Bourgeoise liberalism is destructive and nihilst

Of course but if you are a straight heterosexual male the conservative ideology that is aimed at "small" capitalists is less oppressive and exploitative than bourgeoise liberalism and globalization and more appealing personally. This seems to me to be a more justifiable position than homosexuals/feminists who advocate mass exploitation and bourgeoise liberalism because they personally benefit from the anti-traditional socially liberal progressive aspects of bourgeoise liberalism whilst at the same time excusing mass exploitation.

Somehow it's ok if you're a women or a homosexual to excuse mass exploitation and globalisation if your interests are taken care of but if you are a heterosexual male excusing much smaller exploitation and traditional conservatism where *you're* interests are taken care of you are sexist and conservative. Even if in this hyopthetical example the man was working class and the feminist woman was say middle class.

Neither positions are good, they are both selfish. However it would seem to any rational thinking person that the anti-globalization and traditional position is less exploitative and more worthy of support. I don't care about homosexual rights/feminism. Big business being more accepting of women and homosexuals is meaningless to me. I think it was Trotsky who said his position towards homosexuals and other social liberal issues is that they were not worth talking about. Everyone should be free to do what they want but the most important thing is the material. Today bourgeoise liberals make social liberalism the talking point and emphasise a lot whilst mass-exploitation happens on an even bigger scale than the time of the October revolution or the French revolution and pseudo-leftist intellectuals sit around saying "well bourgeoise are really nice to gays...so they're ok...those traditional conservatives though advocating smaller exploitation...they are horrible". It's morally reprehensible.

Thatcher. Reagan. Conservative anti-globalization heroes? Also famous for deregulating, privatization, and union-busting. Some friends of the working class!

All you are doing is trying to find a justification for your disgusting and reactionary conservative social views, so you invented this shit. Conservative policies are even more harmful to the working class than liberal and this has been indisputably proven during the last 30 years.

No I'm saying that ideologically nativism, petty bourgeoise, reactionary traditionalists whatever oppose globalisation/mass exploitation ideologically. Traditional Conservatism is "moral" and ideological neo-liberalism is immoral. If you believe that "morality" reflects the interests of the ruling class then it is possible that since the 50's when capital flow became more liberal and labour became more free moving that Neo-liberalism attempts to make a new kind of "morality" that reflects the new mode of production. Here's an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs.

You could argue that traditional conservatives are just reactionary, semi-feudal, perhaps nostalgic and advocating a return to an older form of exploitation and ruling class ideology. However I disagree that morality is just a reflection of ruling class interests. I think if morality does exist objectively then it has to go back to the Judeo-Christian morality that is partly the foundation of Western civilization, i.e belief in God. This "morality" is arguably evolutionary, progressive and is based on love and perhaps a desire for humans to develop themselves. Most political ideologies and Western thinkers use moral language to some degree. Marx uses moral language, such as "exploitation", and clearly thought capitalism unjust. It seems to me that support for workers struggles, struggles for social justice, presuppose that there is just a thing as justice and injustice, and that presupposes a kind of ethical realism. If you try and create a new "morality", which is arguably what Neo-liberalism does, you are trying to come up with a new kind of morality under capitalism, which will inherently be inadequate and wrong.

Traditional Conservative ideology represents a stand against neo-liberalism and globalisation. Whilst I don't agree with traditional conservatism entirely, it is based on moral realism, which is the same philosophical moral realism that is interpreted by Marxists to believe exploitation is "unjust". Neo-liberalism is perhaps nihilist and philosophically immoral. For example, ideologically greed is "good", i.e that exploitation is good. Free-market ideology sees "society" as consumers, buyers. Gay marriage, social liberalism etc does not affect free-trade. Society being bogged down with tradition, nationalism and religion doesn't affect free trade. The old ruling class ideology is not needed anymore because the mode of production has changed. Some writers have called it the age of "The Self" and consumerism. In Neo-liberalism ideology "growth" and "trade" is moral realism and objective ethics. That is bad to the bone and no good will come of it.

You got a point, advocating mass exploitation and then covering up your crime by saying, "Well, I'm a cool dude cause I support gay and non-white rights". Actually, if they are supporting mass exploitation, then they're hurting non-whites, since most of your sweatshops are in non-white nations. Notice, that anti-imperalist groups hate liberals and conservatives with equal intensity, cause the non-white rights liberals espouse, only apply to non-whites living in 1st world nations. Actually, you could even argue that non-whites in 1st world nations (particularly blacks) still have it rough, even though much better than in the 3rd world.

So the job of communists should be to help the 1st world working class locate thier true enemy, so they're not bought off by imperalist schemes, so to speak. Obama being the biggest one.

Yes I agree.

In my opinion the "old" bourgeois morality and ideology (traditional conservatism) is based on ethical realism therefore "exploitation" is "morally wrong". When the old bourgeoisie exploited peoples they were violating their own bourgeoisie morality in theory.

The difference with the new neo-liberal "morality" if you like, is that the bourgeoise don't condemn themselves morally because neo-liberalism ideologically encourages exploitation. Liberal platitudes such as "tolerance", "respect" and "multiculturalism" don't presuppose some kind of moral realism like social conservative beliefs do. They advocate a "new" mode of production similar to how sexism and conservatism justified "comformity" to the old order. But sexist, reactionary socially conservative morals did not justify an "old" bourgeoise mode of production. Bourgeoise morality condemns the bourgeoise in theory for "exploitation". "Tolerance", "respect" and "multiculturalism" justify free flow of labour, the liberalization of capital flows, globalization, mass exploitation etc justifying a new mode of production and i theory justifying exploitation morally. If you advocate "tolerance", "respect" and "Multiculturalism" you are advocating the mode of production of a bourgeoisie that does not criticise itself for exploitation whereas if you advocate a traditional conservative morality you are advocating a form of justice where the bourgeoisie criticise themselves for being exploitative.

You could argue that a form of Marxism/real democracy/people power is the the old bourgeoise morality properly interpreted and realised. That bourgeoise morality has the ideological capacity for real social justice but because it is inherently hard to achieve because humans are greedy and selfish etc that it has not been successfully achieved. Thinkers such as Marx himself who used to moral language, that social reformists etc were trying to realise a "bourgeoise" morality.

You mentioned fascists. Here is my take on them:

Nazis don't really understand that "immigration and multi-culturalism" is in intergal part of the "buying off" off populations. For instance, they did a poll in Mexico. Despite the terrible effect of NAFTA, most Mexicans like the US, because they can go to the US to relieve poverty back home.


So fascists don't really understand capitalism. They want some kind of "fantasy land" where they can have thier cake and eat it too. They can't really ban immigration, because that would cause a massive Communist uprising, and Nazis hate Communists. How would they like all of Latin America to go red?? How would feel about immigration then?

Fascism is illegitimate because it's based on racial bigotry.

You could argue that the ideology of secular cosmopolitanism and neo-liberalism is a bringing together the values of the Enlightenment and the French revolution with capitalism. Tradition and religion represented an ideological stand against capitalism. Because the old traditional, perhaps religious bourgeoise derived their morality from pre-capitalist religion and a belief in God, movements for social justice and workers struggles arrived at the belief that exploitation was "wrong" because they also presupposed some kind of moral realism that has to come from a pre-capitalist religious morality, i.e belief in a God.

I think Marx was very confused about morality however you could argue as some French philosophers have that Marx's ideology and belief in " justice" had a basis in religious morality whether he was aware or not because everything goes back to morality - and morality has to go back to a belief in a God or not.

In my opinion one of the many reasons radical ideologies like Communism failed is because they attempted to drive God out of the world. Ideology and philosophy breaks down to morality, and morality has to come from either a belief in God or not. Neo-liberalism and secular cosmopolitanism attempts to drive God out of the world to justify mass exploitation which is more abhorrent than the French revolution that Edmund Burke opposed, and radical communism because those ideologies attempted to drive God out of the world to realize social equality. Real political "justice" in theory is some kind of material equality or at least discouragement of exploitation whilst not driving God out of society or attacking the morality that presupposes that exploitation is wrong in the first place.

Whether one believes in God or not has nothing to do with morality.

Is this opinion based on anything other than being a believer yourself?

That's twice you've said this, without further elaboration. Are you trying to say that one cannot be moral without believing in God?

Considering that "God" supports all kinds of injustice, driving God out of society should be high on the list of anyone who wants it to be more just.

Yes it does. Morality is a difficult topic in philosophy but a way to understand it is to go back to a belief in God or not.

I am agnostic. I don't believe in driving God out of the world.


Morality by definition has to come from religion.

"God" and religion is the foundation of justice and morality. You can be "moral" and "ethical" wihilst being athiest but that's just because you are living in a society where our laws and systems of justice have a foundation in ethical realism that has to come from religious morality so people are adhering to morals and ethics approved by society that have a basis in religion whether they realise it or not.

No it doesn't. Prove it.

Well, I do. God is at best criminally negligent, at worst a tyrant. This applies regardless of whether God exists or not.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralətē/
Noun

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   
2. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

Synonyms
moral - morals - ethics - virtue

---

Nothing about religion there. Would you like to try again?

Nonsense. How can religion be the foundation for justice and morality when a lot of people these days consider it unjust and immoral to stone people to death for worshipping different gods?

A belief in morality or right and wrong presupposes some form of ethical realism that has to come from religion.

How can you distinguish between right and wrong without a belief in moral realism.

This is why morality is a difficult topic in philosophy because you end up going in circles.


People at the time when it was the "norm" considered it immoral and unjust to stone people to death. More people believe it now because we are more enlightened, better educated and we progress and move on from things. Just because someone does something in practice or changes a practice over time it doesn't affect or have any relationship with the original theory.

Why does it "have to" come from religion? I think anyone with half a brain would be able to deduce for themselves that a society that does not strongly discourage murder is liable to fall apart rather quickly. That has nothing to do with God or religion.

You might. I don't. Give us an example of a moral problem that cannot be solved without recourse to God or religion.

Things like religion.

What theory?

Thats a speculation. Anyway the idea that someone "with half a brain" would believe that discouraging murder is good for society means that person either bases it on a blind survival instinct, which is primitive and selfish and not moral or just, or it presupposes some kind of ethical realism that murder is "wrong" that must therefore come from religious morality.

Yes I agree. However religions can reform themselves and faith in a God shouldn't be done away with.

Religious morality, which "justice" as we know it has it roots in and which you have to draw on if you presuppose that there is such a thing as ethical realism.

Jeez. I seem to dimly remember graffic being one of the most annoying users on the board because he had real iconoclastic ideas and a knack for argument. Now he's one of the most annoying because of how abysmal he is at debate, leaning on fallacies like he is getting paid for it. what happened?

Or it comes out of a sense of enlightened self-interest, which combines reason and desire to produce moral behaviour.

Why ever not?

Which I don't. I'm a utilitarian consequentialist.

And I agree that enlightened self-interest can produce moral behavior however for there to be objective morality a God has to exist. I think humans desire clarity and objectivity is more appealing and desirable to many people than just intellectualism. Intellectualism is the ponderings of man whereas those who follow a faith are putting their trust in a higher form of sovereignty and justice which many people find very liberating.

I would go out on a limb and speculate that cosmopolitan neo liberals and secular financiers who attack this world view only do so because religion opposes exploitation and capitalism morally. The cosmopolitan neo-liberals would rather be friendly with homosexuals or middle class feminists than the religious. Feminist/LGBT identity politics in the consumerist sense can condone explitation much more viciously than traditional conservatism. The moral indolence and the way socially liberal media celebrates youthful ignorance, condones adolescent arrogance, regards theft as fun and violence as entertaining, portrays copulating with minors as understandable and amusing, pours scorn on conventional values and attacks capitalism in a meaningless way while subscribing to a much more vicious and depressingly consumerist ethos of its own.

I think there is a fine line between genuine bolshevik ideas, genuine internationalism and genuine struggles against persecution of homosexuals and globalization, consumerism and blatant, cynical mass exploitation. This "line" should be treaded incredibly carefully and explained clearly the differences by intelligent people but all over the media and on TV it's crossed and confused with absolutelty no regard. For example International businessman who profit from all sorts of human suffering and misery that would make the most hardcore traditional conservative throw up with moral outrage get whooped and hollered by "progressive" audiences for praising immigration and multiculturalism when they clearly benefit financially from the free flow of labour and liberalization of capital flows. Similarly a right-wing politician advocating tax cuts for the rich gets cheered by "progressives" for making a statement that he supports gay marriage whilst labeling church leaders "bigots" when those church leaders have perhaps been instrumental in some cases in helping the poor in communities affected by cuts to welfare, because unlike the puppet capitalist politician, regardless if the church leader is right all the time, he helps people because he genuinely cares about people.

Those who claim to wage war on capitalism from the bourgeoise liberal elite have appropriated capitalism's most loathesome product: encouraging exploitation. The moral indolence of the "New Left" currently represents a staunchley depressing, self-centered and consumerist ethos that is worse than the one it attacks.