if morality dosnt exist, why choose communism?

[danyboy27]

this question is for all people who deny the existance of ethics only, why communism?

I mean, basicly if you put all ethics and moral problem aside, the more efficient path to take is fascism. Of course Fascism is an authoritarian, evil ideology with a fucked up pyramid scheme, but its a verry efficient way to control the masses and to focus their forces in certain field.

i have been puzzeled with this question for days now. I have always been someone who believed that the problem with capitalism and fascism is ethics, that this scheme of inequality is fundamentaly wrong, but i wonder what would be the logic for an individual without any moral or ethics to choose communism rather than fascism, given the numerous advantage fascism would bring to this kind of individual.

[red cat]

Physical vulnerability ?

[JohnnyC]

Are you a worker/from working class family?If you are, and you understand what communism is, I don't think any further explanation for why to support communism is necessary.It's simply better for you to live in a society that have an abundance of resources and is democratically controlled by it's population than not.

[danyboy27]

Are you a worker/from working class family?If you are, and you understand what communism is, I don't think any further explanation for why to support communism is necessary.It's simply better for you to live in a society that have an abundance of resources and is democratically controlled by it's population than not.

no , i am not from a working class family but from a lumpenproletariat.
but then again, its not about me, but about those who have no ethics or moral but think communism is the way foward.

[danyboy27]

Physical vulnerability ?

someone with no ethics crippled with a physical vulnerability could reap the benefit from participating to a fascist regime.

Fascism is not always all about killing infirm or jews you know.

ps: for all who think i am a fascist, i am not, i am a communism, but i think discussing about ethic and moral is important.

[red cat]

someone with no ethics crippled with a physical vulnerability could reap the benefit from participating to a fascist regime.

Fascism is not always all about killing infirm or jews you know.

ps: for all who think i am a fascist, i am not, i am a communism, but i think discussing about ethic and moral is important.

Every one of us is physically vulnerable to bullets. The proletariat won't throw flowers at fascists.

[danyboy27]

Every one of us is physically vulnerable to bullets. The proletariat won't throw flowers at fascists.

then again you completly miss my question:

why an individual without ethic or moral would choose communism rather than fascist.

[#FF0000]

then again you completly miss my question:

why an individual without ethic or moral would choose communism rather than fascist.

Because it works better. Capitalism carries with it the necessity of wars for profit, poverty, waste, instability, and collapse.

[Zanthorus]

If you had no morals whatsoever you wouldn't be a fascist, fascism is still an ideology that asserts a set of normative rules to live by. Stirnerite individualism is the real logical end point of the denial of morality unless of course you substitute morality with something like historical materialism.

[red cat]

then again you completly miss my question:

why an individual without ethic or moral would choose communism rather than fascist.

Because in communism he won't be annihilated by anyone. If he becomes a part of a fascist ruling class, then he always runs the risk of being annihilated by the working class.

[danyboy27]

Because it works better. Capitalism carries with it the necessity of wars for profit, poverty, waste, instability, and collapse.
then again, someone with no morality and ethic would see no problem with those things.

[danyboy27]

Because in communism he won't be annihilated by anyone. If he becomes a part of a fascist ruling class, then he always runs the risk of being annihilated by the working class.

but being a communist is much much more dangerous, an individual without ethic or morals will see that the bargain is better being on the side of the opressor.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Can I ask what is ethical &/or what is a moral choice to you?

[red cat]

but being a communist is much much more dangerous, an individual without ethic or morals will see that the bargain is better being on the side of the opressor.

But being neutral is still safer.

[danyboy27]

But being neutral is still safer.

but bring less benefit.

[A.R.Amistad]

Morality is subjective. I do not believe that there is an objective truth. There are only subjective truths. That doesn't mean that I reject subjective truth. Quite the contrary, to do so would be inauthentic and against my instinctive desire to give meaning to things. I choose communism because I am for humanity, I am for the individual, I am for freedom, justice, etc and in general the highest achievement that mankind can reach. I recognize that all of these things re subjective. For example, I can't give "humanism" a material value. Its something we make up based on our objective existence. Only Nihilists do as you are describing, and I am an existentialist, not a nihilist. Nihilists are those who recognize the meaninglessness of life, yet fall into despair and refuse to acknowledge that they do give meaning to things. In fact, by recognizing meaninglessness means recognizing the existence of meaning as well, albeit unconsciously. Marx said that humans are social beings. I agree with this, but humans are only social because they choose to be. The only other choice would be death, but they have that choice nonetheless. So it cannot be said that our essence is social. Only our choices are social. Having ethics and morals are what makes us individuals. Not having morals and ethics is to deny and forsake your own individuality.

[danyboy27]

Morality is subjective. I do not believe that there is an objective truth. There are only subjective truths. That doesn't mean that I reject subjective truth. Quite the contrary, to do so would be inauthentic and against my instinctive desire to give meaning to things. I choose communism because I am for humanity, I am for the individual, I am for freedom, justice, etc and in general the highest achievement that mankind can reach. I recognize that all of these things re subjective. For example, I can't give "humanism" a material value. Its something we make up based on our objective existence. Only Nihilists do as you are describing, and I am an existentialist, not a nihilist. Nihilists are those who recognize the meaninglessness of life, yet fall into despair and refuse to acknowledge that they do give meaning to things. In fact, by recognizing meaninglessness means recognizing the existence of meaning as well, albeit unconsciously. Marx said that humans are social beings. I agree with this, but humans are only social because they choose to be. The only other choice would be death, but they have that choice nonetheless. So it cannot be said that our essence is social. Only our choices are social. Having ethics and morals are what makes us individuals. Not having morals and ethics is to deny and forsake your own individuality.
rape and torture are not subjective.

[A.R.Amistad]

rape and torture are not subjective.

No they aren't, but the meaning that we give to both of them are.

Montaigne

"Life in itself is neither good nor evil. It is the place of good and evil, according to what you make it."-

[danyboy27]

No they aren't, but the meaning that we give to both of them are.

Montaigne

well, rape and torture damage people mind and body, i dont see what so subjective about it, its evil beccause its harm self aware being.

[A.R.Amistad]

well, rape and torture damage people mind and body, i dont see what so subjective about it, its evil beccause its harm self aware being.

I agree, I think that things like murder and torture are immoral and evil acts, but that doesn't mean that morality exists externally from our own minds and choices. By adhering to a society, you are making a choice. I think you are making the mistake that all people inherently want to live. Some commit suicide, and it is a choice we always have, albeit an unpleasant one. Not all the choices we make are beneficial to our existence. I a m not denying the existence of morality altogether, I am denying that there is some sort of "higher" morality, some sort of all embracing truth. Thats religious thinking. I believe that all that exists externally and objectively is matter, and everything else is subjective. But I do have morals, morals that I choose, and all members of society do have some basic morals in common, no matter what our philisophical, political persuasions. It is good to have morality. Morality makes you authentic and individual. Not having morals makes you, well, a Sea Anemone, a non-individual, something totally deviod of extraordinary meaning.

[danyboy27]

I agree, I think that things like murder and torture are immoral and evil acts, but that doesn't mean that morality exists externally from our own minds and choices. By adhering to a society, you are making a choice. I think you are making the mistake that all people inherently want to live. Some commit suicide, and it is a choice we always have, albeit an unpleasant one. Not all the choices we make are beneficial to our existence. I a m not denying the existence of morality altogether, I am denying that there is some sort of "higher" morality, some sort of all embracing truth. Thats religious thinking. I believe that all that exists externally and objectively is matter, and everything else is subjective. But I do have morals, morals that I choose, and all members of society do have some basic morals in common, no matter what our philisophical, political persuasions. It is good to have morality. Morality makes you authentic and individual. Not having morals makes you, well, a Sea Anemone, a non-individual, something totally deviod of extraordinary meaning.
Everyone have their moral and ethics, yes, But there is a basic framework that is non-negociable.

Killing someone who ask to be killed, beccause of a verry painful disease is ethical, beccause its respect another basic tenet of ethic: Leaving to the people the right to do whatever they want with their body, has long they dont harm nobody in the process.

Restricting freedom for instance, is something highly unhetical and should only be done to protect society, Rapist should be locked down beccause leaving them free will result in less freedom for many individual.

I might be wrong but i think a minimum framework of ethic and moral is important, but dont get me wrong, i am not one of those puritain anti-drug or anti-arbortion, i just think that we should act has civilised being, and the core of being civilised is, do not take freedom from other unless they pose a threat to take more freedom from others.

[A.R.Amistad]

Everyone have their moral and ethics, yes, But there is a basic framework that is non-negociable.

Killing someone who ask to be killed, beccause of a verry painful disease is ethical, beccause its respect another basic tenet of ethic: Leaving to the people the right to do whatever they want with their body, has long they dont harm nobody in the process.

Restricting freedom for instance, is something highly unhetical and should only be done to protect society, Rapist should be locked down beccause leaving them free will result in less freedom for many individual.

I might be wrong but i think a minimum framework of ethic and moral is important, but dont get me wrong, i am not one of those puritain anti-drug or anti-arbortion, i just think that we should act has civilised being, and the core of being civilised is, do not take freedom from other unless they pose a threat to take more freedom from others.


You are arguing something different. I am not denying your morals. I am not saying your morals are wrong. Quite the contrary, I respect you more because you have morals. You are authentic and seek a meaning in life beyond just living for livings sake. But in and of our selves, we aren't born with morality. There is no morality that we can find outside of ourselves. Morality isn't something we 'bump into.' Our existence precedes our essence. In and of itself, our existence is meaningless. Our essence is not, but our essence is totally subjective. We make our own morality. But yes, I think your morality and ethics are good ones, and as a society we individuals must voluntarily be able to choose morals that govern us.


"In community, the individual is, crucial as the prior condition for forming a community. Every individual in the community guarantees the community; the public is a chimera, numerality is everything."-Soren Kierkegaard http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif If we deny society, and thereby deny morality and deny ethics, we deny that which makes us individuals.

Tracy Chapman has it right in her song Heavens Here on Earth


We create the pain and the suffering, and the beauty in this world.-T. Chapman

[Robocommie]

then again, someone with no morality and ethic would see no problem with those things.

In that case, this hypothetical person would be neither communist nor fascist, but a nihilist, and therefore a little hard to satisfy with much of anything other than Epicureanism. :p

[Mendax]

I don't beleive there are morals there far to open to change - I support communism because it seems like the right thing to do and my only other ideas involve killing everyone.

[A.R.Amistad]

I don't beleive there are morals there far to open to change - I support communism because it seems like the right thing to do and my only other ideas involve killing everyone.

Free will in action! You could have chosen communism, capitalism, fascism, mass murder or suicide. On behalf of the whole world, we'd like to thank you for choosing communism ;)

[#FF0000]

then again, someone with no morality and ethic would see no problem with those things.

That's not a question of morality though. If you want things to work in the most efficient and logical way possible, then communism is the only way.

[Imposter Marxist]

well, rape and torture damage people mind and body, i dont see what so subjective about it, its evil beccause its harm self aware being.

Rape and torture ARE subjective evils.

Imagine these two (Highly unlikely) event.
A) For some reason the human race is endangered, and the women absolutley REFUSE to mate and revive the race. Would rape be okay, to peserve human kind?
B) One man holds the password to stopping the destruction of the Earth, but the only way to get it from him is torturing him. Would it be okay then?

There will be diffrent awnsers, depending on the person, all being subjective.

[punisa]

For some reason I think that many missed the point brought forwards by this topic (or perhaps, I missed it).

When I openly declare myself as a communist I have 2 things in mind:
1) freedom from exploitation and ability to work and live modest and happy life by doing so.
2) certain "atmosphere" which the communism will bring in. Calling it morality or ethics might be a little bit clumsy, guidelines perhaps? or even a philosophy?
I strongly believe and would be willing to fight for such a society.
Sure, such specific "morality" is something I hope to see in abundance.

But when I say "morality", I don't mean it in a sense of today's morality.
For example - I hope that acts like extra-marital sex will not be seen as immoral in communism, quite the contrary - something very normal.
Then again, if two people want to live in faithful union with each other - let them.

Furthermore, the society I envision makes no judgements regarding certain controversial aspects of today, like same sex relationships. These need to become completely normal as well.

See the emphasis already? Yes - freedom. Freedom to choose without consequences of being singled out or worse.
Also, social contacts between people. I hope these would become much more deeper and common in communism then today, despite short happy periods - we live in a very distrusting world, especially when it comes down to money.
Thus eliminating money and private property will create a much more socialised and well... friendly, society.

I would never go so far as to say that people today are "bad" or "evil", but there are millions of cases where a person simply has to be the bad guy in order to survive.
Just look at all the "modern" office proletariat. In many circumstances they are pitched in one against each other and will easily fuck over the other guy only to advance or even keep the position.
This atmosphere destroys workers solidarity, and ultimately - human solidarity.

This might sound just a tiny bit utopian - but I see communism as a force that can manage to bring the whole human population together and create a single collective that has an enormous potential to fast-forward towards a better and more understandable life.
In such cases I just can't stop myself from thinking about millions of wasted work hours today in creating junk like artificial air re fresheners, stupid baby toys etc etc.

Furthermore, since we're talking about human behaviour in general - I'll admit it - there is *something* about this decade which I can't quite define, but for me, it provokes utmost disgust.
One example - Youtube. A great service, right?
But when I see the whole network clogged with people doing "vlogs", simply talking to their web-cam about how their cat burped or how they went to the mall to buy a shirt, but eventually didn't buy anything (?!).
And then you see that this person has millions of viewers - something about it simply makes me a bit sick.
Don't know if it would be justified to say that this is the product of a "capitalist society", but I do hope we can overcome this expanding infantilism among people.

But what about unethical behaviour in communism?
I'm no Stalinist, but I would vote for a rigid and strong oppression against any defined society deviations.
Murder, paedophilia, rape - this should all be cases for labour camp.
I'm against death penalty, simply because it's useless. But I'm very pro life-imprisonment.
Actually, I would reorganize the whole legal system regarding this.
Jailing someone because he killed someone by accident (like in a car) is stupid. Instead give him (mandatory) better driving lessons, check him that he is healthy etc.

But let's say if a guy rapes or kills a random girl in the street and there is enough evidences - lifetime labour camp in some remote place.

All in all - the morality, the ethics or whatever you want to call it - it makes for one of the most important parts of communism.
But I wouldn't worry too much about it, I believe it will come naturally as a by-product of communism itself.
Reaching communism, destroying capitalism and making sure workers take control - that is our main agenda for now.

[danyboy27]

Rape and torture ARE subjective evils.

Imagine these two (Highly unlikely) event.
A) For some reason the human race is endangered, and the women absolutley REFUSE to mate and revive the race. Would rape be okay, to peserve human kind?

IF we come to a point where we have to force choice to other human being to survive (rape, slavery etc) then perhaps, has a species we dont deserve to live at all.
and beside, the problem in question can be solved by cloning.




B) One man holds the password to stopping the destruction of the Earth, but the only way to get it from him is torturing him. Would it be okay then?
Torture suck for extracting information, the guy could be tricked into giving the password other way.

[danyboy27]

In that case, this hypothetical person would be neither communist nor fascist, but a nihilist, and therefore a little hard to satisfy with much of anything other than Epicureanism. :p

or a sociopath.

[A.R.Amistad]

IF we come to a point where we have to force choice to other human being to survive (rape, slavery etc) then perhaps, has a species we dont deserve to live at all.
and beside, the problem in question can be solved by cloning.


Human beings don't deserve to live. They also don't not deserve to live. They just do live. It is the place of you lone to create meaning out of an objective event.


Torture suck for extracting information, the guy could be tricked into giving the password other way.

Very true comrade. I am a huge anti-torture advocate. I find torture to be utterly cowardly, inefficient and barbaric. Now, I understand that all of these words are subjective meanings I have attached to them because of my social outlook. So what. I give meaning to thing, and that makes me all the more authentic, so I should hold my morality and ethics in high esteem in my life.

Also, my dad has done some extensive study into the effects of torture (he's an epidemiologist) and if you like I can post it here and show everyone the barbarity and inefficiency of torture. I'm not a pacifist, but wars should be fought along Geneva Convention lines.


or a sociopath.

Not necessarily. Most nihilists would appear to be either drunken, very joyous people with a Dionysus complex or just really depressed seeming people who never leave their bed. Sociopathic types usually create some sort of meaning in life, although it would be an inauthentic one, based on living on "the Other."

@ Danyboy25 I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I myself used to be very hostile to existentialism before I learned more about it. Existentialism, like communism, is one of those ideas that has been greatly distorted and misunderstood. Existentialism is a humanism, and by becoming aware of our existential existence, we can lead a fulfilling and meaningful life. Morals and ethics are key to such a life. :)

[CartCollector]

Also, my dad has done some extensive study into the effects of torture (he's an epidemiologist) and if you like I can post it here and show everyone the barbarity and inefficiency of torture.
Please post it, it sounds interesting.

[A.R.Amistad]

Me

Also, my dad has done some extensive study into the effects of torture (he's an epidemiologist) and if you like I can post it here and show everyone the barbarity and inefficiency of torture.

My mistake comrades. I was in fact mistaken. My father did not do a study on torture, but he did red an article on it that he has saved that I mistook for his own work. Just wanted to rectify the misunderstanding. I'll post the article soon.
Apologies,
Amistad

[Dimentio]

Really, this is not only a matter of preferences, but of human survival. Nevertheless, I believe a lack of ethics and morality is dangerous and leads to nihilism. Someone who is completely amoral could either stick to extreme utilitarianism, some sort of principled approach or uninhibited egoism.

The problem with uninhibited utilitarians, such as Torbjörn Tännsjö, is that they are ready to sacrifice one individual to make three happy. The problem with those who are substituting personal ethics with principles, they won't cross their principles even if most people would die because of it (Rothbardians, Primmies). The last group is simply composed of psychopaths and tend to get into power, no matter what kind of political regime there is.

Psychopaths are drawn to the exercise of power like flies are drawn to bright light. That is no matter if its a liberal democracy, a socialist republic, a fascist empire or whatever kind of system.

Though, self-interest doesn't mean a lack of ethics. On the contrary, morality and ethics are probably necessary for human beings to be able to uphold any kind of functional society.

[eyedrop]

I would like to mention that it's entirely possible for an amoral egoist to have no lust for power whatsoever, and that it's to easy to say that most psychopaths get into positions of power whatever the regime. Remember that class barriers only allow a small percentage of those to try to improve their class.

[ZeroNowhere]

this question is for all people who deny the existance of ethics only, why communism?I don't think that anybody denies the existence of morality. Perhaps some people will claim that no morality is correct, but that's just a grandiloquent way of pointing out that morality deals in imperatives, rather than descriptive statements, which is a description of how moral language is used, rather than a proposition about morals. 'Objective morality' is something which we can give no sense to.


I mean, basicly if you put all ethics and moral problem aside, the more efficient path to take is fascism. Of course Fascism is an authoritarian, evil ideology with a fucked up pyramid scheme, but its a verry efficient way to control the masses and to focus their forces in certain field. I'm fairly sure that this would still require morals, a rock does not prefer fascism to anything else. Certainly, it would be incoherent to say that it is objectively good to control the masses and focus their forces in certain fields, given that 'good' in this sense is more imperative than descriptive, and imperative statements are not objective.


i have been puzzeled with this question for days now. I have always been someone who believed that the problem with capitalism and fascism is ethics, that this scheme of inequality is fundamentaly wrong, but i wonder what would be the logic for an individual without any moral or ethics to choose communism rather than fascism, given the numerous advantage fascism would bring to this kind of individual.I would count, "What's good for me is best," as being an ethical stance. It is worth noting that this is different from ethical egoism, which cannot say anything about society, whereas in this case what would be best would be the form of society most beneficial to the person in question; perhaps them being dictator or something of the sort.


Human beings don't deserve to live. They also don't not deserve to live. They just do live. It is the place of you lone to create meaning out of an objective event.That is a good example of a statement that either lacks meaning or is utterly mundane. Though the reasoning behind it is nonsensical; 'human beings objectively deserve to live' is a meaningless statement, not a false one. As, perhaps ironically, it would seem that 'our existence is meaningless' also falls into that category, alongside phrases like 'the meaninglessness of life' in this context.


In that case, this hypothetical person would be neither communist nor fascist, but a nihilist, and therefore a little hard to satisfy with much of anything other than Epicureanism. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gifIt is perhaps worth noting that 'Epicureanism' is a misleading term, as its usual usage has hardly anything in common with the beliefs of Epicurus.


I believe that all that exists externally and objectively is matterUnless this is meant as a definition, modern physics may perhaps differ on this matter.


I do not believe that there is an objective truth. There are only subjective truths.That would seem rather oxymoronic.

[danyboy27]

okay, i got my answer so far, but i want to continue the discussion about ethic, i think many good things is coming out of this topic so far.

[A.R.Amistad]

ZeroNowhere

That is a good example of a statement that either lacks meaning or is utterly mundane. Though the reasoning behind it is nonsensical; 'human beings objectively deserve to live' is a meaningless statement, not a false one. As, perhaps ironically, it would seem that 'our existence is meaningless' also falls into that category, alongside phrases like 'the meaninglessness of life' in this context.


And yet you don't clearly explain what is so "meaningless" or "utterly mundane" about what I said. Life in its self is meaningless. When atomic particles react, they react only because they do, it is prt of their existence. To superimpose an objective meaning or a reason on that would be to superimpose some sort of divine plan. Nothing happens for a reason. We give reason to our own lives. All I'm saying is that morality is not something that can be found in some higher power, hence morality doesn't exist in the way some on here are putting it. Morality only exists when we create it ourselves, subjectively.


Unless this is meant as a definition, modern physics may perhaps differ on this matter

modern physics is opposed to materialism?


That would seem rather oxymoronic

It would but its not. To believe in an objective truth one would have to be religious, or at least treating science like a religion. They would believe that truth is something that you can hold in your hand and grasp with all your five senses like a rick or a cat. There is no particle fr truth, and their certainly is no God or Goddess that holds truth separate from what we make it.

What I meant in my statement is that I don't believe that truth is an object. I am no empiricist, I've read Materialism and Emperio-Criticism. I believe that reality does exist externally from our senses and that we can access reality correctly through our senses. But if you were to completely take language out of the equation, there would be no objective truth about reality. For example, I believe in the object "rock." I believe that there are solidified particles of various minerals of vrious sizes. But what makes a rock, rock? Well, objectively speaking, the only thing that distinguishes a rock from a cow is its material composition. But how can we assure our selves that it is "rock." We cannot. Rock is a word, a subjective truth, that we have given to rock in order for us to more easily grasp its existence.

[Muzk]

sorry to burst in but how the hell can one be objective as a human?

[A.R.Amistad]

Muzk

sorry to burst in but how the hell can one be objective as a human?

Hm, not sure I understand what you mean. Humans are objects. Can you explain your question a bit more?

[Muzk]

We are humans, therefore the subjects.

We should keep the "humans are animals too!!!" slogans to the greens.

[A.R.Amistad]

We are humans, therefore the subjects.


So our essence precedes our existence? What is the "subject" of human? What is its essence?

[Muzk]

wat

duh

youre a human, no way to get out of it my dear, no matter how much you try to :lol:

[A.R.Amistad]

wat

duh

youre a human, no way to get out of it my dear, no matter how much you try to http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

I know that, but what is a human? I think a human is a multi-cellular mammal of the species homo sapien. It seems like you have a subjective defintion though.

What is a human?

[Muzk]

You and me are humans (get out of that biology stuff, it's about morality)

That's all there is to it! No matter how you look at things, you'll always stay a human.

That is the basis of all morality. If you lose even your human side, you're nothing. Your life wouldn't have a sense. Like danyboy or whoever else put it: theres no reason to do anything.


Well, actually I should be more specific: morales such as "thou shalt not kill" do exist and harm the working class, and losing such burgeoise morales should be something we all had already done long ago. Once you have stripped yourself off of those morales society pressed into you, you will keep nothing but the aforementioned basis of all morale: Human morale. Fighting for the goal of a united, equal, free etc. world by any means neccessary.

Here's a proof of Lenin's absence of (bourgeoise) morality. (I'd say he still has the "morality" all humans have as their nature, that is love for one's own kind, more below)

Lenin said: “It is necessary to be able ... to resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and illegal methods, to evasion and subterfuge, in order to penetrate into the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on communist work in then at all costs.”


Now, clear the stage for Trotsky!

The “amoralism” of Lenin, that is, his rejection of supra-class morals, did not hinder him from remaining faithful to one and the same ideal throughout his whole life; from devoting his whole being to the cause of the oppressed; from displaying the highest conscientiousness in the sphere of ideas and the highest fearlessness in the sphere of action, from maintaining an attitude untainted by the least superiority to an “ordinary” worker, to a defenseless woman, to a child. Does it not seem that “amoralism” in the given case is only a pseudonym for higher human morality?

[A.R.Amistad]

you and me are humans

Thats not a defintion and you know it comrade ;)
Also, lets look at this in a logical sense. If this were a definition, then only you and I would be humans. That would mean everyone else on this forum and in the world were something else, like goblins or something. So obviously that definition doesn't work.

[A.R.Amistad]

you didnt read everything! i hate you! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/crying.gif (In angry, strict, military dad voice) SUCK IT UP COMRADE!

:laugh:don't worry comrade, I read everything. You still didn't give me a defintion of "human" such as "featherless biped" (which is also a bad example;))

Don't worry, I still love you too :wub:

[A.R.Amistad]

Ok, ok. Morality exists as we create it, but morality does not exist objectively. There. Thats all.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Morality does exist in a certain sense. Just in a sense that corresponds to varying class interests. Proletarian morality corresponds to the abolition of all oppressive and exploitative relations. Moral behavior consistent with that objective is proletarian in essence. I'd say for example that volunteer work generally corresponds to the leap that's possible, which is why it exists. That, I think, can be an example of proletarian morality because it corresponds to the possibility of being motivated by a desire to serve society; "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"...that kind of ethic.

The bourgeoisie have their morality as well. The One Commandment: Expand or die. The Ten Commandments were the morality of a primitive slaveholding society. That's why they tell you, for example, not to covet your neighbor's oxen, wives, or slaves -- all possessions. The morality of the bourgeoisie (or whatever sections thereof that prevail in the given context) is codified into law at present. It's legal for the capitalist to fire a worker for no reason (it's called a layoff), but it's illegal for that same worker to then say go to a grocery store and take the food they require to survive because that worker no longer has an income with which to pay for it. So there's the right to exploit but not the right to eat. Just as an illustration.

Hope that made some sense.

[A.R.Amistad]

Red Dragon Rider

Morality does exist in a certain sense. Just in a sense that corresponds to varying class interests. Proletarian morality corresponds to the abolition of all oppressive and exploitative relations. Moral behavior consistent with that objective is proletarian in essence. I'd say for example that volunteer work generally corresponds to the leap that's possible, which is why it exists. That, I think, can be an example of proletarian morality because it corresponds to the possibility of being motivated by a desire to serve society; "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"...that kind of ethic.

The bourgeoisie have their morality as well. The One Commandment: Expand or die. The Ten Commandments were the morality of a primitive slaveholding society. That's why they tell you, for example, not to covet your neighbor's oxen, wives, or slaves -- all possessions. The morality of the bourgeoisie (or whatever sections thereof that prevail in the given context) is codified into law at present. It's legal for the capitalist to fire a worker for no reason (it's called a layoff), but it's illegal for that same worker to then say go to a grocery store and take the food they require to survive because that worker no longer has an income with which to pay for it. So there's the right to exploit but not the right to eat. Just as an illustration.

Hope that made some sense.

It makes sense but it doesn't contribute to what we are talking about. Do you think morality is objective or subjective?

[danyboy27]

moral dosnt exist by itself, we obviously created it, but somehow, we established those rules to ensure self preservation of our civilisations.

so, even if its subjective, beccause human created it, its should not be misinterpreated for the sake of the survival of humanity.

[A.R.Amistad]

Danyboy25

moral dosnt exist by itself, we obviously created it, but somehow, we established those rules to ensure self preservation of our civilisations.

so, even if its subjective, because human created it, its should not be misinterpreated for the sake of the survival of humanity.

Then we have no disagreement here. Only realize that we weren't "meant" to create civilizations and such. Civilizations are the result of choices we as humans collectively made. We choose civilization over barbarism. No one is saying that one should forsake morality. I in fact am saying that morality is essential to living a fulfilling life. Only a nihilist would assert such an idea.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well I guess morality is technically subjective in that there's not just one absolute morality for all humanity for all time that cuts across all class distinctions.

But it's also not just like morality is all just a matter of the individual's opinion. Certain overall types of morality correspond to certain historical class interests.

Did that clarify it?

[danyboy27]

Danyboy25


Then we have no disagreement here. Only realize that we weren't "meant" to create civilizations and such. Civilizations are the result of choices we as humans collectively made. We choose civilization over barbarism. No one is saying that one should forsake morality. I in fact am saying that morality is essential to living a fulfilling life. Only a nihilist would assert such an idea.

of course we where not destinated to form a civilisation, but it was a necessity for our specy to do it to ensure our self preservation, its a part of our evolution.

[A.R.Amistad]

Red Dragon Rider

Well I guess morality is technically subjective in that there's not just one absolute morality for all humanity for all time that cuts across all class distinctions.

But it's also not just like morality is all just a matter of the individual's opinion. Certain overall types of morality correspond to certain historical class interests.

Did that clarify it?

Yes, this makes sense. We can use historical materialism to explain how ideas and morality has developed as a result of mankind's material relations to the objective world, but we must also remember that these are choices made of our own free will, under certain conditions that we live in, by our facticity.

Danyboy25

of course we where not destinated to form a civilisation, but it was a necessity for our specy to do it to ensure our self preservation, its a part of our evolution.

Agreed. But of course, we must understand, we could always have chosen to not preserve ourselves.

[danyboy27]

Agreed. But of course, we must understand, we could always have chosen to not preserve ourselves.

instinct is not a matter of choice.

[A.R.Amistad]

instinct is not a matter of choice.

No, but we can always overcome our instincts. We may have the instinct to not bleed, but depressed people choose to overcome that instinct by cutting themselves. Instinct cannot make choices for us: it can only influence them.

[danyboy27]

No, but we can always overcome our instincts. We may have the instinct to not bleed, but depressed people choose to overcome that instinct by cutting themselves. Instinct cannot make choices for us: it can only influence them.

Depressed people are affected by a physiological problem. just like some people are born without liver or with cancer, their behavior have nothing to do with instinct.

no instinct cannot make choice for us, but its influence on our socierty and evolution is enourmous.

[A.R.Amistad]

I could easily overcome my instinct not to bleed and to cut myself just to do it. Take for example the man who was hiking in the desert (this really happened, I just forgot his name. He wrote a book about it called "between a rock and a hard place.") and had his arm trapped under a falling boulder. He had a pocket knife and he cut his arm off to escape. His instincts were probably telling him to not cut off his arm, but he did it anyway because he knew it was necessary for him to escape. We can act on our instincts, but we can't let them choose for us.

[danyboy27]

I could easily overcome my instinct not to bleed and to cut myself just to do it. Take for example the man who was hiking in the desert (this really happened, I just forgot his name. He wrote a book about it called "between a rock and a hard place.") and had his arm trapped under a falling boulder. He had a pocket knife and he cut his arm off to escape. His instincts were probably telling him to not cut off his arm, but he did it anyway because he knew it was necessary for him to escape. We can act on our instincts, but we can't let them choose for us.
no, it was his survival instinct that kicked in. Self preservation is probably the most basic instinct we have.

[A.R.Amistad]

no, it was his survival instinct that kicked in. Self preservation is probably the most basic instinct we have.

The probability of dying from bleeding from cutting off of your arm or dying under a boulder are about the same. He choose one very deadly and dangerous choice over another, and he was lucky that the consequences were in his favor. There is no survival instinct that will deliberatley make us harm ourselves. Our bodily instincts might tell us not to get heart surgery, but we choose to have doctors preform it nonetheless. Or sometimes we don't

[A.R.Amistad]

Here's a better example. Another true life story. My Grandmother is a retired nurse. When she was a nurse, she treated a man with severe gangrene on his leg. He was informed that if he didn't have his leg amputated, he would die. If he had his leg amputated, he would be fine. However, the man was a devout Christian and believed that one shouldn't "tamper with God's plan." Therefore, he choose not to get his leg amputated because it went against his morality. He of course died. If he had followed his instincts to live, he would not have died. But his morality overruled his instinct. He choose to die.

[danyboy27]

Here's a better example. Another true life story. My Grandmother is a retired nurse. When she was a nurse, she treated a man with severe gangrene on his leg. He was informed that if he didn't have his leg amputated, he would die. If he had his leg amputated, he would be fine. However, the man was a devout Christian and believed that one shouldn't "tamper with God's plan." Therefore, he choose not to get his leg amputated because it went against his morality. He of course died. If he had followed his instincts to live, he would not have died. But his morality overruled his instinct. He choose to die.

i admit, some situation allow people to think more rationally than other, allowing them to take a serious decision about his life.



but the guy on the rock was in the rush, if he was forced to do something radical fast, or he would have died.

[A.R.Amistad]

but the guy on the rock was in the rush, if he was forced to do something radical fast, or he would have died

But what about the gangrene guy?

[danyboy27]

But what about the gangrene guy?

he had the time to make his decision, he was in an hospital in a controlled environnement., not in a desertic place in the middle of nowhere, at risk of desidratation.

[A.R.Amistad]

he had the time to make his decision, he was in an hospital in a controlled environnement., not in a desertic place in the middle of nowhere, at risk of desidratation.

But in the end, who made the decision?

[danyboy27]

But in the end, who made the decision?

a human heavily influenced by its instinct of survival.

[A.R.Amistad]

a human heavily influenced by its instinct of survival.
But the guy with gangrene didn't survive.

Also, we may be heavily influenced by our circumstances, but in the end, we still choose. As Marx said "man makes his own history, but he does not necessarily make it as he pleases. He makes it based on circumstances given and transmitted from the past."

[StrictlyRuddie]

Why communism? well it isn't an issue of Morality.. Its an issue of our class interests.

[redwog]

To agree with the above post. It is all about material interest.

Communism is misunderstood as an ideology (or even treated as a religion by some). Communism is a strategy or process towards human liberation.

It is not 'right' in a moralistic sense, but from the way in which I read the nature of the world, is the best method available to achieve human liberation, and allow us to evolve to even greater levels of understanding, existence, intellectual and creative development.

Treating communism as a choice of a range of ideologies misses the fundamental framework of Marxist thought; and any one who led to the development of the Communist framework as it exists today. You should not become a communist because we believe in sharing and justice, peace and freedom. This smacks of middle class liberalism, and it is what has infected the minds of so many people, that it prevents being able to convince most working class people of believing in communism through debate, argument and discussion. Which even attempting to do further misses the point - but we all do it!:rolleyes: Me included.

Rather, you should practice communist practice because it is the only way we know of to get free. Those who do not 'believe' do not have to 'believe' in it as an ideology but will, with the appropriate leadership, come to recognise - perhaps not even literally - it as the only way to achieve what is in their material interest.

[A.R.Amistad]

Communism is misunderstood as an ideology (or even treated as a religion by some). Communism is a strategy or process towards human liberation.



I thin this is a very healthy approach to morality. I agree, even materially (objectively) speaking, the move towards classless society is the best thing materially for humanity. But one must still realise that things like "human liberation" and "human bondage" are subjective ideas, based on morality, to explain the objective conditioning of material relations.


It is not 'right' in a moralistic sense, but from the way in which I read the nature of the world, is the best method available to achieve human liberation, and allow us to evolve to even greater levels of understanding, existence, intellectual and creative development.


Again, I want to reiterate that we existentialist do not think that people should reject their morality. Morality is essential to living a complete life. But communism is the best sense of political morality because it bases its morality on very real material conditions, instead of just pure idealism.


Treating communism as a choice of a range of ideologies misses the fundamental framework of Marxist thought; and any one who led to the development of the Communist framework as it exists today. You should not become a communist because we believe in sharing and justice, peace and freedom. This smacks of middle class liberalism, and it is what has infected the minds of so many people, that it prevents being able to convince most working class people of believing in communism through debate, argument and discussion. Which even attempting to do further misses the point - but we all do it!:rolleyes: Me included.


Marxist thought doesn't try to completely reject these "liberal" ideas, it simply says that basing your ideology on pure idealism will make for a less effective revolutionary movement.

[redwog]

I generally accept your line of argument Amistad, but I would like to add, that whilst liberation (or bondage) are clearly subjective ideas, what is not subjective is the material reality of the theft of surplus value.

The way I see it, the capacity to create more than is required to subsist is the key to the great leaps in human capacity. Yet, this surplus has been expropriated since its inception under different modes of production. The taking of surplus value by capitalists is a material impediment to the working class. It requires a sophisticated apparatus of both material structures and ideology to maintain.

For me this is why I 'choose' communism. Perhaps in making this choice one adopts a certain morality, but I am arguing less with you and more with what I perceive as misunderstandings to relating to the materialist conditions of capitalism.

Of course Marx's view of liberalism was perhaps less developed as the possibilities and logic of liberalism had not been totally exhausted by the mid 1800s. He was yet to bear witness to a hegemony of liberal states with vast working classes organised into trade unions accepted by the state. Let alone industrial courts, arbitration, legislated striking, and a whole raft of 'reforms' (ironically prompted by revolutionary methods) which pushed liberalism to its limits. Of course, this does not counter your point. Indeed I often prefer discussion that develops understanding rather than the usual fair on these boards which is about winning the tendency war.

[spiltteeth]

There is no justification for communism or social justice without objective morals.

However, virtually everyone I've ever met acts and lives AS IF there were objective morals, even when they say they don't believe in them.

Also, you don't have to believe in a transcendent grounding of your morals to be a very moral person.

All people have morals.

So, you can say "A person SHoULD be for their class interests" or social justice or whatever, but without objective morals you cannot justify the reason why.

I had a conversation with a newage type and told him his veiws were irrational.
He just said "Why should I be rational?"

Obviously I think its a moral duty to be honest and rational in ones thinking, but I ground that duty in a transcendent objective being.

[MarxSchmarx]

this question is for all people who deny the existance of ethics only, why communism?

I mean, basicly if you put all ethics and moral problem aside, the more efficient path to take is fascism. Of course Fascism is an authoritarian, evil ideology with a fucked up pyramid scheme, but its a verry efficient way to control the masses and to focus their forces in certain field.

i have been puzzeled with this question for days now. I have always been someone who believed that the problem with capitalism and fascism is ethics, that this scheme of inequality is fundamentaly wrong, but i wonder what would be the logic for an individual without any moral or ethics to choose communism rather than fascism, given the numerous advantage fascism would bring to this kind of individual. It is about freedom - freedom to choose one's destiny and ethical code, not just for the capitalist or the military junta, but for everyone. That is only possible under communism.

[A.R.Amistad]

It is about freedom - freedom to choose one's destiny and ethical code, not just for the capitalist or the military junta, but for everyone. That is only possible under communism.

Bingo. All people have the power to create their own meaning, choose their own destiny and follow their genuine passions in life free from inauthentic coercions.

Communism is an existentialist's paradise.