New to this all, and shocked

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why would you say they are equal in terms of meaningful concern? I understand some people are liberals because their parents are, and some people are conservatives because their parents are, but assuming we're dealing with genuine liberals and conservatives doesn't the whole "I got mine now you go get yours" attitude of the conservatives show they are not as concerned with helping people?
I fully accept conservatives give to charity, but they know damn well if people decide not to donate (likely in hard economic times such as these) then to attack things like welfare surely implies selfishness?

Well, I might be coming from a different angle of seeing the indifference in practice of Liberalism - for example, in the Bay Area, there is uncontested Liberal political dominance and a very liberal-leaning culture, and yet voters passed things like "Sit/Lie" laws in San Francisco and Berkeley to stop homless people from... being in public basically. And I think some of the underlying political assumtions are the same for both: "people have hardships because they have made bad decisions and are lazy" vs. "some people have problems and it causes them to be homeless, but we should help them". Both locate the source of the problem in the induvidual.

I think a difference is that some regular conservative people are just much more ideological about it - and some are confident to just be assholes and openly resentful.

But you're right the two things (fuck the poor or welfare for the poor) aren't politically identical (I just don't think it's something inherent about the person or personality themselves). I think recognizing the need for some kind of real social welfare is much much better in terms of reforms than just privitizing it all to privite institutions and religious groups. It may not mean much in terms of Liberal politicians who will still persue these kinds of neoliberal "solutions" - but in terms of everyday people, someone who does at least want some kind of solid safty-net is someone who can be worked with and maybe convinced to go further than that. Someone who thinks all poor people are just lazy, probably isn't going to be convinced through arguments alone, they'll probably have to experience larger changes in society for them to start to think differently about it (if at all).

Regarding the bold bit, so what would you suggest needs to be done?

I understand if in an ideal world there were plenty of jobs and booming economy we wouldn't need welfare but the reality now is we do, so until we can sort out the bigger issues it can solve the problem temporarily?

Oh I definatley think we can and need to adress these problems in a practical and concrete way (though I'm skeptical they can be really solved within capitalism). There are lots of different reforms that have existed or exist in other countries which would make people's lives much easier (for those directly impacted) and this will also take pressure off of the whole class because if you don't have to worry that being fired will mean you loose your appartment at the end of the month (or loose healthcare and have little in terms of food-stamps or whatnot to get you through) then you are less likely to put up with shit when you do have a job, and be less likely to settle for less.

To me it's more of a question of who and how for reforms. I don't think we'll win any relief for the poor without a major fight in the neoliberal context because they actually WANT to make us less secure and more willing to put up with declining work situations (because the job might be shit, but at least it's a job!). So I think subjectivly something that activists and radicals need to do is help any movement of the poor as well as help try and build up class-consiousness and fight-back. In the US in the 1930s, there are lots of examples where militant unionists would actually win-over the jobless to help them in their struggles (and this also helped prevent these jobless from becoming scabs) and then the militants would conversly help with the struggles of the unemployed. Even creating our own sort of charities (or Survival Programs as the Black Panthers called it) if they are connected to an anti-austerity or worker's movement of some kind would not only give people some relief for an afternoon or day, but could also help aid attempts by homeless or jobless people to organize themselves.

[Comrade #138672]

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Being paid more does not make you part of a different class. Your class is defined by your relation to the means of production. If you own them, then you are bourgeois or a capitalist. If you don't own them, then you need to sell your labor to someone who does, which makes you proletarian or a worker. When you are talking about salaries, you are usually talking about workers. There are, of course, some exceptions, but I don't think we should discuss them here.

I have a feeling you would very well be for socialism, if you only knew what it was. There's no shame in not knowing this, though. Not too long ago, I had very confused ideas about socialism too. This is because capitalists deliberately propagate confused and harmful ideas about socialism, and make capitalism itself seem necessary, fair and natural, despite the contrary being the case. As has been said, you still have a lot of deprogramming to do, but you already seem to be well on your way by coming here.

Welcome btw.

[RedMaterialist]

and yet voters passed things like "Sit/Lie" laws in San Francisco and Berkeley to stop homless people from... being in public basically. .

So, what is to be done? They used to have sit ins at Berkeley to protest the Vietnam War. Why not organize sit ins where ever they are arresting the homeless. Bring cameras to record the police. Maybe you can shame the liberals. Do sit ins at the Google Bus Stops where only the Google employees can catch the private Google Bus.

[Sotionov]

It has been tried and failed.

You are again avoiding my question. Ok, let's try like this- failed at what?

[adipocere]

Thar is a very fair point about nothing being possible unless people did all the so called small jobs too. But then I think, if people knew that no matter what job they did they would all be paid equal, wouldn't that put people off from doing more difficult tasks and instead doing the bare minimum?

It depends on what you define as difficult. Hedge fund managers are not necessarily doing anything difficult. People who plow fields are not there because it's easy, and people don't wait tables because they are lazy. People don't automatically take the path of least resistance in the absence of financial incentive. The argument is illogical.

We live in a society of wealthy people who reward themselves for being wealthy and spent a lot of effort convincing the rest of us that they deserve it. It's also an illogical argument when you understand that people in our society are fundamentally unequal, that capitalism perpetuates this and that bootstrapping is absolute bullshit. Inequality exploits people, forces them into drudgery and stifles socially useful innovation and investment.

It seems like this system of equal wage for everyone would heavily rely on people pursuing certain very important jobs out of love for academia since they'd be no added incentive of higher earnings? I think many people are money motivated so there could be a severe shortage of people in jobs that require more time/effort/studying.

People are motivated by all kinds of things. Some go into fields because of their family, others because they are interested in the subject, some because it's all they feel they can do, some because they are talented, others out of social pressure, some for perceived stability, while some, and I would argue - very few, go into careers solely for money.

If all education was free (same standard for everyone) wouldn't that create a level playing field thus justifying higher wage for certain jobs?

That depends - it will mostly drive the average wage/benefit down...unless we are talking about capitalist innovation that mainly seeks to turn excessive bullshit into a commodity. Once a trade, skill or racket is no longer protected, it's typically not as individually profitable.
Take medical doctors for example - there are a lot of them and they don't typically make as much money as they expected and acquire tons of debt in school. However out of those doctors, there is a small elite of plastic surgeons who are making money hand over fist peddling a mostly unnecessary and unethical service.

Or is the thinking here that for example once people start dying, people will automatically gravitate towards roles such as doctors and eventually we'll have all the people in all the roles we need?

Yes, I think people fill vacuums. The average capacity of human cognition and labor is pretty narrow.

[The Feral Underclass]

It has been tried and failed. Can you state the concrete reason because of which you think capitalism should be abolished without an appeal to morality?

Why is opposing capitalism on moral grounds not acceptable?

[Thirsty Crow]

Why is opposing capitalism on moral grounds not acceptable?

Because, presumably, any such argument would circumvent a coherent materialist analysis of existing social relations.

Which might be true in relation to arguments appealing to notions such as justice, for instance. It is not that exploitation is unjust, it's just that people suffer specific and concrete consequences due to the operation of certain social-economic practices, and might realize they do not want to subject themselves to the aforementioned.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because, presumably, any such argument would circumvent a coherent materialist analysis of existing social relations.

Why would it? Are you telling me you have no moral objections to capitalism?

Which might be true in relation to arguments appealing to notions such as justice, for instance. It is not that exploitation is unjust, it's just that people suffer specific and concrete consequences due to the operation of certain social-economic practices, and might realize they do not want to subject themselves to the aforementioned.

Why does having a moral position on those things necessarily negate an understanding for their material explanations?

I do get rather fed up of people using this "moral vs materialist" argument as if to have a moral is somehow fundamentally at odds with being a communist. In any case, it's wholly absurd to try and claim that communists are void of morals. You don't have to pick and choose morals or materialism. It's perfectly acceptable to have a materialist understanding and be morally outraged at the same time. I mean, I'm not going to tell people how they can think, but if someone wants to have a moral view to capitalism, what difference does it make?

[The Feral Underclass]

I mean, ultimately why do you decide that exploitation should be fought against if you don't think it's wrong? There is one thing in understanding the nature of capitalism and its material implications, but then one has to choose to make a decision about what is right and wrong with that...

[Thirsty Crow]

Why would it? Are you telling me you have no moral objections to capitalism?

It can, but it doesn't necessarily. And yes, I do have moral objections, but I think they play a secondary role. Anyway, I'm also tired of that cliche of "moralism v materialism"

Why does having a moral position on those things necessarily negate an understanding for their material explanations?

It does not necessarily negate such an understanding. But, for instance, take the example of recent anger and moral outrage directed at corrupt, greedy bankers as those responsible for the crisis. In this form, placing focus on personal moral fortitude and quality is in fact counter-productive, and what I mentioned (coherent class analysis) is not an option, unless one would discard that starting point altogether. At least that's what "moralism" means to me, implying the evasion of the question of the function of accumulation and hoarding.

I do get rather fed up of people using this "moral vs materialist" argument as if to have a moral is somehow fundamentally at odds with being a communist. In any case, it's wholly absurd to try and claim that communists are void of morals.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure if my reply suggested otherwise in any way. But still, a more nuanced version of the dichotomy might be useful.

I mean, ultimately why do you decide that exploitation should be fought against if you don't think it's wrong? There is one thing in understanding the nature of capitalism and its material implications, but then one has to choose to make a decision about what is right and wrong with that...

Because I get shat on in this way, and suffer concrete consequences on my life? I don't know, it seems to me that this is more of a "self-interest v. morality/altruism" kind of thing. Though, to be clear, I do not reject any kind of a moral argument, and I do hold morals of my own.

[The Feral Underclass]

It does not necessarily negate such an understanding. But, for instance, take the example of recent anger and moral outrage directed at corrupt, greedy bankers as those responsible for the crisis. In this form, placing focus on personal moral fortitude and quality is in fact counter-productive, and what I mentioned (coherent class analysis) is not an option, unless one would discard that starting point altogether. At least that's what "moralism" means to me, implying the evasion of the question of the function of accumulation and hoarding.

Right, but it's the job of communists to ground those moral outrages into a materialist analysis, not to belittle people for having morals, which The Idler seemed to be doing.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure if my reply suggested otherwise in any way. But still, a more nuanced version of the dichotomy might be useful.

I inferred from your post that you objected to morals. I think there is a case to be made that bourgeois morality is objectionable and should be objected to. In the face of such "moralism" I would always describe myself as immoral or even anti-moral.

But of course, to try and claim that I have no morals is impossible, since I am someone who has very firm notions of right and wrong.

Because I get shat on in this way, and suffer concrete consequences on my life? I don't know, it seems to me that this is more of a "self-interest v. morality/altruism" kind of thing. Though, to be clear, I do not reject any kind of a moral argument, and I do hold morals of my own.

Really? I have never really looked at it that way, as in it being a self-interest thing. I have always, since being very young, had a palpable connection to those who are "downtrodden", for want of a better word.

[Skyhilist]

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Not sure if you're aware but communism opposes wages.

[Thirsty Crow]

Right, but it's the job of communists to ground those moral outrages into a materialist analysis, not to belittle people for having morals, which The Idler seemed to be doing.

Yeah, definitely agree.

I inferred from your post that you objected to morals.

Well, no. I probably expressed myself poorly.

[Skyhilist]

You know what, lets ignore the fact that communism opposes wages for a second. Your notions are still flawed.

But then I think, if people knew that no matter what job they did they would all be paid equal, wouldn't that put people off from doing more difficult tasks and instead doing the bare minimum?

No. Because people aren't naturally motivated to do things by money; they're motivated to do those things because they like those things. Have you ever heard a 4 year old say "I really want to be a doctor when I grow up... they make a lot of money"? Of course not! Little kids aspire to jobs requiring a lot of education (even when their parents explain the amount of work it'll take) without even knowing how much those jobs pay and without having ANY monetary incentive. If janitor and herpetologist paid the same, I would still aspire to be a herpetologist because I love reptiles and amphibians. Monetary incentives are not necessary and they never have been.

It seems like this system of equal wage for everyone would heavily rely on people pursuing certain very important jobs out of love for academia since they'd be no added incentive of higher earnings? I think many people are money motivated so there could be a severe shortage of people in jobs that require more time/effort/studying.

Again: Try to find a younger child who has no aspirations (e.g. astronaut, doctor, etc.) and you'll find that it's often pretty difficult to do. Now, sort through those little kids and try to find a large number of them who aspire to a job because "it makes a lot of money"... you'll find that to be even harder! Money is a man made invention. It's not natural. No species is evolved to need money. It's a completely made up thing.

If all education was free (same standard for everyone) wouldn't that create a level playing field thus justifying higher wage for certain jobs?

No, because you haven't explained why those "certain jobs" requiring an education are more important. Why is the person who went to college for 8 years more important than the person who was producing food for him/her during those 8 years?

[Skyhilist]

It is not that exploitation is unjust, it's just that people suffer specific and concrete consequences due to the operation of certain social-economic practices, and might realize they do not want to subject themselves to the aforementioned.

If you say something is bad because people suffer, then you're saying suffering is bad (it is, but bear with me).

So you're suggesting that suffering is bad, which should therefore mean it's immoral.

Therefore, you're suggesting that capitalism is immoral, because it causes suffering.

Your argument is no less of a moral appeal than anybody else's when you get down to it.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you say something is bad because people suffer, then you're saying suffering is bad (it is, but bear with me).

So you're suggesting that suffering is bad, which should therefore mean it's immoral.

Therefore, you're suggesting that capitalism is immoral, because it causes suffering.

Your argument is no less of a moral appeal than anybody else's when you get down to it.

Okay, I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think this is the place for this discussion (maybe the thread on morality?). I'll only point out that I definitely did not say that exploitation is bad, and most of what I was trying to get across was more along the lines of self-interest rather than morals. But sure, the line between the two is probably thin and I can admit that it isn't very clear to me.

An interesting corollary question would be whether an argument that definitely does not constitute a moral appeal, within political discourse, is even possible, or is it that every argument can be stripped down ("getting down to it") to a kind of a moral appeal. I don't know honestly how to approach this and what implications to draw out.

[Fakeblock]

An interesting corollary question would be whether an argument that definitely does not constitute a moral appeal, within political discourse, is even possible, or is it that every argument can be stripped down ("getting down to it") to a kind of a moral appeal. I don't know honestly how to approach this and what implications to draw out.

I would say it isn't, but it can certainly be inspired by objective analysis. Marxists objectively analyse historical development, but communists use these analyses to draw revolutionary conclusions. These conclusions are essentially based on morality, but the morals are qualitatively different from those of other ideologies.

Liberals, social-democrats, conservatives et al. all claim that their morals are universal, objective and given, whereas Marxists would say that they are nothing but ideological expressions of certain class interests. It follows from this that all major moral disagreements that communists have with these other groups result from contradictory interests, not individual moral presumptions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you say something is bad because people suffer, then you're saying suffering is bad (it is, but bear with me).

So you're suggesting that suffering is bad, which should therefore mean it's immoral.

Therefore, you're suggesting that capitalism is immoral, because it causes suffering.

Your argument is no less of a moral appeal than anybody else's when you get down to it.

Taking someone's factory away from them, destroying their ability to keep slaves or workers causes them suffering. The slave-owner or the capitalist didn't make the system or the rules of the game (often they were just born into it - and many are actually decent people probably) and yet we are going to "unfairly" take their property and power and shit because their shit keeps us enslaved.

I don't really care if people have their own moral code and this is what leads them to take action or whatnot, but in making arguments or trying to figure out how to act in a broader sense, I think it tends to lead to less clarity as opposed to speaking about things in terms of politics.

Most of the time I don't think it matters all that much though, I think I just have a negative reaction to it because of bourgeois morality (in all forms from "progressive" to "churchy"). Most of the time it seems like something used to keep people behaving in certain ways, or alternately blaming people for not living up to impossible ideals of behavior. But I'm willing to be argued away from this view.

So, what is to be done? They used to have sit ins at Berkeley to protest the Vietnam War. Why not organize sit ins where ever they are arresting the homeless. Bring cameras to record the police. Maybe you can shame the liberals. Do sit ins at the Google Bus Stops where only the Google employees can catch the private Google Bus.

These are all really good ideas and I wasn't involved in any activism around this, but I know that there was and I know some people who were involved. I don't remember what they did or how much support they had however. But anyway, my main point was just on how "liberal concern for the poor" doesn't mean that in liberal-dominated areas that things aren't getting worse for folks in terms of the callousness of neoliberal austerity... they just abuse you with concerned tones and a happy face:

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I find it intriguing how the 'money incentive' argument comes up so often in modern philosophical debate surrounding capitalism, and often as a wing of the silly 'human nature' argument as well.

People have done trade without a monetary medium for thousands of years. Hell, people have gone without large scale barter systems for even longer. What makes these people think that people will only do work for monetary incentive - a very recent occurence? 'Why do they have such an incentive in the modern age in the first place, especially considering how capitalism functions?' is, I think, a decent response.

Skwisgaar nailed it perfectly. Children do not have a 'monetary incentive' when they want their dream profession growing up. That side of the equation comes later (when wage-labour comes along to thwack them in the face).

[Luís Henrique]

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people.

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?!

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

I think such political positions may very well attract people with certain kinds of personality disorder. But I don't think they are the result of personality disorders at all. They are reflections about the world, which are informed by some facts, and by the reception facts have in many other minds - including those who control important communication outlets.

For those who are not in viewable risk of unemployment, and/or have reasonable alternatives to unemployment (a high level of employability, a wealthy family, enough economies to live out of them comfortably), the reality of people who live in slums and are at a constant risk of unemployment may seem an abstraction, or only take concrete aspects in threatening forms - where unemployment translates into criminality, for instance. These people are very likely to take conservative looks at poverty, unemployment, criminality, etc. It is not that they cannot empathise with people; it is that they empathise with those they see as victims - the old lady that was mugged, the middle class boy that was beaten because of his tennis shoes, etc.: those that it easy for them to think "it could be me".

For those who are in actual danger of unemployment or poverty, on the other hand, it often takes the form of vicarious revenge ("when I was unemployed/homeless/etc., nobody helped me, I was alone by myself - why should I now care about others? Let them sort it out, just like I have done").

These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???

On a more general level, those positions are more likely collectivist than individualist. People tend to think that social dangers such as unemployment or poverty benefit society in general, by eliminating the weaker elements and by giving the most able a chance to show their abilities.

1] Difference between communism and socialism?

None that can be explained in a short paragraph, or that matter at this moment.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Strictly speaking, in a communist or socialist society nobody gets "paid". People have a right to a share of the common product. Of course, if you build spaceships you should have preferential access to books about spaceship engineering, and if you do brain surgery, you should have preferential access to lancets, computerised tomographs, etc. But decent housing and nutrition shouldn't depend on educational level. Plus, people should be encouraged to live a more fulfilling life than dedicating themselves to a single "job" for life. Repetitive, dehumanising tasks such as garbage collection need to be automated, or, if impossible, to be shared on alternate turns.

By no means it should be expected that the children of a brain surgeon have a greater right to become brain surgeons themselves than the children of a janitor.

So, I don't think what you wrote makes you against socialism or communism, or in favour of it. It makes you someone who hasn't still given deeper thoughts about the issue, or, in your words, someone who is asking questions and trying to learn.

Luís Henrique