I wonder if this doesnāt 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 āprivateā and āpersonalā property?
In truth, no. I think people can be in possession of objects and for one reason or another itās ātheirsā, but I donāt 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 donāt think a violent revolution would meaningfully be any more capable
Some anarchists support insurrection over revolution, if your more palatable to that (considering youāre 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.
Leninismās case result in state capitalism that is if anything more unlikely to ādissolveā into communism than even Social Democracy.
I donāt 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 āboil the frogā 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 canāt avoid that.
I am also a hard incompatibilist. Though I am also sympathetic to Egoism and Absurdism.
I donāt 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 āfalseā this implies that truth holds moral value
How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. āThis apple is redā. Is a truth apt statement. Iām also a normative nihilist, so the sentence āwe ought to believe things are trueā is false to me.
I donāt 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 āblurryā.
Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I donāt think itās impossible for people to believe in moral facts. āSam believes murder is wrong.ā Can be true or false. āMurder is wrong.ā 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 donāt believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I donāt think itās 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? Wouldnāt 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 ācapitalismā 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 itās ātheirsā, but I donāt 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 āfreedom of associationā 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 āfreeā (even if its an illusion) and thus āin their best interestā 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 āpropertyā but the terminology doesnāt matter. Possessions that are respected by the rest of society is more or less the most rudimentary form. Even if its not ārealā, life is not worth living without possessions, thus property.
Given this, there is utility in my definition of āPrivate Propertyā that makes it undesirable on a systemic, emotional, and intrinsic level. Private property is not possession or personal property. Its called āprivateā 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 youāre 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. Iād not be that uncomfortable with the āstatistā label of āMarket Socialistā either. I just go with Mutualist because its slightly closer to my inclination to let individuals do what they want.
I donāt think hard incompatibilitsm is mutually exclusive with Egoism. Maybe absurdism.
Probably not, though both are very āwillā oriented.
To be clear, If hard incompatibilism is true, moral agents simply do not exist.
I agree, which is why Iām a consequentialist as well.
How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. āThis apple is redā. Is a truth apt statement. Iām also a normative nihilist, so the sentence āwe ought to believe things are trueā 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 donāt, but its strange that theyād even argue about it at all in that case.
I have a lot more to say on the āThis apple is redā 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 āhard realityā thus saying āAll moral statements are falseā just comes off as a psychological shortcut to dismissing all ethics/morality.
Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I donāt think itās impossible for people to believe in moral facts. āSam believes murder is wrong.ā Can be true or false. āMurder is wrong.ā is always false.
Evaluating ethics/morals on some plane of objective accuracy outside of conscious minds makes no sense. In your example, āMurder is wrongā is true within the mind of Sam, given thatās the context that ethics or morality matters. I donāt think any other context matters, at least off the top of my head.
Just like our argument over what ācapitalismā 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 donāt believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I donāt think itās good or bad.
My understanding of Stirnerite egoism is that it sees societal morality as non-existent but places a lot of value on individualās intrinsic motivation, which includes an individualās thoughts on what they want to do for others and what they expect from others. Or at least thatās what I think āUnion of egoistsā means, its been a while since Iāve 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 canāt avoid that.
Agree to disagree, I donāt think that is an inevitability of Mutualism/Market-Socialism. Its an observation and a consistent phenomena of similar systems, but I donāt think its unavoidable with such a system. I view that as meta-narrative and I donāt believe in meta-narratives.
So everything that happens right now is capitalist in nature? Wouldnāt 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.
Iāll try to illustrate this. Nationalism IS capitalism, because what nationalism is, is the creation of a ānational identityā, 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 āfreedom of associationā is a value worth maintaining in society?
I donāt 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 āfreeā (even if its an illusion) and thus āin their best interestā 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 ārealā, 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 āownershipā of things, property. I view property as the idea of the metaphysical ārightā 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. Iād not be that uncomfortable with the āstatistā label of āMarket Socialistā 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 donāt think that is an inevitability of Mutualism/Market-Socialism. Its an observation and a consistent phenomena of similar systems, but I donāt think its unavoidable with such a system. I view that as meta-narrative and I donāt believe in meta-narratives.
You need to understand the mechanisms of capitalist crisis. Itās not a meta-narrative, we can demonstrate the contradictions of generalized commodity production in mathematical value terms.
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 itās ātheirsā, but I donāt 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 youāre 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 donāt disagree
Your organizational model will fall victim to the contradictions of capitalism as long as you retain capitalism. You canāt avoid that.
I donāt 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. āThis apple is redā. Is a truth apt statement. Iām also a normative nihilist, so the sentence āwe ought to believe things are trueā 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 donāt think itās impossible for people to believe in moral facts. āSam believes murder is wrong.ā Can be true or false. āMurder is wrong.ā is always false.
Stirnerite egoists also donāt believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I donāt think itās good or bad.
So everything that happens right now is capitalist in nature? Wouldnāt 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 ācapitalismā 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 āfreedom of associationā 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 āfreeā (even if its an illusion) and thus āin their best interestā 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 āpropertyā but the terminology doesnāt matter. Possessions that are respected by the rest of society is more or less the most rudimentary form. Even if its not ārealā, life is not worth living without possessions, thus property.
Given this, there is utility in my definition of āPrivate Propertyā that makes it undesirable on a systemic, emotional, and intrinsic level. Private property is not possession or personal property. Its called āprivateā 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. Iād not be that uncomfortable with the āstatistā label of āMarket Socialistā 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 āwillā oriented.
I agree, which is why Iām 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 donāt, but its strange that theyād even argue about it at all in that case.
I have a lot more to say on the āThis apple is redā 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 āhard realityā thus saying āAll moral statements are falseā 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, āMurder is wrongā is true within the mind of Sam, given thatās the context that ethics or morality matters. I donāt think any other context matters, at least off the top of my head.
Just like our argument over what ācapitalismā 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 individualās intrinsic motivation, which includes an individualās thoughts on what they want to do for others and what they expect from others. Or at least thatās what I think āUnion of egoistsā means, its been a while since Iāve engaged with it.
EDIT: I forgot to respond to something:
Agree to disagree, I donāt think that is an inevitability of Mutualism/Market-Socialism. Its an observation and a consistent phenomena of similar systems, but I donāt think its unavoidable with such a system. I view that as meta-narrative and I donāt 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.
Iāll try to illustrate this. Nationalism IS capitalism, because what nationalism is, is the creation of a ānational identityā, 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 donāt 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 āownershipā of things, property. I view property as the idea of the metaphysical ārightā 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. Itās not a meta-narrative, we can demonstrate the contradictions of generalized commodity production in mathematical value terms.