/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>My answer is with this binary: communitary and anti-social.
So basically "good" and "bad." So basically morality.
Only psuedo-intellects think morality doesn't matter by the way.

>>2931961
>communitary and anti-social.
How is this not idealism?

>>2931964
You can't really define a good or an evil thing, but being helpful to others or disruptive to others can be seen and even measured.
>>2931963
Today I learned Marx was a pseudo-intellectual.

>>2931966
>Today I learned Marx was a pseudo-intellectual.
Marx didn't say morality doesn't matter, retard. He said morality isn't an objective law and that it can change based on material conditions.
Those two are not the same thing.

>>2931967
No need to call me a retard cant you see that hurts my feelings? I may have to cry to my boyfriend now. You meanie!

Anyway going by what you said then wouldnt it be nice (if we were ooooolder? then we wouldn't have to wait so loooong and wouldn't it be nice to live together in the kind of world where we beloooong?) if morality was shaped around things that can be measured and understood plainly rather than the bourgeoisie take on morality which has a strong link to religion and to pointless complexity that does nothing but halt anything from being done or changed? and that puts emphasis on punishment and reward rather than solving the problems in our society?

>>2931968
Why are you being incoherent? Are you incapable of writing clearly?
Moral laws can change based on material conditions, but that doesn't mean morality is irrelevant or meaningless. Karl Marx wasn't some post-structuralist moron.
If what's "good" and "bad" don't matter, why be for or against anything at all? Why should Marxists care about exploitation?
>rather than the bourgeoisie take on morality
Morality exists outside the capitalist mode of production, i.e., without a bourgeoisie, so this isn't true at all.

>>2931961

1. read the anti-duhring
   
2. use your brain
   
3. find a real problem
   

failing any of these points, kill yourself

>[x] is idealism
>let's reconfigure society from the top-down
This is itself an idealist solution to material problems.

>>2931968
>does nothing but halt anything from being done or changed?
that's not how it works
bourgeois morality is part of the ideological apparatus of capitalism. the guy that owns the tv channel decides what the morality disseminated by that channel should be, and the same happens with all the other forms of media. it also happens indirectly through education and such

it's not a matter of debate-lording some perfect new morality that is somehow simple, consistent and exhaustive, and then spreading that new morality unto the dumb general population. capitalist morality is complex, contradictory, incomplete, and yet, it works, it helps support the system of exploitation. proletarian or socialist morality will likewise be complex, contradictory, incomplete, and arbitrarily uphold through media, education, state power, the law, and so on. it's shape will be whatever helps uphold the socialist mode of production, just like how capitalist morality is whatever helps sustain the capitalist mode of production

as the others said, to think that you can come up with some perfect system and then that will solve everything, or that you can win a debate and be done with bourgeois morality, is not even idealist, just naive

>communitary and anti-social
As Marx writes, alienated labour confronts the worker as the power of society – the market is the whole world, in fact, which dispossesses man of his species-being. Society is the enemy of mankind (e.g. it is only from within society that a man becomes a slave, etc.) Nature has no such classification, since it has no such formation. Contrarily a "community" is only one sort of society which man is bound to. You seem to abstract "community" as a universal category, but surely "my" community is in antagonism to yours, the same way my family is not your family. If one thus seek to be pro-social, he benefits an abstract subject, not any individual in particular. This is why we can say that America is "rich" even if so many members of it are poor. Engels (1843):
<The “national wealth” of the English is very great and yet they are the poorest people under the sun.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm
So then, more than "what", is "who" is society?
>things that help the group
Which group? But here is why morality is also important.
If one were advised to lie, steal and cheat in favour of one's own group to the suffering of another's, I am immoral, but still self-interested. So then, morality necessarily extends from the particular to the universal (e.g. it is immoral to act in a certain way, as an end in itself, not simply as a means to an end). If there is an outsider, do they receive moral consideration – is it okay to rape and murder out-group populations?
>problem-solving and trouble-making
You can't solve problems without first making trouble, so this can lead to disaster very easily. For example, the more problems, the more we can provide solutions.
>characters that solve problems, help and even save other people even at their personal expense
Precisely, but notice how the character of God is only loved for solving the problems which he created in the first place (John 9:1–3):
<As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209&version=NIV
Wouldn't it have been better to simply not create blindness?
>what matters is whether that'd solve any problem
The problem is that they are still alive, so should be swiftly killed.
No man, no problem – as it is attributed to Stalin.
By the same terms, imprisonment is futile and execution is merciful.

>>2931961
>replace binary idealism with binary idealism
the kind of genius you can only get from stirnerkeks

>>2931961
We've already replaced them with "western" and "non-western". Didn't you get the memo?

>>2931968
>a bloo bloo i'm losing the argument, let me talk like a child
why do faggots do this so often

>>2932069
>debate pervert doesnt understand communication that isn't a competition
sad!

>>2931961
Fuck the gemeinschaft. Community is patriarchal gibberish. It's reactionary socialism.