Human beings may not be "naturally" competitive but they are curious

[graffic]

The idea is that there is a problem with marxism and communist revolution because of the belief that human beings are, and perhaps always will be, curious beings. The reason that many historical movements, revolutionary or not, fail, fail at heart, is because they fail to take account of the complex and unpredictable forms of human curiosity.

Not all human's like to sit down, resign and accept that X is X because of X reason. Every society has astronomers, fossil hunters, arctic voyagers, historians etc etc. Humans will perhaps always question themselves or society, whether it is equal or un-equal, fascist or communist. This does not necessarily mean that social progression is flawed in any way, but that orthodox Marxism is perhaps a flawed ideal.

What do you think of this idea?

[Kronos]

The only aspect of Marxist philosophy that could be flawed might be the platform from which Marx makes the ethical argument that wage workers are 'alienated' by having to sell their 'life force' to produce commodities they are 'estranged' from. This kind of narrative puts a metaphysical element to the foundation for socialism, but nothing less could be expected when theorists are under the pressure of having to provide a scientific materialism for everything economic and social. How does one present a theory of ethics without wading into such nonsense?

None of that bologna is here or there, but that doesn't detract from the point that as long as there are these two opposing classes in society, their interests will conflict.

So Marx is one hundred percent right when he says 'expect coercion between classes', but neither here nor there when he says 'the grounds for revolution are the unethical conditions inherent in capitalist society'.

It just so happens that the working classes are the real force behind progress. Their right to revolution is clear, whether for ethical reasons or not......that much is irrelevant.

[graffic]

The only aspect of Marxist philosophy that could be flawed might be the platform from which Marx makes the ethical argument that wage workers are 'alienated' by having to sell their 'life force' to produce commodities they are 'estranged' from. This kind of narrative puts a metaphysical element to the foundation for socialism, but nothing less could be expected when theorists are under the pressure of having to provide a scientific materialism for everything economic and social.

I don't mean anything that is flawed in metaphysical sense, although perhaps some of it is, i havn't made any conclusions yet. I'm thinking more about in the end, the idea that revolution and a stateless society will help humans self-actualize in the way that Marx predicted




It just so happens that the working classes are the real force behind progress. Their right to revolution is clear, whether for ethical reasons or not......that much is irrelevant.

I agree that the working classes have a "right" to revolution, that it is ethically sound. But in practice does it achieve the utopian ideals predicted? Or will history just repeat itself all over again just like after the French revolution they came back round to monarch rule and after the Russian revolution the USSR collapsed and they were back with capitalism. I suppose it is just a matter of time and progress

[Bud Struggle]

Their right to revolution is clear, whether for ethical reasons or not......that much is irrelevant.

But if there are no "ethical reasons" then the right of the Bourgeoise to control the means of production is also "clear."

One could do whatever one chooses, it just depends on one's situation in life.

[Scary Monster]

The idea is that there is a problem with marxism and communist revolution because of the belief that human beings are, and perhaps always will be, curious beings. The reason that many historical movements, revolutionary or not, fail, fail at heart, is because they fail to take account of the complex and unpredictable forms of human curiosity.

Not all human's like to sit down, resign and accept that X is X because of X reason. Every society has astronomers, fossil hunters, arctic voyagers, historians etc etc. Humans will perhaps always question themselves or society, whether it is equal or un-equal, fascist or communist. This does not necessarily mean that social progression is flawed in any way, but that orthodox Marxism is perhaps a flawed ideal.

What do you think of this idea?

I have no idea where anyone would get this idea of communism from. Care to elaborate on why exactly you think Communism would severely inhibit human progression and knowledge?

[Muzk]

Not all human's like to sit down, resign and accept that X is X because of X reason.that's why we exist, because we don't want to sit down and accept the world as it is because of the system

and you fail, there's no connection of "system" to science, other than that science nowadays is invested into to make profits

[graffic]

I have no idea where anyone would get this idea of communism from. Care to elaborate on why exactly you think Communism would severely inhibit human progression and knowledge?

Nothing to do with "human progression" or "knowledge". Some theorists say the cream will always rise to the top. Work it out for yourself. The complex and unpredictable forms of human curiosity can restrain what we deem as "progress".

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm notoriously stupid when it comes to everything I read on the internet. Is it possible for you to spell out your argument more specifically?

I am not sure what it the premises of it are and how they entail the conclusion.

1. Humans are curious.
2. If humans are curious, Orthodox Marxism will fail.
3. Orthodox-Marxism will fail.

I agree with 1. I don't know how #2 is operating? Are people going to blow up something, create their own government, eat babies? I have no clue here.

[graffic]

I will summarize the idea: Orthodox-Marxism is another way of organising society. Society can be organic and fluid, constantly awash with different theories answering the question "why?", so that generation after generation humans will question why X is X for X reason, whether the workers own the means of production or whether society is pluralistic and liberal, people will be curious and perhaps seek change: progress and regress, confrontation or cooperation. Thus a belief in an eventual, stateless utopian society that will finally make humans self-actualize, conclusively, is exclusive and confined, perhaps naive.

So historical materialism is rational, and Karl Marx undoubtedly stumbled onto some enlightening truths, as did other theorists, but orthodox Marxism and revolution are entirely different ball games

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There is no reason to believe progress, regress, confrontation, and cooperation can't vary within a Marxist society. These fluctuations occur within capitalist society, but capitalism still maintains itself (for now). Humans have somewhat consistent variables - such as self-interest - that are best served by certain ways of organizing society. People can recognize the value of these structures and maintain them. Notice how an opposition to murdering innocent people is still with us and shows no signs of disappearing, in my view.

Also, the Marxists who believe communism is the end of history, will be perfect, will have no confrontation, and no regress, are simply delusional. It doesn't take any widespread theory to know that.

Honestly, the future is probably going to be filled with technologically perpetuated virtual realities. AKA, the murderer will believe he lives in a world where he is killing real people. In reality, he won't. Or perhaps, upon trying a new medication or surgery, the murderer will experience life as a non-murderer, decide they prefer it, and live within everyday society.

Perfection clearly isn't going to result from any method of social organization, although such a method much be required for it. Perfection is mathematical, scientific, idealistic, and a theoretical maximum. It's going to be the pursuit of science. Social organizations just make us more efficient are pursuing such goals.

[Kayser_Soso]

The idea is that there is a problem with marxism and communist revolution because of the belief that human beings are, and perhaps always will be, curious beings. The reason that many historical movements, revolutionary or not, fail, fail at heart, is because they fail to take account of the complex and unpredictable forms of human curiosity.

Not all human's like to sit down, resign and accept that X is X because of X reason. Every society has astronomers, fossil hunters, arctic voyagers, historians etc etc. Humans will perhaps always question themselves or society, whether it is equal or un-equal, fascist or communist. This does not necessarily mean that social progression is flawed in any way, but that orthodox Marxism is perhaps a flawed ideal.

What do you think of this idea?

LOL WUT

Why the hell would curiosity conflict with a socialist system? If anything a socialist system would facilitate human curiosity by giving people more free time, access to scientific materials and free education, and a society based on reason by which we can find concrete answers to our curious inquiries.

[Drace]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

[graffic]

LOL WUT

Why the hell would curiosity conflict with a socialist system? If anything a socialist system would facilitate human curiosity by giving people more free time, access to scientific materials and free education, and a society based on reason by which we can find concrete answers to our curious inquiries.

That's a good point. I may be talking bollocks here but i suppose what I mean is that i think socialism is just one direction for humanity. Who is to say that after the dictatorship of the proletariat a brand of fascism may emerge. So society progresses and regresses, generation after generation. I think in this sense Marxism is narrow and confined, and does not take into account the reality of human behavior

[Kayser_Soso]

That's a good point. I may be talking bollocks here but i suppose what I mean is that i think socialism is just one direction for humanity. Who is to say that after the dictatorship of the proletariat a brand of fascism may emerge. So society progresses and regresses, generation after generation. I think in this sense Marxism is narrow and confined, and does not take into account the reality of human behavior

Fascism doesn't just pop out of nowhere. It, just like socialist revolution, is produced by conditions largely out of the control of humans. Yes, socialism can suffer a reverse as it did in the case of the 20th century, but fascism- real fascism, could not grow up in a society without a capitalist class.