/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2918850 The idea that your moral framework must be based somehow in "objective reality" betrays a lack of confidence in it at its core. I believe in my moral compass because my axioms are that human misery is usually bad and human happiness is usually good. I adopt these axioms arbitrarily, because I, fundementally at my core, feel that they are true in a very irrational "human-meat-computer-neurotransmitters" sort of way. I am part of a species that generally evolved to feel this way to increase the liklihood of survival, and that's fine by me.

>>2918984 This is correct. The person being replied to really needs to read some basic moral philosophy. I would reccomend that they start by reading "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietchze as a start, if they're still here and reading this.

>>2916538
Cons are unfamiliar with arguments for moral realism that don't rely on God (ditto much of the online left), despite this being a standard metaethical position among philosophers. What I never got is, even if God were real, why would that make his moral claims objective? Why isn't he just another asshole with an opinion? But I also never got the part about how you need God to explain the universe, but apparently need no argument to explain God, even though God would be more more complicated than the universe. Oh well.

>>2919052
'God' is just humans ego reflected back at them

Im not opposed to some higher entity that kickstarted this whole 'reality' thing but to claim that its in humans image, when there are like 10 different homo-adjacent species of like humans that died out (neanderthal ect) is just silly given the overwhelming evidence points to us just being another type of animal on this rock, we are only special in our own perceived self-importance I think.

>>2917951
>fascism is "nature" or that nature somehow promotes fascism
Didn't watch the vid but this is correct. If you followed evolution teachings and natural human lifeways you'd be slaughtering your neighboring tribe, collecting concubines and slaves, exposing mishapen kids in the woods, etc. The point of communism is to control, transcend, and destroy nature, as far as possible.

>>2919060 This is the Catholic mindset. Humans have a nature that is generally pro-social (we are a social species that relies on groups for survival and thus are programmed to try to socialize), but also partly survivalist and individualistic. Palingenetic Ultranationalism, given form in Fascism, is a myth that appeals to the weakest and most core parts of human nature. It plays perfectly to every flaw and some of the pro-social drives that we have. In that way, fascism is a very human invention. But so is communism, which plays to the best, most pro-social impulses that we all have, and even some of the individualistic impulses as well. I believe that in this way, anarchist-communism is the most human system, however I myself am not an ancom in practice, as I do not believe strategies associated with ancom action are effective in our current state here in the USA. Idk, maybe in Peru or Kenya where there's a much weaker State and more communal culture it would work, but not in America or the EU.

>>2919060
>If you followed evolution teachings and natural human lifeways you'd be slaughtering your neighboring tribe, collecting concubines and slaves, exposing mishapen kids in the woods, etc. The point of communism is to control, transcend, and destroy nature, as far as possible.
wow, literally none of that is true.
Out of the roughly 100k'ish years that humanity has existed, we only broadly engaged in most of that for the last 5-10%, at most. Communism is about overcoming the brutality of the relatively recent past, not all nature, that's stupid.

>>2919060
>muh cuz god said so Nature™
see >>2918775

>>2916771

You always hear rightoids talk about Marxism as the enemy of western civilization or whatever, but there is no reasonable definition of western civilization that does not place Marx, Engels, and Lenin squarely in the western tradition.

>>2916834 This is the exact problem with strict adherence to Historical Materialism. It deifies history as a force above humanity whose amoral dictation must be followed along the path to communism, making all actions beforehand justified. This essentially removes all guardrails and gives total moral leeway to the most horrific state terrorism imaginable. History has proved this to be the result of what happens when morality does not constrain the course of revolution.

>>2919144
Good luck with that

>>2919100 Precisely. The idea that the Theory of Evolution is somehow a moral and objective process in which survival is the highest moral good gives rise to social darwinism and eugenics. Furthermore, this idea of "survival of the fittest means destroying all competition in a blind plunge into individualist insanity" is laughable when one considers that the human genome is hardwired to instill with us a strong (but not insurmountable) drive to act in a pro-social manner, because anti-social ancient humans died off for either threatening or abandoning the tribe that protected them, which is partly why anti-social disorders are so rare today.

>>2919148 So, then, the only option is Stalinism when its expedient and pacifism if its convenient? If you want an example of a revolution controlled *mostly* (but not fully because people are people) by moral principles, take a look at the Spanish Revolution of 1936. And still, if the only option in the course of revolution is to kill massive amounts of people when necessary for a future that may never come, then I reject it. I'm here to build a better society, not blindly leap into the abyss of murderous Nihlism.

>>2919154
The Spanish revolution did famously fail, after all. You won't be given moral consideration by the bourgeoisie, and if you can't win, everything else is irrelevant.

>>2916538
Its a rhetorical shell game.

>My enemies cannot be trusted because they do not subscribe to an objective moral system.
>I can be trusted because I do
>I represent an objectively moral system
>Every action I take is moral

>>2919157 Name on revolution that has successfully created communism in the long term. Every socialist revolution has eventually failed so far, except the Zapatistas, but they could very easily fail as well. But the Spanish Revolution, although it lasted only three years, did by all accounts achieve communism. The borgeoisie won't give us moral consideration, and we must win, but in order to avoid causing excessive suffering and voilating our own principles (such as that all human beings should be given equal rights, which is violated by the buorgeoisie, causing us to rebel and demand respect in the first place). I'm not saying that revolutions aren't messy, I'm saying that we must acknowledge when we transgress our own principles and not justify it as morally necessary, or say that one day it will have been morally necessary (if that day ever comes, which even in The State and Revolution, Lenin says is not entirely certain).

>>2919149
>>2919144
i don't really ascribe to morality as much as i take from aristotlen sense of arete, tbh

>>2918965
South Asia too.

>>2919211 This is an axiomatic difference between the two of us that cannot be resolved, really. I believe in the subjective moral framework that I have created of my own free will, and I believe that the best way of creating a better society (judging by those axioms) is a social revolution guided by morals that ensure that it actually brings about the outcome intended and not a robespierrist psychotic frenzy of violence and terror.

>>2919204
Conquest and holding of power is a prerequisite. It is step one. If you cannot pass it, no other aspects of the political project are relevant.

>>2918871
I am not.
I am a Marxist.

>>2919060
Okay so where does Marx specifically say the goal of communism is to destroy nature?

>>2919217 I never said that conquest and holding of power was immoral, I'm condemning excessive exercise of power, those are two different things.

>>2919247 Nowhere, but most Marxists have never read a line of Marx beyond the Communist Manifesto, and thus are prone to saying the most absurd shit online.

>>2919247
Who cares? Ask yourself is nature compassionate? Why do you never see hunter-gatherers with disabilities? Because they die. The only reason so many disabled people are alive today is because we’ve overcome nature.

>>2919251 Excessive exercise of power *in a way that harms innocents* I mean. But that's inevitable. The problem is when we justify those instances of our own violations of our principles (such as murder) by saying that it will one day be fine because communism will be worth it, that can lead to the justification of tens of thousands of murdered innocents because "it is just what history necessitates as the natural course of society's development towards communism." I am criticizing this idea that everything that happened was necessary, and that we shouldn't be guided by moral principles in our attempt to create a morally just world.

>>2919256 Actually inane trite. There is plenty of evidence of people with disabilities in prehistory, just look it up in a basic internet search and you will see that people took care of the disabled in the past too. Nature is neithe compassiomate nor cruel, and in an attempt to seem objective, you're assignming a sort of human aspect to nature as "cruel and brutish" as Hobbes would say. Human nature, humans in the state of pure nature, take care of each other and cooperate while also sometimes fighting each other. Human nature is not this state of violent individualistic saveregy that you're making it out to be. This is cringe, edgy, anti-human, and overly pessimistic.

>>2919258 Excuse the spelling errors, I'm typing quickly on an unstable surface.

>>2919256
>Why do you never see hunter-gatherers with disabilities? Because they die.
There are remains of paleolithic and neolithic people with disabilities, that lived for decades, with cavities on their teeth (rare in pre-history) cause they were pampered with sweets lmao

>>2919262 Exactly, anon is still a victim of this puritanical social darwinist mindset that permiates our culture.

>>2919256
This is wrong lmao. We have plenty of skeletal evidence of early hominids surviving to old age with severe disabilities/injuries that were clearly long before their death, presumably because of the support of the rest of their band.

Just a reminder to every comrade ITT that the so-called “village” that zoomers ramble about wanting can’t exist without every “villager” adhering to a shared strong moral code. There’s a logical reason why the only communities you see in the modern West which exemplify the idea of “the village” are insular religious communities like Hasidic Jews and the Amish. Why? Because they all share a strong code of morality of which to live by. Their interests don’t compete with each others’. They take care of each other and care for each others’ disabled, children, and elderly without issue for this exact reason.

If you want a “village” to give you daily support for your AuDHD you will embrace objective morality and demand others do as well.

>>2919258
You sound identical to: >>2918523

>>2919258
Yeah if humans “take care of each other” in a @state of pure nature” why do we see barely any empathy or compassion in the world today, mongoloid?

>>2919256
You are a very ignorant person, and we will correct this.
Your understanding of reality does not even extend to patches of humanity under relatively recent history. Christopher Columbus' letters about the Tanio people describe them as being "virtually child-like gentleness" and naivete, who were more than willing to share and show compassion, and took care of their elders and disabled (and basically knew no sickness).
Brutality and cruelty developed at about the same time as the development of religion and agriculture which together marked the beginning of the neolithic period.

>>2919284
Climate change and population growth over time along with unintnetional and intentional horticulture ended up making sedentary life and agriculture a necessity, which drove down average nutrition and created inequality of resources which drove strife because it became viable to take large amounts of things at once from other people than from the land.
Again this is all within the last 10% of human history.

>>2919291
HGs only cared for each other because they had a strong understanding of who constituted their moral community. In the modern world, “community” doesn’t exist outside of insular religious groups, because everyone has a competing set of values and morals.

>>2916538
>objective morality
Actually exists because humans have not changed for a really long time, and bar some crazy ass genetic engineering that might not even work, will also stay this way because evolution is not the panacea modernists think it is. Whether you are a rightoid or leftoid, you have some sort of objective morality, whereby even change and relativism are objective because they are objective facts desu. The left also used to have a similar outlook on morality where it held certain truths self-evident. Many AES countries also did. Then the CIA started promoting fake leftists who polluted the discourse with their muh relativism. The good thing about objective morality is it is falsifiable and therefore can be updated. Relativistic morality tries to overstay its welcome by always trying to stay in vogue and in the end kills the civilization, usually by yielding to a more comprehensive i.e. "catholic" morality of heightened potency. Kinda how Islam spread in the MENA.

>>2916551
>So anyone challenging said objective morality can labelled absolutely evil and wrong and can therefore persecuted with extreme prejudice.
And this is a good thing leftists should take advantage of. I was advocating this with my "partisans" post for a couple months now.

>>2916736
>>2916743
Also true. Objective morality is always constructed.

>>2916772
>>2916834
Based.

>>2918490
Communism needs morality to function. Nihilism kills communism on an individual level.

>>2918523
>>2918532
>>2918534
>>2918583
It doesn't because "evolution" is not a real thing. The only evolution that is real is "devolution" because traits don't linearly accumulate and we have so much unnatural selection you cannot accurately rate for fitness, it all becomes domain-dependent.
>also scientism
>ngmi

>>2918738
>>2918752
>>2918755
Kek + based

>>2918984
>Necessary
>True
Those two things are not the same.

>>2919303
Also so many people who think they are part of a "community" are just individualist nomads uprooted by globalist capitalism.

>>2919256
the pop culture ideal you have of hunter gatherer societies doesn't exist anon

>>2919309
>Whether you are a rightoid or leftoid, you have some sort of objective morality, whereby even change and relativism are objective because they are objective facts desu
>The good thing about objective morality is it is falsifiable and therefore can be updated
That's not how objective morality works. Objective morality imply universality, principles always true no matter how you look at it. If you aknowledge differences and change between and within moral systems, then they weren't objective to begin with.
That doesn't work the same with objectivity in the building of knowledge, where theories need to be falsifiable because you need to test whether you current model is closer to the unknown truth than the previous one.

>>2919319
Au contraire. When an objective moral system fails, it necessitates a new one. One closer to the "primordial truths" out there claimed to have shaped the objective moral system before it became corrupted. I completely agree what you are saying, but without a dialectical understanding of this you won't get anywhere. It doesn't matter if the system itself is merely what *we* think is objective, what matters is everyone interalizing it.

>>2919326
>When an objective moral system fails, it necessitates a new one.
actually fucking braindead sentence.
An "objective moral system" can not fail because it would be a property of the universe independent of humans or their actions, I actually don't think you understand the words you are typing.

>>2919329
No, objectivity means basically the same thing as empiric, and thus can be considered false when new observations get made about it.

>>2919332
No it isnt', and relative to the original post, the reason that the right wing uses it so much and why they invoke God to do so is that claiming the existence of objective morality allows them to deny human agency, obscure power structures, and hide the social origin of our beliefs. It is specifically designed in such a way as to say "it's how we are doing things now, and it's how we should always do it, because objective morality doesn't change".

The entire claim made by the right wing is that the universe is made with these moral codes as a set of properties about the universe, it is a metaphysical claim against the argument that humans are capable of changing our own societies.

I mean shit, the people in this very thread who are arguing "for" objective morality aren't even arguing that there is some unchanging moral code for all time, they're just describing how they want to use opportunist demagoguery to manipulate and control people

>>2919342 The average internet leftist is unfortunately familiar with Soviet Union TikTok edits and debates over if authoritarianism exists or if we should abolish time, not ethical philosophy, which they should be, seeing as that's kind of our whole reason for opposing capitalism.

>>2919326 Absolutely horrific misuse of "dialectic," istfg you people just like sprinkling that word into your conjecture and philosophyslop to make it sound better. The idea that you're describing isn't the concept of objective morality, or at least not in the way that everyone else here is using it (the correct way).

>>2919310 Essato, more Hobbesian metaphysical self-flagellation from nihilistic losers.

>>2919380
Evolution says nothing about human morality, especially when you consider contemporary society is vastly different from HG society.

>>2919387 It literally does. Humans evolved a sense of basic morality to motivate us towards pro-social behavior that increases the odds of individual survival by increasing the odds of your group/tribe's survival (hence why the only common moral principles seen in almost all societies revolve around not killing, stealing, and harming group members). This is a scientifically observable phenomenon. And the traits of modern society at their core have their roots in HG societies, because there are certain unchanging universal contracts required to maintain any group's cohesion.

You're taking the amoral nature of the physical process of natural selection as proof against the idea that said natural selection selected for the neurological traits in homo sapiens that allow for the formation of complex moral systems.