How could Marxist argue for Marxs theories without objective morality

The teachings of Marx push for internationalism, and egalitarianism. If you look at how humans were evolved to have a material hierarchy and to be Tribal. How could
Marxist argue to change that without believing in some sort of objective morality.

Other urls found in this thread:

fortune.com/2017/08/01/venezuela-bolivar-world-of-warcraft-currency/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He well knew that but his ambition wasnt to create a better society for the people...

How could one argue that this fat lazy fuck fought for workers? Sure criticize ideas not the people behind them but would you let a druggie degenerate lecture you about drugs being bad?

The man in question is one of the least qualified men to represent the working class.

I know that, and his personality is questionable at best, but I just want to know where does the push for egalitarianism comes from. They don't believe in objective morality, and human evolution is clear on this. Then how could they argue for egalitarianism?

>How could Marxist argue to change that without believing in some sort of objective morality.
Because communism is suppose to express the concrete needs of the working class. It is not "a state of affairs to be established" The proletariat is compelled by the material conditions of society to abolish political economy in general.

protip: most self described marxist you see online or even real life have no idea what Marx actually wrote about. I went into one of those commie shill threads and not one of them knew marx called for a central bank lol

Bahaha! how do you know what does the working class need? Especially in the rich western societies, your arguments become even more redundant. In Australia poverty does not exist, and the classic working class barely exist in the west. I ask you how you could argue for Marxism, and you quote Marx like a prophet. Acting like Marx has the key to objective morality.

>humans were evolved to have a material hierarchy
[citation needed]

>and to be Tribal
What ideology takes tribalism into account? None. The natural tribalism you see in primitive societies is related to kinship. Extending fraternity to an entire race, nation, or all humanity are all equally arbitrary.

Nationalism, racism, and religion.

Already responded to that.

>how do you know what does the working class need
I didn't. History shows that the working class forms soviets as a fighting vehicle against capitalism during periods of social upheaval.
> Especially in the rich western societies, your arguments become even more redundant.
Not really since every simple commodity exchange contains the antagonism present in capitalist society.
> In Australia poverty does not exist
Are you retarded?

Marx didn't argue that we SHOULD be international or egalitarian. He argued that changing material forces under capitalism made an international and egalitarian future inevitable.

Capitalism sorts the majority of people into an international proletariat. He recognized that cultural and material differences between people were beginning to lessen, because capitalism breaks through tradition like a battering ram and necessarily provides some development to make a profit. Today, workers in Beijing and Berlin wear the same clothes, listen to the same music, and eat a lot of the same food. And if you put a random German and a random Chinese into a room together, there's a decent chance they could converse with each other in English.

If this proletariat seizes political power and then replaces the for-profit capitalist economy with a cooperative system, international egalitarianism has already been achieved. Marx argued that because under capitalism our economy has become so global, socialism can only come about through global means.

Marxist always escape into autistic rhetoric when the real world applications of their idea fail horribly and people notice this. This is the real dialectic materialism lol

fortune.com/2017/08/01/venezuela-bolivar-world-of-warcraft-currency/

>Marx didn't argue that we SHOULD be international or egalitarian. He argued that changing material forces under capitalism made an international and egalitarian future inevitable.
this is bullshit and you know it. Marx wasnt just some aloof philosopher saying what he just thought might happen, he was actively fighting to make that future a reality.

Marx thought that future was inevitable. You can't fault him for wanting to accelerate to what he thought was the inevitable next stage in history considering he was living in a society where children were being worked to death and industrial workers lived to their twenties.

Im not faulting him, Im just calling out this lie that I see popping up more and more that implies that Marx didnt actively try to implement communism in his time. Which also implies that his ideas are such a set in stone truth that he didnt even have to try to implement them. Its bullshit

You did not. How is Nationalism just not another form of tribalism? If you going to bring up the 150 people. Yes, the 150 people will be the same race the same religion, and the same nationality. Also literally the whole of Europe of is literally only related to a couple of tribes that migrated there. You can argue that Europe is just one big fucking tribe.

That's fine, I'm not the user above. But he did think that his ideas were so set in stone that we would end up in communism either way.

Because Marx recognized that the industrial revolution was making human society radically more egalitarian. He argued that the organization of the proletariat into massive class which owned no capital made a revolution by this class inevitable.

Human evolution certainly isn't clear on hierarchy. In fact, studies of hunter-gatherer studies give us the impression that early humans were pretty egalitarian. Any hierarchy that exists is be based on ability rather than heredity and property.

That's not how tribalism works in primitive societies, and it's as much "unnatural" as being a cosmopolitan is, whatever that means. No, being related via tribes from thousands of years ago doesn't make you kin in a natural environment.

Nationality is an arbitrary political distinction. Nothing besides historical chance makes a Basque a Spaniard or a Corsican a Frenchman.

Across the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries there was a massive concerted effort of nation-building to facilitate easier administration and instill loyalty among the citizenry.

Calling Europe "one big tribe" proves how fucking retarded your whole argument is, because literally all Europe history up to 1945 has involved European countries trying to dominate other members of their "tribe".

>Nationality is an arbitrary political distinction
Even George Orwell admitted (England your England IIRC) that the citizens of different nations have real philosophical differences between one another.

He represented Germany in the First International Workingmen's Association but that's it. Marx wasn't a political activist because he believed socialism would come not from a handful of self-important intellectuals but from the collective behavior of the working classes in the most developed capitalist economies.

Marx's failed experiences with activism in the 1848 revolution were a huge part in the formulation of his political theory, and helped him realize that socialism could not be built "from above" by some small group of passionate revolutionaries.

This. The whole refugee mess plaguing europe now confirms this. This universal brotherhood of plebs is a meme and there are more dividing lines in the world than just bourgeoisie and proletariat. Even marxist now are obsessed with identity politics between men and women, or black people and white people, or gay people and straight people ect.

That's fine. I can accept the argument for nationalism/frontiers as a practical need. But pretending nationalism is "natural" is pretty silly.

Literally no one would disagree with that. Obviously nationality exists and can be a useful way to categorize humans, but nations aren't immutable institutions placed on earth by God or by nature.

Nation-building is a long and deliberate political process, by which conquest and education and oftentimes repression are used to instill a national identity upon disparate groups of people and scrub out cultural differences that might obstruct this process.

How do you think the dialects of Paris and Tuscany came to be national languages? Why do you think there aren't any Greeks left in Turkey?

you keep going back to Marx analysis of history. If that is not acting like Marx is an objective truth then I don't know what is! Marx's knowledge of history was extremely low compared to people to know. You literally worship a human how knows less than the average historian today. Also, we barely knew anything about how we evolved when Marx wrote his book. Marx uses tribalism as if it backs up his egalitarian international view. Everything we discovered about our hunter-gatherer days counters his viewpoint. The tribe had a hierarchy system where chief got the best food and clothes. How do you think kings develope. They develope from the chief of the tribes.

If Marxists believed class was the only human distinction they wouldn't have spent 150 years writing about gender and nationality. Marxists believe that class is the operative distinction in human societies, because this distinction transcends all others and can be identified in every society.

The most common Marxist perspective is that non-material distinctions are used by ruling elites to inhibit class solidarity and obstruct the reality of capitalist relations.

Ironically some 21st century university Marxists divide the proletariat on their own through identity politics, but that's because these self-described Marxists are a lot less materialist than they think they are.

A nation is formed around a language. That is the most natural thing as people who spoke the same language would reproduce thus developing similar characteristics.

>Marx's knowledge of history was extremely low compared to people to know
citation needed.
>Marx uses tribalism as if it backs up his egalitarian international view
He discusses primitive communism yes but he never appeals to nature as if thats the reason we should be egalitarian.
>Everything we discovered about our hunter-gatherer days counters his viewpoint.
Thats not true. Read James Scott.

From a standpoint of zero morality issues, if resources were able to be directly moved by the state to whatever industry needs them the most to achieve scientific and industrial progress without needing to go go through a mire of intermediaries first the quality of life would be vastly improved for all humans. Since the ruling party is always greedy though it won't work as intended unless aliens invade and institute their own version of space communism or something.

>if resources were able to be directly moved by the state to whatever industry needs them the most to achieve scientific and industrial progress without needing to go go through a mire of intermediaries first the quality of life would be vastly improved for all humans

>imagine actually believing this in the face of all of the historical and economic information we have today

Protip: Those decentralized components act more intelligently and quickly than a centralized C2 system does. Japan VS USSR. One has massive population, raw materials, and both are industrialized. Who will win? bahaha

>Marxists believe that class is the operative distinction in human societies, because this distinction transcends all others and can be identified in every society.
yeah, and this is one of the many things they got wrong.

>The tribe had a hierarchy system
Depends on the tribe.

>The tribe had a hierarchy system where chief got the best food and clothes
That's incorrect. I quote Sahlins who in turn quotes others:
>Leadership is here a higher form of kinship, hence a higher form of reciprocity and liberality. This repeats itself in ethnographic descriptions from all over the primitive world, even to the dilemmas posed by chiefly obligations of generosity:
>"The [Nambikwara] chief must not merely do well: he must try, and his group will expect him to try, to do better than the others. How does the chief fulfill these obligations? The first and main instrument of his power is his generosity. (...) The chiefs were my best informers; and as I knew the difficulties of their position I liked to reward them liberally. Rarely, however, did any of my presents remain in their hands for more than a day or two. And when I moved on, after sharing for several weeks the life of any particular band, its members rejoiced in the acquisition of axes, knives, pearls, and so forth from my stores. The chief, by contrast, was generallyas poor, in material terms, as he had been when I arrived. His share, which was very much larger than the average allowance, had all been extorted from him"
>The same refrain appears in the complaint of the Tahitian priest-chief, Ha'amanimani, to the Duff missionaries:
>"You give me," says he, "much parow and much prayers to the Eatora [God], but very few axes, knives, scissars, or cloth." The case is, that whatever he receives he immediately distributes among his friends and dependents; so that for all the numerous presents he had received, he had nothing now to shew, except a glazed hat, a pair of breeches, and an old black coat, which he had fringed with red feathers. And this prodigal behaviour he excuses by saying that, were he not to do so, he should never be a king (sic), nor even remain a chief of any consequence"
It keeps going to I reach the char limit.

Sure, and in primitive societies people who speak the same language are not immediately allies. We did not evolve to be kins with anyone who speaks our language. OP's argument is about evolution, not about social development.

No, you're an idiot.

Chiefs in hunter-gatherer societies aren't the wealthiest people, because in these societies there's generally no wealth to own. These societies very rarely have an understanding of private property, because you generally cannot claim ownership to any place or thing that you aren't actively using. Property rights could not exist among most Precolombian Indians because their nomadic lifestyle made it impossible for individuals to claim territory that they alone could not occupy or cultivate.

Property doesn't develop until some individuals can produce substantially more food or tools than others, giving them social benefits that overrule the leadership qualities of the chief. From here property develops, because these prominent individuals leverage their status to claim ownership of fertile land they aren't currently using, and then transfer this ownership to their children. By this process property owners become kings and meritocratic chiefs become obsolete.

Marx and especially Engels didn't make shit up to justify their political beliefs, they analyzed the most up-to-date material available to understand how humans could have transformed from propertyless nomads (sometimes called primitive communists) to

Modern anthropology accepts this model verbatim. Nobody has been able to provide any substantial evidence contradicting Marxist theories of the origin of property. Instead, major anthropologists like Marvin Harris, Tim Ingold, C. Wright Mills, have built on their groundwork and found even more evidence to validate these conclusions. These people are very rarely communists, but they recognized regardless that Marx and Engels were fundamental in helping us understand how class society came to exist.

Nope, nations speaking the same language is a pretty recent phenomenon. It only happened because economic and political factors standardized prestige dialects and stamped out others.

In 1800 a Breton, a Parisian, a Basque, a Burgundian, and an Occitan wouldn't be able to properly communicate despite being of the same nation.

Yes, if the chief doesn't do a good job he gets kicked out, but most of the chiefs got the material privilege. You are missing the point and ignoring the facts. Yes, there were kings and chiefs who lived modestly, but that was rare back then just like now. Human nature has not changed, and if you think you are deluding yourself. The CEOS and leaders chasing money is because the leaders in the past also did the same thing.

CEOs don't rule our economy, property owners do. CEOs like hunter-gatherer chiefs are influential and can earn material rewards for their successes, but neither type of person is powerful enough to leave serious lasting change on our economy and society.

Hunter gatherer societies are fundamentally based around cooperation and collective survival. People are less likely to rob or cheat their own tribe because this means they'll be shunned by the people they rely on to survive. In a class society like our own, mutual respect from the community at large is not necessary because our economic and political institutions (markets, laws, the court system) aren't based on personal relationships anymore.

The delusion is strong with you. Money is just a substitute for food and other basic materials. Human nature has not changed. The chief probably did not participate in the physical labor much. You are acting we humans have gone against our nature. It is literally impossible to go against our nature. I love people who don't believe in free will are arguing for morality. The hypocrisy is violently obvious.

Marx was completely right about capitalism breaking down national distinctions. If you really think globalization has not greatly universalized our culture and behavior then you should read this KFC menu. From fucking Nigeria.

I think the basic premises of the critique that Marx levels against Capitalism are pretty inescapable.

Marx himself writes that the Capitalist class will adopt social issues and the like, but only insofar as they ultimately serve to maintain the status quo.

Basically this. Identity politics seems to be another example of a co-opting revolutionary ideas and extracting the materialism out of them, like sucking the air out of a balloon.

>most of the chiefs got the material privilege
Did you even read my post? I'll keep going:
>The economic relation of giver-receiver is the political relation of leader-follower. Always the rank relation, faithful to the qualities of a society it would not abolish, is compensatory. It is conceived in terms of balance, a "mutual helpfulness," a "continual reciprocity." But in strictly material terms the relation cannot be both "reciprocal" and "generous," the exchange at once equivalent and more so. "Ideology;' then, because "chiefly liberality" must ignore the contrary flow of goods from people to chief. (...) The New Guinea Busama clubhouse leader, as Hogbin reports,
>"has to work harder than anyone else to keep up his stocks of food. The aspirant for honours cannot rest on his laurels but must go on holding large feasts and piling up credits. It is acknowledged that he has to toil early and late--"His hands are never free from earth, and his forehead continually drips with sweat"
>(...) For Melanesians:
>"the purpose in owning pigs and pig-wealth is not to store them nor to put them on recurrent display: it is to use them. The aggregate effect is a vast circulating flow of pigs, plumes and shells."
>the Nambikwara "chief" is an example of the genre-and most commonly in the camps of hunters and gatherers:
>"No Bushman wants prominence, but Toma went further than most in avoiding prominence; he had almost no possessions and gave away everything that came into his hands. He was diplomatic, for in exchange for his self-imposed impoverty he won the respect and following of all the people there"
That being said, tribes in polynesia and interior asia do favor wealth accumulation by their chiefs. But your statement is wrong both as a general rule and as a prevailing case. It's even more wrong as evolutionary determinism.

Yes, but people only reproduced with people who spoke the same language. Thus making nationalism based on a common language natural. The concept of national identity was suppressed because of empire. it doesn't mean there was no attempt to it. whether it new or old it is organic. As we today we categorize peoples ethnicity based o their ancestral language.

All anthropological research proves you wrong. Chiefs in hunter-gatherer societies aren't hereditary nobility everybody needs to obey, they're particularly capable individuals whom the community at large believes will lead them to success. If you make the chief's idiot son the leader just because of who was his daddy, there's a good chance you're all gonna suffer until a more capable usurper can overthrow him.

Hereditary rule emerges once property and class divisions have already developed. Once you have a group of property owners who don't rely on the rest of the community to survive, the specific abilities of the leading individual are less important. An organized system of succession is useful, because it limits the possibility of an internal power struggle that could lead to property being confiscated.

No, the ancestral language of eastern Germans was some extinct dialect of West Slavic, and the ancestral language of France is a hundred varieties of Gaulish.

Nations do not build governments. Instead, governments turn their territories and subjects into nations. Before the 18th century each European kingdom would have exhibited remarkable diversity in language and culture. Across the process of nation-building aspects of certain cultures, usually the cultures of the people in charge, come to be part of the young national identity. Tell some Lombard farmers in 1848 that spaghetti is their national dish and you'll be met with blank stares.

"on kindship" Jesus Christ. I hate this loser philosopher make up shit to manipulate other people. Our modern society is completely based on fear. The fear of going to jail. The fear of violence from the state. It is better to be feard the loved. The people who have gotten to the top of society use both fear and kindness. It is part of the game. To say sometimes tribes among together work together that means socialism is going to work is absurd. Money is never stored somewhere. The banks give loans using our money. money is never stored. And i think you have a misunderstanding of money. Money is there to be balanced with the natural recourses.If we give India all the money in the world they aren't going to be able to bring the poor out of poverty because they don't have the infrastructure, and they will not be able to because of inflation and the rule of demand and supply. There is actually to much money in the world. Countries are printing money like crazy. China and the US are doing that. If we suddenly bring all the wealth in circulation will create a large inflation. you have screwed view of money and wealth.

>eastern Germans was some extinct dialect of West Slavic

Backwards.

Are you having an stroke?

I did not say that. I actually say the opposite of that. That is why people are so obsessed with democracy. It is probably closer to our hunter-gatherer way of governance where everyone in the tribe voted for the chief. But the chief still got material privileges.

a*

>the chief still got material privileges
Still wrong.

good one! Are you some Socialist Autist who has not spoken to normal people who don't spend their time being all philosophically. No, I am just being blunt.

You are truly following your prophet Marx in being snobbish against working class people who can not be as articulate as you. Just attack the person instead of the ball.

Marx wasnt an egalitarian you gook

M8, your post is an incoherent rant that doesn't address anything I wrote.

Not a marxist. Marx was snobbish against everyone but the working class if anything. His banter against other philosophers/economists are the best part of his work.

the whole SJW thing isnt just limo leftist adopting to rising issues like that though, they are the actual torch carriers of marxism now and are the ones heavily shilling not only their ID politics, but also the overthrow of capitalism in favor of communism

Guys, I am socialist who believes that people working together out of fear of other tribes coming and killing all of them, or that they may get ostracized and kicked out of the tribe means all of the world will come together under one banner and live happily ever after.
I don't believe in Objective truth and morality, but I am just going to quote Marx as if he is some sort of prophet who has figured out everything in the world. And going to demand everyone to feel the same thing about egalitarianism. But I don't believe in objective morality.

Also, ID politics is all because of Marcuse, who was a marxist. You know when you hear people bitching about "cultural marxism" and you claim that it doesnt exist? that is what they are referring to.

>"the purpose in owning pigs and pig-wealth is not to store them nor to put them on recurrent display: it is to use them. The aggregate effect is a vast circulating flow of pigs, plumes and shells."
Money is not stored somewhere the banks use our money to constantly invest in the economy.
The economic relation of giver-receiver is the political relation of leader-follower. Always the rank relation, faithful to the qualities of a society it would not abolish, is compensatory. It is conceived in terms of balance, a "mutual helpfulness," a "continual reciprocity." But in strictly material terms the relation cannot be both "reciprocal" and "generous," the exchange at once equivalent and more so. "Ideology;' then, because "chiefly liberality" must ignore the contrary flow of goods from people to chief. (...) The New Guinea Busama clubhouse leader, as Hogbin reports,
>"has to work harder than anyone else to keep up his stocks of food. The aspirant for honours cannot rest on his laurels but must go on holding large feasts and piling up credits. It is acknowledged that he has to toil early and late--"His hands are never free from earth, and his forehead continually drips with sweat"
You say that the capitalist class are just a bunch of lazy fools, but give an example that shows the capital owners work harder. OK Mate! Also, You can literally make the same argument for CEOS, and business owners. It is a >The economic relation of giver-receiver is the political relation of leader-follows

You seem to be a little confused. Some user is claiming that in primitive societies the chief is (generally) wealthier/economically privileged/works less than the rest. I am quoting anthropologists on the economics of different primitive societies to prove him wrong. None of this has anything to do with the role of money, banks, capitalists, capital owners, ceos, or anything else you're ranting about.

Hey guys I am Socialist who believe that the tribe leaders relation with the other members of the tribe was a positive reciprocal leader and flower. Where both sides benefited. But the business leaders are exploiting the working class. REEEEEEEE! I am just going to keep quoting Marx without even understanding it! REEEEE!

reminder

It has everything to do with capitalism. I just bring in up the parallels between the elites in the capitalist society compared to the elites in the tribes. I don't share your view that it is the much different. And money is just a substitute for food and basic goods. I think our mind understand that, and that is why everyone chases money. All I am saying that human nature has not changed!

Thanks for your valuable input, user.