Caj

"And what makes your "moral code" more objectively moral than any other "version" of morality?"

What I meant was, if you consider the changes in opinion as diferent moral codes, then there will be sereval versions of morality.

"So now you admit that all technology apart from innovated stone tools is "unnatural," and, since you opt for a more "natural" society, you must be opposed to modern technology. Ergo, you are a primitivist by your own logic. "

No, I have already answered this.

". . . Please don't tell me you're opposed to abortion."

Of course not.
What kind of anarchist would I be if I was?
I only said that to make you think.

"And you have already admitted that #cut for space# you a misogynistic reactionary."

These are already answered.

"I think you're on the wrong forum."

Yeah, this one has something I call "dictatorship of the admin".

"Humans gregariousness is not a consequence of morality. On the contrary, morality, both its social and biological aspects, are, in some sense, consequences of human gregariousness."

You are beggining to understand
The fact that today humans are inheretly social is a consequence of the historical need for humans to form groups to survive.

"Okay, then we are in agreement; all human behavior is ultimately reducible to egoism."

Yes, but this has nothing to do with classifying actions as egoistic and altruistic.

"I don't think the interaction of matter is completely random (on the large-scale, anyway) but subject to concrete, scientific laws."

That is metaphisical.

"Our moral conceptions are shaped by the society in which we live. Your moral objection to slavery is not due to an objective "moral code" any more than a typical ancient Egyptian's lack of moral objection to (or even moral support for) slavery was due to an objective "moral code.""

What you are describing is an opinion, "this gy thinks it is bad, this guy thinks it is good", the fact that in certain period of history the popular opinion towards slavery was diferent from what it is today has nothing to do with morality, if it did it would mean that me and my ancestors had diferent morality.

"Where?"

I phrased that wrong, I meant: I have justified my moral absolutist beliefs.

"If you deny that this is the case, please demonstrate how one can physically derive an "ought" form an "is.""

They are spelled diferently.


"Yes, since historical processes are deterministic, i.e., predictable (to a certain extent) and subject to general laws of development. "

History is influenced by a lot of factors, could one in the 12th century predict the french revolution in the 19th century?

Anyway, what does history have to do with my ability to make decisions.

"Then do you deny that society has any influence on our moral conceptions?"

It depends on what you mean by moral conceptions, if it is in the sence that a man of the 16th century might think that slavery was allright, and that today a man might think it is wrong, then no, but I consider these opinins, not morality.

"Then do you deny that society has any influence on our moral conceptions?"

Your scientific socialism sounds like absolute madness to me, giving power to a single party, you are just asking for an opressive state.

"The state was controlled by the proletariat through its party..."

You mean the proletariat was controled by their party.

"It wasn't until the working class was virtually destroyed in the course of the Civil War that all of these aspects of workers' control (both over the state and production) ceased. "

Which is not at all related to the fact that power curropts...

"Why has power not corrupted such individuals? Power continues to serve its function: pursue the class interests of the bourgeoisie."

The state and the bourgeosie have an aliance, it is not a case of one dominating the other, they need each other, the bourgeois finances the state, the state in return protects the bourgeois.
Power has not curropted the individuals in parlaiment because they do not have supreme power, nor the means to get it.

"I'm not opposed to a one-party state so long as the single party serves the interests of and is accountable to the proletariat.

The comparison to fascism is superficial, inappropriate, and unjustified."

It is a perfecly adjusted comparrison, both have a single party system, both have opressive state.

"So you're completely opposed to, not only parties, but organizations in general?"

No, since organization is necessary to have a society that is composed of more people than a small group (15 tops).

"You shouldn't insult your fellow anarchists with such an assertion. "

The fact that power curropts is one of the reasons one oposes the existance of state.

"... ideological dogmatists like you."

and like you.

"Like the de facto state of the Makhnovshchina. Totally followed "anarchist principles.""

It could not become de jure because if it were to declare itself as a state it would lose its popular support.

"Individual bourgeois and petty bourgeois can be socialists, but, as classes, both the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are opposed to socialism. "

I like how you always think in classes and never in individuals.

"Socialism expresses the class interests of the proletariat."

How do they know it is in their interests?

"Fascism is not a decision-making mechanism."

Indeed it isn't, but it has an opressive decision-making mechanism attached to it.

"Monarchy is not a decision-making mechanism either. "

#Same answer as above#

"If a de facto state wanted to become a de jure state, it's as simple as officially declaring itself a de jure state."

It is that easy if it does not ecounter obstacles, like other pretenders to power.