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.
I was trying to figure out if you were a societal collectivist in terms of what you think would be in our best interest as individuals. A truly collectivist society would not be permissive of the freedom of association. If someone can choose to not participate or even compete, that may risk undermining the collective’s interests. There is a sliding scale here though.
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
Yeah I more or less agree. I don’t really believe in rights at all. For me property is more of an aspect of social constructs and that property in some forms holds value in a society I’d like to live in. Just not private property.
Why bloodless? When Capitalism is bathed in blood daily?
Consequences. If you minimize the bloodshed, you are more likely to have a stable and functional society afterward to maintain a new system. And also obviously, just minimizing deaths is always preferable to me regardless of cause. Further, the question is not of blame but if you find yourself in the position to prevent death that doesn’t mean you can prevent other deaths. Even after an insurrection that established some kind of path to ending capitalism, killing more directly if anything will cause even more indirect systemic deaths.
Also, I said “bloodless as possible”. I know that statistically speaking some likely would end up dead to save many others in such a situation. If letting someone live means capitalism wins, then by all means in this scenario, kill them, but most of the time it wouldn’t be necessary.
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.
I was trying to figure out if you were a societal collectivist in terms of what you think would be in our best interest as individuals. A truly collectivist society would not be permissive of the freedom of association. If someone can choose to not participate or even compete, that may risk undermining the collective’s interests. There is a sliding scale here though.
Yeah I more or less agree. I don’t really believe in rights at all. For me property is more of an aspect of social constructs and that property in some forms holds value in a society I’d like to live in. Just not private property.
Consequences. If you minimize the bloodshed, you are more likely to have a stable and functional society afterward to maintain a new system. And also obviously, just minimizing deaths is always preferable to me regardless of cause. Further, the question is not of blame but if you find yourself in the position to prevent death that doesn’t mean you can prevent other deaths. Even after an insurrection that established some kind of path to ending capitalism, killing more directly if anything will cause even more indirect systemic deaths.
Also, I said “bloodless as possible”. I know that statistically speaking some likely would end up dead to save many others in such a situation. If letting someone live means capitalism wins, then by all means in this scenario, kill them, but most of the time it wouldn’t be necessary.