drwhat posted:you're right op. anybody want to start a hedge fund
Sure I'll do that.
walkinginonit posted:I ended up writing way too much garbage. Anyway, the basic principal of Marxism is that it studies the movement of social organization (both development and decay) based on contradiction. On the very premise alone, if social organization is the primary factor of keeping the human race alive then a persons morals are not just secondary to social organization, but informed by that social organization in the first place. This is apparent when we consider how things like, say human sacrifice, can be either acceptable or monstrous depending on what social context both the actor and his judges are in.
That's what I meant by the misquote is that Marxism is a philosophy of the change of social structure and finds morality as subservient to society in the first place. If we consider that humanity is something that is always reorganizing itself then it follows that morality is something that is always reorganizing itself. I'm sure you know that the word "morality" comes from "mores" (customs.)
so on what moral basis are we to decide how to change society?
This is different from morality in the traditional sense, where philosophers try to find a normative standard of human behavior that should last for all time. You can look at the Ten Commandments and see that this sort moralizing that tries to make itself permanent is not compatible with Marxism, because Marxism does not see anything as static, morality included.
You could also consider ethics, as opposed to morality, which focuses more on striving for a moral goal rather than obeying a concrete set of rules. The concept of "striving" (praxis) at first appears good. It addresses the need for a person use their willpower to actively change their lifestyle. But like everything within the framework of Marxism the social context of ethical practice needs to be examined. A criticism can be that people from different social backgrounds should be held to different ethical standards depending on their level of material comfort, education, the amount of stress that is put on them etc. Social position determines consciousness and it will determine behavior, everyone can't be held to the same standard in a society based on inequality.
This is where I think the last Thesis on Feuerbach comes in. ("The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.") Praxis needs to be directed towards learning the contradictions of a society which create social tension and then either building or participating in an organization that seeks to resolve those contradictions. When those tensions and contradictions are alleviated people will end up suffering less.
You might be thinking that what I just typed was all well and good, but it doesn't address somebody's motivation to engage in Marxist Praxis in the first place. I would answer that all it really takes is empathy in other people's suffering and an understanding of the system that creates their suffering in the first place. If somebody is a privileged first world resident who feels they are "above" empathy they should only take into to consideration that, more than likely, the tensions that capitalism creates will harm them or their loved ones next.
HenryKrinkle posted:
what did the twitterer say?
There's no doubt about it, after reading my tweet she probably realized she was counterrevolutionary and icepicked herself.
walkinginonit posted:The "moral basis" is that Socialism, and later Communism, offers relief of the social conflict caused by Capitalism. Keep in mind Capitalism sows its own destruction in the first place, it creates the conditions that will make itself obsolete. Capitalism's tendency for crisis (which means more poverty and most likely wars) arises as its productive potential increases. It creates an absurdity in which it increases suffering while increasing the potential to alleviate suffering. The "moral basis" of Communism is should be to eliminate this contradiction.
This is different from morality in the traditional sense, where philosophers try to find a normative standard of human behavior that should last for all time. You can look at the Ten Commandments and see that this sort moralizing that tries to make itself permanent is not compatible with Marxism, because Marxism does not see anything as static, morality included.
You could also consider ethics, as opposed to morality, which focuses more on striving for a moral goal rather than obeying a concrete set of rules. The concept of "striving" (praxis) at first appears good. It addresses the need for a person use their willpower to actively change their lifestyle. But like everything within the framework of Marxism the social context of ethical practice needs to be examined. A criticism can be that people from different social backgrounds should be held to different ethical standards depending on their level of material comfort, education, the amount of stress that is put on them etc. Social position determines consciousness and it will determine behavior, everyone can't be held to the same standard in a society based on inequality.
This is where I think the last Thesis on Feuerbach comes in. ("The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.") Praxis needs to be directed towards learning the contradictions of a society which create social tension and then either building or participating in an organization that seeks to resolve those contradictions. When those tensions and contradictions are alleviated people will end up suffering less.
You might be thinking that what I just typed was all well and good, but it doesn't address somebody's motivation to engage in Marxist Praxis in the first place. I would answer that all it really takes is empathy in other people's suffering and an understanding of the system that creates their suffering in the first place. If somebody is a privileged first world resident who feels they are "above" empathy they should only take into to consideration that, more than likely, the tensions that capitalism creates will harm them or their loved ones next.
So you don't know what morality is (hint, it involves social norms much more than philosophers and eternal truth) and have no compelling reason for people to strive towards communism other than that "it's better because I think it will be". and the definition of better seems to based on a morality that makes empathy (an everyday emotion I feel towards other human beings) into some sort of divine law.
NoFreeWill posted:so on what moral basis are we to decide how to change society?
on the basis that you touch yourself at night
Following the publication the last 14th of November in our magazine of the article named « Les femmes Ukrainiennes s'engagent » (« The enrolment of Ukrenian Women » ), addressing the role of women in the conflict of eastern Ukraine, we came to know end december, that one of the young women, interviewed and photographed, was an extrem right activist, using social networks to spread informations glorifying the neonazi culture.
The young woman incriminated in this story, is a fighter from the Aidar Bataillon. We met her on October 2nd on the battlefield near Lougansk. When we interviewed her, no element, no distinguishing sign, nothing in her discourse and the words she said, let us know that this women was a neonazi.
Indeed, part of the coverage took place near one of the Aidar Bataillon unit, a paramilitary group of around 600 members, attached to the Ukranian Defense department, which comprises fighters of various political origins and obedience.
ELLE's editorial board, as well as the two journalists in charge of the coverage, were shoked to learn, in hindsight, the true ideological beliefs of this woman. We vigorously condamn all and any xenophobic, anti-semite, racist and nazi ideologies.
The editorial board.
Bablu posted:EL LE
If society is always in a flux finding a new set of social norms is futile, because society has its own laws of motion based on its contradictions. Capitalist society moves in the direction of class polarization, the wealthy need to make more, the poor need to make less and production needs to increase. This contradiction between disparity and plenty creates an incentive for a new social order, which will have new norms (morality)
I appealed to people's empathy, but I also appealed to people's selfishness (" . . . the tensions that capitalism creates will harm them or their loved ones next.") The point is that people's increasing dissatisfaction and suffering from capitalism creates the incentive to create a new society. The "incentive" for Communism is really the dislike of needless suffering.
walkinginonit posted:A criticism can be that people from different social backgrounds should be held to different ethical standards depending on their level of material comfort, education, the amount of stress that is put on them etc. Social position determines consciousness and it will determine behavior, everyone can't be held to the same standard in a society based on inequality.
Honestly, that point seemed extraneous I should have replaced it with an overall point on how ethics is best used to combat the primary contradiction that faces society. But whatever, on to DYTD. Cheers
walkinginonit posted:I ended up writing way too much garbage. Anyway, the basic principal of Marxism is that it studies the movement of social organization (both development and decay) based on contradiction. On the very premise alone, if social organization is the primary factor of keeping the human race alive then a persons morals are not just secondary to social organization, but informed by that social organization in the first place. This is apparent when we consider how things like, say human sacrifice, can be either acceptable or monstrous depending on what social context both the actor and his judges are in.
That's what I meant by the misquote is that Marxism is a philosophy of the change of social structure and finds morality as subservient to society in the first place. If we consider that humanity is something that is always reorganizing itself then it follows that morality is something that is always reorganizing itself. I'm sure you know that the word "morality" comes from "mores" (customs.)
This doesn’t lay a moral foundation; you aren’t explaining the system that determines right or wrong, what ought to be, or things of that nature.
It also doesn’t follow at all that if humans are always reorganising themselves, then morality is always reorganising itself. You haven’t told us what morality is, how it would change itself, or what you even mean when you say that it somehow changes itself.
In your first paragraph you mention keeping the human race alive. Is that a good thing? How do you reach a conclusion as to that question? You mentioned that human sacrifice can be acceptable or monstrous depending on the social context. What defines acceptability? What are the first principles of this moral system that you’re relying upon to talk about something being acceptable or monstrous?
This is fundamental to political science, but communism sounds like it’s just a tool that helps you take a guess at how human power structures might develop in the near future. Please give us the morality.
walkinginonit posted:The "moral basis" is that Socialism, and later Communism, offers relief of the social conflict caused by Capitalism. Keep in mind Capitalism sows its own destruction in the first place, it creates the conditions that will make itself obsolete. Capitalism's tendency for crisis (which means more poverty and most likely wars) arises as its productive potential increases. It creates an absurdity in which it increases suffering while increasing the potential to alleviate suffering. The "moral basis" of Communism is should be to eliminate this contradiction.
This is different from morality in the traditional sense, where philosophers try to find a normative standard of human behavior that should last for all time. You can look at the Ten Commandments and see that this sort moralizing that tries to make itself permanent is not compatible with Marxism, because Marxism does not see anything as static, morality included.
You could also consider ethics, as opposed to morality, which focuses more on striving for a moral goal rather than obeying a concrete set of rules. The concept of "striving" (praxis) at first appears good. It addresses the need for a person use their willpower to actively change their lifestyle. But like everything within the framework of Marxism the social context of ethical practice needs to be examined. A criticism can be that people from different social backgrounds should be held to different ethical standards depending on their level of material comfort, education, the amount of stress that is put on them etc. Social position determines consciousness and it will determine behavior, everyone can't be held to the same standard in a society based on inequality.
This is where I think the last Thesis on Feuerbach comes in. ("The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.") Praxis needs to be directed towards learning the contradictions of a society which create social tension and then either building or participating in an organization that seeks to resolve those contradictions. When those tensions and contradictions are alleviated people will end up suffering less.
You might be thinking that what I just typed was all well and good, but it doesn't address somebody's motivation to engage in Marxist Praxis in the first place. I would answer that all it really takes is empathy in other people's suffering and an understanding of the system that creates their suffering in the first place. If somebody is a privileged first world resident who feels they are "above" empathy they should only take into to consideration that, more than likely, the tensions that capitalism creates will harm them or their loved ones next.
What are you trying to say here; are you claiming that (a) communists are total moral relativists and there is no objective measure of right and wrong, or (b) morality is objective but that it changes over time? I’m not sure which one of those two you’re going for, but as far as I can tell you’re probably going with point (a). I really don’t know until you explain further, though, because most of the above post doesn’t discuss the issue.
Saying “The "moral basis" is that Socialism, and later Communism, offers relief of the social conflict caused by Capitalism” doesn’t begin to outline the moral foundations that let you draw your conclusions. That is, unless you’re saying that a first principle is that “social conflict caused by capitalism” is evil. Yet the only way you could say that would be under point (b), and before I even try to tackle that I would want to hear you describe this shifting, objective morality.
walkinginonit posted:If you think that a new system of morality needs to be created in order to build a better society you are already looking at the issue wrong. Society has its own laws of motion in which it adapts to resolve its problems. A change in social organization results in new social norms, a new morality.
If society is always in a flux finding a new set of social norms is futile, because society has its own laws of motion based on its contradictions. Capitalist society moves in the direction of class polarization, the wealthy need to make more, the poor need to make less and production needs to increase. This contradiction between disparity and plenty creates an incentive for a new social order, which will have new norms (morality)
I appealed to people's empathy, but I also appealed to people's selfishness (" . . . the tensions that capitalism creates will harm them or their loved ones next.") The point is that people's increasing dissatisfaction and suffering from capitalism creates the incentive to create a new society. The "incentive" for Communism is really the dislike of needless suffering.
Okay, here’s the third post from you, and we’re still no closer to hearing what the moral system is. You are clearly relying on moral judgments and drawing moral conclusions, but I don’t see what is supporting them. That’s the problem with communist texts; where is the text that will describe the underlying moral system that allows you to conclude that this is right, that is wrong, such and such ought to happen. The last post makes you sound like a moral relativist, but you never actually state it outright.
If you believe that communism involves total moral relativism, then just tell us. If you believe that morality exists in and of itself, then tell us, and give us at least a brief outline so we can begin to understand how morality works in communism.
NoFreeWill posted:...
So you don't know what morality is (hint, it involves social norms much more than philosophers and eternal truth) and have no compelling reason for people to strive towards communism other than that "it's better because I think it will be". and the definition of better seems to based on a morality that makes empathy (an everyday emotion I feel towards other human beings) into some sort of divine law.
Apparently this slam dunk post is supposed to be down voted under communist morality. If only someone could explain the system so that this doesn't happen again 
But in the meantime we both agree that money should be really heavy, so that no one would want to deal with it.
I have to get up early so I'm postponing drunkenness for at least one more day
Edited by Lykourgos ()
walkinginonit posted:I'll give you a good, non half-assed response in the morning.
But in the meantime we both agree that money should be really heavy, so that no one would want to deal with it.
this happened in various places, so they invented accounts and loans so that they didn't have to actually roll their gigantic currency objects around
in a sense this still happens, most gold is in the new york federal reserve fault and merely the titular owner changes
until some shit happens and then oh it's repo'd sorry haha. fucking mafia
tpaine posted:i place my faith in you,dr. cat!
i will save you from your ennui
chickeon posted:communism is what you arrive at as the obvious result of any half decent ethics, motherfucker!
ah, so the fact that we have failed to institute full communism means we don't have any half decent ethics. which is why we need new ethics...
edit: Thought you were saying "ethnics" there. I'm going to bed
Edited by walkinginonit ()
postposting posted:HenryKrinkle posted:what did the twitterer say?
Edited by HenryKrinkle ()
c_man posted:to be fair, white western communists definitely seem like the most useless kinds of communists
that's more a problem of white western people than of communists, also while there are obviously huge problems with western communist orgs and attitudes, things that need to be critiqued and addressed, it is never ever useful to publicly treat the situation as hopeless or unresolvable even when that despair is what you feel in your heart. that's just doing the fascists work for them
c_man posted:to be fair, white western communists definitely seem like the most useless kinds of communists
Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.
c_man posted:to be fair, white western communists definitely seem like the most useless kinds of communists
true but this individual was rather explicitly erasing communists of color and the successes of non-white communist revolutions around the world.
shriekingviolet posted:that's more a problem of white western people than of communists
yah
NoFreeWill posted:ah, so the fact that we have failed to institute full communism means we don't have any half decent ethics
no dude it means we haven't smashed capital, pay attention!
