What is wrong with having an ethical opposition to capitalism?

[wsg1991]

First of all, those aren't dogs.

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

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

[Halleluhwah]

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

[Lynx]

RevLeft - home of the idealists.

[Kenco Smooth]

First of all, those aren't dogs.

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

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

Want to back that statement up? Because the fact that notabely domestic remains can be found from up to 31,000 years ago (with the ancestral split from wolves estimated at upwards of 100,000 years in certain cases) and the fact that a seriously entertained hypothesis on domestication being an accidental process exists both seem to point to the fact that the process was not one of extreme difficulty. Given that and the fact domestication seems to have occurred several times across completely unrelated groups the evidence seems to suggest the domestication of dogs was not an exceedingly difficult process.

[wsg1991]

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

i think we are going the right way ,

[Revolution starts with U]

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

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

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

[Raúl Duke]

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

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

Obviously.... What's your point?

Want to back that statement up? Because the fact that notabely domestic remains can be found from up to 31,000 years ago (with the ancestral split from wolves estimated at upwards of 100,000 years in certain cases) and the fact that a seriously entertained hypothesis on domestication being an accidental process exists both seem to point to the fact that the process was not one of extreme difficulty. Given that and the fact domestication seems to have occurred several times across completely unrelated groups the evidence seems to suggest the domestication of dogs was not an exceedingly difficult process.

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

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

[black magick hustla]

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

[Eagle_Syr]

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

Your approach cannot determine right from wrong action based on anything more than material conditions, which as I have pointed out, could justify many actions that violate individual dignity. Only morals and ethics based on axiomatic principles independent of material conditions can determine right and wrong. Therefore you need morals and ethics if you are to determine right from wrong, and you need to be able to determine right from wrong in a society for it to function. For laws to work.

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

That morals are subjective.

Even if they are, they are still necessary

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

Evolutionary evidence suggests otherwise

What the hell is an antisocial human being? We aren't here to replicate hunter gatherer societies, you know.

It doesn't matter. Whatever society you do have, will have morals and ethics at play.

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

It means that behaviors and personality traits evolved in the direction of improving survival. This is the Darwinian explanation of human morality. These qualities tend to be universal, although different situations and different societies will adapt them differently.

[electrostal]

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

[Halleluhwah]

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

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

[Kenco Smooth]

Obviously.... What's your point?

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

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

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

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

You made the mistake of making a falsifiable claim for once. One that the evidence doesn't support so I figured I'd try and point that out.

[Thirsty Crow]

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

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

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

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

Stop being so thick headed. It's not me whose confused, it's you whose incompetent in reading my posts.

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

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

Yes, it's pretty much loose, and that's the problem. You do realize that such communication breeds misunderstanding?

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

I shouldn't have to interpret what you say since communication rests on clarity of expression.

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

Yes, capital cannot exist without the working class.
But the problem is your play with words here. If a proletarian revolution is "inevitable", but not "objectively", how is it then inevitable? "Subjectively"? But what does that even mean? Is it "subjectively" inevitable that if I hold an apple and drop it at some point, it will fall to the ground? Is it "subjectively" inevitable that if Nero is a dog, and all dogs are mortal, that Nero is mortal? That's why I said you're confused, because of such word juggling.

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

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

Sorry, but here you're being just vague.
First you state that communists are inevitable in capitalist society - and as I've said above, I do think that class conflict is inevitable, in one form or another, in capitalist society, so it might be the case. No real argument here.
But what do you mean by "the fact that proletarians all over will refuse to do so""? What will proletarians refuse? And how does your final sentence relate to that?
By the way, I'm not actually being dishonest here. I simply can't make sense of the sentences.

Specifically, that doesn't. But class contradiction all on top of this does.

Again, there is nothing inevitable about a specific outcome or form of this struggle based on the actual antagonisms rooted in the relations of production.

And if you think capitalism could function indefinitely, you're greatly mistaken.

I said what I think about such a quasi-problem. Precisely this, that it is a quasi-problem and a bait for scholastic speculation. The point is that I don't think there is any need to pose the problem in such terms, and that this is actually problematic in itself.

I mean, even today, what the hell is the solution to this, within the constraint of capital? Tell me, what's the way out? War? It would end in a Nuclear holocaust. State Capitalism? Ready to crumble in China. It's a dead end. The great depression was the end, and the war delayed. Now we're back eating shit.

I can't provide a detailed and specific answer to this.
However, judging from historical experience, devaluation in either form - outright physical destruction or prolonged capital assets devaluation (which both entail significant social costs, and the working class will bear the brunt of it) - can and did lay the basis for a renewed accumulation cycle, so there is no reason to assume that such practices (which would, of course, in its concrete measures differ from those of the past since concrete conditions are also different) are basically impossible today, just as there is no reason to assume that a generalized war would necessarily entail mutual nuclear destruction.

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

You stated:

A proletarian revolution is indeed inevitable, and is inevitable so long as the capitalist mode of production should exist, no matter where. Then, us scientists do not add flame to the fire, we merely recognize it, and then, I choose to be a Communist as I am not compelled not to be, i.e. I side with the champion class of history in this regards.

Just to briefly note, again the convoluted syntax. You're not compelled not to be a communist, which basically means that you enjoy freedom of political orientation (since you wouldn't have any option if you were compelled not to be a communist). You basically say you choose sides because you can, which isn't an explanation, but merely a cop-out.

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

Don't piss me off.

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

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

When you say that proletarian revolution is inevitable, you're effectively stateing that capitalism is predetermined to undergo this change. You don't need to explicitly state this for you to be effectively arguing so.
But okay, you're speaking of likelihood here. And I guess this is really the point.
Though, again, I don't think it's useful to confuse inevitability for a supposed high degree of likelihood since it introduces confusion and can be seen as an ideological mystification. I honestly don't know how to approach the problem of likelihood, I don't know if proletarian revolution is that extremely likely, and I don't think this is important.

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

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

What a shit semantics debate. Ethics is the stressing of a social mechanisms in which your beloved morality can exist.

What could anyone make of such a confused "definition"? Ethics is a "stressing of a social mechanism"? What does that even mean?

It's a shit concept considering that it doesn't matter what you fucking stress, it's not up to you.

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

Modes of productions give birth to this, and they are certainly not products of "imagination" or whatever. If you do think so, you may as well stop pretending to be a Marxist.

The social interaction of concrete individuals living in a particularly organized social formation gives birth to this - which doesn't mean that these individuals do not, or should not, think about the ways these interactions are organized and therefore might intervene in their continued practice.