Should I give up on everything?

[Thanatos]

I realize I am a misanthrope, although an honest one in that I hate myself too. Therapy is bull - been there, done that. This isn't some f*****g emotional issue. Maybe I am born this way - hating humanity.

Does that mean deep down I don't really give a s**t about any of this and that my appreciation of Marx is merely intellectual/theoretical?

Should I just give up instead of pretending I care?

[motion denied]

I feel the same way. Actually, I'm feeling like this right now.

We should not, however, give up on everything. I think it's just a reflex of how oppressive and alienated life is under capitalism. Be it loneliness, hopelessness about our future, jobs or lack thereof, etc...

[bropasaran]

Do you mean hate on emotional level, like having vague feelings of contempt/ anger/ hate; or psychopatic hate on a cognitive level, like consciously wanting that (all?) people experience suffering and pain?

[Queen Mab]

Channel your hate into a healthy pastime, like investment banking.

[Red Economist]

I realize I am a misanthrope, although an honest one in that I hate myself too. Therapy is bull - been there, done that. This isn't some f*****g emotional issue. Maybe I am born this way - hating humanity.

Does that mean deep down I don't really give a s**t about any of this and that my appreciation of Marx is merely intellectual/theoretical?

Should I just give up instead of pretending I care?I've had this internal monolgue MANY times before. In all probability, you hate humanity because you care and the caring is painful. "humanity" is frustrating, a disappointment and you're left constantly wanting people to be better than they are. A Child is not born to hate, so no- you weren't born this way. somewhere along the line someone made you feel like cr*p and because our society is so authoritarian you accepted it and thought it was just how things are and you need to let it out of you're system sometime.

Therapy depends on the person- it might be you have not reached a stage where you want to feel better (speaking as a long-term sufferer of depression; I hit the 'recovery' phase proper when things got so bad I decided I wanted to 'live' and just not give a fuck about everyone else, except a few people close to me. It takes time, but I did it on my own without therapy and am almost there).
Learning to let go and "give up" on some things, so you can prioritize on others- especially the things you know it is directly within your power to change- is helpful. We can't change the world, but we can change ourselves and that makes the world a little bit better each time we do something we couldn't have done without wanting it to be better.

If your prepared to live up to your ideals as a decent human being on a daily basis- it's not theoretical- it becomes very practical and a lot of the 'cr*p' just falls away because it's not useful, so you focus on what you really need to know. And this can be empowering enough to shift the depression/misanthrope because you know your pushing yourself forward.

Human beings are extremely complicated and despite our best efforts, we understand each other very little. We cannot condemn or idolize the human race as an abstract concept; we have to get to know them as each person is telling a different story.

But you do have to find the part of yourself that wants to keep going and wants to believe the human race can do better. That's the hard part.

[slum]

what's the matter with being a communist because smashing capitalism is in your interest and you find the theory intellectually stimulating? if being a friendly person full of good will for all were required of a communist, this forum would be very small.

obligatory: you might not (probably will not) feel this way forever.

but even if you did! you might feel misanthropic for any number of reasons (likely a combination of several, incl. what others here have already mentioned alienation etc), and i doubt any of them 'disqualify' you in some way from engaging with Marxist theory. you're also the guy who posted that introversion thread, if i recall correctly? a lot of my 'misanthropy' comes from introversion fatigue. i prefer my own company to that of others 99% of the time, and a lot of the daily interaction we engage in feels idiotic to me when i could be reading a book or something in a nice quiet place. look, people have different personalities. some of us are irritable and private and inward-focused. we don't make the best activists and we're bad at selling papers. oh well.

try looking into theory that isn't explicitly humanist, you might feel less like a "pretender".

[consuming negativity]

From what perspective do you hate other people and yourself? It sounds to me like you're just an idealist who has found that people don't meet the expectations of behavior, intelligence, or whatever else that you've come to believe people should. The Protestants resolved this by saying "yep, we're all shit, but Jesus can save us in the end". Nihilists and existentialists resolve it by saying "yeah, we're shit, but based on moral constructs that don't matter". And, perhaps, socialism offers us a better way of making people that will be more truly moral in comparison to the way and world in which people are currently brought up. I can't tell you what to decide on, but if you don't think any of it matters, you may as well give a middle finger to the people you hate since you've got the chance and nothing to lose but your "chains".

[Sea]

You're not "born that way" -- don't shit yourself. If you're a misanthrope, that means 9 times out of 10 that you've been burned by somebody and you're reacting in a really stupid way. You said it's not an emotional issue but you're wrong -- your only issue is that you're feeling emotions and you're paying attention to them. Just because therapists are often subjectivist bullshitters doesn't mean you can't be too. We can't tell you what it means "deep down" because everything "deep down" is just nonsensical emotional bullshit and emotions are not a valid base for reaching logical conclusions about anything other than the emotions themselves. My only advice to you is to be more logical. You have the resources to educate yourself to why misanthropy is bullshit. You have not reached misanthropy as a logical conclusion to a problem or question, you have reached it because you "feel it". This is just the inverse of that "if only people loved eachother we could have world peace" shit and it's just as stupid. Stop being happy, stop being sad, stop doing what "feels right" and (more importantly) stop avoiding what "feels wrong". I highly doubt that you're even a nihilist. You're young and you're sad. That's normal because capital dictates how we spend our formative years and it fucks us up psychologically. You're not a superman, you're a worker! Work, work, work! Don't care about liberation of yourself or others! Work and be sad and bitter all day every day! See what they got you into?

Calm down. You're okay. There's nothing wrong with you.

Don't give up.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Listen to your emotions. Do not ignore them as suggested above. It's perfectly logical that you are feeling misanthropic considering the inumerable crimes of humanity.

You cannot run away from your emotions, they must be death with. Do yourself a favour - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration

I suspect you will benefit from it.

You can try to deny the existence of your emotions and have them pull the strings in the background, or you can do as Dabrowski suggests in the link. Break down your life as far as you can go, deconstruct as much as possible, and conscientiously and slowly build from there. It is difficult (if you are doing it right) but I promise it's worth it :)

nb. Do not forget that existence precedes essence - you are a product of your surroundings as is any 'essence' - I personally see this theory as compatible with materialism (vs idealism)

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Watch the film called 'if...', you might find it interesting. It's a helpful, subversive distraction and might pull your mind out of this (what generally is a) temporary phase.

[Sinister Intents]

Well I thought you were talking about suicide. I can relate to this, but I can't pitch in my two cents as well though I've been at there with what you're talking about. I'm no longer so misanthropic, you'll perhaps flip the other way around at some point.

[Sea]

Listen to your emotions. Do not ignore them as suggested above.If your emotions are about to exert a political influence on you (giving up on the cause of socialism in the OPs case), you better not listen to them. Political decisions must have a logical basis in concrete reality and emotions just don't cut it.
It's perfectly logical that you are feeling misanthropic considering the inumerable crimes of humanity.That is not logical at all. "Crimes of humanity" is moralistic hogwash, and it blames humanity for the "crimes" of a mode of production! Are these "crimes" inherent to humanity? No? Humankind has been around hundreds of thousands of years longer than these "crimes" have been taking place. To say that the "crimes" have anything to do with humanity is just silly. Emotions are a shortcut for people who are too lazy or too bored to think things through to a reasonable conclusion. It's a shortcut that often takes you to the wrong place.

[BIXX]

I gotta say that you should listen to your emotions, and maybe take a break from everything for a while, and just try to have fun. Give yourself a break, rest up. I think you'll find you're much more ready to get back into the political fray afterwards.

[sosolo]

I'm not sure what Sea is trying to do, but in my experience, you cannot "will" your emotions away with logic. That's horse shit. If you don't admit how you feel and start from there, these feelings will just pop up somewhere and screw up other aspects of your life.

By no means am I saying that your feelings should be used to decide how you behave, politically or otherwise. This is where logic is useful. Once you deal with your true feelings, THEN you can use logic to your advantage.

You can't control others, and you can't control your thoughts and feelings. But you CAN control your own behavior, and that's empowering.

--sosolop

[BIXX]

I'm not sure what Sea is trying to do, but in my experience, you cannot "will" your emotions away with logic. That's horse shit. If you don't admit how you feel and start from there, these feelings will just pop up somewhere and screw up other aspects of your life.

By no means am I saying that your feelings should be used to decide how you behave, politically or otherwise. This is where logic is useful. Once you deal with your true feelings, THEN you can use logic to your advantage.

You can't control others, and you can't control your thoughts and feelings. But you CAN control your own behavior, and that's empowering.

--sosolop

This is probably the most sound advice in the thread.

[Sea]

I'm not sure what Sea is trying to do, but in my experience, you cannot "will" your emotions away with logic. That's horse shit. If you don't admit how you feel and start from there, these feelings will just pop up somewhere and screw up other aspects of your life.

By no means am I saying that your feelings should be used to decide how you behave, politically or otherwise. This is where logic is useful. Once you deal with your true feelings, THEN you can use logic to your advantage.

You can't control others, and you can't control your thoughts and feelings. But you CAN control your own behavior, and that's empowering.

--sosolopAll I'm saying is that you shouldn't even be getting emotional in the first place. Especially if your emotions may impact others. Alright, sure, maybe I shouldn't take it out on the OP, but (almost all) humans are just stupid for having emotions in the first place.

[Thanatos]

Thanks, everyone. I really appreciate it. I thought people would say insensitive things like 'get out more' or 'get more weed' etc. But the advice has been good.

As for emotions, we'd all like to be rational. But emotions are not a choice. We can't invite them or discard them. They just come and go as they please - so it is hard to handle them.

[Thrasymachus]

@Thanatos:
I too hate the average person. I look at them as capitalist desiring subjects. They want the world to consist of nothing but making and spending money. I don't want that constellation -- and I will never forgive them for their complicity in recreating a social order that victimizes the rest of the world, including themselves due to their extreme obedience and lack of imagination.

If there was just no escapism for one day, just ONE DAY, things would have to change. But instead people will just care about more about drugs, alcohol, their next cigarette, tv shows, video games, movies, sports than anything substantial, life-affirming and real in this world -- because they need the world of escapism to continue in their complicity or else they would reach the same crisis of depression that you yourself feel. Instead they are too numb to feel, which makes them fully capable of collaborating with this criminal social order.

[Lily Briscoe]

^hey, I think I saw you on libcom. You are like a real life version of the narrator from Dostoyevsky's 'Notes from Underground'.:grin:

[Thrasymachus]

I am nothing like the eponymous narrator of Notes from the Underground. He felt everyone was out to slight or insult him.

I instead know that everyone is out there to re-create hell on earth -- known as capitalism due to the distal forces created by the elites(which does not excuse the average worker/consumer of his or her own complicity, including myself). They have been convinced that useless material goods and distractions are what make them allegedly happy and provide for their every need. It is like Derrick Jensen said, when you get your food from the supermarket, your water from a tap, and your every need from the market in general, you will defend to the death that system. But if you get your needs meet from a land-base you will defend to defend to the death your land-base. As it is, people will defend with their claws and their life this system called capitalism to the bitter end or till the last affordable oil drum runs empty or the last sliver of copper is gone(Collapsism ), etc.

[ComradeOm]

Derrick JensenAh, I was half-expecting a reference like this to pop up. Primitivism, or any similar anti-civilisation nonsense, is of course perfectly suited to misanthropic wallowing. Similarly, "hating the average person" (because they supposedly can't pierce some materialist veil) is nothing more than elitist wank. Neither of which has anything to do with Marx or socialism

[BIXX]

Ah, I was half-expecting a reference like this to pop up. Primitivism, or any similar anti-civilisation nonsense, is of course perfectly suited to misanthropic wallowing. Similarly, "hating the average person" (because they supposedly can't pierce some materialist veil) is nothing more than elitist wank. Neither of which has anything to do with Marx or socialism


BOLD: First of all that's incorrect, second of all what's wrong with a misanthropic attitude?

[Thanatos]

Ah, I was half-expecting a reference like this to pop up. Primitivism, or any similar anti-civilisation nonsense, is of course perfectly suited to misanthropic wallowing. Similarly, "hating the average person" (because they supposedly can't pierce some materialist veil) is nothing more than elitist wank. Neither of which has anything to do with Marx or socialism

Some of us do it out of frustration too. And that's understandable, wouldn't you say? If the average guy/girl consistently treats you like c**p and instead has respect only for the rich/famous, wouldn't you feel frustrated enough to generalize at some point and say, "Enough is enough. I no longer give a flying f**k about humanity."

As you can see, this is the result of sensitivity, not elite snobbery.

[Red Economist]

I too hate the average person. I look at them as capitalist desiring subjects. They want the world to consist of nothing but making and spending money. I don't want that constellation -- and I will never forgive them for their complicity in recreating a social order that victimizes the rest of the world, including themselves due to their extreme obedience and lack of imagination.never is a very long time. I promise you will fall in love with one of 'them' and realize they are prisoners and the victims of their belief that it is the prison that makes them free. And you will forgive them because you realize they don't know that they could better themselves, the bars seem too real, too permanent and they will not even know if it is possible that they can escape. what worse fate is their to suffer than to be so unloved as to want to fill that void with the empty promise of success and stay within the prison walls? You only hate them because you see them as the prison guards from which you have not fully escaped.

[ComradeOm]

...second of all what's wrong with a misanthropic attitude?If somebody on the street wants to consider themselves something of a misanthrope, fine. It's not a particularly attractive trait but each to their own. There is however a pretty big contradiction between hating your fellow man and wanting to build a better human society. That is to say, one cannot be a misanthrope and a socialist.


Some of us do it out of frustration too. And that's understandable, wouldn't you say? If the average guy/girl consistently treats you like c**p and instead has respect only for the rich/famous, wouldn't you feel frustrated enough to generalize at some point and say, "Enough is enough. I no longer give a flying f**k about humanity."If you don't "give a flying fuck about humanity" then I'd suggest that you're on the wrong forum. Or at least that your "appreciation of Marx is merely intellectual/theoretical". The whole point of Marx, and indeed socialism, is humanity; you can't be a Marxist (in any real sense) and despise the people whose lot you're supposed to be working towards improving.

And I don't mean to be harsh here but there's no point sidestepping the issue. It may be emotions and it may be understandable but you need to revisit either your attitudes towards humanity or your interest in socialism.


As you can see, this is the result of sensitivity, not elite snobbery.I'd suggest that misanthropy is generally elitist. Not inherently, perhaps, but nine times out of ten the misanthropes that I have known have directed their hatred at external targets. That is, whatever self-loathing that they spare for themselves pales in comparison to the disgust they have for 'average people'. Misanthropes rarely include themselves in this bracket; it's always other people that are stupid, always the common folk who can't see the light.

[Thanatos]

If somebody on the street wants to consider themselves something of a misanthrope, fine. It's not a particularly attractive trait but each to their own. There is however a pretty big contradiction between hating your fellow man and wanting to build a better human society. That is to say, one cannot be a misanthrope and a socialist.

If you don't "give a flying fuck about humanity" then I'd suggest that you're on the wrong forum. Or at least that your "appreciation of Marx is merely intellectual/theoretical". The whole point of Marx, and indeed socialism, is humanity; you can't be a Marxist (in any real sense) and despise the people whose lot you're supposed to be working towards improving.

And I don't mean to be harsh here but there's no point sidestepping the issue. It may be emotions and it may be understandable but you need to revisit either your attitudes towards humanity or your interest in socialism.

I'd suggest that misanthropy is generally elitist. Not inherently, perhaps, but nine times out of ten the misanthropes that I have known have directed their hatred at external targets. That is, whatever self-loathing that they spare for themselves pales in comparison to the disgust they have for 'average people'. Misanthropes rarely include themselves in this bracket; it's always other people that are stupid, always the common folk who can't see the light.

One doesn't have to be a humanist to be a Marxist. One could be a transhumanist.

[ComradeOm]

You can read Marx, you can appreciate Marx and you can bolt Marx onto whatever science-fiction craze takes your fancy. If however your attitude towards humanity is lightly veiled disgust then don't call yourself a Marxist.

If you boil Marxism down to its very core then it is about creating a better world for people (through the abolition of private property). It's that simple. And it's not about creating a better world by remaking people; that suggests that the problem lies with the latter. Which ties in nicely with your misanthropy.

[Thrasymachus]

@ComradeOm:
Having no critique of civilization and technology is beyond ridiculous in 2014. Since you don't seem to know, Karl Marx has been dead for 131 years. Alot has changed since then, you should really try looking into those changes instead of pretending this is the 19th Century. For one lots of better, more up-to-date critiques have come out. Alot has changed like the uptake of mass schooling, the discovery of more potent forms of energy like oil, the widespread adoption of school. For one surely you must shocked reading hundred plus year old texts and wondering why did they revolt then so often and yet revolt is almost impossible now(indeed in countries of the West riots over sport teams are far more common than over living conditions!). Well for one, the above mentioned developments allow for minds to be more easily captured by elite interests and the more potent energy in oil, allows the average Westerner to be rewarded with lots of trinkets most often made by children or near-slaves in the Third World and comforts like indoor climate control --- they merely have to recognize silence in the face of the imperialism and primitive accumulation making their lifestyle possible. You cannot use Marx dead for over a hundred years and his immature, Hegelian magic thinking to pretend that the average Westerner is not complicit and bought, in regards to the system of capitalism and that the proletariat is the natural destructive element because of Hegelian mystic nonsense -- and that everyone who thinks otherwise is some elitist. Infact you are the elitist snob, for acting like history stopped at Marx and making Marx every other word out of your mouth. You are the snob for telling other people how they should or should not feel about their social context and others around them.

Mostly, I must inform you that when you type, I see lots of dust on my monitor from your vintage, dated worldview...

[BIXX]

If somebody on the street wants to consider themselves something of a misanthrope, fine. It's not a particularly attractive trait but each to their own. There is however a pretty big contradiction between hating your fellow man and wanting to build a better human society. That is to say, one cannot be a misanthrope and a socialist.

Well there is no conflict then. I want to attack society, not just the system it's governed by.

Also why can't you want to build a better human society for yourself to live in? Surely that resolves the conflict of socialism vs misanthropy (however I don't know that I consider myself a communist or socialist, and I'm not trying to show that I am one. I just fail to see how misanthropy is inherently anti-communist).




If you don't "give a flying fuck about humanity" then I'd suggest that you're on the wrong forum. Or at least that your "appreciation of Marx is merely intellectual/theoretical". [B]The whole point of Marx, and indeed socialism, is humanity[/B; you can't be a Marxist (in any real sense) and despise the people whose lot you're supposed to be working towards improving.

Why can't you put yourself in front of humanity under socialism?

Also, I am against "humanity"- it's nothing more than a phantom, a social construct.




And I don't mean to be harsh here but there's no point sidestepping the issue. It may be emotions and it may be understandable but you need to revisit either your attitudes towards humanity or your interest in socialism.

Again, I fail to see why that needs to happen.




I'd suggest that misanthropy is generally elitist. Not inherently, perhaps, but nine times out of ten the misanthropes that I have known have directed their hatred at external targets. That is, whatever self-loathing that they spare for themselves pales in comparison to the disgust they have for 'average people'. Misanthropes rarely include themselves in this bracket; it's always other people that are stupid, always the common folk who can't see the light.


Hating everyone except for yourself may be elitist, but unless you are subscribing to some form of morality (which a lot of Marxists claim to reject (which makes them liars but that is a topic for another time)) then it isn't a problem, as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to be a Marxist or socialist or whatever. That is not to say that it isn't extremely irritating for someone to be an elitist.

Also the average misanthrope hates themselves as well, according to my experience.

Third, I don't think that misanthropy necessarily is elitist. Just because you hate everyone doesn't mean you think you are more worthy. Plus I don't think most misanthropes support the leadership of a certain set of "elites".

However, I am with Novatore in a way when he speaks of the "aristocratic" individual. But Novatore (like, I suspect, myself) was not a communist.


You can read Marx, you can appreciate Marx and you can bolt Marx onto whatever science-fiction craze takes your fancy. If however your attitude towards humanity is lightly veiled disgust then don't call yourself a Marxist.



If you boil Marxism down to its very core then it is about creating a better world for people (through the abolition of private property). It's that simple. And it's not about creating a better world by remaking people; that suggests that the problem lies with the latter. Which ties in nicely with your misanthropy.


Why can't Marxism be about making a better world for yourself?

And if it is only about making a better world for humanity then thank fuck I'm not a Marxist.

[Art Vandelay]

Hating everyone except for yourself may be elitist, but unless you are subscribing to some form of morality (which a lot of Marxists claim to reject (which makes them liars but that is a topic for another time)) then it isn't a problem, as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to be a Marxist or socialist or whatever.

The 'amoralism' of Marxists is a bit of a misnomer, the point is that no human morality exists which is unrelated to classes and their economic underpinnings.


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? - Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours

[ComradeOm]

Mostly, I must inform you that when you type, I see lots of dust on my monitor from your vintage, dated worldview...Then call me old fashioned for having a theoretical framework that doesn't sneeringly dismiss everyone else as an idiot and actually wants to improve peoples' lives. What an outdated notion!


Also why can't you want to build a better human society for yourself to live in? Surely that resolves the conflict of socialism vs misanthropy (however I don't know that I consider myself a communist or socialist, and I'm not trying to show that I am one. I just fail to see how misanthropy is inherently anti-communist).Have you just asked why socialism isn't an individualist ideology? Why you can't just look out for yourself and to hell with the rest of society? Do you want to rethink that fundamental point?


Hating everyone except for yourself may be elitist, but unless you are subscribing to some form of morality (which a lot of Marxists claim to reject (which makes them liars but that is a topic for another time)) then it isn't a problem, as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to be a Marxist or socialist or whatever. That is not to say that it isn't extremely irritating for someone to be an elitist.One, Marxists do not reject the concept of morality or its application. Marx's criticism of labour exploitation or the immiseration of the working class under capitalism makes no sense unless underpinned by a strong moral core. (Refusing to automatically abide by bourgeois moral standards, without acknowledging their class origins, is of course another matter.)

Secondly, and more relevantly, Marxism is an explicitly anti-elitist ideology. It places the burden of the historical tasks that Marx viewed necessary squarely on the popular class (ie the proletariat). Right from the Manifesto, this is a constant thread in almost half a century of Marx's writings. Actual disgust with the 'average person' goes beyond that and is simply anti-socialist.


Third, I don't think that misanthropy necessarily is elitist. Just because you hate everyone doesn't mean you think you are more worthyHatred requires judgement and a basis for the latter. Note the sneering tone in this thread, for example, where "average" people are condemned for their consumerism or their lack of revolutionary nous. Their crime? Not being as clued in as Thrasymachus or Thanatos.

That's par for the course. An assumed intellectual superiority goes hand-in-hand (generally) with misanthropy.


And if it is only about making a better world for humanity then thank fuck I'm not a Marxist.So why on earth do you hang out on a site called 'Revolutionary Left'?

[BIXX]

Have you just asked why socialism isn't an individualist ideology?

I asked why I can't be.


Why you can't just look out for yourself and to hell with the rest of society?

I suspect you haven't done much individualist reading. However, tell me, how does looking out for yourself have to mean saying "fuck society"? (I admit, I do say fuck society, but on the other hand I'm not a socialist it's looking like. Which honestly I'm ok with.)


Do you want to rethink that fundamental point?

Not really. Prove me wrong. Which, by the way, doesn't mean "imply that I'm wrong without providing any evidence" as you have just done.




One, Marxists do not reject the concept of morality or its application. Marx's criticism of labour exploitation or the immiseration of the working class under capitalism makes no sense unless underpinned by a strong moral core. (Refusing to automatically abide by bourgeois moral standards, without acknowledging their class origins, is of course another matter.)

This is out of curiosity, not for the purpose of debate: why do so many Marxists claim to reject morality? I know it was said to be a misnomer earlier but I think some Marxists take it further than that. Do they do it to seem edgy?

I personally reject morality on the basis that it limits me and it has no material basis, and to be honest, I like to deal with reality, not fairy tales or weird rules we have come up with.




Secondly, and more relevantly, Marxism is an explicitly anti-elitist ideology. It places the burden of the historical tasks that Marx viewed necessary squarely on the popular class (ie the proletariat). Right from the Manifesto, this is a constant thread in almost half a century of Marx's writings. Actual disgust with the 'average person' goes beyond that and is simply anti-socialist.

And if the misanthrope, or the elitist, or what have you, is a member of the proletariat, if they can still participate in "the revolution" (that thing that so many leftists seem to be waiting for) along with the others, is it not true that the "historical task" is still being carried out by the "popular class"?

Also, duty politics are fucking gross. Another reason to avoid Marxism.




Hatred requires judgement and a basis for the latter. Note the sneering tone in this thread, for example, where "average" people are condemned for their consumerism or their lack of revolutionary nous. Their crime? Not being as clued in as Thrasymachus or Thanatos.

I do admit, this does rub me the wrong way. However, it seems to be misanthropy for what I would call the incorrect reasons.

But I will defend it for the purpose of debate.

Maybe the average person doesn't deserve us? I mean, If they are unable to "wake up" then why should we wait for them? Certainly many Marxists have felt this way in the past, not wanting to wait for the proles to achieve the level of class consciousness required to wage all-out class war, rather they formed a vanguard party (which is elitist, mind you. Also keep in mind the "vanguard party" and the "vanguard" are two different things) and manipulated people into a semi-class consciousness (however in some cases it did result in a successful revolution with a more egalitarian society- which isn't saying much).




That's par for the course. An assumed intellectual superiority goes hand-in-hand (generally) with misanthropy.

It appears to chime well with certain historical revolutionary movements. But they sure as shit weren't misanthropes.

Also, my misanthropic attitudes have nothing to do with my intellect being better or any of that shit.




So why on earth do you hang out on a site called 'Revolutionary Left'?


Cause it's kinda fun sometimes to watch my rep go up.

[Zmest]

I think you should'nt give up, because if we, communists, give up the fight, what will happen to the world under capitalism without us to protect the working class?:(

It is only my personal opinion.

[Rurkel]

Also why can't you want to build a better human society for yourself to live in?
I'd say that this requires not only opposition to certain people, but also cooperation with many other people. I guess a misanthrope can still cooperate with others, but this would require too much internal suppression of the misanthrope's feelings for the cooperation to be productive.

[BIXX]

I'd say that this requires not only opposition to certain people, but also cooperation with many other people. I guess a misanthrope can still cooperate with others, but this would require too much internal suppression of the misanthrope's feelings for the cooperation to be productive.


I feel that very little of today's "revolutionary" groups are being very productive (or productive at all) as it is. Being a misanthrope, I feel, has very little to do with it. I think it's an unwillingness from the "revolutionaries" to actually be revolutionary.

[ComradeOm]

I asked why I can't be.

I suspect you haven't done much individualist reading. However, tell me, how does looking out for yourself have to mean saying "fuck society"? (I admit, I do say fuck society, but on the other hand I'm not a socialist it's looking like. Which honestly I'm ok with.)

Not really. Prove me wrong. Which, by the way, doesn't mean "imply that I'm wrong without providing any evidence" as you have just done.No. That's a discussion for Opposing Ideologies; a forum that I deliberately avoid because 'capitalist v commie' discussions are something I did in the last decade.

What I'm wondering is why somebody who is clearly anti-worker hasn't been restricted to that forum yet.


This is out of curiosity, not for the purpose of debate: why do so many Marxists claim to reject morality? I know it was said to be a misnomer earlier but I think some Marxists take it further than that. Do they do it to seem edgy?It's a trait of vulgar Marxism to take materialism to the extreme, to reject anything that can't be seen or touched. It's idiocy, a narrow and unsustainable definition of 'reality' that reduces all human action to economics. Thankfully most people grow out of it by their late teens.

It would obviously be stupid, silly and impossible to "reject morality". One might as well decide to reject breathing. To do so would be to cease being human. What Marxists do instead is recognise the conditions that shapes a society's morality; that is understand the 'material basis' that gives rise to it. Hence it's possible to criticise homophobia (and other elements of religious codes) while still being fully against child labour.


And if the misanthrope, or the elitist, or what have you, is a member of the proletariat, if they can still participate in "the revolution" (that thing that so many leftists seem to be waiting for) along with the others, is it not true that the "historical task" is still being carried out by the "popular class"?You are aware of the difference between an individual and a class, right?

A misanthrope can of course participate as an individual but I'm not sure why they would. Three points:

The entire point of a revolution is that it is an acceptance that the current state of affairs is unacceptable and must change. Yet for misanthropes it is other people themselves that are the problem. Good luck t

It's also a collective act (as all revolutions must be) to create an environment that benefits that class as a whole. So a strong degree of class conciousness is required, something that misanthropy dictates against.

Finally, the particular features of a socialist revolution is that is produces a democratic and worker-run society. Why on earth would a misanthrope want to entrust power to people he despises? What does the "average person" know about governance? Sure, they can barely walk and slurp their giant Cokes at the same time!

So as an individual, perhaps. I don't see why a misanthrope would join a revolution but each to their own. But you can't possible have a revolution primarily comprised of misanthropes.


Also, duty politics are fucking gross. Another reason to avoid Marxism.Yeah, I've got to say that we've not really missed you to date.


Maybe the average person doesn't deserve us? I mean, If they are unable to "wake up" then why should we wait for them? Certainly many Marxists have felt this way in the past, not wanting to wait for the proles to achieve the level of class consciousness required to wage all-out class war, rather they formed a vanguard party (which is elitist, mind you. Also keep in mind the "vanguard party" and the "vanguard" are two different things) and manipulated people into a semi-class consciousness (however in some cases it did result in a successful revolution with a more egalitarian society- which isn't saying much).I can't think of any Marxist that has ever claimed that "the average person doesn't deserve us". Perhaps you can name one? And yes, that would include 'vanguardists'.


It appears to chime well with certain historical revolutionary movements. But they sure as shit weren't misanthropes.Such as?


Also, my misanthropic attitudes have nothing to do with my intellect being better or any of that shit.So you don't feel that your 'rejection of morality' makes you better placed to make judgements than your peers?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Just to chime in, I don't think a rejection of morality is necessarily "vulgar Marxism". Morality is, of course, an expression of certain objective social realities. But in morality, these realities are expressed in a mystifying (in particular, no one can really make sense of "ought" statements and what their truth conditions are supposed to be) form, and a form that is particularly liable to use by reactionary forces (just like e.g. democracy-fetishism). I don't see how morality is "like breathing" - you seem to have asserted that without any sort of argument. I can imagine people not making moral claims just fine.

[ComradeOm]

I don't see how morality is "like breathing" - you seem to have asserted that without any sort of argument. I can imagine people not making moral claims just fine.And can you imagine someone with no moral code whatsoever? Of course not. A sense of morality is a fundamental component of any human being. It is as important for us to function socially as breathing is for us to function biologically.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And can you imagine someone with no moral code whatsoever? Of course not.

Sure I can, why wouldn't I? You haven't really shown how being without a "moral code" (something I suspect most people don't have) is incoherent.

[ComradeOm]

Sure I can, why wouldn't I?Because the term we generally use for people who have little/no sense of morality is psychopathy*. And it's treated as a medical condition. :glare:

Everyone else has some sense of morality, some ability to tell right from wrong. It doesn't have to be expressed in a coherent, documented set of scriptures. We all know that there's a difference between killing a puppy and helping an old lady across the road. That's just a basic part of functioning in human society.

Similarly, and tying into the above, when we criticise something like child labour, for example, we articulate why it's 'wrong' in moral terms, not pure economic critiques. If we restrained ourselves to the latter then this forum would, presumably, be largely empty.

Now there are two reasons why someone might say that they "reject morality". Either they don't know what they're talking about (and are thinking exclusively of bourgeois morals, religious or otherwise) or they're trying to imitate robots. Vulgar Marxists have a bit of both in them.

*Possibly sociopathy. I always get those two mixed up.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because the term we generally use for people who have little/no sense of morality is psychopathy*. And it's treated as a medical condition. :glare:

Hold on, first you imply that there are no people with "no moral code whatsoever", now you're handing out medical diagnoses to people that don't have such a code? Sociopathy, by the way, is more than "amorality", and it's not as if the DSM isn't reactionary rubbish in any case.


Everyone else has some sense of morality, some ability to tell right from wrong.

Now, that's an interesting term - ability. Usually, when people claim to have some sort of ability, that ability can be demonstrated. But in fact, as I mentioned earlier, no one even knows how to assign truth-values to moral statements, which is the bare minimum for claiming any sort of ability to "tell right from wrong".


Similarly, and tying into the above, when we criticise something like child labour, for example, we articulate why it's 'wrong' in moral terms, not pure economic critiques.

Well, you might do that - others might try to articulate a class critique. I think it is clear which approach is more in line with Marx's own work.


If we restrained ourselves to the latter then this forum would, presumably, be largely empty.

Why?


Now there are two reasons why someone might say that they "reject morality". Either they don't know what they're talking about (and are thinking exclusively of bourgeois morals, religious or otherwise) or they're trying to imitate robots. Vulgar Marxists have a bit of both in them.

Well, in the present society, what other morals are there? Semifeudal? It's certain that all attempts at "socialist morals" have turned out to be bigoted, reactionary garbage.

[Rafiq]

Marxism has absolutely nothing to do with the improvement of the lives of others, it is completely amoral. Marxism and Communism (which is an ideology) are not synonymous. Marxism is not a moral framework, and the cruelest most vile bastard can be an exceptionally good Marxist in terms of understanding the underlying tenets. The unification of Marxism and the worker's movement, though having it's origins with Marx himself (who was involved) is not natural or existent by default. Undoubtedly it would be foolish to think that Marxism and Communism do not possess a specific association, but that does not mean they are synonymous. Marxism allows us to understand the nature of social relations, among the infinite amount of other things this entails, but it does not force us, by some kind of magical deduction that we are to pick a side. If anything, what we recognize is the existence of different classes with conflicting interests, it is no longer a war about what fulfills the expectations of ruling class morality most proficiently, but a war for power, the conquest of the state and so forth. While Marxism and Communist morality are not incompatible, it is crucial we recognize that Marxism alone is not moral, not anti-moral (unless we are speaking of a kind of idealist, religious morality) but amoral.

To be plain, the dichotomy between elitist (perceived) anti-humanism and humanism is wholly and absolutely false. Both are embedded within the framework and paradigm of bourgeois ideology. This kind of elitist misanthropy is false not in that it is immoral or that it is not considerate of 'humanity' but that it is false by merit of origin (yes, at first glance a logical fallacy). What right do these bourgeois ideologues, many of whom are the most moronic of their caste, to look down upon the masses in such a way? What this ignores are the real systemic, institutional complexities which explain why 'the people' are uneducated. We can trace this kind of elitist thinking not to bourgeois ideology, but something that is distinctively petite bourgeois. In expressing keen dissapointment over the fact that there are no place for your views among the masses, you should re-evaluate why that is. Perhaps, maybe, it is due to the absolute incompetence of leadership of today's left, maybe it has something to do with the fact that our movement is festering with traitors and reactionaries, and even worse cowards who think the revolution is some kind of role play. I've spoken of this countless times. Leadership which has failed to address the current conditions of global capitalism and instead demands that the world, rather then themselves change in accordance to how they operate. We are so good at critiquing neoliberalism and the new developments of capitalism, what we fail to do is on a strategic level recognize that we are a part of the society of which is categorized by this developments, that we must change our means of action in accordance.

The masses hardly have the time to enrich themselves with Marxism, the working people are struggling to get by as we descend into chaos and political degeneracy, with austerity in Europe, vicious reactionaries growing in numbers globally, and so on. And so I say, to those alleged elitist leftists, what the fuck is your excuse? You're educated, you have the time to understand Marxism properly, you posses the resources too, and you have failed utterly. If anything, it is you who should be looked down upon, it is by merit of your own existence that perhaps we should despise humanity.

And to this kind of benevolent, charity-esque mentality of "benefiting the lives of others". The role of the revolutionary intelligentsia is not to feel pity for the damned, but to give them the necessary direction they need in order to destroy the enemy. This is not about making the world a better place, as a matter of fact, such muddied ideological rhetoric can only ever be an integral excuse for our real intentions, and that is the conquest of state power, in other words, world domination. As I have said before, to deny this would be completely dishonest. It is only convenient that the dictatorship of the proletariat entails historical progress (that is, the potential improvement of life on Earth). It is only convenient that the proletariat forms a demographic majority (and in many countries, this is not the case). This is about one class achieving it's ends. Which is uniquely characterized by changes in history never before seen, by the entire world draped into a single banner and the emergence of an ideology which is the single greatest achievement in the development of human thought anyone could ever witness.

Do the Communists posses a moral framework? Undoubtedly! But our morality is not theirs. A proletarian morality is a new morality, just as the Communists seek not to glorify man as he exists today, but that our very existence entails the coming of a new man. What right does anyone have to say that man as he exists today, characterized by the most grotesque injustices, is deprived of his humanity? Humanity is defined by it's social being, it is not eternal. This new man will spring about not from the abyss, but from the dead carcass of the man of today. So Comradeom is correct, we do possess a morality, but this we do not concede to the enemy, it is ours and ours uniquely.

[ComradeOm]

Now, that's an interesting term - ability. Usually, when people claim to have some sort of ability, that ability can be demonstrated. But in fact, as I mentioned earlier, no one even knows how to assign truth-values to moral statements, which is the bare minimum for claiming any sort of ability to "tell right from wrong".Right. So we can't demonstrate that you're capable of telling the difference between killing a random stranger and giving a family member a birthday card. Therefore you would consider one action to be no different from the other. The only reason that you haven't killed anyone to date is presumably because there's no been a rational reason for you to do so, correct?


Well, you might do that - others might try to articulate a class critique. I think it is clear which approach is more in line with Marx's own work.Fine, maybe you do. Perhaps you can tell me then why exploitation is bad? Or why Marx used such loaded terms as "misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation" to describe the accumulation of capitalism? Or why he railed against the "savage theory" of capital punishment?

Really, Marx was someone who spent his life not just critiquing capitalism but fighting it. This wasn't because he was blindly following some 'scientific' historical law or felt that capitalism wasn't the most efficient use of resources. It was because he was entirely opposed to the brutal and cruel effects that he witnessed capitalism inflicting.

It amazes me how anyone can read Marx (particularly his works of journalism) and come away thinking that he was this cool character who just produced some "class critiques" without any attached moral judgements.


Why?Why bother worrying about capitalism or the damage it causes? Why concern ourselves with the misery it brings?

Let me be clear: if someone can't go beyond academic justifications and convince themselves that capitalism is 'wrong' in the moral sense then they've either led a very closeted life or are simply dallying with socialism as an intellectual exercise. Either way, there's not much future for them on this site or vice versa.


Well, in the present society, what other morals are there? Semifeudal? It's certain that all attempts at "socialist morals" have turned out to be bigoted, reactionary garbage.I was always taught by an uncle of mine that the exploitation of labour is wrong. I've met many people in life who don't share that opinion. Whether the former could be broadened out to be 'socialist morality', I don't know, but I'd say that there are different moral codes out there. As anyone would expect, when you think about it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Right. So we can't demonstrate that you're capable of telling the difference between killing a random stranger and giving a family member a birthday card. Therefore you would consider one action to be no different from the other. The only reason that you haven't killed anyone to date is presumably because there's no been a rational reason for you to do so, correct?

Except, of course, the fact that statements about morality are nonsensical does not mean that all actions are the same, a bizarre view nobody holds. Of course actions are different - one action is conductive to the class interests, another is not, one brings social sanctions, another is not. Etc. etc.

As for killing, presumably I would kill in a revolutionary situation that demands it. Surely you would as well.


Fine, maybe you do. Perhaps you can tell me then why exploitation is bad? Or why Marx used such loaded terms as "misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation" to describe the accumulation of capitalism? Or why he railed against the "savage theory" of capital punishment?

Because Marx was a liberal for most of his youth, and the influence of liberalism can still be discerned in his later work. Some of them - the infamous "ten planks" - are absolutely embarrassing when read from a modern Marxist perspective. But what is valuable in Marx's approach is his skill in scientific analysis, not his moral vocabulary, which is outdated in any case.


Why bother worrying about capitalism or the damage it causes? Why concern ourselves with the misery it brings?

Because we have desires and interests whose fulfillment is made impossible by capitalism. Capitalism hurts us - we want to overthrow it so it will stop hurting us. We want to kill the bourgeoisie and take their pies. It's rather simple, really.


Let me be clear: if someone can't go beyond academic justifications and convince themselves that capitalism is 'wrong' in the moral sense then they've either led a very closeted life or are simply dallying with socialism as an intellectual exercise. Either way, there's not much future for them on this site or vice versa.

No, I think people who make up "socialist moralities" sitting in their basements are the ones who have led a closeted life. As for this site - let's be reasonable here. It is a place where market socialists can have a go at people who cry about anti-white racism.


I was always taught by an uncle of mine that the exploitation of labour is wrong. I've met many people in life who don't share that opinion. Whether the former could be broadened out to be 'socialist morality', I don't know, but I'd say that there are different moral codes out there. As anyone would expect, when you think about it.

Ah, so the exploitation of labour was also wrong during the birth of capitalist society?

[Comrade Thomas]

Never give up on life, as others depends on you. Be an icon of enlightenment and a good person!

[Thrasymachus]

Then call me old fashioned for having a theoretical framework that doesn't sneeringly dismiss everyone else as an idiot and actually wants to improve peoples' lives. What an outdated notion!

No, you don't have a theoretical framework, rather you have dusty 19th Century vintage Marxian analysis reproducing pathetically its immature Hegelianist mysticism and make cheap posturing and bombastic statements like, "Marxists don't this," "Marxists this," "Socialists do this," "Socialists don't do this," to hide you have nothing but dust. You totally ignore history since the death of Marx and how capitalism has captured the minds of the masses and made them exactly what is best described with the term capitalist desiring subjects. You ignore the works of Camatte and all other subsequent authors who explain why such developments happened, and why you cannot ignore the ideology that people of the working class hold to opt for the wrong-headed the Hegelian-Marxist magic thinking that assumes that the proletariat is an inherently a revolutionary group that is prophesied to destroy capitalism just because long dead Marx said so. The proletariat has been around for centuries now and capitalism keeps ticking and seems more powerful than ever outside the prospects offered by collapsism.

So you are truly the real misanthrope, you don't even want to get your headspace outside of an immature fetishizing of the 19th Century. And again you don't want to realize that when the favorite local sports team loses, people will often quite reliably riot if conditions are right, but not do the same over living conditions, because of the immense ideological power that television and mass schooling has given the elite. To be clear the conditions of the 19th Century are gone forever and a new constellation exists. Time to clear out the dusty ideology, ComradeOm, to clear shelf space for something that could produce a possibly useful analysis! Further, what you likely posit about the past, that the proletariat was inherently revolutionary group just because of Marx's prophetics, can be better imputed to the fact that the proletariat of his time was recently forced into the cities, into selling their labor as industrial workers from their previous comparatively freer state as farming peasants or artisans, where they actually had more say over their lives. In Marx's time proletarianization was actually a new process to be rebelled against, and it wasn't that the proletariat was revolutionary -- it was the ghost of what they were before that made them so quick to riot and fight. Now you are dealing with their grandkids and their great-grandkids or great-great-grandkids, depending on the pace of modernization where you live. This generation only knows selling their labor, it is like "Tuesday" for my generation to sell their labor, it is all they and their ancestors have known for so long, they cannot imagine other possibilities in their stunted imagination.

[Panopticon]

Except, of course, the fact that statements about morality are nonsensical does not mean that all actions are the same, a bizarre view nobody holds. Of course actions are different - one action is conductive to the class interests, another is not, one brings social sanctions, another is not. Etc. etc.

Do you really mean to say the only reason you haven't killed people is fear of being caught?

[Thrasymachus]

Because the term we generally use for people who have little/no sense of morality is psychopathy*. And it's treated as a medical condition. :glare:


Too rich, you are so stuck in immature 19th Century Socialist Romanticism you have ignored all the great critiques of the mental health arm of capitalism by folks like Foucault, Fromm, Ivan Illich, David Smail, Thomas Szasz.

The whole purpose of the mental health arm of the medical industry is to remove onus and criticism from the failings of capitalism and heap the burden on precisely the individuals who cannot cope with the frantic assault of schooling followed by a life full of hollow work. It is precisely those who have troubling coping with school or work who are flagged and marginalized most by the mental health arm of capitalism. Since work and school is the path of life in contemporary capitalism, what this system does is marginalize exactly the people who could force a questioning of the system, but that won't happen because even faux revolutionaries like the good Comrade believe it is a problem of individual adjustment and those who fail in this process have convenient mental disorders, instead of putting the blame on the failure of the capitalist system. Just in the USA about one in four Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder at some time in a given year:
"NIH.gov: The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America"
And about half will experience some mental disorder in their lives:
"USAToday: CDC: Half of Americans will suffer from mental health woes" (I still don't have permission for links... Google it.)

ComradeOm, this is exactly what happens when you are stuck in a time warp. Come to the 21st Century, our industrialization is oil powered! I assure you it is a proletarian paradise compared to the 19th Century of black coal!

[Ele'ill]

give up on everything and begin

[BIXX]

No. That's a discussion for Opposing Ideologies; a forum that I deliberately avoid because 'capitalist v commie' discussions are something I did in the last decade.

You're in luck- I don't advocate communism or capitalism. So calling me a capitalist is inaccurate. So until you come up with something better than petty name calling (you dirty capitalist!) my point still stands.




What I'm wondering is why somebody who is clearly anti-worker hasn't been restricted to that forum yet.

Possibly because I am more revolutionary than folks like you. And I'm an anti-capitalist, that's helps.

But mainly it's because I really am so very revolutionary. /sarcasm




It's a trait of vulgar Marxism to take materialism to the extreme, to reject anything that can't be seen or touched. It's idiocy, a narrow and unsustainable definition of 'reality' that reduces all human action to economics. Thankfully most people grow out of it by their late teens.

Glad I don't reduce it to economics. Or rather, I don't reduce reality at all. I take it as it is and struggle against the existent, for the benefit of myself (and extending the logic, of those I care for).




It would obviously be stupid, silly and impossible to "reject morality". One might as well decide to reject breathing. To do so would be to cease being human.

Morality is something we made up. Breathing is not. The two cannot be compared. I don't know the name of the fallacy you just committed, but I'm sure it's out there.

Morality, more than anything else, is similar to an imaginary friend- it's for children.


What Marxists do instead is recognise the conditions that shapes a society's morality; that is understand the 'material basis' that gives rise to it.

Yes, this is something I am willing to accept. However that doesn't make morality valid or required.


Hence it's possible to criticise homophobia (and other elements of religious codes) while still being fully against child labour.

I fail to see how this follows from the fact that Marxists recognize that morals are shaped by the material conditions that gave rise to them. Are you saying that the Marxist method of critiquing morality is better than mine because you can critique parts of morality but not others?

Check it, I have amoral reasons not like child labour. I have amoral reasons to hate homophobia. Anything you can do with morality, I can do better without it.




You are aware of the difference between an individual and a class, right?


Yes, I just wasn't sure how someone being a misanthropic revolutionary would keep them from being part of a revolution. You seemed to be saying that because a misanthrope would hate humanity, they couldn't participate in a revolution or what have you. You seemed to be saying that because they were elitist (which I don't believe a misanthrope necessarily is, though they can be) they can't be revolutionary because they don't trust the proles to do it right or whatever. However, if they realized that a communist world would be better for them, would they not want to participate in a revolution?



A misanthrope can of course participate as an individual but I'm not sure why they would. Three points:

This is gonna be fun.






The entire point of a revolution is that it is an acceptance that the current state of affairs is unacceptable and must change. Yet for misanthropes it is other people themselves that are the problem. Good luck.


Why, with a misanthrope, can't it be that both are the problem? Or that maybe they hate humanity because it is constantly set as an idol that they must submit to, rather than hating each individual human (this is more my style of misanthropy)?






It's also a collective act (as all revolutions must be) to create an environment that benefits that class as a whole. So a strong degree of class conciousness is required, something that misanthropy dictates against.


Misanthropy doesn't dictate against class consciousness... Where did you get that idea?

Also, if a revolutionary misanthrope realizes that the revolution will benefit them, why wouldn't they be able to cooperate?






Finally, the particular features of a socialist revolution is that is produces a democratic and worker-run society. Why on earth would a misanthrope want to entrust power to people he despises? What does the "average person" know about governance? Sure, they can barely walk and slurp their giant Cokes at the same time!


The misanthrope doesn't love the current states either. The misanthrope would be able to realize that having people who relate to them better making decisions would probably be qualitatively better for them. I can't see why your hypothetical misanthrope is so stupid, unless your mind is unable to conceive of anyone with higher reasoning skills than yourself.




So as an individual, perhaps. I don't see why a misanthrope would join a revolution but each to their own. But you can't possible have a revolution primarily comprised of misanthropes.

A group of misanthropes can get together, and, realizing that they could work together for something that would help all of them, could work together to benefit all of them. Of course if something else were to benefit some of the misanthropes more, they wouldn't work with the others, and instead would try to accomplish a goal that would help them.

How is a revolution different?




Yeah, I've got to say that we've not really missed you to date.

Was this supposed to be an insult?




I can't think of any Marxist that has ever claimed that "the average person doesn't deserve us". Perhaps you can name one? And yes, that would include 'vanguardists'.

I should clarify (meaning I shouldn't have expected you to connect the two sentences that were touching rather than skipping one to try and make it sound like I was making a point that I obviously wasn't- I know, reading comprehension is hard, isn't it?), I meant that they feel that they shouldn't wait forever for the masses to be class conscious to wage their revolution. Any major revolution that has happened under the banner if Marxism that I know of has been led by a group of elites. Now, these elites don't have to believe the popular classes weren't deserving of them, but by the way they put themselves over the "popular class" they sure as shit felt the classes deserved to be ruled by them.




Such as?

All Marxist revolutions that I'm aware of have been elitist.




So you don't feel that your 'rejection of morality' makes you better placed to make judgements than your peers?


I don't. I just feel that my rejection of morality allows me to take a higher level of control over my life without being limited by imaginary rules. I am granted more freedom by rejecting morality. I am in no way more suited to make judgments than people who still retain morality.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you really mean to say the only reason you haven't killed people is fear of being caught?

No, I haven't said that (although people in the trams do push it sometimes). I have no good reason to kill anyone - most people don't, in fact.

[mindsword]

Is Nuclear Holocaustism a legitimate revolutionary view if you honestly think we are so fucked that the only way to save humanity and earth from the suffering that awaits is to bomb it to oblivion....?

Think neo-nazi Joseph Fritzl on a Harley Davidson sipping on a coke times a billion.

[Thirsty Crow]

Because Marx was a liberal for most of his youth, and the influence of liberalism can still be discerned in his later work. Some of them - the infamous "ten planks" - are absolutely embarrassing when read from a modern Marxist perspective. But what is valuable in Marx's approach is his skill in scientific analysis, not his moral vocabulary, which is outdated in any case.

The infamous ten planks have nothing to do with the way Marx consistently describes the effects of capitalism, and this is also implicit in what ComradeOm highlights as the lifelong active participation of Marx's in the struggle against it.

Really if you think that describing the actual state affairs as that of "misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation" is somehow linked to some phantom liberalism, yeah you've got some problems to explain. And especially if the described effects are somehow "outdated" (or is it that a neutral sounding phraseology would suit you better in this ridiculously misguided quest for avoiding "moralism" and "liberalism"?).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The infamous ten planks have nothing to do with the way Marx consistently describes the effects of capitalism, and this is also implicit in what ComradeOm highlights as the lifelong active participation of Marx's in the struggle against it.

Really if you think that describing the actual state affairs as that of "misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation" is somehow linked to some phantom liberalism, yeah you've got some problems to explain. And especially if the described effects are somehow "outdated" (or is it that a neutral sounding phraseology would suit you better in this ridiculously misguided quest for avoiding "moralism" and "liberalism"?).

It's not just the "ten planks", though. Marx made some extremely questionable statements about England, quite late in his life (I'm not trying to argue for some kind of early/late Marx distinction), his letter to Zasulich is just bad, and so on. These mistakes, furthermore, become comprehensible once one takes into account Marx's liberal background.

Keep in mind I am not trying to criticise Marx here - that would be blatantly ahistorical. Marx really was one of the intellectual titans of his era. But because he was, and because he was opening up an entirely new territory to scientific investigation, he was not able to apply the new kind of analysis consistently. That is how it usually is - Darwin is the least consistent of the modern biologists, for example, many of the pioneers of quantum physics spent their years trying to think up ways to fold quantum physics back into the Newtonian model, and so on.

As for outdated moral language, well, consider his reply to people who (incorrectly) thought that communists advocated "the community of women" - that bit about the bourgeois seducing each others' wives. Now, it was a very sarcastic tu quoque, but it loses much of its sting today, or at least I hope it does. And it reveals a very worrying way of thinking about women (I find it interesting that Engels was able to put the bourgeois family under a microscope in "The Origin...", yet he and Engels basically talked about women as belonging to their husbands etc.).

There are other examples of this sort of moral language that doesn't really gel with modern audiences (hopefully) - I could provide the examples if you wish.

Not to mention attitudes that most leftists clearly recognise as bigoted today - e.g. Durruti foaming at the mouth because capitalism leads to "sodomy". Is that moral language? It is. Was it effective at the time? Yes, quite so. Is it reactionary rubbish? Of course.

And really, that is one the major problems with morality - everywhere "moral" ideas have been the enemy of minorities. Do you think this historical process - of minorities being recognised and given some grudging and inconsistent recognition by the moralists is over, so that your own moral ideas are perfectly free from this problem? I don't see how that could be the case.

Furthermore, morality - "one is obliged to do this, one is obliged not to do that" - is necessarily ahistorical. You place such an emphasis on a moral opposition to exploitation - but surely, capitalist exploitation now is the same, as far as the basic characteristics go, as capitalist exploitation as it existed at the birth of capitalism. Yet then this sort of exploitation was progressive - now it is reactionary, dead, rotten, and kept alive only by our weaknesses. But opposing capitalism now, and supporting it in Renaissance Italy, is inconsistent if one opposes capitalism from a moral standpoint.

Finally, moral statements make no sense from a materialist standpoint - what are these statements supposed to refer to? What kind of matter in motion obliges humans to do or not do something? How can one assign truth-values to moral statements? For Marxists, practice is the criterion of truth, yet it is demonstrable that people can act according to whatever morality they please, it's all the same - when one has an incorrect model of the universe, the surrounding material world takes it upon itself to correct them, in one form or another, but people can hold all sorts of contradictory moral ideas without any kind of effect. This might sound like nitpicking, but it has real consequences - the incompatibility with materialism leads otherwise serious people into idealism and spirituality, the lack of any serious criterion for the truth of moral statements means that discussions about morality are dead ends.

Finally, since I have been charged with vulgar Marxism, surely you are aware that "ethical socialism" has been the chief refrain, not just of people like Bernstein, whose ethics led him into the loving embrace of the bourgeoisie (and why not? if ethics is the point of socialism, it seems difficult to oppose the "ethical" bourgeoisie), but also of people like De Man, who found his ethical bourgeoisie first in Brussels, then in Berlin.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have a few thoughts, though, I confess, they're based on a quick skim.

For one, while I think there's something to be said for Marxism being fundamentally amoral, I think it's preposterous to dismiss its ethical dimensions. Within this, I'd say there's also a certain contested character - on one hand, Marx's liberalism, and, on the other, the ways that Marx's thought points to transcending liberalism.

So, on one hand, there is an undeniably liberal concern that expresses itself in the notion of communism as developing the means of production toward a utopian post-scarcity, there is also a contradictory vision of social relations without alienation. I think it should be obvious that these are both fundamentally ethical concerns (though the former is sometimes presented as historical-scientific), and, also, that they're not necessarily reconcilable. One, of course, is very much Hegelian and liberal-progressive, positing an "arc" to history with its grand resolution in communism (which itself emerges out of the contradictions within the liberal capitalist order). The other, of course, doesn't necessarily jive with this metahistorical grand narrative, since its concern is with communism in a much more directly ethical sense.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's not just the "ten planks", though. Marx made some extremely questionable statements about England, quite late in his life (I'm not trying to argue for some kind of early/late Marx distinction), his letter to Zasulich is just bad, and so on. These mistakes, furthermore, become comprehensible once one takes into account Marx's liberal background.

This is all perfectly correct what you state (that's why I don't quote the entire post); but c'mon, you can't really think that such impassioned language which correctly describes the real effects of capital is to be chalked up to remnants of liberal moralism?

I'm strictly referring to the part brought up by ComradeOm. "Misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation".
Yeah that's capital for ya alright, and much more; I don't think there's a shred of moralism here, especially if one doesn't speak from a comfortable position of a well to do ideologue or possibly a bourgeois benefactor of the working class.


You place such an emphasis on a moral opposition to exploitation - but surely, capitalist exploitation now is the same, as far as the basic characteristics go, as capitalist exploitation as it existed at the birth of capitalismYou got me wrong; I'm placing an emphasis on calling spade a spade - which here means that such language is fitting, and moreover that it rests not on abstract and ahistorical moral ideals, but on a clear vision of what capital makes of human beings. For instance, the thing about "misery, agony of toil slavery" is that this is highly impassioned yet descriptive; it's not yet a moral statement, a statement which would necessarily be based on an abstract ethos.