Before I continue, I just wanted to say thanks for indulging me. I enjoy this kind of discourse. (edit: and I apologize for the spelling/grammar errors in my previous response, I ran out of time and had to rush it)
Yes, but the nationalism and racism we see in the forms today are capitalist in nature. In pre-capitalist societies, nationalism and racism took different forms as best to serve the ruling elite, whatever that may be. Pre-capitalist societies also have primitive commodity production and capitalist-esque elements that are similar to the society we have today, which lead to similarities of those nationalism and racisms to what we see today.
I wonder if this doesn’t verge on simply seeing capitalism in everything that can be seen as dysfunctional in the current and previous economic systems. Maybe just turning the term into a economic boogeyman and watering down its more specific definition.
You would need to read Lenin for the gritty details. But in simple terms, as the capitalist crisis is made inevitable by the accumulation of capital, firms seek to solve, but really only temporarily stall, this crisis by finding new markets where the process can begin again.
Whenever I read books of that nature I find myself either debating with the very words I’m reading and frustrated by the lack of a counter from the author (because, you know… its a book), or bored as I agree with it. That said, I probably should anyway. I might start listening to audio books of theory on my commute or something.
Yes, because it is a modification to the capitalist system, and not a replacement of the capitalist system with a new form.
I noticed that edit. We might disagree on what counts as private ownership. Its best we not argue over the definition, but I think it might be valuable to ask if you believe in a distinction between “private” and “personal” property?
Only revolution can replace the capitalist system with a new mode of production. If you don’t wish to change the mode of production, no violent revolution is necessary, but as long as capitalism exists, so will it’s contradictions.
I don’t think a violent revolution would meaningfully be any more capable and in Leninism’s case result in state capitalism that is if anything more unlikely to “dissolve” into communism than even Social Democracy. Social Democracies decay back into capitalism as capitalists capture government and roll back reforms and state capitalism just decays into capitalism but with capitalists and government officials blurring into each other.
There would be virtually no individuals with sufficient authority with Mutualism (or Anarcho-Syndicalism) for roll backs to be as purposefully directed. Power would be more evenly spread which would act as counter balances to running right back into exploitation, imperialism, etc (edit: in the sense of these things being unethical/harmful, not as technical concepts). And achieving a Mutualist market economy would “boil the frog” so to speak and minimize reactionary push back (Something Social Democracy fails at) and weaken/prevent power concentration (something state capitalism fails at).
No, I’m a moral error theorist. I think all moral claims evaluate to false. My basis for this is rooted in hard determinism and hard incompatibilism. I explain the contradictions of capitalism and how socialism as a mode of production can solve these contradictions. I advocate for socialism as it’s in my self interest, and I think in other peoples self-interest as well.
I am also a hard incompatibilist. Though I am also sympathetic to Egoism and Absurdism.
Moral error theory contradicts itself on a fundamental level: If all moral statements are “false” this implies that truth holds moral value and that is the basis of a moral error theorist’s beliefs.
I don’t think it actually matters if ethics or morality have some kind of moral external proof or external truth to what humans desire in life or society. The superior alternative to moral error theory is to accept that morality and ethics exists in our minds individually and collectively and is “blurry”. Our conscious experience of existence being generically “positive” or “negative” is modulated by morality and ethics and this matters because nothing matters intrinsically other than what we want to matter.
Bringing up our self interest is also indicative of a sense of morality or ethics and at least in implication contradicts your belief in moral error theory. If anything it sounds more like you are a Stirnerite Egoist (maybe).
Morality and ethics matter as long as we exist. Once we’re all dead though, sure its stops mattering but then so does the discussion surrounding economic models.
I wonder if this doesn’t verge on simply seeing capitalism in everything that can be seen as dysfunctional in the current and previous economic systems. Maybe just turning the term into a economic boogeyman and watering down its more specific definition.
No. Nationalism and racism are products of capitalism. Part of capitalism is the division of the global proletariat, and subjugating them to a respective national bourgeoisie. Part of capitalism is the superexploitation of ethnic minorities and division of communities along ethnic lines to maintain the power of the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is a mode of production, and all that happens under it is part of its effects.
I noticed that edit. We might disagree on what counts as private ownership. Its best we not argue over the definition, but I think it might be valuable to ask if you believe in a distinction between “private” and “personal” property?
In truth, no. I think people can be in possession of objects and for one reason or another it’s “theirs”, but I don’t really believe in property, at all. But worker coops in a market system imply the existence of private property even ignoring the personal/private distinction.
I don’t think a violent revolution would meaningfully be any more capable
Some anarchists support insurrection over revolution, if your more palatable to that (considering you’re a mutualist?). But in essence this insurrection has the character of revolution in that, it is a violent rejection of the mode of production established by the state.
Leninism’s case result in state capitalism that is if anything more unlikely to “dissolve” into communism than even Social Democracy.
I don’t disagree
Power would be more evenly spread which would act as counter balances to running right back into exploitation, imperialism, etc (edit: in the sense of these things being unethical/harmful, not as technical concepts). And achieving a Mutualist market economy would “boil the frog” so to speak and minimize reactionary push back (Something Social Democracy fails at) and weaken/prevent power concentration (something state capitalism fails at).
Your organizational model will fall victim to the contradictions of capitalism as long as you retain capitalism. You can’t avoid that.
I am also a hard incompatibilist. Though I am also sympathetic to Egoism and Absurdism.
I don’t think hard incompatibilitsm is mutually exclusive with Egoism. Maybe absurdism.
To be clear, If hard incompatibilism is true, moral agents simply do not exist.
Moral error theory contradicts itself on a fundamental level: If all moral statements are “false” this implies that truth holds moral value
How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. “This apple is red”. Is a truth apt statement. I’m also a normative nihilist, so the sentence “we ought to believe things are true” is false to me.
I don’t think it actually matters if ethics or morality have some kind of moral external proof or external truth to what humans desire in life or society.
Which is compatible with error theory. This brand of error theory is called fictionalism, effectively after accepting all moral truths are false you retain moral discourse because it is convenient. But, I think you are an ethical subjectivist/moral relativist.
The superior alternative to moral error theory is to accept that morality and ethics exists in our minds individually and collectively and is “blurry”.
Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I don’t think it’s impossible for people to believe in moral facts. “Sam believes murder is wrong.” Can be true or false. “Murder is wrong.” is always false.
Bringing up our self interest is also indicative of a sense of morality or ethics and at least in implication contradicts your belief in moral error theory. If anything it sounds more like you are a Stirnerite Egoist (maybe)
Stirnerite egoists also don’t believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I don’t think it’s good or bad.
Capitalism is a mode of production, and all that happens under it is part of its effects.
So everything that happens right now is capitalist in nature? Wouldn’t that imply everything that follows is also capitalism? That would make communism a form of capitalism. It would also mean that feudalism was also capitalism since trade happened during feudalism and city states made profit.
I just think this is overly broad as to make “capitalism” a umbrella term, largely to service propaganda efforts in the short term but produce a fundamentally undermining boogeyman to cause internal conflict down the road of any kind of leftist success.
In truth, no. I think people can be in possession of objects and for one reason or another it’s “theirs”, but I don’t really believe in property, at all. But worker coops in a market system imply the existence of private property even ignoring the personal/private distinction.
Setting aside the hard incompatibilism and error theory for a moment, property is theft but property is also freedom. Do you think “freedom of association” is a value worth maintaining in society? Seeing as no one consents to being born, does the individual owe a collective anything at all? Is it not pleasurable for the vast majority of people to feel “free” (even if its an illusion) and thus “in their best interest” to feel free? Including feeling free from even joining a collective in order to pursue a competing position? To even stay within said group can be pleasurable in that societal context because instead of being an obligation its a choice.
Property in at least some form is necessary for a lot of intrinsically emotionally pleasurable things. Maybe its not always called “property” but the terminology doesn’t matter. Possessions that are respected by the rest of society is more or less the most rudimentary form. Even if its not “real”, life is not worth living without possessions, thus property.
Given this, there is utility in my definition of “Private Property” that makes it undesirable on a systemic, emotional, and intrinsic level. Private property is not possession or personal property. Its called “private” specifically to differentiate it. It is property used for production that is owned via purchasable deed or stock, rather than by anything else, like say participation.
Some anarchists support insurrection over revolution, if your more palatable to that (considering you’re a mutualist?). But in essence this insurrection has the character of revolution in that, it is a violent rejection of the mode of production established by the state.
I could be made more accepting of that assuming the insurrection was engineered to be as bloodless as possible. I should clarify, on the anarchist vs authoritarian scale I merely lean anarchist. I’d not be that uncomfortable with the “statist” label of “Market Socialist” either. I just go with Mutualist because its slightly closer to my inclination to let individuals do what they want.
I don’t think hard incompatibilitsm is mutually exclusive with Egoism. Maybe absurdism.
Probably not, though both are very “will” oriented.
To be clear, If hard incompatibilism is true, moral agents simply do not exist.
I agree, which is why I’m a consequentialist as well.
How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. “This apple is red”. Is a truth apt statement. I’m also a normative nihilist, so the sentence “we ought to believe things are true” is false to me.
Given the context, it implies it because the only reason someone would argue that ethics are not real or true is that they themselves apply moral weight to truth. Maybe they don’t, but its strange that they’d even argue about it at all in that case.
I have a lot more to say on the “This apple is red” statement but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.
EDIT: Suffice to say the most relevant part of my thoughts though is that even truth of objective reality is viewed through the lens of subjective perception. Morality and ethics are not concerned with the scientific observation of a “hard reality” thus saying “All moral statements are false” just comes off as a psychological shortcut to dismissing all ethics/morality.
Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I don’t think it’s impossible for people to believe in moral facts. “Sam believes murder is wrong.” Can be true or false. “Murder is wrong.” is always false.
Evaluating ethics/morals on some plane of objective accuracy outside of conscious minds makes no sense. In your example, “Murder is wrong” is true within the mind of Sam, given that’s the context that ethics or morality matters. I don’t think any other context matters, at least off the top of my head.
Just like our argument over what “capitalism” is, its just the subjectivity, utility, and pragmatism of language. There is no rule of the universe that states what capitalism is.
Stirnerite egoists also don’t believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I don’t think it’s good or bad.
My understanding of Stirnerite egoism is that it sees societal morality as non-existent but places a lot of value on individual’s intrinsic motivation, which includes an individual’s thoughts on what they want to do for others and what they expect from others. Or at least that’s what I think “Union of egoists” means, its been a while since I’ve engaged with it.
EDIT: I forgot to respond to something:
Your organizational model will fall victim to the contradictions of capitalism as long as you retain capitalism. You can’t avoid that.
Agree to disagree, I don’t think that is an inevitability of Mutualism/Market-Socialism. Its an observation and a consistent phenomena of similar systems, but I don’t think its unavoidable with such a system. I view that as meta-narrative and I don’t believe in meta-narratives.
Before I continue, I just wanted to say thanks for indulging me. I enjoy this kind of discourse. (edit: and I apologize for the spelling/grammar errors in my previous response, I ran out of time and had to rush it)
I wonder if this doesn’t verge on simply seeing capitalism in everything that can be seen as dysfunctional in the current and previous economic systems. Maybe just turning the term into a economic boogeyman and watering down its more specific definition.
Whenever I read books of that nature I find myself either debating with the very words I’m reading and frustrated by the lack of a counter from the author (because, you know… its a book), or bored as I agree with it. That said, I probably should anyway. I might start listening to audio books of theory on my commute or something.
I noticed that edit. We might disagree on what counts as private ownership. Its best we not argue over the definition, but I think it might be valuable to ask if you believe in a distinction between “private” and “personal” property?
I don’t think a violent revolution would meaningfully be any more capable and in Leninism’s case result in state capitalism that is if anything more unlikely to “dissolve” into communism than even Social Democracy. Social Democracies decay back into capitalism as capitalists capture government and roll back reforms and state capitalism just decays into capitalism but with capitalists and government officials blurring into each other.
There would be virtually no individuals with sufficient authority with Mutualism (or Anarcho-Syndicalism) for roll backs to be as purposefully directed. Power would be more evenly spread which would act as counter balances to running right back into exploitation, imperialism, etc (edit: in the sense of these things being unethical/harmful, not as technical concepts). And achieving a Mutualist market economy would “boil the frog” so to speak and minimize reactionary push back (Something Social Democracy fails at) and weaken/prevent power concentration (something state capitalism fails at).
I am also a hard incompatibilist. Though I am also sympathetic to Egoism and Absurdism.
Moral error theory contradicts itself on a fundamental level: If all moral statements are “false” this implies that truth holds moral value and that is the basis of a moral error theorist’s beliefs.
I don’t think it actually matters if ethics or morality have some kind of moral external proof or external truth to what humans desire in life or society. The superior alternative to moral error theory is to accept that morality and ethics exists in our minds individually and collectively and is “blurry”. Our conscious experience of existence being generically “positive” or “negative” is modulated by morality and ethics and this matters because nothing matters intrinsically other than what we want to matter.
Bringing up our self interest is also indicative of a sense of morality or ethics and at least in implication contradicts your belief in moral error theory. If anything it sounds more like you are a Stirnerite Egoist (maybe).
Morality and ethics matter as long as we exist. Once we’re all dead though, sure its stops mattering but then so does the discussion surrounding economic models.
No. Nationalism and racism are products of capitalism. Part of capitalism is the division of the global proletariat, and subjugating them to a respective national bourgeoisie. Part of capitalism is the superexploitation of ethnic minorities and division of communities along ethnic lines to maintain the power of the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is a mode of production, and all that happens under it is part of its effects.
In truth, no. I think people can be in possession of objects and for one reason or another it’s “theirs”, but I don’t really believe in property, at all. But worker coops in a market system imply the existence of private property even ignoring the personal/private distinction.
Some anarchists support insurrection over revolution, if your more palatable to that (considering you’re a mutualist?). But in essence this insurrection has the character of revolution in that, it is a violent rejection of the mode of production established by the state.
I don’t disagree
Your organizational model will fall victim to the contradictions of capitalism as long as you retain capitalism. You can’t avoid that.
I don’t think hard incompatibilitsm is mutually exclusive with Egoism. Maybe absurdism.
To be clear, If hard incompatibilism is true, moral agents simply do not exist.
How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. “This apple is red”. Is a truth apt statement. I’m also a normative nihilist, so the sentence “we ought to believe things are true” is false to me.
Which is compatible with error theory. This brand of error theory is called fictionalism, effectively after accepting all moral truths are false you retain moral discourse because it is convenient. But, I think you are an ethical subjectivist/moral relativist.
Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I don’t think it’s impossible for people to believe in moral facts. “Sam believes murder is wrong.” Can be true or false. “Murder is wrong.” is always false.
Stirnerite egoists also don’t believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I don’t think it’s good or bad.
So everything that happens right now is capitalist in nature? Wouldn’t that imply everything that follows is also capitalism? That would make communism a form of capitalism. It would also mean that feudalism was also capitalism since trade happened during feudalism and city states made profit.
I just think this is overly broad as to make “capitalism” a umbrella term, largely to service propaganda efforts in the short term but produce a fundamentally undermining boogeyman to cause internal conflict down the road of any kind of leftist success.
Setting aside the hard incompatibilism and error theory for a moment, property is theft but property is also freedom. Do you think “freedom of association” is a value worth maintaining in society? Seeing as no one consents to being born, does the individual owe a collective anything at all? Is it not pleasurable for the vast majority of people to feel “free” (even if its an illusion) and thus “in their best interest” to feel free? Including feeling free from even joining a collective in order to pursue a competing position? To even stay within said group can be pleasurable in that societal context because instead of being an obligation its a choice.
Property in at least some form is necessary for a lot of intrinsically emotionally pleasurable things. Maybe its not always called “property” but the terminology doesn’t matter. Possessions that are respected by the rest of society is more or less the most rudimentary form. Even if its not “real”, life is not worth living without possessions, thus property.
Given this, there is utility in my definition of “Private Property” that makes it undesirable on a systemic, emotional, and intrinsic level. Private property is not possession or personal property. Its called “private” specifically to differentiate it. It is property used for production that is owned via purchasable deed or stock, rather than by anything else, like say participation.
I could be made more accepting of that assuming the insurrection was engineered to be as bloodless as possible. I should clarify, on the anarchist vs authoritarian scale I merely lean anarchist. I’d not be that uncomfortable with the “statist” label of “Market Socialist” either. I just go with Mutualist because its slightly closer to my inclination to let individuals do what they want.
Probably not, though both are very “will” oriented.
I agree, which is why I’m a consequentialist as well.
Given the context, it implies it because the only reason someone would argue that ethics are not real or true is that they themselves apply moral weight to truth. Maybe they don’t, but its strange that they’d even argue about it at all in that case.
I have a lot more to say on the “This apple is red” statement but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.
EDIT: Suffice to say the most relevant part of my thoughts though is that even truth of objective reality is viewed through the lens of subjective perception. Morality and ethics are not concerned with the scientific observation of a “hard reality” thus saying “All moral statements are false” just comes off as a psychological shortcut to dismissing all ethics/morality.
Evaluating ethics/morals on some plane of objective accuracy outside of conscious minds makes no sense. In your example, “Murder is wrong” is true within the mind of Sam, given that’s the context that ethics or morality matters. I don’t think any other context matters, at least off the top of my head.
Just like our argument over what “capitalism” is, its just the subjectivity, utility, and pragmatism of language. There is no rule of the universe that states what capitalism is.
My understanding of Stirnerite egoism is that it sees societal morality as non-existent but places a lot of value on individual’s intrinsic motivation, which includes an individual’s thoughts on what they want to do for others and what they expect from others. Or at least that’s what I think “Union of egoists” means, its been a while since I’ve engaged with it.
EDIT: I forgot to respond to something:
Agree to disagree, I don’t think that is an inevitability of Mutualism/Market-Socialism. Its an observation and a consistent phenomena of similar systems, but I don’t think its unavoidable with such a system. I view that as meta-narrative and I don’t believe in meta-narratives.