This is a bit superficial and could have been better. As a Marxist, I am aware of many imperial theorists who absolutely consider the materialist motivations for violence and justify state sanctioned violence for material gain. Just War theory is a long, imperial tradition that legitimizes state violence against collateral damage. It furthers imperial gains in a very pragmatic way. I would have been interested in hearing how one or a community decides when violence is justified and how or where that justification stems from, beyond a single document by Trotsky. Having said that, I think our comrade here is absolutely looking and thinking in the correct direction. Take these comments as more points for further conversation or places in the conversation that should have clarification.
@JustJanitor
Жыл бұрын
I appreciate this comment. I was having similar but less sophisticated thoughts about the talk. I am still new to all this and trying to learn and make sense of it. I have been wrestling with the practical idea of what a revolution and after would look like.
@puppet1-170
Жыл бұрын
If there is no morality that is objectively true, how could the pursuit of socialism be justified at all? From a noncommunist perspective, contributing to a communist political struggle might seem useless if it doesn't claim to act on an objective morality. I would really like to hear someone's thoughts. Where is the line between communism and nihilism?
@rebeccav7420
Жыл бұрын
I am wondering this as well! Seems like the "scientific" part is the observation/prediction & any intervention is made on the basis of... what? Some new framework of values/justice/morals/whatever you want to call it. Otherwise why intervene at all (to your nihilism point)?
@JustJanitor
Жыл бұрын
This is just me spit balling but maybe the pursuit is justified not based on a static thing that is always true. But the material conditions that we find ourselves in under capitalism. Example, people's needs aren't being met(food, water, shelter, medicine). I'm new to all this so maybe I'm way off the mark but that's what came to my mind.
@Zayden.Marxist
7 ай бұрын
Marxist morality is based on historical materialism. Capitalism has outgrown its usefulness in the sense of raising the productivity of labor and thereby enabling human cultural progress. Marxist morality is objective in that sense, it is based on that objective facts of current human history: the dead-end of capitalism, the contradictions and crises of capitalism, the antagonistic/opposed class interests of the capitalists and workers. It is not absolute and final morality though. It is objective in terms of today's conditions and requirements. It's a matter of understanding what is possible with a workers' regime and socialist planned economy i.e. the end of exploitation and class society, superabundance, with equal access to all, how this is a rational course of development, stemming from the objective contradictions of late capitalism.
@tanujSE
2 жыл бұрын
Wish good times with struggle to Alan Woods Red salute
@Johan-vo1gq
2 жыл бұрын
Great talk! But you should fix your mic, might be problems with gain
@revolutionarycommunists
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the feedback! We are aware of this issue and will make sure it doesn't happen again. Jack
@lochnessmunster1189
2 жыл бұрын
@@revolutionarycommunists Also could be good to understand that some of Marxist theory- that profit is made by underpaying labour- just isn't correct.
@fishsteakyelk341
Жыл бұрын
@@lochnessmunster1189Depending on who you ask, might be dependent on which Marx your talking about. Early and later Marx heavily disagree when it comes to the state for example.
@lochnessmunster1189
Жыл бұрын
@@fishsteakyelk341 That does sound correct. But do you think that profit is made by underpaying labour?
@fishsteakyelk341
Жыл бұрын
@@lochnessmunster1189 I think it’s made through exploiting labor like any decently read person would believe. Underpaying would be a type of exploitation in most circumstances but it isn’t the sole form.
@khiam1956
2 жыл бұрын
great topics.....ethics
@JustJanitor
Жыл бұрын
My mind wanders about what a revolution would look like.
@TJ-hs1qm
9 ай бұрын
8:08 Comparing death tolls? Seriously? That is as unscientific an argument as it gets. Who is going to draw the line? How? 🤨
@sunnywestside4210
6 ай бұрын
please tell capitalists that
@humanfate7334
2 жыл бұрын
Red Salute Comrade. This is good topic to be discussed.
@lochnessmunster1189
2 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, Socialist Appeal still assume Marxism is entirely true: so much of it isn't.
@humanfate7334
2 жыл бұрын
@@lochnessmunster1189 please till us?
@lochnessmunster1189
2 жыл бұрын
@@humanfate7334 It is assumed that profit is made by underpaying employees; ie not giving them the full compensation for what they've produced. This isn't true, and was debunked even while Marx was alive. Marx didn't correctly assess the impact of all the additional inputs that an employer provides to make an employee more productive than they'd be if the employer never existed. This often includes land, materials, tools, buildings, knowledge, electricity, water etc. If profit could only be made from labour, it would make no sense to replace labour with machinery, because profits would only reduce as a result. But this isn't the case.
@humanfate7334
2 жыл бұрын
@@lochnessmunster1189 dear please read the Das Capital again with open eyes and mind. It is the labour which produces machinery. and the most important thing is that natural resources are not property of single person mean employer. Society have to own these things.
@lochnessmunster1189
2 жыл бұрын
@@humanfate7334 I am aware that it is labour which produces machinery. But it doesn't mean that the builders of machinery are 'exploited' either. Let's say you have a Communist country which has made the machinery. The machinery is then exported to a Capitalist country, in which a business there uses it alongside labour. Profit is made. Where will the profit have come from? 'Society have to own these things'- how can society own something?
@mathieucharbonneau2710
Жыл бұрын
Ok so y’all are moral relativists… but you can’t critique capitalism on that basis. You need objective morality for the claim “capitalism is wrong” to be a sound and valid argument.
@JustJanitor
Жыл бұрын
I don't think it has to be objective. To a capitalist exploiting workers is fine, to a marxist it isn't. It's just what one group believes in verses the other. The point I think, is to convince enough people that your point is better. But just because they believe your point is better, doesn't make it objectively true.
@mathieucharbonneau2710
Жыл бұрын
@@JustJanitor That’s my point - you can’t argue that one is objectively ‘better’ without objective morality (moral realism). Otherwise, if you believe that morality is fully relative, whether on a class basis or not, you waste your time arguing with people who, because their values are different, will always have some reason to disagree with you. From a relativistic point of view, such as the one demonstrated in this video, socialism is ‘better’ because you care about social well-being (I hope) whereas for capitalist pigs, capitalism is ‘better’ because they care about their profit gained from exploitation. To really argue against capitalism, you need to demonstrate that consciously causing unnecessary harm onto others is objectively wrong.
@Zayden.Marxist
7 ай бұрын
Marxist morality is based on historical materialism. Capitalism is wrong because it is a dead-end, it has outgrown its usefulness in the sense of raising the productivity of labor and thereby enabling human cultural progress. Marxist morality is objective in that sense, it is based on that objective facts of current human history: the dead-end of capitalism, the contradictions and crises of capitalism, the antagonistic/opposed class interests of the capitalists and workers. It is not absolute and final morality though. It is objective in terms of today's conditions and requirements.
@ollieg9202
5 ай бұрын
@JustJanitor I believe you helped to make his point in your response.
@luker.6967
2 ай бұрын
@@mathieucharbonneau2710that’s not true, you don’t need to make a logically coherent argument to convince most people to your side. Also you must consider the fact that as a moral relativist who is appealing to people who may not be, it is useful to talk in absolute terms.
@NoName-di1ug
2 жыл бұрын
You need to know more then Trotsky poin
@hazelwray4184
Жыл бұрын
'more then Trotsky poin' - you can't write a single coherent sentence.
@Trinitypater
3 ай бұрын
Hopefully when she gets older she will feel embarrassed about all this crap she is spreading around.
Пікірлер: 40