• HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • cqst [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.