[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1687898076924.png (40.8 KB, 600x700, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.19083[Last 50 Posts]

How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?

What is the self-interest in helping the needy?

How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?

 No.19084

thread died for this
leftypol try to read marx challenge impossible
etc.

 No.19085

>>19084
LMAO, can't even formulate a cogent thought. BTFO.

 No.19086

Communism is not for you.

 No.19087

>>19086
>LMAO, can't even formulate a cogent thought. BTFO.

 No.19088

File: 1687898914488.jpg (58.67 KB, 1080x1026, FzfMnVwWcAMRpqR.jpg)

I think you're going at this in reverse: what would failing to apply this maxim entail? What would be gained from asking more than what one is able to give? What would be gained from giving more or less than what is needed?

 No.19089

It is in the proletarian class best's interest to overthrow the capitalist ruling class (bourgeois) and then become the ruling class.

Communism actually aligns with the individual's own interests. In the case of the proletarian of the imperial core (labour aristocracy), it is in not their bests to overthrow the capitalists as they benefit from imperialism.

 No.19090

>>19089
But I am one single person not a class.

 No.19091

>>19090
That which applies to a class applies to the individual as classified. Think in bulk.

 No.19092

>>19090
It is practically impossible to become a bourgeois, it is better to fight for your advantage as you are a proletarian, and not a bourgeois.

 No.19093

>What is the self-interest in helping the needy?
Because their self interest may be in killing you to live

 No.19094

>>19092
Not at all, retards do it everyday, if you think so little of yourself you think you couldn't one up everyone else out there above you, that's on you.

 No.19095

>>19093
>>1515837
>That's a "you wouldn't want to die and be thrown in the lake of fire" kind of proposition.

 No.19096

>>19095
All three questions are spooked and infantile

 No.19097

>>19096
No spooks, by stirnerism, the logical conclusion would be to become a capitalist and become obscenely wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

 No.19098

File: 1687899534171.gif (1.95 MB, 240x300, 587.gif)

>>19094
You aren't good at math, are you?

 No.19099

>>19098
Anyone who can do math well can take more resources than 99% of people on Earth.

 No.19100

>>19099
True, just as anyone who can do math well would see that as a pointless and inefficient approch to their goals.

 No.19101

Yeah this is something most Marxists struggle to articulate, and I won't act like I have a simple answer. Most important thing to start with is that morals and ethics are not the same thing. Morality is historically and culturally contingent, and is readily identifiable and can be described based on the values a society treats as moral. Polygamy, slavery, eating animals, money-lending, nudity, intoxication, etc are all easy examples of behaviors that have at various points been held as strictly immoral in various societies, while even their historical contemporaries diverged in their judgement of whether and to what degree these behaviors were moral or immoral. Morality is simply the codes, explicit or implicit, that govern what is acceptable in social life. Ethics on the other hand is the deliberate philosophical consideration of what actually constitutes good human behavior. This hasnt historically reached especially consistent conclusions of course, but it's a significant difference. Many people who have lived in slave societies have determined that slavery is unethical even if it is fully acceptable in their own social context. The acceptability of killing another person is morally determied, e.g. whether is morally justified in self-defense, in a duel, in war, etc. But the range of particular moral demands and questions that we see appear everywhere throughout history around the question of killing, and the demarcation of murder from warfare or execution, indicates a consistent ethical concern with killing other people as something basically objectionable that must be heavily qualified.

Because Marxists seek to understand the development of history as an interchange between material processes and human self-organization, it's important for Marxists to avoid treating morality as self-evident or transhistorical. The somewhat simplified idea of ideological "superstructure" is a useful metric: a society whose reproduction is based around slave labor is of course going to be much more invested in seeing slavery as morally acceptable, even if especially sadistic excesses are still seen as immoral. A society such as ours basing its reproduction around wage-labor is free to see slavery as reprehensible, because we place moral value on the nominally voluntary association of labor through the market. But to suggest wage-labor is itself immoral is absurd: our moral framework is built around wage-labor as a self-evident baseline. There's bad bosses, bad deals, bad working conditions, but those are immoral excesses. The value-neutral amorality of the status quo is affirmed by designating the cruelty within it as immoral excesses, when such cruelty is in fact an integral and expected part of its function.

So Marxists condemn morality as an untenable basis for critique of the world as it exists, since morality derives its values from the self-evidence of the world as it exists, and Marxists hold that the world does not simply exist as it is, it has arrived here through discrete and contingent processes that are still at work and will continue to reshape the world.

I do think the Marxism is implicitly deeply concerned with ethics, but as far as I know there hasnt been much elaboration of a "Marxist ethics." Presumably for the same reason that Marxists have largely avoided any concrete vision for what a socialist and/or communist society would look like and how it would function – the fear that to expound on these things is veering into an idealism and utopianism, speculating about things we have no reason to believe we can predict. While that's basically prudent, I do think it would go a long way to clarify OP's and other good faith, understandable questions on this topic to at least elaborate a communist position on ethics as something implicit to the communist project, albeit something not quite quantifiable or actionable outside of individual behavior.

 No.19102

>>19101
>Most important thing to start with is that morals and ethics are not the same thing.
Your post is probably good, but with semantics right off the bat.

 No.19103

>>19102
So let me be more direct, I see this with the atheist crowd.

>Oh I don't believe in morals! I believe in ethics!

LMAO.

 No.19104

>>19083
>>19085
>OP makes obviously false and controversial assertion about Marxism then proceeds to treat every reply as a debate challenge
Obvious bait thread

 No.19105

>>19102
>>19103
I fully concede that ethics vs morals are vernacularly the same, and that this is often used as an easy out by people trying to debate it. I don't think I'm doing that, if you read my post I am making a workable distinction, and one that is common enough in philosophy. I.e., morality and ethics are deeply related, but morality is the functional instantiation of ethical instincts mediated by historical, social, and personal circumstances.

 No.19106

>>19104
>LMAO, can't even formulate a cogent thought. BTFO.

>>19105
I'm going to read through what you said and give you a good reply, thank you.

 No.19107

File: 1687900686299.png (356.4 KB, 366x462, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19083
>How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?
It's a philosophy of the development and liberation of productive forces

>What is the self-interest in helping the needy?
The self-interest is that it increases productive forces.

>How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
Because it will increase productive forces.

 No.19108

>>19101
>what actually constitutes good human behavior.
Like I said, I feel we're encroaching into sophistry and we're just adding words onto God Go+Od.

>1st paragraph
Reminds me of the veganism debate I'm having in the other thread. I guess it's a never ending slippery slope until you let your body get eaten by ants so you stop killing things.

>2nd paragraph
Interesting. I guess going back to Marx, I think I agree with myself, the bare minimum we could do as a society is to provide the basis for life to all people. To each according for their need, "Whatever You Do to the Least of These," yeah it makes sense that any just society can't have abundant resource and see humans dying for lack of resource and say "haha fuck them."


>So Marxists condemn morality as an untenable basis for critique of the world as it exists, since morality derives its values from the self-evidence of the world as it exists, and Marxists hold that the world does not simply exist as it is, it has arrived here through discrete and contingent processes that are still at work and will continue to reshape the world.
I think it's a bunch of bullshit, morality to me comes from the source of our existance but that's another matter. All of us agree on the preservation of human life as our morality.

 No.19109

Why are you dumbasses talking about morals and ethics? See >>19088 , this is a purely mathematical matter, and a matter of collective self-interest.

 No.19110

File: 1687901763641.png (95.17 KB, 316x280, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19109
Define collective self-interest because I am a individual not a collective.

 No.19111

>>19110
>>19091

 No.19112

>>19111
But I can change class.

 No.19113

>>19112
Indeed. Just don't be a slave

 No.19114

>>19083
>What is the self-interest in helping the needy?
Empathy perhaps? Other than that, the main motivation isn't helping the needy but destroying the bourgeois class (unless you're a bootlicker of course).

 No.19115

>>19114
My father's catchphrase when I talk about the unjustness of society is, "don't be a victim."

 No.19116

Because it doesn't go "altruism le good because idk"

 No.19117

>>19116
>can't rebut that predatory behavior is more rational than altruism.

 No.19118

>>19083
>spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
Too risky and fruitless. The petty bourgeoisie try. And then they get bankrupt/proletarianized.

And again, bootlicking. By trying to integrate into the capitalist system you'll have to put up with all the shit of this system like environmental pollution, consumerism, copyright and proprietary software. And wage slavery. And overwork. And misery.

 No.19119

>>19083
>Marx: hmm seems like labor is a key part of what makes commodities valuable with regards to exchange value
<You (a retard): this is moralism!
>Marx: hmm seems like knowledge and science is a social process and knowledge is usually seen as a motion, through human activity
<You (a retard): this is moralism!
>Marx: hmm there seems to be two opposing directions between employees who tend to seek more money and employers who tend to pay their employees as little as possible.
<You (a retard): this is moralism!
We could keep going but better yet, just fucking read.

 No.19120

>>19112
That's inefficient.

 No.19121

>>19108
>>19108
>the bare minimum we could do as a society is to provide the basis for life to all people. To each according for their need, "Whatever You Do to the Least of These," yeah it makes sense that any just society can't have abundant resource and see humans dying for lack of resource and say "haha fuck them."

That is basically my position as far as underlying ethical concerns go. The difference is probably that I think in many ways morals allow a justification for infringing on that basic precept. E.g., when the right to personal autonomy extends to ownership over the food in a store or on a farm, but not to the right of people without money or means to access that food, you could call that an inconsistency. I wouldnt call it inconsistent, because I think it makes perfect sense that within an economy, and the broader social and moral framework it interacts with, where food is clearly produced and distributed on the basis of private property and the attendant systems of wage-labor and money exchange, someone starving because they dont have enough food to eat is a tragedy but not a crime, while if they broke into a store or stole food off the vine that would be a crime on the basis of the immorality of violating the laws that protect a conception of individual autonomy that extends to property.

If youre still bothered by the distinction between morals and ethics that's fair enough, I'm satisfied with it but maybe we could say that Marxists are unsatisfied with basing their politics and analyses around morality because, as in the example above, the tangible application of moral precepts is often contradictory, and applied in favor of the leading sectors of any given society.

>morality to me comes from the source of our existance but that's another matter.

That seems especially relevant actually. Do you mean morality derives from a divine source, or something biological/biosocial e.g. we have an innate drive towards preservation of human life?

 No.19122

>>19118 (cont.)
Surveillance, repressions, censorship, reactionarism. All this crap that I'm honestly tired of.

 No.19123

>>19120
>try to change my own circumstances within the system that exists
>try to change a system of hundreds of millions of people
>That's inefficient.
How so?

 No.19124

>>19115
>"don't be a victim"
Conservative, eh.

Anyway, who speaks of "justice" here? I thought you don't like moralism. Toppling a bourgeoisie is indeed very selfish. Because I won't have them as an obstacle. Simple as that. I don't care about "being a victim," my selfishness directs me for more demands than what capitalism can provide me with.

 No.19125

>>19124
>Conservative, eh.
Nah, it's reality. Just like when someone confronts you with violence, you'd rather one up them with violence, better you than me.

What is your selfishness? You seriously don't believe that capitalism could provide you with more resources than socialism? Lots of idiots became obscenely rich.

 No.19126

File: 1687902726305.jpg (174.99 KB, 1228x1638, FzWVu8xaYAA-9nP.jpg)

>>19123
Because if the system changes then no one has to overcome the statistical unliklihood of changing their class.

Acknowledging that this is how much resources you have that determines your class, you should see it like water pressure why saying any individual drop of water in that pipe can just flow to the higher pressure part of the pipe is asinine.

 No.19127

>>19124 (cont.)
It's funny how we start talking about Marxism is moralist and then 180 into justice. If you wanna be a selfish bastard like me then don't hold property laws as an idol you worship. All this "laws" thing. They don't work if you ain't caught.

 No.19128

>>19125
>Lots of idiots became obscenely rich
Well, I don't want to be an idiot just to put some food on a table. Am I a jester?

 No.19129

>>19126
But statistics of birth are irrelevant because I'm living only the life I inhabit right now. Again, the ability to achieve wealth in this life for anyone in this discussion should be irrelevant because all kinds of retards get wealthy.

 No.19130

File: 1687902951652.png (128.54 KB, 474x274, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19128

 No.19131

>>19129
the statistically likelihood of you becoming wealthy is not irrelevant to the question of you becoming wealthy being a sufficient solution to the problem of class division.

 No.19132

File: 1687903131559.png (301.27 KB, 474x248, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19130
lol

 No.19133

>>19131
Why would I want to end class division except for altruistic reasons?

 No.19134

>>19125
>Just like when someone confronts you with violence, you'd rather one up them with violence, better you than me
Comparing the proletarian infighting to self-defense? Well, the thing is that in a shootout we can't negotiate any mutually beneficial solution while the proletarians give me GNU/Linux and libre software. And that's very epic. Thank you, proletarians, very cool.

 No.19135

>>19133
productive forces

 No.19136

>>19133
because it is unlikely for you to find yourself in the ruling class, and more likely that you will be subordinated and emmiserated.

 No.19137

File: 1687903304683.jpg (100.72 KB, 960x502, 1687764969302054.jpg)

>>19083

 No.19138

>>19136
Not at all. It's very easy for anyone of any intelligence in the first world to find themselves in a better position than 99% of people on this Earth.

 No.19139

>>19137
>>LMAO, can't even formulate a cogent thought. BTFO.

 No.19140

>>19138
>in the first world
Well, haha, fuck me, I guess. :)

 No.19141

File: 1687903389757.png (177.81 KB, 1206x491, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19138

 No.19142

>>19133
You don't have to. Read Marx aaaaaaah.
Do whatever the fuck you want but you don't understand Marxism and neither are the people you're discussing with.

 No.19143

>>19140
If I wasn't altruistic, surely.

 No.19144

>>19142
>Do whatever the fuck you want but you don't understand Marxism and neither are the people you're discussing with.
Glad the true Marx understander logged in.

 No.19145

>>19129
Please give a mathematically grounded arguement, "dumb people get rich" should clue you in that it isn't your choice or a matter of your merit, but chance. So a statistical approach is needed.

 No.19146

>>19145
In a game of chance the number of times you roll the dice determines the odds. You really think low of yourself if you think you couldn't out compete the average smoll businessman.

 No.19147

>>19143
You don't get it. You automatically assume that everyone here is American and that I should advocate for American imperialist interests.

Ironically you're giving me more reasons to abolish capitalism.

 No.19148

>>19147
Well good for you. That's like a whole nothner question. Maybe you should become an isolationist state like NK or Cuba.

 No.19149

>>19148
But once again, is the impossibility of emigrating and finding success in the first world less than the probability of finding the same material success in your current system and nation?

 No.19150

>>19146
One life = one roll, you aren't rolling several times, you're just making a bigger show of shaking the dice in your hand. Please read a statistics book before you even consider reading marx.

 No.19151

>>19146
>you couldn't out compete the average [petty bourgeois]
Petty bourgeoisie rolling in the mud and getting bankrupt/proletarianized/taken over by a bigger fish. Exactly my point.

I'm not against being a petty bourgeois but being it long-term? W-why? Do you hate yourself?

 No.19152

>>19150
I'm talking about the probability of a business venture being successful. You can try many times. Many retards succeed.

>>19151
What's wrong with having unlimited resources long term?

 No.19153

>>19151 (cont.)
And don't get me started on monopolists and oligopolists. Like, honestly, fuck these guys, they can kys.

 No.19154

>>19152
>having unlimited resources
>petty bourgeoisie
I'm sure that petty bourgeoisie themselves would love to punch you in the face for that.

 No.19155

>>19154
To any reasonable human, practical unlimited resource is easily achievable, it's commonly called retirement. Food, shelter, everything covered without work.

 No.19156

>>19152
>Many retards succeed
And what about you? Have you already "gained the system?"

 No.19157

>>19156
What about you? Are you saying that communism is your most logical avenue for material wealth?

 No.19158

>>19152
And each time that happens, the pressure in that end of the pipe increases, and the probability of those buisness ventures decreases. The process of rolling another buisness venture has been automated.

 No.19159

>>19158
But I only live one life and only have the odds with which I currently have which are way better than the odds of communist revolution.

 No.19160

>>19159
>the odds with which I currently have which are way better than the odds of communist revolution.
You assume this is the case. I don't see it likely you will substantiate this assumption.

 No.19161

>>19160
Maybe I already have. Either way the odds of communist revolution is infinitesimal so all manner of odds are more likely and therefore the logical course of action.

 No.19162

>>1516046
If you're relying on SSI you're a poor sad fuck.

 No.19163

>>19161
You could make a chart comparing the likelihood of the pipe bursting vs the likelihood of the pressure at the end of the pipe continuing to rise. If only a bearded someone had kindly made that into a book…

 No.19164

>>19162
Since when did I say that I rely on anything? We're heading straight into 1984 and you keep thinking tha, the concern of socialists is just welfare or whatever the fuck.

The current system is full of crises, surveillance and authoritarianism. I don't want to lick the boot, do it yourself if you want.

 No.19165

>>19164
>Since when did I say that I rely on anything?
Why did you delete your message?

 No.19166

>>19164 (cont.)
It was never about being lazy or envious. I happen to agree with Nietzsche but that doesn't mean that I would defend the capitalist interests. No more than I would defend the fascist interests.

 No.19167

>>19117
?
Both have utility, what are you trying to say

 No.19168

>>19167
>Altruism
>selflessness
>without self
>not advantaging the self
>bet for yourself not to be altruistic.

 No.19169

>>19168
Uygga start speaking in normal language and not fucking greentext, this is even worse than semantics

 No.19170

>>19165
It was broken. And I couldn't resend it because it's already gone.

The gist of it is that there are two classes: workers and capitalists. The capitalists want more profit and stability, the workers want more salary and affordable basic necessities like food, shelter and whatnot (look up Maslow's pyramid). Since the workers and the capitalists are unequal in price negotiation their interests clash. It's only natural for a worker to demand more since the worker is persuing their egoistic self-interest. And why shouldn't they? There's no moral nihilist objection to it whatsoever.

 No.19171

>>19169
I guess my post could be better but I don't even understand how you could argue selfishness and selflessness could be equally advantageous to the self. Is that clear?

 No.19172

>>19170
But in our society it's very easy for a worker to become a capitalist, much easier than improving the lives of workers.

 No.19173

>>19117
>equating predatory behavior to egoism
My friend, telling egoists how they're ought act is the most moralist thing ever.

 No.19174

File: 1687905671900.jpg (64.04 KB, 700x675, notyouagain.jpg)

>>19083
>How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?
It isn't. Marxism is a way of understanding the world (mainly the capitalist world) through the the lens of class society and the way the economic mode of production (capitalism) affects those two classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat). There is nothing moral about this because Marxists see morality as a byproduct of a class society rather than the driving force.

>What is the self-interest in helping the needy?
Who are these "needy"? Everyone has needs. The proletariat sells their labor to the capitalists in order to meet their needs met in the form of pay and the capitalists likewise need the proletariat for their own ventures even though their "needs" (ie things they need to live) are already met tenfold (if not a thousand fold) even though "wants" is a better term for them.

>How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
Who is this "anyone"? If you mean the workers then they have everything in the world to gain from toppling the system. The capitalist class reaps the results of the workers' labor while the many workers live in squalor as the capitalist system pollutes the sky and its expanse creates the conditions for unimaginable wars and conflicts.
Capitalism as a system creates these conditions for the workers to eventually organize. It is a system that cannot lift up everyone due to how it works but in doing so it proletarianizes the populace. This coupled with class consciousness leads to a clash between these two classes. Marxists believe this will lead to the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing their own rule over society (dictatorship of the proletariat as before it was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and starting the path towards communism (socialism ie a transitional society where the workers own the means of production while communism is a classes stateless society). This has very little to do with the self interest of an individual but of the way classes within society (as well as many other things within and without the mode of production) interact and influences one another (dialectical materialism). In simple terms it isn't self interest as it is the changing of material conditions that reinforce a collective interest.

Also fuck you this question did not need its own thread.

 No.19175

>>19173
Egoists ought to do whatever they want. Cover themselves in shit and run out in the streets if it suits their ego.

 No.19176

>>19174
>It isn't. Marxism is a way of understanding the world (mainly the capitalist world) through the the lens of class society and the way the economic mode of production (capitalism) affects those two classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat). There is nothing moral about this because Marxists see morality as a byproduct of a class society rather than the driving force.
Long paragraph that didn't even reply to the quote.

>Who are these "needy"? Everyone has needs.
In the quote? Obviously the people lacking ability to provide for their needs.

 No.19177

>>19172
>But in our society it's very easy for a worker to become a capitalist
If it was that easy we would already live in some anarcho-mutualist utopia where every worker is a petty bourgeois. Unfortunately, the majority of people are wage workers or freelancers.

 No.19178

>>19177
Obviously not, capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Only a small fraction can be atop the pyramid.

 No.19179

>>19176
>Obviously the people lacking ability to provide for their needs
Marxism
Socialism is not about the poor. It's about the working class. Which includes the so-called middle "class."

 No.19180

>>19178
But in the 1st world, 124k puts us in the top 99th percentile of all people on earth while 124k is very achievable. Even for a third worlder dedicated enough and knowledgeable enough, getting to the 1st world and achieving 124k is easy as shit.

 No.19181

>>19178
>capitalism is a pyramid scheme
Good description. If there are capital owners, someone has to be the wage worker. After all, the workers are the source of the capitalists' wealth. Without the worker, there can be no capitalist.

 No.19182

>>19180
>But in the 1st world
The first world this. The first world that.

I
Don't
Live
In
The first world

 No.19183

>>19182
You can definitely find your way here easier than you can spark a revolution.

 No.19184

>>19176
>Long paragrap
>supposedly cannot correlate quote to response
lmao /thread this dude is following a flow chart.

 No.19185

>>19184
Huh? He literally said nothing there.

 No.19186

>>19174
>Who is this "anyone"? If you mean the workers then they have everything in the world to gain from toppling the system. The capitalist class reaps the results of the workers' labor while the many workers live in squalor as the capitalist system pollutes the sky and its expanse creates the conditions for unimaginable wars and conflicts.
I guess I didn't reply to the third paragraph, but the fuck didn't reply to anything ITT. Can you tell me with a straitght face that it's easier to topple capitalism than to accumulate wealth under capitalism?

 No.19187

>>19185
uyghas be bot testing

 No.19188

Sighh,,

Some people got it ITT so I dunno why I have to do this

>we live under capitalism
>what is more probable:
>gaining material wealth under capitalism
>gaining the same material wealth after dedicating ourself to a suicidal socialist revolution?
obviously, logically, statistically, we much easier gain by playing the grain than going against it.

 No.19189

>>19188
I mean considering no one dedicated themselves to a communist revolution and gained material wealth, vs all the dumbasses who started a smoll business and got ridiculously wealthy, it's not up for debate.

 No.19190

>>19188
The system goes against it's own grain, ergo that's impossible as an individual that can't superposition.

 No.19191

File: 1687908129124.gif (148.18 KB, 220x169, 1639131514028.gif)

>>19176
>Long paragraph that didn't even reply to the quote.
Yes I did, you just don't understand. Let me elaborate with an example.

Back in the day, it was "moral" to own human beings as slaves. Now (in most places of the world at least) it isn't. Marxists see morality as something that is influenced as a result of a society's connection to the economic "mode of production". It was "moral" to own slaves because slavery played an ultimate role in the economic stability of society so the ruling class used "morality" to justify slavery because it kept them the capitalists in control.

What I am saying is that Marxism does not use morality as a way of seeing/analyzing the world (therefore it isn't moralistic) because it sees morality as a byproduct of class society.

>Obviously the people lacking ability to provide for their needs.
Read The Communist Manifesto or the Principles of Communism as well as some supplementary text/videos that help elaborate upon those works. It seems you don't know what I meant. "Needy" is a meaningless term in regards to the overall question. Why can't these people get what they need? Because the capitalist system keeps them from doing that. It twists them. It alienates them (and all of us as well). It kills them. Because that is how it works. But in doing so it creates the conditions for its own destruction, not of the self interest of one, but the necessity of the many.

>>19186
>easy
Who said this is gonna be easy? it will be done nonetheless.
>Can you tell me with a straitght face that it's easier to topple capitalism than to accumulate wealth under capitalism?
This is as silly as that "well you still live in society, curious" meme. People sell their labor for pay and some take those excess profits and become petty bourgeois. This does not erase the fact that capitalism creates way more workers than capitalists and therefore will eventually lead to clashes between these classes. So no, it won't be easy, but it will be done. And also it isn't easy for most workers to amass wealth under capitalism anyway, that is the whole fucking reason why they would overthrow the system.

 No.19192

>>19191
>Yes I did, you just don't understand. Let me elaborate with an example.
Like I said to the other guy and we agreed morality and ethics and whatever is a semantic argument.
>>19191
>Why can't these people get what they need? Because the capitalist system keeps them from doing that.
A lot of people have needs including cripples who can't provide anything for us under any system yet we provide for them according to our ability, why?

>Who said this is gonna be easy? it will be done nonetheless.
No logic to that statement, like saying christ will return regardless,.


>>19191
>This is as silly as that "well you still live in society, curious" meme. People sell their labor for pay and some take those excess profits and become petty bourgeois. This does not erase the fact that capitalism creates way more workers than capitalists and therefore will eventually lead to clashes between these classes. So no, it won't be easy, but it will be done. And also it isn't easy for most workers to amass wealth under capitalism anyway, that is the whole fucking reason why they would overthrow the system.
Fate is the domain of the religious.

 No.19193

>>19148
>Maybe you should become an isolationist state like NK or Cuba
Cuba isn't isolationist you dishonest Amerilard, it's blockaded.
MARS BAR PAPRIKA!

 No.19194

Idk if OP dropped the drop or w/e but I think the focus a lot of people have here on productive forces and self interest as personal reasons to advocate and work for communism is pretty silly and gets too hung up on anti-moralism and anti-humanism.

Marx describes labor-power as a commodity unique in that it is grounded in the "moral-historical subject", i.e. humans. The combination of terms here of moral and historical is crucial – morality is neither paramount nor transhistorical, but neither is it irrelevant to the perceptions, placement, and behavior of the historical human subject.

I'll be less esoteric and just say, I am enraged by the range of exploitation and misery wrought towards the ends of capital accumulation. I feel and think that it's bad because it hurts people, it restricts them from flourishing. I dont think there is an essential human nature or default human morality, but I do think there is an obvious tendency to recoil at suffering and consider whether it can be prevented. There are also rational (though not necessarily correct) tendencies that justify and explain suffering as necessary, just, or inevitable. I think morality is the field on which those tendencies of human experience come into conflict in conscious expression, though it's not the battlefield where those conflicts can be properly judged, let alone won. That doesnt make morality as-such irrelevant or worth resentment, morality (or I would prefer "ethical instinct" as I explained earlier ITT) is a part of human experience that is like all others subject to the contingencies of material historical factors (one of which is the persistent reality of human life).

 No.19195

File: 1687910387000.png (78.05 KB, 300x168, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19193
Ok fair enough, but in the same regard, it's much easier to emigrate to the first world in cuba.

 No.19196

>>19194
>Idk if OP dropped the drop
No clue what that means.

>>19194
>but I think the focus a lot of people have here on productive forces and self interest as personal reasons to advocate and work for communism is pretty silly and gets too hung up on anti-moralism and anti-humanism.
I agree.

As for the rest of your post, I think it's easy to say that any empathic human can imagine themselves "in the shoes" of any other human potentially and therefore wish them better shoes.

 No.19197

>>19192
Because having a generalized system of distribution of resources according to people's needs is more efficient, and the amount of goods that are produced far exceeds either scenerio of if we were to disregard the less capable or not, and meeting the needs of the less capable will make them more capable, which increases the amount that can be made, ad infinitum… The current system literally requires dumping resources to avoid meeting needs in order to function normally. Scarcity has been entirely artificial for a long time now.

 No.19198

>>19197
lot of words that doesn't explain how I can't take resources in an unjust system than a just one.

 No.19199

>>19198
>take resources
take more*

 No.19200

>>19198
That was barely long enough to be a paragraph, what do you mean a lot of words? What did what I say have to do with saying you 'cannot take more resources in an unjust system than a just one'? My arguement circumvents justice as a concept.

 No.19201

>>19200
That was a fair amount of words. What did it have to do? For the individual, inefficiency that benefits the self is way better than fairness.

 No.19202

>>19201
It seems like you've created a vacuum spook where you're trying to avoid fairness, when the thing you're actually avoiding has nothing to do with fairness.

 No.19203

File: 1687911420178.jpg (94.5 KB, 1170x1137, 1670552385797951.jpg)

>>19198
>Ask stupid questions
>get basic answers
>ignore and then ask even stupider questions
Hey dumbass, it is clearly evident you have no fucking clue what anyone explaining basic Marxist shit to you is talking about.

 No.19204

Sad that modern communists want to just turn it into a loser ideology. So bet it.

 No.19205

>>19203
I'm pretty sure this is just the jannies running a monthly test to see how well we can handle bait. If so then I'd say we got a D- this round.

 No.19206

File: 1687911962359.png (905.36 KB, 1600x1499, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19205
>can't answer basic questions
>hope to have revolution
Yeah the magic 8 ball says the oods don't look good

 No.19207

>>19205
It's not really worth the spending the cognitive labor time 'arguing' against a spooked retard, or some lumpen agent. The people who put actual time into their responses were just trying to guide the OP. Siberia

 No.19208

>>19207
>LMAO, can't even formulate a cogent thought. BTFO.

 No.19209

Lol at all the "marxist" tards who think they will ever become more than the irrelevant garbage they are now that can't explain to anyone what they stand for.

 No.19210

>>19141
>>19138
for reference, that 99th global percentile number ($124,720) is 88th percentile in the US. So 12% of USanos earn that level or higher.

 No.19211

File: 1687913217864.gif (1.25 MB, 200x197, 1652293080473.gif)

>>19209
what did you gay?

 No.19212

>>19196
Typo, meant "dropped the thread". Though now it seems like they (you?) just didnt respond to my former post

>As for the rest of your post, I think it's easy to say that any empathic human can imagine themselves "in the shoes" of any other human potentially and therefore wish them better shoes.

Of course. The distinction I'm making is that to wish them better shoes is, even if it is morality (conceding to you that it may be, I believe it is a sort of pre-moral ethical impulse), is not where morality ends. Many people in our world, as it exists, would (rationally) believe it immoral to give them money to buy shoes (theyll use it for vices, or maybe theres more pressing needs than shoes, etc), and even if it is considered moral to give them shoes outright, this needs to be done within a certain moral(!) framework, namely the donation of individuals or religious bodies, because it is considered immoral to prioritize the shoes of one over the autonomy of another (the latter would necessarily be curtailed by a leveraging of social power towards the provision of basic needs like shoes, food, etc for all). And particularly dogmatic individualists and capitalists will even insist that giving anything away to a needy stranger without some kind of equivelant exchange is immoral, because it will only tend towards reinforcing the reasons theyre needy to begin with (here lack of ambition, misperception of how the world really works, learned helplessness, etc). Even if I reject it, that is certainly a rational moral framework, and it is one that is not even always poorly suited to helping people, even if it does so by encouraging a nearly sociopathic relationship to others. On the other hand, if the wealthy began to supply their children with shoes by raiding orphanges supply as part of a strange fashion trend, I would of course say that that is a despicable way of providing the barefooted with shoes, and I would feel entirely consistent in that judgement despite being technically inconsistent with the former moral precept that sometimes its okay to help some at the expense of others.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but as I see it this is the significant difference. Morality is not wishing that the barefooted had shoes, it's the way in which you would find it acceptable to shoe them.

 No.19213

before the needy can be fed porky blood must be shed. it will seem a lot less altruistic to your kind then.

 No.19214

File: 1687915082180.png (458.45 KB, 768x1024, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1516221
you are first and foremost a dork who won't pass on genes in any paradigm

 No.19215

>>19214
tf is this fanart

 No.19216

>>1516278
LMAO back at you Jimmy Neutron. Open your mouth.

 No.19217

>>19216
Noticer and others of his ilk are just attention whores who get off on negative attention. Ignore and report.

 No.19218

>>19083
>What is the self-interest in helping the needy?
If you are prole the needy are potential competitors who driven by misery will be willing to work for less and less money, driving down your wage, even if they do not directly compete with you, they will compete with people who driven by lower wages will move to other sectors, including yours, lowering overall wages, so as a prole it is in your direct interest to ensure that no only poverty is not a thing, but that all matters high exploitative conditions are also not a thing i.e. slaves. Thus it is in your direct interest to have the whole working class improve at once. Your interests as worker are directly tied to your class, even if your interests as a person are to become a capitalist

>>19083
>How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
Why does it gotta be just one? Proles try to do both, they try to become capitalist and also improve their conditions as workers through collective action. However, in our current system, it is imposible for everyone to become capitalists, thus the majority of people continue to pursue improving their lives through collective action instead of the opposite, due to them failing. Then, it comes to be that eventually a sector who is class concious appearss, and fights for the collective improving of conditions of the class as a whole, i.e. a communist party. confronted with the realization that crisis ensure there is a minimum level of poverty always, the majorty of people are driven to overthrow class society

 No.19219

>>19218
So to answer your question, Marxism is not moralistic because it merely gets ahead of the curve, and realises that the only way for the proles to truly improve their conditions is to fight collectively and crush the bourgeois. It does not say this is good, or moral, but only that it is the only way to get out of the cycle of exploitation of capital

Also if you respnd only to this comment, and not to the one I made above, I will swat your house at 1 am

 No.19220

It would quite literally be to my benefit.
I hate this bitch of a system.
Secondly, I don’t like seeing people suffer needlessly.
Simple as

 No.19221

>>19083
All economics and sociology implies some moral element. The subject matter is about intrinsically moral agents, human beings.

You're regurgitating a sparknotes, lo-fi rendition of Marx's thought, which in its actual substance is descriptive and analytical. There is Marx the theorist and Marx the revolutionary. The theorist described the laws of history and the internal contradictions of capitalism. The revolutionary felt that the poor and exploited should fix things for themselves. Theory and praxis are famously related in marxism, but they are two different things.

The praxis side of things obviously has to do with moral emotions of injustice and retribution, because that's what animates human beings. The theoretical side is conceptual and intellectual.

 No.19222

>>19183
>spark a revolution
Who said I care about sparking a revolution?
1. I care about Marxian class analysis but am not an orthodox Marxist.
2. I care way more about damaging the power of the capitalist class and asserting my will to power on them than creating any socialist utopia "overnight."

 No.19223

>How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?
"Moralism" in the context of Marxism is typically a critique of observations like "World War II happened because Hitler was evil." While the vast majority of people would agree that Hitler was evil, the explanation is moralizing; at a basic level, a Marxist would approach this by looking into the underlying forces in (economic) practice that resulted in the Nazi Party and figures like Hitler.

Another usage of "moralism" is in opposition to hypostasizing moral judgments/values despite changes in the situation. In this sense, Marxists tend to be close to a historicist form of moral realism, although there's no necessary link between Marxism and moral realism. It's something like an elective affinity.

As for "ethics," there is a distinction in (continental) philosophy between "social" morality/mores (in German philosophy, Sittlichkeit) and individual morality (Moralität). Hegel treats the two separately throughout his works, and it's given particular emphasis in his Philosophy of Right.

This is also to be distinguished from ethics overall as a topic in philosophy, which deals with values and behavior without necessarily amounting to an "ethical system." Heidegger discusses ethics in the "subject matter" sense often enough, but not in terms of a system for moral prescriptions in the way that Bentham and Kant did.
>How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
If I believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's essentially impossible to "rise in the unjust hierarchical system," overthrowing that system will be more in my self-interest. "Self-interest" by itself doesn't imply a common judgment of rightness of means or ends; this is the basic problem with the question. One can be a Marxist out of selfishness or altruism. Similarly, a moral system constructed on the basis of self-interest doesn't necessarily imply selfishness; Spinoza's own ethical system is both constructed on the basis of self-interest and altruistic.

Whether one is a Marxist out of selfishness or whether one's moral system is constructed out of self-interest is irrelevant so far as Marxism is concerned. Individuals may have altruistic reasons for adopting Marxism, but they may not, and it doesn't matter either way.

 No.19224

>>19223
Hitler was a useful idiot who got pissed off at his art school teacher and some random jews IRL. He also was a chauvinist who served in the military and got influenced by the Volkisch movement which was very strong in Germany back in the day (and which Stirner and Nietzsche themselves mocked), and racial eugenics and segregation (thank you, USA, you are my best friend).

 No.19225

>>19224 (cont.)
Basically, Nazi Germany is the fault of American colonialism and German reactards. Hitler's ideas weren't even formulated by him in the first place, his schizo brain has just collected all the reactionary ideas that were prevailent in our retarded society at the time.

 No.19226

>>19223
>Spinoza's own ethical system is both constructed on the basis of self-interest and [self-interest]
Unconscious egoists, SMH.

 No.19227

>>19171
Altruism is like trading with other people but on a longer timescale and with smaller returns. You give a random guy food and he might someday give something back, even indirectly. Also religious and political organisations often use it for PR. If we count welfare as altruism too then it has more concrete effects, like someone not mugging you just to live.

 No.19228

>>19175
>Cover themselves in shit and run out in the streets if it suits their ego
Diogenes, is that you?

 No.19229

>>19175
>ought
"How DARE you not do whatever you want!? You have sinned against the church of egoism, reeee!!"

 No.19230

File: 1687952421721.jpg (77.39 KB, 668x960, 63631c6bb8acefc08ec2f077e2….jpg)

>>19227
>You give a random guy food and he might someday give something back
I mean, kindness seems like an immediate return to me. Many people seem to like it when you treat them kindly. But what do I know? I have no feelings.

Regardless, that's not altruism if you just enjoy seeing happy faces and don't like getting people angry or sad. Altruism is when you make it your sacred duty to help the Humanity. Altruism commands you to help everyone and everything and sacrifice your well-being for the sake of others, which can be suicidal. Patriotic soldiers are the most altruistic people out there.

 No.19231

>>19230
Yes, altruism isn't seeding low cost gratitude investments. I think martyrdom is a different question. One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually.

Back to the topic of the thread. If we're talking about logic, then treason is logical at any point where it's opportune. You fight for communism, but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?

 No.19232

>>19231
>One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually
Do you just assume that to conscious egoists life has so little value that sacrificing it isn't a loss for them at all? You're thinking of the self-interest in purely market terms. Self-interest is never limited to a mere accumulation of capital, it has no limits.

People are already egoistic.

<But the one who acts from love of filthy profit indeed does it on his own behalf, since in any case there is nothing that one does not do for his own sake, among other things, everything done for the glory of God; but because he seeks profit, he is a slave of profit, not beyond profit; he is one who belongs to profit, to the moneybag, not to himself; he is not his own. Doesn’t a person whom the passion of greed rules follow this master’s orders, and if one time a weak good-naturedness creeps over him, doesn’t this appear as an exceptional case of precisely the same sort as when devout believers are sometimes abandoned by their Lord’s guidance and beguiled by the wiles of the “devil?” So a greedy person is not a self-owned person, but a slave, and he can do nothing for his own sake, without at the same time doing it for his master’s sake—precisely like the God-fearing person.

 No.19233

>>19231
>but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?
Again, there are other desires people pursue. And they're not limited to the profit. But you can do whatever you want, there is no "holy book" of egoism. Some people may prioritize things other than profit and that's still a parfectly egoistic behavior.

 No.19234

>>19083
>spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
What's the point of that? To be an exploiting cunt?

 No.20466

Because the issue with Capitalism is not a moral failing of individuals(that porkies are inherently bad) but that they must partake in economic exploitation in order to exist; otherwise no profit would be made. Likewise, as constant capital accumulates(i.e machinery and other resources to increase labor productivity), you create more products for the proletariat to consume, but employ less wage-laborers who would be the buyers of such profits, causing decreasing profit rates eventually leading to crisis.

You could have the most compassionate humans in the world running this system(Marx's arguments in Capital already assume that things are being paid for at value and not below it) and it would still end in crisis eventually under its own economic laws. That's why it's not moralist.

 No.20468

Capitalism is inefficient.
The exploitation of the "needy" is inefficient
The abolition of these inefficiencies means more resources for the vast majority of people.
More resources for everyone means more resources for each individual. Including you, the reader.


Unique IPs: 30
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ Return / Go to top /