Aidand wrote:My reason clearly states that through the medium of commodoties people can avoid those caring situations or getting to know each other as you put it. That and the actual incidents of industries threatening other peoples freedoms are where I get my conclusion from.
This is wrong though because objects must be interpreted in order to have value, interpretation which can take place over a variety of paths.
You're assuming everyone will evaluate commodities the same way which isn't necessarily the case.
Secondly I think that the right to compete is pretty morally dubious. Is that only competition through commodities or other forms like pickaxing skulls? Even if it was just the first case if caused great harm like starving and driving and keeping generations of people in poverty would that be moral. Would community poverty even be competition? That seems a bit like a 'though shit' conclusion as you put it.
Competition does not include degrading the identity of other competitors. If you degrade another's self, then you beg the question of the value of your own self.
However, when another self-objectifies (as in the case of socialism where a socialist admits to being an object), that person has surrendered sense of self meaning that person has relegated interpretation of identity to others.
I agree with your statements about co-operation such as in more deliberative forms of government. I don't really agree that acknowledging the 'threat' of consumer habits relegates us to robots. In fact a situation where we can accurately assess all of the affects of our consumption and production actually gives us more control and even develope more diverse reasons for making choices. Including this new humane element. Its a self aware consumer asserting environmental and physical affects rather than the want have consumer you highlight.
Accurate assessment is fundamentally a subjective action though which (like with mediums of commodities as you put it) can take place along a variety of paths. Literally, nature does not assess itself. We cannot even read scientific knowledge about the universe from instantaneous observation. In order to become scientifically knowledgeable, we have to conduct experiments and then subjectively establish a burden of proof.
To be honest I think thats its pretty unusual to question my conclusions and assert that about empathy without any reasons or evidence. If your are going to hold me to those standards you should probably meet them yourself.
You can't really expect evidence for this. That'd be like asking someone, "Prove that you love me." You can't "prove" love. Tokens of appreciation can be exchanged, but it's impossible to demonstrate appreciation beyond all shadow of a doubt. Fundamentally, that's what love is about - taking a leap of faith on trust alone, and through mutually subjective, intuitive analysis, coming to the same conclusions about a relationship's structure.
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that multiple people will subjectively and intuitively recognize a relationship the same way. Love can be hit or miss. Part of the experience is in choosing how to gamble (which is why socialism ruins relationships - it both forces people to gamble and to gamble certain ways).
Anyway why would it just be shared tastes and not shared struggles, life experiences and share voice in directing society.
Struggles are negative, not positive, memories. Short of vanity, they breed hatred, not love; even with vanity, that love is dependent upon hatred, or at least neglect, of third parties who become obligated to support it from the outside.
The families and friends clearly have shared or mutual values and daily struggles.
Families can also be dysfunctional, and friendship does not always sustain over time.
What would make a farmer more likely to relate to anothers feelings through their taste for spaghetti rather than their similar values, struggle and community struggle. It s pretty unusual to sweepingly exclude all these other forms of mutuality without without any reasons to get you there.
This is where the limits of love come in.
Unfortunately, people are not mind readers. For example, I could say the word "happiness" and the PARTICULAR interpretation that evokes from you is not necessarily the interpretation it evokes from me. Likewise, I could say the word "struggle" and the PARTICULAR interpretation that evokes from you is not necessarily the interpretation it evokes from me.
The only way we can mutually arrive at an understanding of values, therefore, is to consider ALL POSSIBLE PARTICULAR interpretations.
However, that isn't something which can take place under political economy because economics involve opportunity costs. Economics involve making ONE PARTICULAR interpretation for any dedication of resources (one brick can't be built into two walls).
Therefore, socialism is a false expression of love because it aims to achieve not only what's unlikely, but what's also impossible.