Your ideological logic

[learnitarian]

What is the logic behind your ideology? What is the chain of logic that leads you there?

For instance a member of BNP might say,

1. I hate Jews,
2. Therefore I'm a neonazi,
3. Therefore I want to spread neonazi ideas,
4. But people don't listen to neonazis,
5. Therefore I can't join a neonazi party,
6. Therefore I need a good sized party,
7. And the closest one to my views is BNP,
8. Therefore I'll join BNP.

[Revolution starts with U]

Conscious thought, as displayed by human beings is a remarkable phenomena that should be allowed to fully express.
Certain entities want to restrict our freedom to express ourselves; the state, wealthy power-mongers, executive/capitalist control of the means of production, religous ideologues, etc.
If freedom is defined by the lack of deterministic artificial externalities, and I value freedom, I should protect and foster it.
Therefore, I am a libertarian social-anarchist. :thumbup1:

[bcbm]

there is none

[Ocean Seal]

I believe that people should earn from their labor. But the rich earn from the labor of others. I want to put a stop to this so I am a socialist. As a leftist I must choose an ideology. Choosing an ideology leads to sectarianism, as you'll see by the 1000 tendencies on this site. Sectarianism leads us to hate those most similar to us in our view rather than the oppressors. Therefore I am a non-doctrinaire socialist.

[Widerstand]

I'm confused - is my ideology the same as my organizational membership? I don't get the example in the OP in relation to the question at all.

[Widerstand]

Your organization is determined by your ideology.

But it doesn't necessarily represent my ideology, as beautifully illustrated in the OP. So again, is this thread about my logical reason for holding the ideology I hold, or is this thread about my reason for joining whatever organisation I may be (or may not be, in my case) part of?

[ckaihatsu]

[1] The sun shines down at just the right intensity -- neither too little or too much -- to force an intricate interplay of organic materials animated by the sun's energy. The living processes build up to higher levels of nestedness, interdependence, and complexity. The abundance of available food and source materials -- varying depending on location and era -- allows each organism ample time outside of securing necessities to become increasingly aware and conscious of greater depths of complexity in the external (and internal) world(s). Greater consciousness yields greater abilities and at some point humanity began to procure more food than it could consume in realtime. This development gave rise to a separation of roles in society whereby some could spend more time increasing their awareness while others worked to produce the food for all of society. Those relieved of having to work rationalized themselves as somehow different and better than all other people, and explained their privilege by inventing fictional supernatural beings, or a single supernatural being, who conveniently backed up their reasoning. They consolidated their privileged social position with the use of violent physical force, which the fictional supernatural beings or being said was okay. Meanwhile the rest of humanity has either been working or trying to enjoy their more-or-less similar physical existence as everyone else. Much time and effort, though, is unrecoverably lost due to the existence of those in privileged positions.

[2] I am personally *not* in a privileged position.

[3] Therefore it is in my own best personal interest to co-produce a social world that is relieved of the class division.

[4] Therefore I am a Marxist and active at RevLeft.com.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I'll give it a shot - this is a crude and oversimplified way to look at consciousness from working class consciousness to socialist to revolutionary:

1. Being a worker under capitalism sucks.
2. It sucks because we have no control over the main material factors in our lives - both at work but also in society in general.
3. We don't have control because all of our labor and energy goes into a process of exploitation (i.e. because we work more and create more wealth than we receive in exchange.)
4. We should have a say in what we do with our labor and the results of our labor, but we can't because there are people who want to keep this exploitation going.
5. We need to stand up against these people in order to have more say in our lives, work, and society.
6. If I ask for more say over the products and conditions of my labor, I will be fired and replaced by someone else, so therefore, I can not do this as an individual.
7. All workers are exploited and have an interest in determining their own destinies.
8. Since capitalism creates wealth through exploitation, however, there will always be a battle between the exploiters and the exploited unless we find a different way to produce things.
9. Since the exploiters have created states that are designed to make exploitation legal and keep capitalism strong, we need to get rid of the current states in order to also get rid of the system.
10. Since production in capitalism is done collectively by many workers and this is much more productive than individually producing things, we should continue to work collectively, but make decisions collectively as well after we get rid of the state and the system.

like I said, very crude.

[MarxSchmarx]

1. The validity of all normative statements are contingent on individuals accepting them as normative statements.
2. The answer to how an individual should live their life is a normative statement.
3. Only an individual can assent to such an answer, applicable in their circumstance as they see fit.
4. Because an individual is the arbiter of all that is right or wrong for them, anything which violates the sovereignty of the individual to live their life as they see fit can only be justified if the individual exercising the right to self-determination precludes the rights to self-determination of others.
5. Therefore, any activities by others that prevent an individual from self-determination are unjustified and wrong.
6. Class societies compel the individual to live their lives as they don't see fit: all on pain of physical duress (through whipping in slave societies, through withdrawal of protection from brigands under feudalisms, and by threat of via exposure to the elements or starvation in capitalism).
6a. An individual cannot attain self-determination under physical duress.
6b. Therefore, class based societies are wrong.
7. Therefore, there is a moral imperative to abolish class based societies, and replace it with a classless society.
8. The abolition of economic classes is therefore a prerequisite for the emancipation and self determination of all individuals.
9. ???
10. PROFIT!!

[AnthArmo]

1: Human's are fallible, selfish and are prone to abusing any power they come into contact with.
2: Ergo, Human's should not rule over one another.
3: The only alternative to authority and Hierarchy is Direct Democracy and Self-Management.
4: Direct Democracy is good because different perspectives can collide to produce superior decisions
5: Capitalism is based on Hierarchies
6: Socialism and Anarchism is based upon Workers Self-management and Direct Democracy
7: Ergo I am an Anarchist.

[Nuvem]

The numerical, chronological system won't work too well in my case.

In my early teens I became overwhelmingly depressed, as many people do at that age. I responded by becoming a retreatist, finding comfort in history and embracing a Primitivist sort of ideology based on Taoism and self-impoverishment. I spent almost all of my time reading about Asian history and philosophy, and the document that changed my life was the Bushido Shoshinshu- the code of the Samurai. Prior to reading this, I simply concluded that money was a pursuit for fools and the desire for wealth was indicative of a shallow intellect and near-sightedness. The Bushido Shoshinshu described the feudal Japanese caste system, which placed merchants at the bottom- strange, as most cultures placed merchants just over artisans and just under priests and warriors. Mercantilism was looked down upon in traditional Japanese society as dishonorable, opportunistic and exploitative. This fundamental concept brought on an ideological landslide. Suddenly I went from a retreatist who blamed poverty and suffering on the desire for money and material goods to an awakened individual with the realization that, in fact, money and capital are weapons against the many used by the few.

I quickly became disgusted with my withdrawn retreatist sentiments and my depressive attitude, and I first used the word "Socialist" to describe myself when I was 15. Even though my knowledge of what that truly meant was limited at the time, I knew it was my fit. I've pursued a deepening of my understanding of Left ideologies ever since, abandoning my depressed, retreatist, Primitivist roots for forward-thinking revolutionary ideas. It all sounds very stupid, I know, but somehow it all worked out.

[bricolage]

I am a petit-bourgeois kid and I want to smash things and dress in black so I am an anarchist.

[bricolage]

1: Human's are fallible, selfish and are prone to abusing any power they come into contact with.
Why such a negative view of humans? Human nature is nothing but the construct of the society it is spawned from.
'Humanity is good or bad according to circumstances.' - Malatesta

[Stand Your Ground]

1. Sick of this fucking world.
2. How can we come together and fix it?
3. :hammersickle:

[AK]

1. lol social hierarchy
2. :blackA:

[Meridian]

It's interesting that people figure out these statements in pseudo-logical order, as to justify their own stances or beliefs. My own stances or beliefs only take logical shape at times, most of the time I would more describe it as a set of feelings or reactions in the form of thought that are not always logical. The second does not necessarily follow from the first, like in logic, but it is still understandable I think;
1. I have lived in poverty my entire life
2. Therefore I want to eradicate poverty

[learnitarian]

Thanks for the interesting replies.


I'm confused - is my ideology the same as my organizational membership? I don't get the example in the OP in relation to the question at all.


But it doesn't necessarily represent my ideology, as beautifully illustrated in the OP. So again, is this thread about my logical reason for holding the ideology I hold, or is this thread about my reason for joining whatever organisation I may be (or may not be, in my case) part of?

I gave a bad example. I wanted the logic behind your ideology, not your organization. Sorry about that.

For instance, what chain of logic leads someone to Trotsky instead of Stalin? When you came to a dichotomy, how did you decide which way to go?

[AnthArmo]

Why such a negative view of humans? Human nature is nothing but the construct of the society it is spawned from.
'Humanity is good or bad according to circumstances.' - Malatesta

I'm extremely skeptical about all statements regarding human nature; that includes statements which deny a human nature. Statements about human nature, I find, tend to be based more on individual intuition and experience than proper empirical science or studies of history. What one believes about "Human Nature" is essentially the same as what one believes about "Morality", it is an emotional belief.

That said, MY emotional belief's regarding the true nature of humans are thus. Human's are selfish. Humans will abuse any power they come into contact with. Humans are intelligent, will cooperate and will engage in Mutual Aid if need be. Humans are inherently social animals. Human's are only stupid and servile if they are ruled and dispossessed of power and freedom from birth.

These are all based on direct emotional experience. They are probably wrong, just as all statements on human nature are. But that's not what's important. What's important is that it is what I personally believe, it is what drives me and my moral views. And it is why I am an Anarchist.


It's interesting that people figure out these statements in pseudo-logical order, as to justify their own stances or beliefs. My own stances or beliefs only take logical shape at times, most of the time I would more describe it as a set of feelings or reactions in the form of thought that are not always logical.This.

[revolution inaction]

Make
Total
Destroy

[MarxSchmarx]

It's interesting that people figure out these statements in pseudo-logical order, as to justify their own stances or beliefs. My own stances or beliefs only take logical shape at times, most of the time I would more describe it as a set of feelings or reactions in the form of thought that are not always logical. The second does not necessarily follow from the first, like in logic, but it is still understandable I think;

Well sure, but to be fair, the OP was asking about the logic behind one's ideology; not about their historically contingent psychological past.

[Manic Impressive]

1. I'm poor, they're rich, some are poorer
2. Social Democratic parties are not interested or incapable of everchanging society.
3. Because the economic system they continue to protect will always create poverty for many and vast wealth for the few.
4. I guess I'm a Marxist as I read a lot of Marx and agree with most of it but I don't like to cling too hard to any one ideology or use it to symbolize who I am.

p.s. In the OP it says

"For instance a member of BNP might say,

1. I hate Jews,
2. Therefore I'm a neonazi,"

I find this a bit short sighted I know people who support the BNP many who have Jewish links. My opinion of their logic would go like this

1. I'm poor
2. Because I have no job
3. I come from a traditionally conservative background
4. Those immigrants have jobs and I don't
5. I will choose the most obvious conclusion and hate the immigrants and not the reasons they are here.
6. support the BNP

^^ I think that's a fairer representation of their views, the rise of support of these parties is more down to the betrayals of the Labour party, the outsourcing of jobs to other countries while encouraging mass immigration to keep competition for jobs to a minimum in order to keep wages low and the lingering feeling that Great Britain should be Great

[meow]

anarchism is the only ideology to promote freedom as the most important aspect. i quote my political statement:

i am anarchist. a singular desire to be free is what drives my political activities.however it must be recognized that:


freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice
socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality


equality is nothing if it is gray and freedom is nothing if it is freedom only for the rich or for one segment of the population.

----

alternative. people are either:


all good in which case they need no leader.
all bad in which case why select one bad person above another.
a mix in which case how can we stop the bad from ruling the good.

in all cases power corrupts and so even if we start with a good person (or a not as bad person) they will become a bad person (or worse). and if it doesnt happen for this person it will happen for the next.

[ckaihatsu]

in all cases power corrupts and so even if we start with a good person (or a not as bad person) they will become a bad person (or worse). and if it doesnt happen for this person it will happen for the next.


I'd like to suggest that one particularly bad habit we've inherited from the bourgeois system is the focusing on political *personages* instead of on social *policy* and *practice*. Those in power, of course, have an objective interest in *conditioning* us to see politics (a large-scale thing) in terms of *personalities* -- hence the personifying, showcasing, politicking, and petty dramas.

Also on the topic of logic, here's a recent creation that may be relevant to this thread:


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://i46.tinypic.com/24fwswi.jpg

[Nihilist_Pig]

-> Our consciousness is separated from the real world and throughout our life is trapped in a material shell, which never allows it to fully grasp reality.
-> Any argument, statement, idea, is a product of the human mind.
-> But, as we already stated, the mind is capable of self-delusion.
-> Thus, SKEPTICISM arises as our only tool for knowing whether a statement made about objective reality is true or at least more likely to be true than other statements and suppositions.
-> Social hierarchy is an invention of the human mind.
-> Thus, it should be questioned:

1. Humans live in societies in order to improve their quality of life.
2. This improvement works through the process of division of labour and collective production of goods.
3. The process of production virtually involves all members of a society.
To take an example: a T-Shirt. To make a T-Shirt you need: cloth, thread, instruments for cutting and sewing, textile paint and/or a means of printing an image onto the shirt. Each of these components however, has not appeared from thin air: it requires other people to produce them by other means, which also require someone else to produce them and so on - the process repeats. Also, the man who has sewn the T-Shirt requires food, water and some basic means of clothing and shelter, otherwise - he would not be making a T-Shirt. The T-Shirt needs someone to deliver the materials for it to the sewer and someone to deliver it to the store. Those people need basic means of survival too, not to mention technical support for their vehicles from other people.

4. As we see: if anyone is excluded from the process, work will not go well and may even halt.
5. Thus, a notion of social hierarchy is absurd, since noone is "more important" than anyone else who participates in society through labour and production.
6. Therefore, social hierarchy should be dealt away with.

[Thirsty Crow]

[1] The sun shines down at just the right intensity -- neither too little or too much -- to force an intricate interplay of organic materials animated by the sun's energy. The living processes build up to higher levels of nestedness, interdependence, and complexity. The abundance of available food and source materials -- varying depending on location and era -- allows each organism ample time outside of securing necessities to become increasingly aware and conscious of greater depths of complexity in the external (and internal) world(s). Greater consciousness yields greater abilities and at some point humanity began to procure more food than it could consume in realtime. This development gave rise to a separation of roles in society whereby some could spend more time increasing their awareness while others worked to produce the food for all of society. Those relieved of having to work rationalized themselves as somehow different and better than all other people, and explained their privilege by inventing fictional supernatural beings, or a single supernatural being, who conveniently backed up their reasoning. They consolidated their privileged social position with the use of violent physical force, which the fictional supernatural beings or being said was okay. Meanwhile the rest of humanity has either been working or trying to enjoy their more-or-less similar physical existence as everyone else. Much time and effort, though, is unrecoverably lost due to the existence of those in privileged positions.

[2] I am personally *not* in a privileged position.

[3] Therefore it is in my own best personal interest to co-produce a social world that is relieved of the class division.

[4] Therefore I am a Marxist and active at RevLeft.com.
But you see, you don't explain the shift from 2) to 3).


anarchism is the only ideology to promote freedom as the most important aspect. What about the communist movement that Marx refers to in the "Manifesto", who upholds the banner of "society in which the free development of an individual is the condition for the free development of all" (I'm paraphrasing).

[ckaihatsu]

[2] I am personally *not* in a privileged position.


[2-1/3] As one of those outside the societal class of privilege my personal material position will be unaffected by the goings-on *within* the societal class of privilege.

[2-2/3] If the societal class of privilege is *dissolved* and its implements of production and wealth collectivized for the world's population as a whole then I, as one of those of the larger world, will benefit from a proportional, then-increased, access to that which is currently off-limits to me.





[3] Therefore it is in my own best personal interest to co-produce a social world that is relieved of the class division.

[L.A.P.]

1. CEO's are useless
2. We should beat the shit out of them
3. And take it for ourselves

Irrefutable logic :D

[Agnapostate]

1. Happiness is good.
2. That which is acquired through pursuit of rational actors' interests generally produces happiness.
3. Rational actors should therefore be permitted the greatest amount of liberty possible to pursue their interests.
4. Constraints on pursuit of such happiness-producing interests are inimical to the production of happiness, and are therefore bad.
5. Rule, or archy, manifests itself in the form of such contraints on freedom of action.
6. Archy should therefore be abolished or minimized to the greatest degree possible, resulting in the greatest potential implementation of anarchy.

This axiomatic pathway exists in various forms. The absence of hierarchical rule in day-to-day social life, for example, produces more harmonious social relations that themselves produce greater happiness. The absence of hierarchical rule in economic production is empirically linked to greater levels of efficiency and productivity, and if economic production is geared to the greatest needs of the population, greater happiness is produced.

7. ????
8. PROFIT!!!!
8b. Also, cocks.
8c. Also, we need new memes.

[Thirsty Crow]

[2-1/3] As one of those outside the societal class of privilege my personal material position will be unaffected by the goings-on *within* the societal class of privilege.

[2-2/3] If the societal class of privilege is *dissolved* and its implements of production and wealth collectivized for the world's population as a whole then I, as one of those of the larger world, will benefit from a proportional, then-increased, access to that which is currently off-limits to me.

You still don+t explain why do you chose not to strive and become a member of the privileged class (social mobility is a fact; but to which extent? in my opinion, certainly not to any significant extent) :tt2:
It seems to me that you're avoiding an ethical foundation of your "ideological logic". Am I right?

[ckaihatsu]

You still don+t explain why do you chose not to strive and become a member of the privileged class (social mobility is a fact; but to which extent?


You answered your own question here -- *anyone* can choose to strive to be upwardly mobile. The question, as you note, is to what extent. I'll also add that it's rare to find opportunities in which one can do *both* -- improve one's own material position while also engaging in class struggle, especially these days, with union membership down and trade unions being overwhelmingly opportunistic. Revolutionary leftist politics is more of a long-haul endeavor, and isn't suited to individualistic short-term gains, because it's more politically "speculative", so to speak.





in my opinion, certainly not to any significant extent) :tt2:


Well, we all know from looking at the capitalist system that there are all kinds of ways to be upwardly mobile -- combined with what I just said it's simply a matter of personal priorities, for *anyone*.





It seems to me that you're avoiding an ethical foundation of your "ideological logic". Am I right?


Well, my *point* is to put my political decisions / positioning on a firm *material* basis. People's ideas about ethics or morality vary widely and tend towards philosophical idealism and capitulation to bourgeois norms.

[Revolution starts with U]

I would warn you guys who are socialists "because you're not rich" to alter those views. It is highly likely (tho not 100%) if you stick with this logic, and become rich, you will turn your back on the movement.

[ckaihatsu]

I would warn you guys who are socialists "because you're not rich" to alter those views. It is highly likely (tho not 100%) if you stick with this logic, and become rich, you will turn your back on the movement.


Ironically this is a good example of idealism (potentially) -- you're abstracting a future description of an abstract individual, provided that certain conditions will happen -- wealth. This is *necessarily* idealism (potentially) since you're not talking about anyone in particular. And, by creating this ideal (separate, imaginary) straw man you're then using it to evoke anxiety, as a warning.

I say that it's "potentially" idealism because I also understand that you're basing your reasoning on *historical* data -- certainly plenty of people find more personal interests and distractions from politics as their wealth and material options increase.

We all have to make decisions, continually, on where we put our material resources -- time, effort, money, etc. So more-personal interests, as with working and/or making money *may* displace time that could be used for revolutionary leftist politics.





[W]e might try to arrive at some "civilizational" policies, or guidelines, on *what percent* of a person's life would be best spent in 'socialized' modes, including work and societal concerns, and the administration of personal concerns, and *what percent* should be reserved for personal interests and relationships.

[Thirsty Crow]

You answered your own question here -- *anyone* can choose to strive to be upwardly mobile.
Sorry, but I have to insist: why do you chose to engage in class struggle and not in upward mobility?
My point is that, at least to a small degree, there is an ethical element to our decision as much as we like that this is not the case.

[ckaihatsu]

My point is that, at least to a small degree, there is an ethical element to our decision as much as we like that this is not the case.


Hey, no one here is denying you your ethics -- go have a blast....





Sorry, but I have to insist: why do you chose to engage in class struggle and not in upward mobility?


These things are not necessarily either-or -- as I've noted they may not overlap that well in the same activities, but we have enough time in our lives to do some of both, if that should happen to be our inclination.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hey, no one here is denying you your ethics -- go have a blast....
No no, what I meant is that, in my opinion, there is a good probability that every communist, every revolutionary, has become a revolutionary by at least partially grounding his/her view in ethical concerns. This includes both you and me.





These things are not necessarily either-or -- as I've noted they may not overlap that well in the same activities, but we have enough time in our lives to do some of both, if that should happen to be our inclination.
OK, it seems that our understanding of the concept of upward mobility differs.
In my opinion, upward mobility has to do with capital accumulation and taking place in the "upper classes" (managerial and capitalist). Since I've decided differently, it is impossible for me to engage in a struggle of upward mobility. In other words, for me it is necessarily an either-or issue. But maybe I'm being dogmatic or inflexible...?

[ckaihatsu]

No no, what I meant is that, in my opinion, there is a good probability that every communist, every revolutionary, has become a revolutionary by at least partially grounding his/her view in ethical concerns. This includes both you and me.


Okay, if you like....





OK, it seems that our understanding of the concept of upward mobility differs.
In my opinion, upward mobility has to do with capital accumulation and taking place in the "upper classes" (managerial and capitalist). Since I've decided differently, it is impossible for me to engage in a struggle of upward mobility. In other words, for me it is necessarily an either-or issue. But maybe I'm being dogmatic or inflexible...?


Well, you did note previously that there's also the factor of *extent* involved....

[Revolution starts with U]

Ironically this is a good example of idealism (potentially) -- you're abstracting a future description of an abstract individual, provided that certain conditions will happen -- wealth. This is *necessarily* idealism (potentially) since you're not talking about anyone in particular. And, by creating this ideal (separate, imaginary) straw man you're then using it to evoke anxiety, as a warning.
Actually it is not a straw man, as I was not trying to refute anyone's argument. It was merely a statement (not all statements are argumentative), an encouragement.


I say that it's "potentially" idealism because I also understand that you're basing your reasoning on *historical* data -- certainly plenty of people find more personal interests and distractions from politics as their wealth and material options increase.
Which is why I encourage people to be socialists on (as you said) more ethical and philosophical reasons, than to be socialist because you're not rich.


We all have to make decisions, continually, on where we put our material resources -- time, effort, money, etc. So more-personal interests, as with working and/or making money *may* displace time that could be used for revolutionary leftist politics
It can, and has. That is why I encourage people to not be socialist just because they aren't rich.

[The Red Next Door]

To end Proverty
To end Homophobia, racism and all forms of bigtory created by a cappie society
to end imperialist wars and capitalist wars
I believe the workers have a right to their own labor
industry should be in the hands of the people and workers
to create a substantial society for the environment
I and love ones( my friends and family who are poor working class, the rest of my family have good paying bourgeois jobs.) are victims of capitalism.

[Crimson Commissar]

I love freedom, and I love equality. I discovered that capitalism offers us neither of these things. It only creates greed and oppression. I found that Socialism is entirely capable of providing both freedom and equality. Therefore I am a Socialist. I love technology, I feel that it is the way forward and the only way we can establish a true socialist paradise on Earth, and even on other planets. Therefore I am a Technocratic Socialist.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

1. I am against capitalism; this is a natural reaction, given my experiences.
2. Therefore I'm an anti-capitalist by nature.
3. From this, I related my views to 'socialism'.
4. I joined the socialist party.
5. I discovered the ideas of communism, and that my own ideas contradict my party's. Perhaps I am an ultra-leftist or something.
6. I question my own worth as a revolutionary, and my whole role as a revolutionary and the role of parties and ideologies in general.
7. I am no further in understanding the role of the party, the importance of ideology, the nature of dogmatism and where I fit into this as a revolutionary. It is a personal dilemma.

As far as I can see now, the only 'ism' we need is 'communism'. Any other 'ism's that followed on from Marx are merely interpretations of his theory. I don't see what the point of these are, other than to divide forces and other nasty things.

[Ovi]

I am anti-authoritarian, thus an anarchist. Capitalism is authoritarian, thus I'm anti-capitalist. Leninists don't have any problem with the oppression of man by man, thus I'm anti-leninist. Communism is the best form of anarchism, thus I'm a communist.

[MellowViper]

My rationale for socialism is primarily idealistic. I feel that ego is an illusion, that I am a part of an integrated whole, that this integrated whole is schizophrenic against itself by the way it wages war and exploitation on itself, that the reality of the integrated whole is evidenced by how we are constantly influenced by others and our environment as well as how we constantly influence our environment and other people. I believe that consciousness, the fact that myself and others feel pain and suffering, is the true basis for creating a more egalitarian society. The focus should be to limit conscious suffering as much as possible and to maximize conscious happiness, being that conscious existence is very real and a good chance for the universe to come to know itself through mankind. I feel that if people transcend the illusion of ego and realize the greater reality that we are all organs in a larger organism, life can go from being a pointless, competitive race to the grave to accumulate as much material possessions as possible to a purpose driven existence where life is a shared, fraternal adventure.

[ckaihatsu]

I feel that if people transcend the illusion of ego and realize the greater reality that we are all organs in a larger organism, life can go from being a pointless, competitive race to the grave to accumulate as much material possessions as possible to a purpose driven existence where life is a shared, fraternal adventure.


Number one, does that mean that I can have your stuff -- ?


= D


And, please don't hold me liable for any internal trauma resulting from this, but -- this:





Situated cognition posits that knowing is inseparable from doing (John Seely Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1989) by arguing that all knowledge is situated in activity bound to social, cultural and physical contexts (Greeno & Moore, 1993).

Under this assumption, which requires an epistemological shift from empiricism, situativity theorists suggest a model of knowledge and learning that requires thinking on the fly rather than the storage and retrieval of conceptual knowledge. In essence, cognition cannot be separated from the context. Instead knowing exists, in situ, inseparable from context, activity, people, culture, and language. Therefore, learning is seen in terms of an individual's increasingly effective performance across situations rather than in terms of an accumulation of knowledge, since what is known is co-determined by the agent and the context. This perspective rejects mind-body dualism and person-environment dualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situated_cognition

[MellowViper]

1.Consciousness (percieved reality) is possibly the only phenomenon that gives the universe meaning and something to experience it.
2.I know that humans are conscious, and a vast majority of humans suffer
3.Suffering is a very difficult state to be in for conscious beings
4.Much of suffering is caused by impoverishment
5.Much of impoverishment is caused by involuntary poverty
6. Poverty is caused by social inequality
7. Social inequality is caused by exploitative class structures
8. The whole economy is just charade for the owners of capital to use their leverage to get people down the social pecking order to do what they want them to do.
9. The leverage is food and shelter, which they dish out in the smallest increments that people are willing to put up with.
10. Food and shelter is ultimately created by the means of production
11. If workers in the lower classes take over the means of production, most or all people will have more self determinism and more material wealth for their own labor because they'll be directly producing their own wages and not just be the recipients of a fixed wage rationed out to them from some overlord.
12. Therefore poverty will end and freedom from want will be achieved. More conscious beings, around the globe, will live happier lives with less suffering.

[MellowViper]

Number one, does that mean that I can have your stuff -- ?


= D


And, please don't hold me liable for any internal trauma resulting from this, but -- this:

Of course we think on the fly in context to the situation were in, but I don't see how that would contradict a system of memory storage and retrieval. Yah, we live our lives in the cultural contexts were in, and we learn by situations. However, the knowledge we come into contact with has to be stored for later retrieval when the information is re-referenced within the proper context.

The issues raised by proponents of mind-body dualism are a bit more nuanced than that though. It really doesn't have to do with an inability to distinguish thought processes from their related physical processes. You can logically explain such things through cause and effect. Information in the brain sends out signals to the body that make an impression on the outside world, and the outside world makes an impression on the body, which sends information to be processed by the brain. Thoughts are a series of physical impulses, but consciousness is another story, though somehow directly related.


Consciousness is just too distinct of a phenomenon to be able to explain with the currently understood laws of matter. When I set off a wind up toy, I expect there to be nothing other than gears running their logical course off of the energy that was stored in the system via the wind up key. In a human system, if I were to apply the same materialist and deterministic logic, I would expect nothing other than nerve impulses driving muscles and organs from the stored chemical energy in the body supplied by food and instinctual algorithms forcing the system to eat food. However, there's more than that. The impulses can actually experience a subjective interpretation of reality filtered or reflected through itself. Thoughts are processes that can be logically explained, no doubt. However, the fact that something is the process and experiences itself as the process really is a mystery that can't be easily explained.

I didn't say the social paradigm should completely shift away from the accumulation of any possessions. I just said that it should shift away from the accumulation of as many things as possible. So no, you can't have my stuff. lol. I have no problem with having things and living in comfort. That's why I'm a socialist. I want more of that for more people. The basic rule of thumb driving society now is that the person who dies with the most things wins. I'm just saying I don't want to worship stuff as much.

Also, the fact that there's a direct interrelation between everything, like social context influencing our thought processes or the compatibility and interchangeability of all units of matter. is part of the reason why I think we all derive from a common whole. I think were one entity threaded up, knotted up, and warped over itself. I think consciousness is only explainable as its own dimension and that the interplay between it and the physical dimensions is the cause of ego. I don't think egos necessarily a bad thing. Its an interesting state of being to find ourselves in, and it should be allowed to flourish to its full potential. However, I think we need to see that its at least relative, if not illusory, for humanity to arrive at a better place.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

1.) Unlike most leftists, I've lived as a part of the ruling class for my short life.
2.) I've seen the ignorance of the ruling class and the exploitative nature of the system.
3.) The capitalist system is economically, socially, ethically, and morally restricting.
4.) In a few hundred years, our lives won't matter beyond the extent that they affected the future.
5.) Socialism will better the future.
6.) Socialism will put mankind on the path to righteousness.
7.) Therefore, regardless of how it benefits or hurts me, it is my obligation to humanity to aid society in it's movement towards righteousness and equality.

[Black Sheep]

1.Bought che T-shirt.
2.Tis cool.
3.Now i am a communist.

or

1.Join revleft.
2.Am now communist.

or

1.Vote obama.
2.Am communist.

lol

[ckaihatsu]

Of course we think on the fly in context to the situation were in, but I don't see how that would contradict a system of memory storage and retrieval. Yah, we live our lives in the cultural contexts were in, and we learn by situations. However, the knowledge we come into contact with has to be stored for later retrieval when the information is re-referenced within the proper context.


Um...yeah. The technical term for this system is called a 'brain'.





The issues raised by proponents of mind-body dualism are a bit more nuanced than that though. It really doesn't have to do with an inability to distinguish thought processes from their related physical processes. You can logically explain such things through cause and effect. Information in the brain sends out signals to the body that make an impression on the outside world, and the outside world makes an impression on the body, which sends information to be processed by the brain. Thoughts are a series of physical impulses, but consciousness is another story, though somehow directly related.





Consciousness is just too distinct of a phenomenon to be able to explain with the currently understood laws of matter.


No, it can be explained perfectly well with our current understandings about the laws of matter.





When I set off a wind up toy, I expect there to be nothing other than gears running their logical course off of the energy that was stored in the system via the wind up key. In a human system, if I were to apply the same materialist and deterministic logic, I would expect nothing other than nerve impulses driving muscles and organs from the stored chemical energy in the body supplied by food and instinctual algorithms forcing the system to eat food. However, there's more than that. The impulses can actually experience a subjective interpretation of reality filtered or reflected through itself. Thoughts are processes that can be logically explained, no doubt. However, the fact that something is the process and experiences itself as the process really is a mystery that can't be easily explained.


*Or*, given such an assemblage, consciousness would *necessarily* result from such internal functioning.





I didn't say the social paradigm should completely shift away from the accumulation of any possessions. I just said that it should shift away from the accumulation of as many things as possible. So no, you can't have my stuff. lol. I have no problem with having things and living in comfort. That's why I'm a socialist. I want more of that for more people. The basic rule of thumb driving society now is that the person who dies with the most things wins. I'm just saying I don't want to worship stuff as much.


Then you're going to have to take down those shrines and get rid of the incense smell....

= )





Also, the fact that there's a direct interrelation between everything, like social context influencing our thought processes or the compatibility and interchangeability of all units of matter. is part of the reason why I think we all derive from a common whole. I think were one entity threaded up, knotted up, and warped over itself.


Like some kind of primordial uber-brain physical existence -- ? Trippy, dude...! Need a copywriter for all that?





I think consciousness is only explainable as its own dimension and that the interplay between it and the physical dimensions is the cause of ego. I don't think egos necessarily a bad thing. Its an interesting state of being to find ourselves in, and it should be allowed to flourish to its full potential. However, I think we need to see that its at least relative, if not illusory, for humanity to arrive at a better place.


Remember this: -- ?





Yah, we live our lives in the cultural contexts were in, and we learn by situations.


This part will suffice, and you don't need that New Age stuff, unless you want to be hypocritical and *unleash* your ego by promoting such stuff and riding the wave.... It'll always be there for ya, anyway, plus there's the tax-exempt status...!

[psgchisolm]

1. Like Socialism
2.Like the checks and balances part of democracy
3.Hate people with far too much power
4.Wikipedia for types of communism/socialism
5.Revleft correcting me on Social Democracy
6. Democratic Socialist
7.Stalin defeating the Nazis
8.?????
9.Profit from Revolution

[Goatpie]

The working class needs to win.
We'll always win in the end. I hate to be the one to say it but we need a real leader.

[Optiow]

I too believe in freedom and equality, and of ending exploitation of man over man. Capitalism does not do this, only socialism followed by communism does this.

[trafficjamparades]

I realized one day that human beings often die because they don't have many rectangular pieces of paper in their pocket. I support just about any movement that seeks to change this.

As far as my more specific ideologies go, I don't trust anyone enough to give them permission to be my dictator, not even the proletariat.