this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
484 points (92.8% liked)
The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk
725 readers
95 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- Be civil and no bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. For a more general community [email protected] is recommended.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.