What is wrong with having an ethical opposition to capitalism?

[Thirsty Crow]

Indeed, a consistent economic determinist should not advocate socialism at all...

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

[Manic Impressive]

If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it.

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Manic Impressive]

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

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

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

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

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

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

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


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

On the contrary it's the most important form of criticism

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

[Lucretia]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kenco Smooth]

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

Evidence?

Ill brb tonight, again

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Manic Impressive]

Evidence?

Ill brb tonight, again

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

on which bit? the collapse of the soviet union? coz well fuck that, argue it with someone who cares.

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

[eric922]

[QUOTE]

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

This right here is an ethical statement and a rather strong one at that. First of all, you make the ethical choice that we can and should improve the world. Proving that you hold your ethical views to a higher standard than others. Secondly, you move beyond improving the world simply for your friends and family, but rather for people you don't even know and never will. How is that not an ethical statement?

[Rafiq]

First, I am talking about ethics, not morality.

My argument stands, regardless.

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

There are several problems in this conclusion, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

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

Choosing sides in the class struggle is an ethical choice.

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting for your own freedom also is an ethical choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

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

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

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

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


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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

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

[Positivist]

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

[Kenco Smooth]

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

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