haven't addressed your ignorance until now.

[Sotionov]

you are describing market dynamics.
No. Goods and services exist also in communistic economies.


in the context of abolishing capitalism, yes, markets should be abolished being that capitalism requires markets and markets foster capitalist sociology.You are wrong on both accounts. Capitalism can exist without markets (as in pure state capitalism), and markets can exist without capitalism (as in anarcho-individualism and mutualism).


correction, the first time i filled in the gaps in your understanding.So, you're "argument" is based on people assuming the same thing you are and them filling themselves the gap between your "the capitalists are not neccessary" and "so, let's abolish capitalism". That's great if you're talking with the people already agreeing with you, but I don't see the point in that.

If you want to convince anyone who's not in advance for abolition of capitalism, you're going to have to yourself make the effort to logically connect the premise "the capitalists are not neccessary" to the conclusion "so, let's abolish capitalism" because leaving them like that without any connection, assuming that people will read your mind and know what you mean, only makes you looks like an idiot and you're going to get laughted at. Whereas if you explain the concrete reasons why capitalism should be abolished and argument them, people might consider the position that capitalism should be abolished.


suggestion well taken, i agree i should take into account the lay person.Well, if you want capitalism abolished, yes. It's not the dozen people who agree with your arbitrary and pointless redefinitions of economic terms that are going to overthrow capitalism or run socialism, it's the average Joe that's going to do both.


people are very subconsciously aware that capitalism is very dire thing. they toil away waiting for Friday, they hope for more time with family and they distrust the plutocracy. organizing into unions, protesting.And we need to adress their concerns. Explain how capitalism intrinsically makes such conditions, how it's possible for them to function without the ruling and exploiting classes. You don't go around tellig what "the basic economic proceess needs" they're not going to f*cking care, even if they have a PhD in economy.


correction, i haven't addressed your ignorance until now.
Being condecending after making an idiot of yourself so many times doesn't help you. When you make a conclusion from a single premise the one that tells you that the conclusion doesn't follow isn't ignorant, he's the only one taking you seriously enough to talk to you after such shocking display of ignorance of the rules of inference. The conclusion "we should abolish capitalism" is non-sequitur to the premise "the rich are not neccessary for conversion of resources to usables", no conclusion can follow from a single premise, you are not familiar with the basic laws of logic, i.e. basic laws of thinking.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why, when the "means of production are in the hands of the working class" will this "necessitate a new set of values and standards"? How will this come about?

Social standards and values emerge from the the productive forces of a society, specifically from the mode of production. So when this fundamental change happens (capitalism to socialism/communism/whatever) what we are talking about is a change in this mode of production. It follows that the standards and values of that society will change as a consequence.

[Lowtech]

No. Goods and services exist also in communistic economies.if you're not lying yet, you're just stupid.

no. goods and services are specific to the paradigm of markets, not to the real economic process.

e.g. if you create an item yourself for your own use, it is not a good; a good being specifically in the sense of a product/item otherwise used in exchange within the context of a market. if you made something for the use of another out of social interdependence, that is not the same as producing a good in order to derive value (profit) out of market based exchange. you may continue to try, but you have yet to successfully embed markets into economics.
You are wrong on both accounts. Capitalism can exist without markets (as in pure state capitalism), and markets can exist without capitalism (as in anarcho-individualism and mutualism).now this is sly. but still insufficient. you and i are debating regarding global caitalism; the real world example of plutocractic exploitation. if you're going to argue that "state capitalism" is the same as global market capitalism, you will need to do more than simply point out that they're both exploitation, you will need to show they are functionally the same. otherwise you linking them simply based on the use of the word "capitalism" is rhetorical semantics. you are correct that exploitation itself does not require markets, however capitalism in every accepted definition, as it is now, based on markets and the use of money is accurate to all my comments.

So, you're "argument" is based on people assuming the same thing you are and them filling themselves the gap between your "the capitalists are not neccessary" and "so, let's abolish capitalism". That's great if you're talking with the people already agreeing with you, but I don't see the point in that.

If you want to convince anyone who's not in advance for abolition of capitalism, you're going to have to yourself make the effort to logically connect the premise "the capitalists are not neccessary" to the conclusion "so, let's abolish capitalism" because leaving them like that without any connection, assuming that people will read your mind and know what you mean, only makes you looks like an idiot and you're going to get laughted at. Whereas if you explain the concrete reasons why capitalism should be abolished and argument them, people might consider the position that capitalism should be abolished.incorrect, my arguments have always been that the rich manipulate the real economic process in order to derive economic value from the working class. i have explained in various ways that the rich do not produce value. they do not offset their own consumption. also their exploitation of the rest of humanity is academic and historically documented. all formal schools of economics have made naked the very function of monetary systems. to argue against my reasoning is to argue against the very mathematics of capitalism itself.

you persume that the history of this exploitation is something that i need to organize, annotate and explain to you in order to "articulate" an argument. do i really need to bring you up to speed before we can have a legitimate conversation?
Well, if you want capitalism abolished, yes. It's not the dozen people who agree with your arbitrary and pointless redefinitions of economic terms that are going to overthrow capitalism or run socialism, it's the average Joe that's going to do both.it isn't so much that i want to abolish capitalism as much as i wish to one day see the end of capitalists' interference in the real economic process.
And we need to adress their concerns. Explain how capitalism intrinsically makes such conditions, how it's possible for them to function without the ruling and exploiting classes. You don't go around tellig what "the basic economic proceess needs" they're not going to f*cking care, even if they have a PhD in economy. the term is the "real economic process." and if you've missed it, review my posts.
Being condecending after making an idiot of yourself so many times doesn't help you. When you make a conclusion from a single premise the one that tells you that the conclusion doesn't follow isn't ignorant, he's the only one taking you seriously enough to talk to you after such shocking display of ignorance of the rules of inference. The conclusion "we should abolish capitalism" is non-sequitur to the premise "the rich are not neccessary for conversion of resources to usables", no conclusion can follow from a single premise, you are not familiar with the basic laws of logic, i.e. basic laws of thinking.please, continue to over simply my comments out of need to create a strawman. but please, should you ever consider actually understanding my reasoning, please review:

1. the rich do not produce value
2. the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items
3. this basic process does not require markets, money nor the rich
4. we do not require money to understand the merit of our deeds
5. markets are not an axiom of economics

and a special one just for you:

6. for those unfamiliar with plutocratic exploitation and capitalism's role in human history, please check out a library book, search google, or ask a friend about economic inequality, imperialism, socio-economic theory, before attempting to debate with me

[Sotionov]

goods and services are specific to the paradigm of markets, not to the real economic process.No. In market systems goods and services become commodities (bought and sold). In communistic systems goods and services are not commodities (bought and sold) but are distributed accoding to need. They're still goods and services.


if you're going to argue that "state capitalism" is the same as global market capitalism, you will need to do more than simply point out that they're both exploitation, you will need to show they are functionally the same. otherwise you linking them simply based on the use of the word "capitalism" is rhetorical semantics. you are correct that exploitation itself does not require markets, however capitalism in every accepted definition, as it is now, based on markets and the use of money is accurate to all my comments.No. You're making the mistake of thinking that the existing capitalism is the only possible capitalism, which it isn't. As I said- a state capitalist system is one without both money and markets, and still is capitalistic- the nomenklatura is the ruling and exploiting class that pays wages to the proletarian population in natura.


you persume that the history of this exploitation is something that i need to organize, annotate and explain to you in order to "articulate" an argument.Yes. If that was something that is generally accepted in advance, we'd have a world full of anti-capitalists, and we'd have socialism by now. But we don't. Because people are not convinced that capitalism should be abolished. That's why we anti-capitalists need to convice them. And we are not going to do that by giving them irrelevant, meaningless theoretical arguments that are in themselves fallacious and invalid, that don't say, let alone explain why capitalism should be abolished, and don't relate to people in any way.


the term is the "real economic process."No one fucking cares. No one.



1. the rich do not produce value
2. the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items
3. this basic process does not require markets, money nor the rich
4. we do not require money to understand the merit of our deeds
5. markets are not an axiom of economicsNone of which says that we should abolish capitalism. You're "argumentation" is actually helping capitalism, by making us real anti-capitalist look pointless, confused and useless, because your "arguments" are excatly like that. Here's 5 alternative paths of argumentation that are rational and that are, when explained, going to get people interested in anti-capitalism:

1. the rich exploit us, their riches come from theft, they didn't earn the riches they have, and they use those riches to blackmail us into further enriching them. we the working people should be the owners of the full fruits of our labor

2. we the working people create everything, yet the rich have the most of what is made, and we have just a tiny portion of it, that's unfair and unjust

3. as long as that exploitation and injustice exist, there will be poverty and all the evils that come along with it- suffering, crime and violence, disease broken families and friendships, etc.

4. we can function without the ruling classes, we do it in our private lives, people do it economically in coops, entire societies in Ukraine and Spain have proved that it is possible.

5. competition and the profit motive are bad because they produces externalities like polution, deforesting, overfishing, poverty, low-quality and dangerous products, they also foster blind selfishness, we need to cooperate and develop solidarity because it is in everyone self-interest to be safe from poverty and overuse of natural resources, and to live in an healthy environment.

These are sane, real argument that say concretely why capitalism is bad and why it should be abolished. Such arguments when elaborated and discussed with people make them consider socialism.

[Baseball]

Social standards and values emerge from the the productive forces of a society, specifically from the mode of production. So when this fundamental change happens (capitalism to socialism/communism/whatever) what we are talking about is a change in this mode of production. It follows that the standards and values of that society will change as a consequence.


It is true that a BMW is a luxury when compared to a Honda.
Its also true that a Honda is a luxury when compared to a Model T.

Your explanations misses the point. Even within a socialist community, no matter to what extent "values" changed due to changes in modes of production, such judgements and valuations will still need to be made.
Unless everyone drives Trabants. Or dresses in Mao denim.

[Baseball]

More specifically, when the current mode of production is replaced, it will necessiate a new set of values and standards because the basis of life itself resides within the mode of production, all values which are not useful to the fulfillment of capital were done away with and replaced. The enlightenment did not precede capitalism.


Modes of production change because values change because modes of production change. Sounds rather circular.

As an aside, such a sketch presupposes a "gradual" development of socialism. Such a view on the growth and spread of socialism is certainly not universally subscribed to.

[Lowtech]

No. In market systems goods and services become commodities (bought and sold). In communistic systems goods and services are not commodities (bought and sold) but are distributed according to need. They're still goods and services.

regardless of endless semantics to get your trololol entertainment, it is a reality that resources are currently utilized in a manner designed to enhance the ability for the rich to derive economic value. (this mechanism, also known as assets, ownership of the means of production, surplus value, profit, is a mechanism the rich use to derive economic value from the working class.) this fact makes it important to make the distinction between usable materials and items and what you call commodities. this is my stance on "goods" and "services." we must make a distinction between how markets utilize resources and how humans utilize resources, as these are very different processes, and this has caused all socioeconomic problems. if this truth makes little impact on you, go watch more jersey shore.


No. You're making the mistake of thinking that the existing capitalism is the only possible capitalism, which it isn't. As I said- a state capitalist system is one without both money and markets, and still is capitalistic- the nomenklatura is the ruling and exploiting class that pays wages to the proletarian population in natura.

i am making no mistake. the mistake is your assertion that i refer to some vague thing only labeled as "capitalism." i have explained that 1. the rich produce no value and 2. they derive economic value from the working class and 3. they obscure and legitimize this process within the context of a market, the use of money and ownership. THAT is what i have shown to be economically invalid not a vague notion of "capitalism" that is vulerable to your rethorical semantics. you're better at forum games than you are with legitimate conversations on topics like socio-economic theory, sociology, anthropology or economics. and when someone calls you out on it, you de-evolve before our eyes.



Yes. If that was something that is generally accepted in advance, we'd have a world full of anti-capitalists, and we'd have socialism by now. But we don't. Because people are not convinced that capitalism should be abolished. That's why we anti-capitalists need to convice them. And we are not going to do that by giving them irrelevant, meaningless theoretical arguments that are in themselves fallacious and invalid, that don't say, let alone explain why capitalism should be abolished, and don't relate to people in any way.

perhaps in your magical world people are given a packet on capitalism and economics which they review and by popularity, people partake in capitalism. but as reality would show, you have a dismal, crude, or rather i say, non-existent understanding of human sociology.

people are born subjected to artificial scarcity. metaphorically, they emerge to see a sign that says "be employed or you will starve," so they become employees. they buy what is presented to them, on shelves, advertisements, all the while, behind the scenes, everything is sold above production cost. this relavation must be sought, otherwise, the masses stay oblivious to economic subjugation. and the history of agricultural societies and early capitalist/plutocratic socieites like that of ancient rome show that people have long been assimilated this way into plutocratic society. in your particular case, you haven't chosen capitalism, you simply have chosen to be conformist.


No one fucking cares. No one.

really? no one? why do you keep coming back to revleft, Neo? (Matrix refrence)


None of which says that we should abolish capitalism. You're "argumentation" is actually helping capitalism, by making us real anti-capitalist look pointless, confused and useless, because your "arguments" are excatly like that.

people that trololol in forums are who are helping capitalism. i'm not debating for your sake, "i'm doing it for them"


Here's 5 alternative paths of argumentation that are rational and that are, when explained, going to get people interested in anti-capitalism:

1. the rich exploit us, their riches come from theft, they didn't earn the riches they have, and they use those riches to blackmail us into further enriching them. we the working people should be the owners of the full fruits of our labor

2. we the working people create everything, yet the rich have the most of what is made, and we have just a tiny portion of it, that's unfair and unjust

3. as long as that exploitation and injustice exist, there will be poverty and all the evils that come along with it- suffering, crime and violence, disease broken families and friendships, etc.

4. we can function without the ruling classes, we do it in our private lives, people do it economically in coops, entire societies in Ukraine and Spain have proved that it is possible.

5. competition and the profit motive are bad because they produces externalities like polution, deforesting, overfishing, poverty, low-quality and dangerous products, they also foster blind selfishness, we need to cooperate and develop solidarity because it is in everyone self-interest to be safe from poverty and overuse of natural resources, and to live in an healthy environment.

These are sane, real argument that say concretely why capitalism is bad and why it should be abolished. Such arguments when elaborated and discussed with people make them consider socialism. question. how do your versions hold up to neoliberalists? or people who advocate reganomics? or the average joe that says "the rich create jobs."

you see, the reason i use the terminology i do is because they are are not obscured by sociological terms that are vulnerable to semantics.

for example, where you use words like "exploitation," "theft," or "earn," they are points that can be manipulated by neoliberalists. arguing points where they may tie you up with having to defend the definitions of which. probably the most important part of my reasoning is the distinction that markets are not an axiom of economics. as long as we accept markets and market dynamics as fundamental to economics how can we advocate the notion that the rich must be overthrown socio-economically?

like the term "don't hate the player, hate the game" which is the same as saying "don't hate the rich, hate markets" (where markets are taken to be itself economics)

"markets" are so intrinsically linked to capitalism, if you are compelled to get rid of one, you must get rid of the other.

[Sotionov]

i have explained that 1. the rich produce no value and 2. they derive economic value from the working class and 3. they obscure and legitimize this process within the context of a market, the use of money and ownership. THAT is what i have shown to be economically invalid not a vague notion of "capitalism" that is vulerable to your rethorical semantics.
Which is a pointless topic, being that the rich happen to use the markets and money, but they don't have to, because they can maintain their position without markets or money. Therefore, it is not the market or money that should be attacked, but social stratification itself.


you see, the reason i use the terminology i do is because they are are not obsucred by sociological terms that are vulnerable to semantics.Are you kidding me? You are redefining terms as it fits you and use them in the meaning that no one uses them. No one calls production for use "real economic process" and no one accepts that mode of production as something good, something that is to be established because it is "real" and other modes of production are "false" and have unnecessary parts, but because they think that the production for use is more fair, that it will produce general happiness, etc. No one wants to abolish money and capitalism because "we don't need them" but because they're unjust, based on fraud and theft, because they're inefficient, etc.


as long as we accept markets and market dynamics as fundamental to economics how can we advocate the notion that the rich must be overthrown socio-economically?
Socialism per se has nothing to say about the market or money. Socialism was formulated as an ideology of political economy by the so called Ricardian socialists, and they didn't advocate the abolition of neither money nor markets, but of exploitation, that's the core of capitalism and it's injustice.


"markets" are so intrinsically linked to capitalism, if you are compelled to get rid of one, you must get rid of the other.That is not true, capitalism can exist perfectly fine without markets, it's then called "state capitalism" where the state is the sole capitalist, and it is even worse that way, because it's more tyrannical.

You should go trough the The Anarchist FAQ, and see what elaborated anti-capitalist reasons and arguments look like, and there you have nicely explained what exploitation is and how it relates to markets.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[Lowtech]

Which is a pointless topic, being that the rich happen to use the markets and money, but they don't have to, because they can maintain their position without markets or money. Therefore, it is not the market or money that should be attacked, but social stratification itself.

sure, the rich could decide to forgo money and police us all militarily. but they don't want us equating them to tyranny like that in the novel 1984 or the hunger games because that would be seeing them for what they are. for the 50 millionth time, the rich are dependent on markets and money to obscure and legitimize plutocratic rule.


Are you kidding me? You are redefining terms as it fits you and use them in the meaning that no one uses them. No one calls production for use "real economic process" and no one accepts that mode of production as something good, something that is to be established because it is "real" and other modes of production are "false" and have unnecessary parts, but because they think that the production for use is more fair, that it will produce general happiness, etc. No one wants to abolish money and capitalism because "we don't need them" but because they're unjust, based on fraud and theft, because they're inefficient, etc.

i found that the rich manipulate economics to suite themselves. there was no simple term for this so i found saying that they manipulate "the real economic process" to be suitable. language is organic. i'm sorry if that bothers you, word nazi. you must be aghast to find out no one speaks Latin anymore.

the reason words like "fraud, theft, inefficient" don't work is because those things are viewed from within the paradigm of our current collective understanding of of society/economics. the masses believe profitable = efficient, they believe theft means you took something from the "owner" and we live in a society constructed to allow someone to "own" vast amounts of value, which would simply be impossible without the fictional concept of money.



Socialism per se has nothing to say about the market or money. Socialism was formulated as an ideology of political economy by the so called Ricardian socialists, and they didn't advocate the abolition of neither money nor markets, but of exploitation, that's the core of capitalism and it's injustice.

Marxian theory has everything to say about markets and money. you have heard of Marx, right? and his observation of capitalism? damn, i have to tell you everything.

of course capitalism is unjust, but we must show how and why.


That is not true, capitalism can exist perfectly fine without markets, it's then called "state capitalism" where the state is the sole capitalist, and it is even worse that way, because it's more tyrannical.

again, show me how "state capitalism" is identical to the global capitalism we have today? yes, they are both forms of exploitation, but we have been arguing for days over how current plutocrats exploit humanity via markets. please continue to assert that exploitation does not require markets, of which i have not disputed. what i do dispute is how current plutocrats obscure and legitimize economic subjugation through the use of money and markets. glenn beck style word-linking doesn't work.


You should go trough the The Anarchist FAQ, and see what elaborated anti-capitalist reasons and arguments look like, and there you have nicely explained what exploitation is and how it relates to markets.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html and i would assume all of those anti-capitalists that wrote that faq are restricted members of an anti-capitalist forum like yourself since you are such a great representation of them?

[Sotionov]

the reason words like "fraud, theft, inefficient" don't work is because those things are viewed from within he paradigm of our current collective understanding of of society/economics.
That's not a reason to avoid them, but reclaim them. Socialism, libertarian, freedom, equality, democracy- all those words have also lost their meaning in mainstream discourse, but they have their etymological meaning that resounds in people's heads and that's why they are good. Why do you think that laissez-faire capitalists rarely use the precise term for their ideology "voluntaryism" but like to hijack the anarchist (anti-capitalist) term "libertarianism" for them? Because it has "liberty" in it, and people like liberty and it's good to love liberty. Likewise with the words theft and property. Capitalist say that when someone takes their legal possessions that's theft. We should be ok with that, we should say- no, the legal system that recognizes that as your possessions recognizes theft, because capitalist appropriation of "surplus-value" and of rents it fraud and theft. When the capitalists say that capitalism is rational and efficient, we should just let be ok with that, and make up some new obscure terms for our criticism of capitalism, we should oppose them, and explain that capitalism is neither rational nor efficient.


Marxian theory has everything to say about markets and money. you have heard of Marx right and his observation of capitalism?Only in the early theory, in the first tome of Capital, even then he admitted that his theory is contradictory, but he didn't know how to explain it, and he revised it later by the time of the third tome of Capital. Which is irrelevant, Marx is irrelevant to socialism, he was a technocrat and a state-capitalist, and his theory of class is fundamentally wrong.


of course capitalism is unjust, but we must show how and why.But you're not doing that. By taking about "real economic process" and "basic needs of the economic process" you're talking about meaningless concepts that don't relate to why capitalism is bad, and people are just wonder what the hell are you talking about and why should they care about that.


again, show me how "state capitalism" is identical to the global capitalism we have today?Why should I? I didn't claim that. I'm just telling you that your arguing against markets isn't arguing against capitalism, you're not arguing against the culprit, but against the means he uses. That would be like trying to convince someone that murder is good, and then just argue against knives, and only against knives. It's nonsensical. If murder can be done without the knife, and the knife can be used for good stuff, not just murder, it is totally pointless to argue against knives if you want to argue against murder.

[Lowtech]

That's not a reason to avoid them, but reclaim them. a great man once said if you cannot explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough and that rings true with economics. we must describe the failure of capitalism in the most simpliest way possible. words, concepts and ideas are easily manipulated if not made specific.


But you're not doing that. By taking about "real economic process" and "basic needs of the economic process" you're talking about meaningless concepts that don't relate to why capitalism is bad, and people are just wonder what the hell are you talking about and why should they care about that.

people see everyday the effect capitalism has on the whole of society. there are old terms like "the haves and have nots," "the grind," "working for the man" and our collective distaste for being under appreciated by employers and their inability to provide enough for people to live on. capitalism obscures the real economic process in such a way that people aren't able to link the symptoms to the cause.

if one realizes that the real economics process is the converting of raw resources into human usable materials and items, and that this doesn't require money markets or the rich, one will seek to learn how to convert resources into usable items versus seeking employment.

along with realizing the real economic process doesn't require the rich, one realizes plutocratic control is not something we need to tolerate.

with realizing that the rich produce no value, we can then see the rich do not "own" value in their bank accounts, the value they hoard belongs to those who produced it; the working class.

with realizing that the economy is a public utility, one understands the prioritization of resources should be based on need, not based on the wants of the few. and being that the economy's purpose is to sustain an entire civilization, we can reject the notion that economic inequality is to be tolerated.

simply because you are too boneheaded to understand the above does not mean my comments are untrue.




Why should I? I didn't claim that. I'm just telling you that your arguing against markets isn't arguing against capitalism, you're not arguing against the culprit, but against the means he uses. That would be like trying to convince someone that murder is good, and then just argue against knives, and only against knives. It's nonsensical. If murder can be done without the knife, and the knife can be used for good stuff, not just murder, it is totally pointless to argue against knives if you want to argue against murder.

so you're a knife rights reactionary? :p

yes you do need to show state capitalism to be the same as or closely similar to global capitalism we have today because your argument presents one to be an example of the other without a market. you're incorrect however, as even with their similarities in sociology (Lenin's belief that people require a "great man" like himself to organize efficiently) global capitalism today is exploitation specifically via markets/money, the other is exploitation of another kind.

i look forward to more "personal incredulity" from you.

[Sotionov]

a great man once said if you cannot explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough and that rings true with economics.You should take that advice. First you need to articulate your view, then explain it at all, and do it simply.


capitalism obscures the real economic process in such a way that people aren't able to link the symptoms to the cause.You are again babbling about meaningless things.


if one realizes that the real economics process is the converting of raw resources into human usable materials and items, and that this doesn't require money markets or the rich, one will seek to learn how to convert resources into usable items versus seeking employment.So, you're for the back-to-the-land movement? You're not making any sense. Your "real economic process" and talk about how "unneccessary" stuff have been added to it is nonsensical, obscure, irrelevant and totally pointless. Your "arguements" against capitalism are not arguments at all, you're talking past the topic, you are going to convince people that capitalism should be abolished just as much as someone would convince people that murder is bad because knives are unneccessary to the process of defending yourself. It's totally ludacrous.

Again, I have given you examples of how real arguments against capitalism look like here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2658447&postcount=97
and also, go trough The Anarchist FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[YaakaKhiladi]

Morality is the unique quality..!
It exists only in those who are civilized human beings...!
It is the behaviour of a man who is exposing himself in a good manner

[AustinBert]

Morality is something very powerful value in the society but in modern era it is only oral practice and is not practiced by the people as it is now became useless..!
Moral values are now very rare..!