Results 1 to 20 of 135
What is wrong with having an ethical opposition to capitalism?
First of all, let me say that I do accept the Marxist scientific critique of capitalism and view it as a very accurate description of how capitalism works.
However, before I even read Marx I opposed capitalism on ethical grounds and my opposition to capitalism still is partly an ethical one. I view any system that allows one person who contributes nothing to society to live in luxury while allowing another to spend their entire life working just to survive, to be an unethical system and I view it as unjust as the concept of nobility. Children should not be made to starve simply because it benefits some company's bottom line.
My question, is, what is wrong with this ethical opposition? I, ask, because I've seen some people say that you shouldn't have an ethical opposition to capitalism, only a scientific one.
There's nothing wrong with having a moral revulsion to capitalism, but I wouldn't go basing any of my arguments on morality because they're highly subjective. I've met several people who were convinced that the bourgeois were morally correct in exploiting their workers because they're taking "risks" by hiring other people.
Morals can bend to serve anyone. Economic facts don't lie.
My personal answer is nothing at all.
If there was no individual aversion to capitalism by proletarians, because of the many unjust aspects of capitalism, not many people would join labor organizations, Marxist organizations, labor unions, or do any personal research concerning economics and/or sociology to further worker's rights or even a basic concern for workers.
I believe that moral principles should always come first, so I agree with you that a moral aversion to capitalism is a good basis for fighting it.
Capitalism is inherently immoral. This alone justifies our fight against it.
Not to mention, scientifically and economically unsustainable. But to me, that is secondary.
Utilitarianism is not a good way to look at the world.
Because "ethics" are subjective, meaning logically, yours are not superior than Bourgeois ethics. Also because "ethics" as a concept is inherently Bourgeois.
Now, you can be morally opposed to capitalism, but that can't be the basis of your anticapitalism.
A moral criticism - is the weakest form of criticism.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
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
Eagle are you suggesting Capitalism is better materially for more people than worker's rule? Are you suggesting that if capitalists were more moral the system would work better?
How are good and evil objective? According to whom? Why has the vast majority of human history not matched up with your objective ethics?
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
No, but capitalists can and do defend their ideology as such. The point is, if we base things on utility, we lose humanity. What if it was the case that Fascism produced better economic results than socialism? Should we support it?
Utility is the last thing we should consider, because humanity is more important.
No, capitalism is inherently immoral.
The alternative, that they are subjective, is an anti-humanity position.
While moral arguments are subjective, this does not mean they are not effective, and they can very well serve as your basis for criticism of capitalism. Nor is ethics "inherently bourgeois."
I once subjectively preferred state-capitalism and nationalism, and now I do not. One's subjective perception of politics can change.
Looking at historical working class revolts we see they were carried out under the banner of "freedom", "justice", (ethics) as well as "land", "bread" (material self-interest). Ethics can thus serve as the basis of of anticapitalism, and it historically has.
A negative is never an argument. You have to substantiate and back up your arguments.
pew pew pew
1) Yes. If fascism was proved to be the best way for the proletariat to crush their class enemy, yes, we should support it (if we consider ourselves socialists).
2) That's not what fascism is. Fascism is a bourgeois ideology designed to protect the rule of the bourgeoisie. THat's why we never have to worry about #1.
The utility is for humanity...
So you're saying that if everybody lived in abject poverty, but we were all nice to each other that this would be an ideal situation?
I'm sure the bourgeoisie don't think so.
That is no way to establish the objectivity of morals. How are they objective? Just because it would be unfortunate for them not to be, doesn't make it so.
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
I don't see how an impartial system of morality could exist in a society divided into antagonistic classes. I think if we are going to accept historical materialism, then we have to agree with Engels that "a really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life."
Even in such a society, despite the humanity or ubiquity of the moral system, I don't think it would be truly objective or real in the sense of being written in the sky, or lying innately somewhere in our minds.
If morals are subjective, then you can find a way to justify any action.
Better than having some exploit and murder others. Being a good person is more important than being wealthy or living well.
Would you sacrifice a man if it means everybody else in the world would be eternally happy? Utilitarianism would say so. Moral relativism would find some way to justify it. Only moral absolutism would tell you this is an incorrect, unjust action.
Utilitarianism is a morally absolutist principle, as well, actually; but since it is based solely on the principle of maximizing results ("happiness") it would no doubt justify actions such as the sacrifice.
We need established principles that can be regarded as universally and objectively true and good.
The bourgeoisie are mistaken
Again, that means you can find a way to justify just about anything.
Qualities such as fairness, justice, love, compassion - these are objectively and universally good. What promotes these is therefore good; what is against these is therefore evil.
Last edited by Eagle_Syr; 22nd June 2012 at 01:48.
Aside from the fact that I'm sure you could find a number of people who would disagree that each of those is morally good, they're just empty phrases. The french revolution shows clearly enough how completely different one class's conception of fair is from another's.
But we can all agree that fairness itself is good. These qualities are self-evidently good. They are moral axioms, so to speak.
That does not mean we are not blinded or skewed by our relative positions in life, but that merely affects our interpretation of these qualities; it typically does not abolish them entirely.
Goodness is therefore objective. It comes from within. As human beings with a moral compass, we are objectively aware of good and evil.
Bingo! And that's exactly what every ruling class in history has done. For them it's always "might make right" or "History is written by the winners" but cloaked in moralistic arguments.
Morality isn't "universal" for the capitalists, it's "good" if they can maintain this system and they often truly believe that what's good for their class is ultimately good for everyone.
Then please give me your money and any healthcare access you have - I haven't seen a doctor since around 9/11/2001.
This is just a weird abstraction. Let's take a real example - I'm against the prison system and the police and think these things are harmful to myself and to people like me, but if a cop shoot someone and is actually arrested for it, I do want to see that cop go to jail. Moralists would say I was being a hypocrite, but I think that from a class-perspective this is justified because the rare occasion of a police being held accountable for their abuses would actually hurt that police and court system, not uphold it (because it would damage the protected ability for the cops to abuse people and get away with it as well as the notion that police actions are "infallable" and "the guy they shot, musta done somthin").
And a capitalist would say nothing is more unfair or unjust than the majority taking their ruling status from them. The US slave-owners thought they were totally unjustly robbed of their "property" and slaves - they argued that slavery was moral and just because slaves "couldn't take care of themselves". The US considers dropping the A-bombs in Japan to be morally justified and compassionate.
So morality is subjective induvidually as well as class-based. The only way to find the larger "objective" reality is not through subjective ideas and idealism, but through materialism which means looking at society as it is divided by classes, not as some universal group with the same interests and attitudes and so on.
What is "ethical" is anything that will help workers to consciously take over society and put it in their own hands. This is not universal, it's our class's version of "might makes right" but from the standpoint of wanting human liberation it is the "ethical" position.
The main argument of capitalist apologists is that wage-work is a "fair arrangement" and that "stealing" the means of production by the working class would be "unfair".
We see the forced prolitarization of the population as unfair; exploitation of the surplus value we create through our labor as unfair.
Morals aren't universal. The cop on the beat thinks "why are people so mean to me, I'm just trying to do my job" and the people on the street think "why is that cop harassing us, we're just trying to live our lives". So in a "moralist" sense they are both correct. The only way to get an objective perspective is to look at the systemic features and class dynamics behind these situations.
Might makes right is what you are defending. I am the one asserting that might most certainly does not make right
They are adapting morality, yes, but not inventing it. There are things universally regarded as wrong by everybody. Murdering an old lady walking down the street, for example.
This is a non-point.
My assertion is that it is better to hold to moral principles than to sacrifice them for comfort or advantage.
It's an important abstraction. What do you do?
But don't you see? We still all nonetheless invoke these qualities because we can universally agree that they are good. Morality is based on reason and feeling. The feeling reminds us that it is there, and reason is used to discover what it means to be compassionate, to be fair, to be just.
Morality isn't invented, it is innate. Your interpretation of morality is subjective, yes, but morality itself exists innately.
Then might makes right, and we may as well become Fascists.
Ethics are not a bourgeois concept, the concept of ethics and what is "good" has been debated for centuries before capitalism and likely before the rise of class society. The question of "How ought we live" is as old as philosophy itself, if not older.
What do you mean, the drone plane was trying to kill terrorists, it's unfortunate she got in the way.
What moral principles, whose moral principles?
Ok, if killing Hitler could somehow have changed history and prevented the Holocaust, then, yet it would be morally justified to do so - just as it was justified (from a working class standpoint) for people in the Warsaw ghetto to kill people while trying to escape.
But the world doesn't actually work like that because killing an induvidual doesn't do much and this whole abstract argument is self-contradictory becuse you can't kill someone and make "everyone happy" since that person that you killed is part of "everyone". But "could you go back and time and kill Hitler" is a silly bar-argument about as abstract as the debate of "Bear v. Shark".
No, this is just ridiculous. Killing is wrong, most can agree - but what if your life is threatened? Then most would agree that you are morally justified in defending yourself. What if it was your house being broken into - well you don't know what they might do, so if you can't get out, then most would agree that shooting the intruder was justified. What if there's a "suspicious" black kid walking in your gated community?
What if Northern Armies are shooting your neighbors and are going to free your slaves and burn your plantation to the ground - are you morally justified in trying to kill them or are you immoral for having slaves?
Yes, there is nothing wrong with an ethical view of socialism, but it must be secondary. Morality is most often used to obfuscate things and make false-equivalencies. For us all considerations must come from what is best for our class because that class has the power to get rid of class divisions and create a just society where people could create a "universally" agreed apon general framework because our society would no longer depend on there being rulers and the exploited.
Then might makes right, and we may as well become Fascists.[/QUOTE]
But the idea of what is good has always reflected the interests of the ruling class. In WWI it was "good" to be nationalistic, nowadays it's "good" not to do illegal drugs, during the medieval ages it was "good" to listen to God and your Lord/King, etc.
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." - Karl Marx
