/siberia/ - Off-topic

Almost all marxists did that in the past, of anything the noble savage view of proletariat among socialists is the least pronounced among contemporary western left. Direct result of the fact that actual working class intellectuals are the new emerging category there, whereas in the past, or in the 3th world, being an educated (formaly or informaly) person pretty much guarantees economic ascetion beyond mere prole.

Isn't it inherently if the capitalist class has to be abolished for the good of everyone else?

>>803820
the best way to counter this is to adopt a syncretic worldview. despite knowing it was bad marxism i couldn't control my emotional gut reaction until i developed a strange affection for neoliberal ideas in a narrow context. no, not a reformist one. then i picked a sort of indifferent mid point between the bourgeois dicksucking of actual neoliberals which runs contra neoliberal theory a lot of the time, since many current bourgeoisie are creatures of protectionism and regulation… and the moralism of would-be marxists. (which in and of itself i would praise. a lot of people make a big deal about signalling their total lack of morality these days…)

>>803829
no. if all the world's bourgeoisie in a cloud of smoke right now, the result would be brief chaos followed by the creation of a new bourgeoisie within the year. their position is a result of the economic structure of society rather than a personal moral failing. your morality would not change one ounce if tomorrow you got a letter in the mail informing you that you'd inherited a factory from some long-forgotten uncle. how could it - you didn't do anything!

some bourgeoisie are evil, most are benign, others a net good. the biggest problem with a would-be marxist becoming bourgeois is that it undermines their social cred rather than that it clouds their class interests. (it has a fair chance of doing that too - people respond to incentives - but "on the margin", e.g. compared to the most likely alternative, probably better to have quasi-allies with deep pockets.)

>>803842
But wouldn't the economic structure that is the origin of the status of the proletariat be inherently unethical, i.e. immoral, then? I'm just not sure how one can think creating communism is worthwhile without having even if only a little bit of ethical or moral personal attitude towards it.

>>803848
in the abstract i am open to the idea, but if you follow that line of thinking you wind up with a very dour calvinist view of the world.
this is again where i find a small dose of neoliberalism helps: think in terms of trade-offs instead of absolutes. all systems have both moral and immoral outcomes. a system built on the exploitation of the proletariat is immoral compared to one that isn't built on any exploitation at all, but it has morally superior outcomes to one built on the exploitation of serfs or slaves or god knows what, in large part because greater productivity allows for meeting a much greater range of human needs. the result is that humanity as a whole is doing well compared to all of the history behind us even if we're doing badly compared to all of the future ahead of us.

>>803866
Gem post.
Please save this for copypastas or screenshots

>>803842
I disagree in that all the biggest bourgeoisie are profoundly immoral.

>>803923
“Morality is a spook”

>>803866
>the result is that humanity as a whole is doing well compared to all of the history behind us even if we're doing badly compared to all of the future ahead of us.
do we really know the future will be better and not worse? It seems to me climate change, supply chain disruptions, soil depletion, and world war will kill billions in our century. the new world will, as usual, be built on the corpses of the poorest and most vulnerable from this one. We may go through a period of global fascism. Universal surveillance, gene editing, and transhumanism may finally transform the vast majority of humanity into literal cattle who cannot even think of rebellion. Our human leaders may be replaced by inhuman or post-human ones. Even if the quality of life gets better, it may only be because our forms of slavery become subtler, less violent but more manipulative, and more passive aggressive.

historically progressive at any given moment = moral
simple as

everything else is cope, including anti-moralism

>>803866
A larger total number of people are su%fering today than 500 years ago

>>803820
What does that even mean? Should've Engels gave up his advocacy for socialism because he was bourgeois?

>>804110
Maybe anti-natalism can fix that

>>804244
all these -isms are empty talk, capitalism will produce as many workers as is necessary to accumulate profit