gyrofry posted:i dont understand this beef
That's because it's a bunch of baloney
postposting posted:what is the moral basis for capitalism?
Good question, that's why I similarly object to anyone who tries to rest solely upon capitalism when passing moral judgments. Thankfully, a lot of people don't do that; they will usually say they ascribe to a particular religion or philosophical movement, and that they believe that capitalism is in concord with that system. They don't say that capitalism is inherently desirable in and of itself as a first principle of reality; if they did that, then I would have this same discussion with them so that I could understand this exciting new foundation for moral judgments.
my balls work the same way
gyrofry posted:capitalism isn't a system that individuals implement by virtue of their volition, it obtains by virtue of material conditions.
my balls work the same way
Again, this is side-stepping the issue. If you're only here to say that your social model does nothing more than predict how people will be organised in the future, with no moral judgments or decisions about what ought to be, then okay. It's like a physics problem where you say a ball will roll down the hill over time. That's not what we're objecting to. We're objecting to the call for support, where people have certain goals and pass certain judgments about right and wrong. That requires a foundation that goes beyond your model.
If your model just predicts the future and no result is better or worse than any other, then this is a pointless discussion until you couple the conversation with morality. Presumably, that's why every discussion is always tinged with moral judgments, because that's what gives your model value, but you haven't laid the foundation for those judgments yet.
Edited by Lykourgos ()
thirdplace posted:i favor communism because i find capitalism to be very ugly
if the moral foundation of communism is Aesthetics, how do you explain the suppression of the soviet avant-garde and the god-awful aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Stalin's greatest crime).
Lykourgos posted:postposting posted:what is the moral basis for capitalism?
Good question, that's why I similarly object to anyone who tries to rest solely upon capitalism when passing moral judgments.
the only two people who insisted moral judgements were required at all were you and nofreewill. so if your only objection is something that no one was advocating then why post
Urbandale posted:Lykourgos posted:postposting posted:what is the moral basis for capitalism?
Good question, that's why I similarly object to anyone who tries to rest solely upon capitalism when passing moral judgments.
the only two people who insisted moral judgements were required at all were you and nofreewill. so if your only objection is something that no one was advocating then why post
Again, there's a clear distinction between reality and what you're saying. We're not insisting that moral judgments are required, we're insisting that when you make a moral judgment you be willing to share the basis of that judgment. This place is overflowing with moral judgments and calls for action in favour of communism, but so few people are willing to discuss how they were able to conclude that anybody ought to do anything.
If you want a forum where no moral judgments are ever made, then Rhizzone is clearly not the place for you. I can barely imagine a forum like that, perhaps people just go there to share observations like "water is wet" and "it's now 3:30pm in Chicago".
Lykourgos posted:If you want a forum where no moral judgments are ever made, then Rhizzone is clearly not the place for you. I can barely imagine a forum like that, perhaps people just go there to share observations like "water is wet" and "it's now 3:30pm in Chicago".
if you think any claim any more complicated or controversial than your examples here must be or require some kind of "moral judgement", then that just might be your problem
Edited by littlegreenpills ()
Lykourgos posted:Urbandale posted:Lykourgos posted:postposting posted:what is the moral basis for capitalism?
Good question, that's why I similarly object to anyone who tries to rest solely upon capitalism when passing moral judgments.
the only two people who insisted moral judgements were required at all were you and nofreewill. so if your only objection is something that no one was advocating then why post
Again, there's a clear distinction between reality and what you're saying. We're not insisting that moral judgments are required, we're insisting that when you make a moral judgment you be willing to share the basis of that judgment. This place is overflowing with moral judgments and calls for action in favour of communism, but so few people are willing to discuss how they were able to conclude that anybody ought to do anything.
If you want a forum where no moral judgments are ever made, then Rhizzone is clearly not the place for you. I can barely imagine a forum like that, perhaps people just go there to share observations like "water is wet" and "it's now 3:30pm in Chicago".
my god, pure ideology
Urbandale posted:calls for action do not need to be on a moral basis though, and really most of them are planned and framed specifically to enable the intended participant to project whatever schema they ascribe to onto the event itself, whether its some moral basis for joining, an ethical one, class necessity, etc
They are necessarily on a moral basis, because they involve passing judgment on whether something is good or bad, and exhorting people to take specific actions. They either do both at once, "do x because it will achieve y, which is good", or they do them separately by just saying "do x!" or "y is good!"
People here often say, "capitalism is bad, help with the class struggle!" and thereby make a moral judgment and request that the reader take certain actions towards an implicit goal.
To say that capitalism is bad, you're making a moral judgment, because otherwise how could it be bad? How did you conclude that capitalism is bad; what enabled you to separate capitalism and place at least some aspect of it in the bad category?
To request that we "help with the class struggle", you're saying that we ought to support a particular goal and take certain actions. As a communist, presumably you want us to help workers or some other group change the current economic or social environment. To do that, you necessarily concluded that seeing your side engage in and succeed at this struggle is right, as opposed to the other possible results. You also determined that it would be right for us to help with your side of the struggle, hence you are requesting our aid. So, how did you reach those conclusions? What system led you to conclude that people should help with the class struggle?
If you are saying the above without meaning to invoke any moral judgment, then what could your meaning possibly be?
One possibility, which perhaps you mean to endorse, is the one that I suggested to walkinginonit. That is, "...you are saying that the moral system does not exist at all, nothing is actually good or evil, and that you only use the word “morality” to refer to the rules that humans tend to expect everyone to follow. When you say that something is “good”, you just mean that it is in accordance with the expected behaviour (the student obeys the teacher). There is no moral judgment actually involved, nothing is better or worse, nothing ought to be, and the rules themselves have no value."
Under that theory, when you say "help with the class struggle" you just mean, "help with the class struggle to bring a change, but this isn't a request, whether you do it or not doesn't matter, and I'm not suggesting that helping with the class struggle has any value". In effect, you just mean "it is possible to further the class struggle", because you are unable to say that class struggle ought to happen or that it ought to be furthered in any particular way. It is just an event that occurs as a product of movement.
When you say, "capitalism is bad!" you are just saying, "capitalism violates this rule" and not trying to claim that the rule has any value. Bad is synonymous with "violation", and you aren't trying to make a judgment as to whether the rule ought to be inviolate.
Edited by Lykourgos ()
It is clear to me that many people outside of the Rhizzone who have communist or socialist leanings do have a moral system, but they didn't take that system from communist writings. Instead, they believe in some religion or philosophical school of thought, and they are able to justify their support of communism, and their desire for others to support communism, by referring to their overall belief in the good.
That is the appropriate path to take. When you are honest and make an effort to find your footing, then and only then are you able to discuss communism, capitalism, and all other matters like an adult.
What I want to see is more americans on the internet taking the time to establish an honest and secure moral foundation, and then take the time to ensure that what they say accords with that foundation.
NoFreeWill posted:walkinginonit posted:I'm wrapping up right now. You may be thinking "What does walkinginonit define as humanity's common interest?" I think, given the faulty nature of rationality, common interest is something that can only be determined socially.
I really hope this cleared things up, thanks for reading.
that was a lot of words to say you don't know. also if there's no moral argument for communism how do you expect people to join the cause...
we really dont want vacillating petite bourgeoisie blowhards and lazy imperial intelligentsia to join the communist cause. they're not reliable and they dont get it. to make people like you to become communist, you either have to 1) actually experience life in the working class, and 2) actually do some investigation and historical research. better yet do both. with you, that is clearly not gonna happen.
otherwise, it is entirely clear your morality is just as underdeveloped as your intellect, as dismal as your understand of history, as inconsequential as your ego. and as this post serves to prove:
NoFreeWill posted:thirdplace posted:i favor communism because i find capitalism to be very ugly
if the moral foundation of communism is Aesthetics, how do you explain the suppression of the soviet avant-garde and the god-awful aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Stalin's greatest crime).
your entire identity is grafted on from the most boring petty bourgeois delusions and cliches, completely lacking in any imagination or independence (proving, once again, that your own argument can be quickly discarded. who gives a shit about the morality of a carboncopy of the minor oppressing classes?).
i think you should stick to memes. don't call us we'll call you.
Crow posted:.custom275361{}NoFreeWill posted:.custom275350{}walkinginonit posted:I'm wrapping up right now. You may be thinking "What does walkinginonit define as humanity's common interest?" I think, given the faulty nature of rationality, common interest is something that can only be determined socially.
I really hope this cleared things up, thanks for reading.
that was a lot of words to say you don't know. also if there's no moral argument for communism how do you expect people to join the cause...
we really dont want vacillating petite bourgeoisie blowhards and lazy imperial intelligentsia to join the communist cause. they're not reliable and they dont get it. to make people like you to become communist, you either have to 1) actually experience life in the working class, and 2) actually do some investigation and historical research. better yet do both. with you, that is clearly not gonna happen.
otherwise, it is entirely clear your morality is just as underdeveloped as your intellect, as dismal as your understand of history, as inconsequential as your ego. and as this post serves to prove:
.custom275427{}NoFreeWill posted:.custom275413{color:#159E0B !important; background-color:#525252 !important; }thirdplace posted:i favor communism because i find capitalism to be very ugly
if the moral foundation of communism is Aesthetics, how do you explain the suppression of the soviet avant-garde and the god-awful aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Stalin's greatest crime).
your entire identity is grafted on from the most boring petty bourgeois delusions and cliches, completely lacking in any imagination or independence (proving, once again, that your own argument can be quickly discarded. who gives a shit about the morality of a carboncopy of the minor oppressing classes?).
i think you should stick to memes. don't call us we'll call you.
how many of the people on this board are "working class"? I'd guess <50%. Also I've done a decent amount of historical and other research, just because I don't agree with the hivemind on everything doesn't mean i'm an idiot.
Crow posted:somehow, the masses continue to join the mysterious communist movement against all odds, and the formidable logic of Ms Paint ninja has yet to soundly defeat reality. Smdh
the highly successful western communist parties called, it's for you!
Lykourgos posted:I believe that morality is real and has independent existence from our personal opinions. There is a right and a wrong, there are things that ought to be and ought not to be. I can also appreciate that it is a lot easier to tear something down than to build something up. Pointing out the need for a foundation is a lot easier than actually stepping up and presenting that foundation.
It is clear to me that many people outside of the Rhizzone who have communist or socialist leanings do have a moral system, but they didn't take that system from communist writings. Instead, they believe in some religion or philosophical school of thought, and they are able to justify their support of communism, and their desire for others to support communism, by referring to their overall belief in the good.
That is the appropriate path to take. When you are honest and make an effort to find your footing, then and only then are you able to discuss communism, capitalism, and all other matters like an adult.
What I want to see is more americans on the internet taking the time to establish an honest and secure moral foundation, and then take the time to ensure that what they say accords with that foundation.
the moral foundation is that capitalism is an immoral system, leading to the continuously increasing immiseration of the group that is expanded and required for it to function, and that a better society is possible
Petrol posted:NoFreeWill used Anglocentrism! It's not very effective.
the Soviet Union used Lost the Cold War. It's very effective!
NoFreeWill posted:the Soviet Union used Lost the Cold War. It's very effective!
The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
NoFreeWill posted:Crow posted:.custom275361{}NoFreeWill posted:.custom275350{}walkinginonit posted:I'm wrapping up right now. You may be thinking "What does walkinginonit define as humanity's common interest?" I think, given the faulty nature of rationality, common interest is something that can only be determined socially.
I really hope this cleared things up, thanks for reading.
that was a lot of words to say you don't know. also if there's no moral argument for communism how do you expect people to join the cause...
we really dont want vacillating petite bourgeoisie blowhards and lazy imperial intelligentsia to join the communist cause. they're not reliable and they dont get it. to make people like you to become communist, you either have to 1) actually experience life in the working class, and 2) actually do some investigation and historical research. better yet do both. with you, that is clearly not gonna happen.
otherwise, it is entirely clear your morality is just as underdeveloped as your intellect, as dismal as your understand of history, as inconsequential as your ego. and as this post serves to prove:
.custom275427{}NoFreeWill posted:.custom275413{color:#159E0B !important; background-color:#525252 !important; }thirdplace posted:i favor communism because i find capitalism to be very ugly
if the moral foundation of communism is Aesthetics, how do you explain the suppression of the soviet avant-garde and the god-awful aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Stalin's greatest crime).
your entire identity is grafted on from the most boring petty bourgeois delusions and cliches, completely lacking in any imagination or independence (proving, once again, that your own argument can be quickly discarded. who gives a shit about the morality of a carboncopy of the minor oppressing classes?).
i think you should stick to memes. don't call us we'll call you.
how many of the people on this board are "working class"? I'd guess <50%. Also I've done a decent amount of historical and other research, just because I don't agree with the hivemind on everything doesn't mean i'm an idiot.
each post you make like this proves you're an idiot
NoFreeWill posted:but i forgot the naxalites and the tibetans and the cubans and north koreans, all doing well.
c_man posted:the moral foundation is that capitalism is an immoral system, leading to the continuously increasing immiseration of the group that is expanded and required for it to function, and that a better society is possible
You're not a complete idiot, so I know that you realise you haven't answered anything with that post. You're just repeating the same conclusion, without offering the work that leads up to it; what did you use to conclude that "capitalism is an immoral system"?
You do say that capitalism causes "continuously increasing immiseration", so are you leaving us a little clue? Do you think that poverty is synonymous with evil, and good is synonymous with wealthy, and therefore anything that causes immiseration is evil? Take the necessary steps to help us by kindly outlining the system that let you make your conclusion. Please, for all our sakes.
gyrofry posted:The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.(picture of Marx hiding behind shades)
It's hard for Marx to look cool after such a cowardly argument. He dips his toes in the water, and then scurries away while swearing up and down that he's totally right but won't discuss it further. "I'm a fantastic swimmer, but you'll have to take my word on it because swimming sucks and I'm never getting in the pool with you lads again!"
Do Marx's fans even try supporting or discussing the above quote?
robotech the SNES game ruled btw. Coincidence?
