Non-moral arguments for communism

ultimately, don't all arguments against capitalism boil down to "because it's wrong"? i mean, i can't objectively prove why paris hilton shouldn't build a $325,000 house for her pet dogs while people in the same city are living on the street, or why billionaires shouldn't have so much money. so don't we have to admit that communism is basically advocacy for a particular set of moral principles, against behaviours and practices we deem "inhumane" or "immoral"?

Capitalism is objectively against a individual's rational self-interest, even the bourgeoisie, it is also inherently socially and self-destructive. The moral argument is a relevant one and shouldn't be ignored like many here advocate, but it is not the only or even the best one.

No it's going to destroy humanity with its insatiable consumption of resources - the ecological argument. Also markets are nowhere near as efficient as right wingers pretend they are.

It is in the self-interest of the exploited to end their exploitation. That's a non-moral argument for you. Also one of the main points commies have made during the last 150 years. It is also in the self-interest of general humanity not to have their only livable planet turned into fucking Venus due to environmental destruction. That's not really a moral argument either.

I dunno user, when you read Capital did you really feel Marx relied on moralizing very much in his critiques of capitalism?

but why is destroying the environment necessarily something to be avoided? isn't this still an argument of 'what ought to be' and 'what oughtn't be'?

not talking about marx specifically. just the general notion that exploitation and inequality should or should not be. just seems to me that any position taken by a human being is essentially a moral one, since it's founded on emotion and human feelings. so "objectivity" is pretty much moot

Because capitalism is gonna kill us all

No. Unless you want to be sophist like here and claim that in effect all arguments about why one thing is preferable to the other are moralistic, of course. At which point it becomes useless to discuss anything at all, and we should just let force decide I suppose.
You are not arguing in good faith.

Nope OP, it's a rejection of bourgeois morals regarding private property

that picture makes wanna build a gulag in my backyard right now

i am 2137433 and 2137451 and i am arguing in good faith. my argument is, if we can't prove "good and bad" objectively, why not just embrace the moral position and focus on the fact that the right is basically immoral; that they think it good and proper to let people starve or go homeless, to let wealth and power be concentrated in the hands of an elite minority, to force people to live in misery and suffering; while communism believes the opposite. seems like as good an argument as any, especially since most regular people do believe in morals and concepts like right and wrong

Straight outta reddit i see, new to imageboards?

what?

Saying you are x doesn't mean you are x since literally everyone can come in and say they are x. If you want to prove you are x - which is usually pointless, just respond as if you were x - then you usually post a screenshot of the (you)

How is not wanting to work 40-70 hours per week a moral argument you idiot dumbfuck OP

Moral arguments don't exist in Marxism. Its' arguments against capitalism are that it neglects the interests of majority of people, that could benefit in an alternative economic model.

Picrelated, obviously enough, exposes inadequate resource distribution.

so what?

That would require that people actually care about morals, which they don't. Absolutely heinous shit happens every fucking hour and most people can hardly bother to write a sad post about it, let alone start a revolution, and only then when it's something that's relatively close to them. Appealing to some grand moral position gets you absolutely nowhere. You have to appeal to their interests, because ultimately that's the only thing that's gonna make them start caring enough to actually do something.

Well because you and me are almost certainly among those people.

...

That's nice and all, but will only get you so far. You will find few capitalists going out and proclaiming "I am for human misery". They will in fact claim the opposite, that capitalism is a path to the greatest human flourishing or whatever. At that point it is the task of a socialist to prove what capitalism actually leads to, how it actually works, and so on. Basically what Marx did in Capital. So just making a moral argument is not enough either, it has to be backed up with rigorous reasoning as to why capital will actually lead to morally repugnant results. And in fact those arguments can be so strong that they make even traditionalists turn against capitalism, as it undermines not just material welfare of the proletariat, but a host of other values also.

So it is unstable and ineffective, prone to crises and power struggles. Thus, it is bound to fail and be replaced by a more sophisticated system.

again, the capitalist's response would be "so what?" or "why does that mean i should i give up what i have in order to help others?"

Wtf kind of response is this? Will revolution just stop because the capitalist says 'No thanks I'm good'? Apparently the world revolves around him

you don't have the power to make him give up what he has. so things do revolve around him in a way

Literally what. Do you think Robespierre wrote a letter to the French aristocracy or something?

no, he had more people on his side. right now, the capitalist has more people on his side. people who will kill you to protect him

Noone is going to ask a capitalist anything at all. Unless he is willing to accept it to begin with, he will be forced to surrender his muh privileges or die resisting.

So? That's how history works.

Once that was the king or the bishop or the baron or the patrician who had political power. What does it have to do with anything discussed?

How tf does this relate to the topic of moral arguments? Do you unironically think there are people wondering "gee can't wait to write that golden letter to porky and warm his heart"?
There's a god damn book called Capital or you could just bother reading the replies you got in this thread. None of your rebuttals make sense.