That’s assuming they operate on a wage model rather than pure dividends.
Dividends are wage labor. You can calculate the hourly pay rate by dividing the dividends you received by the number of hours worked.
I think the alienation you are describing as stemming from being in a “majoritarian” coop is something we’d run into on a fully
I do think alienation remains in a socialist mode of production, yes, but what I am referring to here is your point about “control of own work”, in a majoritarian coop, you are bound by the decisions of the majority to produce what they tell you.
I’m curious if you think syndicalism has the same problem? More or less the in-between. Instead of a market you have a single negotiating table between industries. No market competition but you still would have competing interests.
I don’t really think syndicalism is an economic mode, its an organizing tactic.
Do you think a “firm” of one person self exploits?
A firm of one person is an artisan, petty bourgeoisie. They do not self exploit as all the money they make from their own labor is returned to themselves.
Who is the immoral one in that case, the self exploiter correct?
I don’t believe in morals.
Exploitation is only meaningfully immoral
Exploitation is not a moral term. Exploitation refers to the fact that wage laborers produce more value then they receive in their wages. Marx termed this “exploitation”, it’s not a moral claim.
As for imperialism, I don’t think imperialism stems from only economic exploitation.
It does.
Nationalism, racism, and a rampant growth mindset are generally an aspect if not a requirement.
All of these are products of Capitalism. Capitalism causes, nationalism, racism, and a “rampant growth mindset” which in turn leads to war. It’s called materialism.
Is imperialism possible under a mutualist economic system? Absolutely. I don’t agree that it is inevitable.
It is inevitable as worker coops are bound to seek new markets for their products by the contradictions of capitalism.
The mechanism social democrats describe capitalism dissolving into socialism is through a welfare state, not worker coops.
I was referring to the reformist belief that a better capitalism will lead to socialism.
Dividends are wage labor. You can calculate the hourly pay rate by dividing the dividends you received by the number of hours worked.
Dividends aren’t paid based on hours. They’re based on revenue minus expenses. Dividends are definitionally not wages.
I don’t really think syndicalism is an economic mode, its an organizing tactic.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, like Mutualism, is an economic model. I was using short hand and just calling it syndicalism.
I don’t believe in morals.
You believe in good and bad, right and wrong, ethics/morals, or at least some kind. Otherwise you would not bother advocating for or against any particular economic or societal model.
Exploitation is not a moral term. Exploitation refers to the fact that wage laborers produce more value then they receive in their wages. Marx termed this “exploitation”, it’s not a moral claim.
I know the term “exploitation” is not intrinsically a moral condemnation but a technical description. But the whole reason worker exploitation is something socialists/communists argue against is because it is harmful. Harm being a problem only makes sense if you operation on a a belief system of ought or ought not.
All of these are products of Capitalism. Capitalism causes, nationalism, racism, and a “rampant growth mindset” which in turn leads to war. It’s called materialism.
Nationalism and racism existed before capitalism. Focusing on economic growth as a facet of a individuals or groups also did, and the people with that mentality essentially brought about capitalism (early merchants).
It is inevitable as worker coops are bound to seek new markets for their products by the contradictions of capitalism.
Why is it inevitable?
I was referring to the reformist belief that a better capitalism will lead to socialism.
You describe a system of mandatory worker coops, private ownership of the means of production being made illegal, as reform? I’d say that’d be a drastic change. At most it blurs the line.
Of course, that’s probably not what you mean. I’m not sure if you are a leftcom or an accelerationist but I imagine your suggestion is that only violent revolution can succeed? If so I find that unconvincing and deeply undesirable.
Dividends aren’t paid based on hours. They’re based on revenue minus expenses. Dividends are definitionally not wages.
Dividends are not a meaningful change to the wage labor system, they are simply an obfuscation, a different method of paying wages that appears to be more fair. But surplus value is still extracted in the exact same way, and the True Hourly Wage can be calculated by the amount of dividends paid by the number of hours worked. And with this, you can calculate the amount of surplus value generated for the firm.
I know the term “exploitation” is not intrinsically a moral condemnation but a technical description. But the whole reason worker exploitation is something socialists/communists argue against is because it is harmful.
I do not argue against exploitation. I see it as a reality of Capitalism. Exploitation leads to The Law Of The Tendency Of The Rate of Profit To Fall. This leads to inherent contradictions in the capitalist system and in turn leads to economic crisis.
Nationalism and racism existed before capitalism.
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.
Why is it inevitable?
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.
You describe a system of mandatory worker coops, private ownership of the means of production as reform?
Yes, because it is a modification to the capitalist system, and not a replacement of the capitalist system with a new form.
I’m not sure if you are a leftcom or an accelerationist but I imagine your suggestion is that only violent revolution can succeed?
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’ve left the meta-ethics for last since it’s not really important to the main discussion.
You believe in good and bad, right and wrong, ethics/morals, or at least some kind. Otherwise you would not bother advocating for or against any particular economic or societal model.
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.
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.
So everything that happens right now is capitalist in nature? Wouldn’t that imply everything that follows is also capitalism?
No. Capitalism is wage-labor, and generalized commodity production. This is the mode of production. The human action under this mode of production are products of it. Nationalism is a tool the ruling class uses to divide the proletariat. Same with racism, patriarchy, and all forms of division other then class. Nationalism does not exist in a vacuum, it is given to us by our education, and the institutions of power. Capitalism is what drives this.
I’ll try to illustrate this. Nationalism IS capitalism, because what nationalism is, is the creation of a “national identity”, the institutions of the nation-state, and the subjugation of the national proletariat to its respective national bourgeoisie, ergo, the division of the global working class.
Do you think “freedom of association” is a value worth maintaining in society?
I don’t know what that means.
does the individual owe a collective anything at all?
No
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?
Yes.
Including feeling free from even joining a collective in order to pursue a competing position?
Yes
Property in at least some form is necessary for a lot of intrinsically emotionally pleasurable things.
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.
I have no problem with possessions, I have a problem with creating a metaphysical fantasy of the idea of the “ownership” of things, property. I view property as the idea of the metaphysical “right” of ownership of an object or land. I reject that this really exists.
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.
Why bloodless? When Capitalism is bathed in blood daily?
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.
You need to understand the mechanisms of capitalist crisis. It’s not a meta-narrative, we can demonstrate the contradictions of generalized commodity production in mathematical value terms.
Dividends are wage labor. You can calculate the hourly pay rate by dividing the dividends you received by the number of hours worked.
I do think alienation remains in a socialist mode of production, yes, but what I am referring to here is your point about “control of own work”, in a majoritarian coop, you are bound by the decisions of the majority to produce what they tell you.
I don’t really think syndicalism is an economic mode, its an organizing tactic.
A firm of one person is an artisan, petty bourgeoisie. They do not self exploit as all the money they make from their own labor is returned to themselves.
I don’t believe in morals.
Exploitation is not a moral term. Exploitation refers to the fact that wage laborers produce more value then they receive in their wages. Marx termed this “exploitation”, it’s not a moral claim.
It does.
All of these are products of Capitalism. Capitalism causes, nationalism, racism, and a “rampant growth mindset” which in turn leads to war. It’s called materialism.
It is inevitable as worker coops are bound to seek new markets for their products by the contradictions of capitalism.
I was referring to the reformist belief that a better capitalism will lead to socialism.
Dividends aren’t paid based on hours. They’re based on revenue minus expenses. Dividends are definitionally not wages.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, like Mutualism, is an economic model. I was using short hand and just calling it syndicalism.
You believe in good and bad, right and wrong, ethics/morals, or at least some kind. Otherwise you would not bother advocating for or against any particular economic or societal model.
I know the term “exploitation” is not intrinsically a moral condemnation but a technical description. But the whole reason worker exploitation is something socialists/communists argue against is because it is harmful. Harm being a problem only makes sense if you operation on a a belief system of ought or ought not.
Nationalism and racism existed before capitalism. Focusing on economic growth as a facet of a individuals or groups also did, and the people with that mentality essentially brought about capitalism (early merchants).
Why is it inevitable?
You describe a system of mandatory worker coops, private ownership of the means of production being made illegal, as reform? I’d say that’d be a drastic change. At most it blurs the line.
Of course, that’s probably not what you mean. I’m not sure if you are a leftcom or an accelerationist but I imagine your suggestion is that only violent revolution can succeed? If so I find that unconvincing and deeply undesirable.
Dividends are not a meaningful change to the wage labor system, they are simply an obfuscation, a different method of paying wages that appears to be more fair. But surplus value is still extracted in the exact same way, and the True Hourly Wage can be calculated by the amount of dividends paid by the number of hours worked. And with this, you can calculate the amount of surplus value generated for the firm.
I do not argue against exploitation. I see it as a reality of Capitalism. Exploitation leads to The Law Of The Tendency Of The Rate of Profit To Fall. This leads to inherent contradictions in the capitalist system and in turn leads to economic crisis.
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.
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.
Yes, because it is a modification to the capitalist system, and not a replacement of the capitalist system with a new form.
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’ve left the meta-ethics for last since it’s not really important to the main discussion.
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.
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.
No. Capitalism is wage-labor, and generalized commodity production. This is the mode of production. The human action under this mode of production are products of it. Nationalism is a tool the ruling class uses to divide the proletariat. Same with racism, patriarchy, and all forms of division other then class. Nationalism does not exist in a vacuum, it is given to us by our education, and the institutions of power. Capitalism is what drives this.
I’ll try to illustrate this. Nationalism IS capitalism, because what nationalism is, is the creation of a “national identity”, the institutions of the nation-state, and the subjugation of the national proletariat to its respective national bourgeoisie, ergo, the division of the global working class.
I don’t know what that means.
No
Yes.
Yes
I have no problem with possessions, I have a problem with creating a metaphysical fantasy of the idea of the “ownership” of things, property. I view property as the idea of the metaphysical “right” of ownership of an object or land. I reject that this really exists.
Why bloodless? When Capitalism is bathed in blood daily?
You need to understand the mechanisms of capitalist crisis. It’s not a meta-narrative, we can demonstrate the contradictions of generalized commodity production in mathematical value terms.