A Communist/Anarchic society and change... [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

17th May 2004, 12:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:00 PM
when a Communist/Anarchic society is set up, how are the big quick changes going to be prevented? How can we ever be certain beforehand that there is not any more steps in the evolution of societies worldwide? What happens if there is an ideology that has not yet come into existence? How can we plan for what we are not aware of at this current time?
The question I think you have to answer is, how do you judge what history is and continues to be? Marx defined the process of history as being something which developed based on economic necessities, which has throughout our time on earth created class distinctions. The oppressed, the not so oppressed and the oppressors.

As techonolgy develops, so do processes of thought, which leads to antagonisms between these classes. The development of one class becomes hindered because of the provailing class above them. Marx believed that history develops because of these class antagonisms which ultimatly leads one class to overthrow another class to assert itself as the ruling class. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy to assert itself as a new ruling class because they're economic development and freedom was being hindered. Thus feudelism was replaced with liberal democracy/capitalism.

There are now only two antagonistic classes which remain. The working class and the new ruling class, the bourgeoisie. As history develops the last oppressed class will move to overthrow the bourgeoisie and assert itself as the new ruling class. Only this time, it will be about bringing economic freedom and development for everyone. Capitalism will be replaced with communism, which seeks to destroy class. Therefore class antagonisms will not exist anymore. There will be no class which is oppressed and therefore there will be no need for the change you are describing. There maybe counter-revolutionaries, who seek to re-establish the old world order, but that has to be stopped.

As for new ideologies. What new ideology could there be? Freedom, equality and sustainability in all areas of existence is desriable for the working class. There could be no ideology which could ask for anything else. History stops at communism. Communism is the final chapter in historical development. When the working class are no longer oppressed, class will not exist, and therefore there will be no antagonisms which can create such change. There is no where else for history to go, only back. And that is why we will have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that dosnt happen.

Trissy

17th May 2004, 13:14

Marx defined the process of history as being something which developed based on economic necessities, which has throughout our time on earth created class distinctions. The oppressed, the not so oppressed and the oppressors
Indeed but part of me wishes to question whether economic determination is the sole factor influencing society. I admit that economic needs have probably the biggest influence over our lives at the moment, and that this is linked to our needs, and our desires, but are there any other things that influence us, and would remain in a classless society?

Therefore class antagonisms will not exist anymore. There will be no class which is oppressed and therefore there will be no need for the change you are describing. There maybe counter-revolutionaries, who seek to re-establish the old world order, but that has to be stopped
Class antagonism will have ceased but what about other influences over man? If there is to be no detrimental change to society (which I believe is your postion), does that mean we must prevent all change? My point is that there will be matters which affect society and force change because our environment (and our place in it) is constantly changing. How are we to prevent these necessary changes spilling over to bigger ones? Words can be very persuasive and if employed perfectly can woo the masses if they lose consciousness of their role in society.

As for new ideologies. What new ideology could there be? Freedom, equality and sustainability in all areas of existence is desriable for the working class
But that appears to assume that the number of ideas there are is fininite. I think people will always come up with new ideas, refreshed old ideas, or a mixture of old ideas, and so why should we doubt that some of these could be linked together to form a coherent ideology? We also have to consider the position of humans in relation to being content. Humans, unlike many of our animal ancestors, are rarely content with what we have and so even if we have freedom, equality and stability we needn't assume that everyone will be happy with this arrangement. In such circumstances it could envision the creation of an ideology that plays on peoples' desires, especially if they can find a division amongt a classless society (see posts above if this seems illogical or vague).

There is no where else for history to go, only back. And that is why we will have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen
Time and tide wait for no man.

The Feral Underclass

17th May 2004, 14:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:14 PM
Indeed but part of me wishes to question whether economic determination is the sole factor influencing society.
Yes of course. Our parents, our teachers, books, films, art etc all influence us. But our influence in changing society is determined by our economic conditions.

I admit that economic needs have probably the biggest influence over our lives at the moment, and that this is linked to our needs, and our desires, but are there any other things that influence us, and would remain in a classless society?

I don't think I understand you. There will be many things that continue to influence us, but not in the sense you imagine them to. Politics, religion, economics will become irrelevant. The only thing we will have left to explore space. Of course there maybe philosophers who continue to talk about their thoughts, but materially, the conditions will be perfect, what influence could there be that would be relevant.

Class antagonism will have ceased but what about other influences over man?

Such as what?

If there is to be no detrimental change to society (which I believe is your postion), does that mean we must prevent all change?

Reactionary change has to be stopped. If the bourgeoisie attempt to subvert society back to capitalism then they have to be fought against.

When you talk about change I find it difficult to visualise what change could possibly happen. What change could there possibly be that would benifit us in anyway?

My point is that there will be matters which affect society and force change because our environment (and our place in it) is constantly changing.

Matters such as what?

How are we to prevent these necessary changes spilling over to bigger ones?

We work together, in a unified, democratic way, using reason and logic to deal with any change. But we must always remember what we fought a revolution to achieve. And that was communism.

Words can be very persuasive and if employed perfectly can woo the masses if they lose consciousness of their role in society.

It would be extremly difficult for a personality to achieve a position where he or she could "woo the masses." Once you have a class consciousness, I find it hard to believe you could loose it again. Without feeling a sense of utter guilt and shame. How could you turn your back on your comrades and community, after having fought so hard to get to where you are, to follow someone who would change that?

The only thing I could imagine happening to change class consciousness and rally people around a person would be for God to burst forth from the skies with a thunderous roar wearing a crown of fire, surrounded by tens of thousands of angels booming "I am your god...worship me." And we all know, or at least reasonable, rational people know, that isn't ever going to happen.

But that appears to assume that the number of ideas there are is fininite.

Of course there will be many ideas, many desires, many influences. We may find that God exists, we may find another race of people in a far away galaxy. Human development may find out how to travel across the stars at the speed of light. New intergalactic treaties between alien races may happen. We might find the meaning of life. None of these things could alter the fact that every single human being within a communist society will be free, equal and able to live their existence free from hunger, cold and persecution. All human beings want, no matter what the idea, is to be happy.

I think people will always come up with new ideas, refreshed old ideas, or a mixture of old ideas, and so why should we doubt that some of these could be linked together to form a coherent ideology?

For what and for who would this ideology serve a purpose? It can not serve the vast majority of humanity because they will not need anything.

We also have to consider the position of humans in relation to being content. Humans, unlike many of our animal ancestors, are rarely content with what we have and so even if we have freedom, equality and stability we needn't assume that everyone will be happy with this arrangement.

You think there are people in the world who would rather be discontent, unhappy and instable? I do not. There maybe people who wish to accumulate more than they need in order to be rich, or more powerful, but those people will be few, if any, and must be fought against.

In such circumstances it could envision the creation of an ideology that plays on peoples' desires, especially if they can find a division amongt a classless society

Desires for what? To expand into space? To build a city under the sea? To have a new car? These things are desires which can be facilitated in a communist society. Space explorasion will be the task which will consume humanity in a communist society I believe. People's desires will be vast and plenty, but the difference is to now, in a communist society, people will be free to meet those desires, become and be whatever it is they want. What ideology could match that?

Time and tide wait for no man.

But where will people go? There is no where else!

Trissy

17th May 2004, 18:09

Our parents, our teachers, books, films, art etc all influence us. But our influence in changing society is determined by our economic conditions
But can't we question what determines us and what influences us? If we're determined by economics then can't we be determined by psychology, sociology, and numerous other things?

There will be many things that continue to influence us, but not in the sense you imagine them to. Politics, religion, economics will become irrelevant. The only thing we will have left to explore space. Of course there maybe philosophers who continue to talk about their thoughts, but materially, the conditions will be perfect, what influence could there be that would be relevant
But why not? Politics I don't think will ever become irrelevant due to the fact that even if the material conditions are perfect, we'll still desire to maintain them that way, plus there will still be some new political issues to address (mainly involving the appropriate application of communist theory). Religion and economics may fall by the wayside but what about love, hate, beauty, power, greatness, history, education? All these and probably many more influence man and so could become his downfall.

Such as what?
love, hate, beauty, power, greatness, history, education...I'm sure I could think of others if need be but these are the ones that spring to mind immediately. I'll also explain them if needs be.

Reactionary change has to be stopped. If the bourgeoisie attempt to subvert society back to capitalism then they have to be fought against.
True, but then how do we distinguish between beneficial change for a communist society, and change that is borderline and could stregthen the counter-revolutionary cause?

When you talk about change I find it difficult to visualise what change could possibly happen. What change could there possibly be that would benifit us in anyway?

Even though the material conditions are perfect, we'll still need to change in order to suit our environment (i.e. migration for certains jobs,and coping with famine, population explosions, natural disasters and the such like). No doubt there will be more then one possible solution to these things and no doubt there will be much debate amongst the respective communities to try and solve these issues. My point is how can you differentiate between these changes and changes which could destabilise communist society?

I find it difficult to imagine a society which doesn't change and becomes completely stable.

We work together, in a unified, democratic way, using reason and logic to deal with any change. But we must always remember what we fought a revolution to achieve. And that was communism
But what if reason fails us? I find it hard to envisage a truly universal and infallible reason which we all can use. Indeed we'll need to remember a revolution but then what do we do with history? History will remind us of what we have gone through but it will also remind others of what they have lost. Do we censor it or burn these books? I think not as that would place us with the likes of the Nazis. Education and history can be abused as well as used.

It would be extremely difficult for a personality to achieve a position where he or she could "woo the masses." Once you have a class consciousness, I find it hard to believe you could loose it again without feeling an utter sense of guilt and shame
I disagree. It could be argued that class consciousness was greater amongst the previous generations (60's, 70's and 80's) then amongst the current generation. Apathy sets in when it looks like little will change and so how do we prevent it from occurring in a communist society that doesn't require change? If a third or fourth generation of a communist society felt apathetic and then certain groups could use this to their advantage. As for guilt and shame, these are more often then not linked with morality and if this is related to social morals then if apathy becomes mainstream then they'll have no reason to feel this way.

The only thing I could imagine happening to change class consciousness and rally people around a person would be for God to burst forth from the skies with a thunderous roar wearing a crown of fire, surrounded by tens of thousands of angels booming "I am your god...worship me."
This needn't be the case. People will follow others if they believe they can keep their promises. All you need is apathy, a dip in class consciousness, belief in a cause and a leader/group to fan the flames.

And we all know, or at least reasonable, rational people know, that isn't ever going to happen
You raised an important point. There is a difference between people and rational people. All but a fraction of the insane consider themselves to be rational.

None of these things could alter the fact that every single human being within a communist society will be free, equal and able to live their existence free from hunger, cold and persecution. All human beings want, no matter what the idea, is to be happy
But what if the race or God we discovered were not it lines with the communist society? What if they favoured certain people over others, or used force to impose their will? I don't mean to take this too far into fantasy but my point remains. If there are new ideologies which we have not come accross yet, how can we be certain that in a clash of these ideologies ours will triumph? Human happiness is also an odd thing because no matter how happy we are it is rarely enough. If we had a fair share of things but we wanted it all then many would still risk it all for absolute power. We seldom appreciate what we have until it is gone...

For what and for who would this ideology serve a purpose? It can not serve the vast majority of humanity because they will not need anything
But some may believe they do need things. For whom and what this ideology will serve I cannot tell because it would never be more then mere speculation. All I can say is that it still remains a possibility, and so a possibility that needs to be considered if it not to be our downfall.

You think there are people in the world who would rather be discontent, unhappy and unstable? I do not. There maybe people who wish to accumulate more than they need in order to be rich, or more powerful, but those people will be few, if any, and must be fought against.
I do believe there will be people who are discontent and unhappy (as for unstable I can but guess this is also a possibility). They may be few per section of the community but as a collective group then can achieve a great deal if they are suitabley educated (as we must admit that knowledge is often linked to wealth and power). I'm not saying that they will be a risk on their own...more that in them you may find the seeds of the next great ideology.

People's desires will be vast and plenty, but the difference is to now, in a communist society, people will be free to meet those desires, become and be whatever it is they wantBut only if there desires are a) in line with the communist society and b) they are easily achievable. I may have to work as a chemist because it is what I am good at...but I may desire to be an actor or a musician or a space man (to use your example) but it may be beyond my capability both intellectually and physically. Likewise I may desire to own land and houses and other things beyond my grasp in the communist society. Herein lies the potential for evolution of society...after all we can always add to our visions of a perfect society.

But where will people go? There is no where else! In terms of history I see no reason why our future cannot be as colourful (and bloody) as our past...

The Feral Underclass

17th May 2004, 19:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:09 PM
But can't we question what determines us and what influences us? If we're determined by economics then can't we be determined by psychology, sociology, and numerous other things?
Yes.

But why not? Politics I don't think will ever become irrelevant due to the fact that even if the material conditions are perfect, we'll still desire to maintain them that way, plus there will still be some new political issues to address (mainly involving the appropriate application of communist theory).

Indeed. But I do not see these tasks as political, but as administrative.

Religion and economics may fall by the wayside but what about love, hate, beauty, power, greatness, history, education? All these and probably many more influence man and so could become his downfall.

But what have these things got to do with a desire to change a communist society?

love, hate, beauty, power, greatness, history, education...I'm sure I could think of others if need be but these are the ones that spring to mind immediately. I'll also explain them if needs be.

Communism does not exclude these things. This just seems like a lot of neurosis! Please explain why these things would effect such a fundemantel change of societal structure.

True, but then how do we distinguish between beneficial change for a communist society, and change that is borderline and could stregthen the counter-revolutionary cause?

Communists on one side and capitalists on the other!

Even though the material conditions are perfect, we'll still need to change in order to suit our environment (i.e. migration for certains jobs,and coping with famine, population explosions, natural disasters and the such like).

Agreed.

No doubt there will be more then one possible solution to these things and no doubt there will be much debate amongst the respective communities to try and solve these issues.

Agreed.

My point is how can you differentiate between these changes and changes which could destabilise communist society?

Nothing could destablise a communist society, except for counter-revolution, which is defined by anyone attempting to reinstate capitalism or bourgeois politics.

I find it difficult to imagine a society which doesn't change and becomes completely stable.

You're not the only one.

But what if reason fails us?

What if the moon falls out of the sky?

I find it hard to envisage a truly universal and infallible reason which we all can use.

It's called logic.

Indeed we'll need to remember a revolution but then what do we do with history? History will remind us of what we have gone through but it will also remind others of what they have lost.

Oppression, presecution, exploitation, war, starvation, tyranny and superstition.

Do we censor it or burn these books?

No! We keep them as a monument of absurdity. We keep them as a reminder of how blind and stupid we were for so long.

I disagree. It could be argued that class consciousness was greater amongst the previous generations (60's, 70's and 80's) then amongst the current generation.

I agree. But we are not talking about a few decades of sporadic upheavel. We are talking about a fundemantel shift of sizmic proportion in human understanding.

Apathy sets in when it looks like little will change and so how do we prevent it from occurring in a communist society that doesn't require change?

Can you become apthatic to a life of fulfilment?

If a third or fourth generation of a communist society felt apathetic and then certain groups could use this to their advantage.

What groups?

As for guilt and shame, these are more often then not linked with morality and if this is related to social morals then if apathy becomes mainstream then they'll have no reason to feel this way.

Apathy to a society which provides you with everything in order for you to exist? Existence being your individual ability to achieve anything you desire? No!

This needn't be the case. People will follow others if they believe they can keep their promises.

Promises of what? Capitalism? God? These things will disgust people so intensly that anyone attempting to use these things to achieve some power over people will certainly not be welcome.

You raised an important point. There is a difference between people and rational people. All but a fraction of the insane consider themselves to be rational.

Until they are proven to be irrational by the use of objective logic.

But what if the race or God we discovered were not it lines with the communist society. What if they favoured certain people over others, or used force to impose their will?

Is that a moon falling from the sky?

If there are new ideologies which we have not come accross yet, how can we be certain that in a clash of these ideologies ours will triumph?

I can not answer that question. It is so abstract that only someone who understood what these new ideologies were and could see into the future as far as time lasted could answer it.

Human happiness is also an odd thing because no matter how happy we are it is rarely enough.

I take it this is a personal view. I do not think you can judge human happiness based on your own personal experiences.

If we had a fair share of things but we wanted it all then many would still risk it all for absolute power.

This comes down to a human nature argument. Why would people desire everything? And if they did, how would they succeed in a world where this kind of thought was contemptable, reviled and hated.

We seldom appreciate what we have until it is gone...

The working class and the oppressed have nothing!

All I can say is that it still remains a possibility, and so a possibility that needs to be considered if it not to be our downfall.

But what relevance does it have to working class struggle.

I do believe there will be people who are discontent and unhappy (as for unstable I can but guess this is also a possibility).

Then let them be.

They may be few per section of the community but as a collective group then can achieve a great deal if they are suitabley educated (as we must admit that knowledge is often linked to wealth and power).

In a revolutionary situation we must be on guard for it.

I'm not saying that they will be a risk on their own...more that in them you may find the seeds of the next great ideology.

There can be no ideology "greater" than communism.

But only if there desires are a) in line with the communist society and b) they are easily achievable. I may have to work as a chemist because it is what I am good at...

Anything is easily achievable if there is a will and a passion to achieving it.

but I may desire to be an actor or a musician or a space man (to use your example) but it may be beyond my capability both intellectually and physically.

What is human existence if it is not to try. Human solidarity, unity and assistence. Mutual co-operation and passion are things which can drive human beings. With that, anything is possible.

Likewise I may desire to own land and houses and other things beyond my grasp in the communist society.

May capitalists use this argument, and it comes down to human nature. Human beings desire objects because that is how cpaitalist society has programmed people to be. Remove capitalist society and you remove those desires. All people really want is to live a good, comfortable life, doing what they love to do.

Herein lies the potential for evolution of society...after all we can always add to our visions of a perfect society.

Then let's do it.

In terms of history I see no reason why our future cannot be as colourful (and bloody) as our past...

I do see a reason. That reason is communism.

Trissy

17th May 2004, 21:55

But I do not see these tasks as political, but as administrative
Fine. The issue of change still remains valid none the less as this adminstration must involve discussion amongt the members of society, and so change is still relevant.

Communism does not exclude these things. This just seems like a lot of neurosis! Please explain why these things would effect such a fundemantel change of societal structure.I never said that communism excluded these things, nor did I ever try to imply it. Love of myth, power, beauty, historical groups...hatred of formerly demarcated groups along the lines of sexuality, race, or ability (maybe even religion if it somehow lasts that long)...hatred of things we find repulsive and ugly...a desire for greatness beyond that of a mere member of society...fascination with historical events and interpretations of them...and a failure in the educational process. All of these can have the potential to bring about fundamental change. If you accept my neurosis then I'll accept yous :ph34r: There's always some method to my madness...

Communists on one side and capitalists on the other!
I find divisions are rarely deducible to mere black and white. What about when two groups of equally dedicated communists disagree? Do we dismiss one group as not being communist enough...?

Nothing could destablise a communist society, except for counter-revolution, which is defined by anyone attempting to reinstate capitalism or bourgeois politics.
But how can we make such a bold statement? We're dealing with the human race here (and perhaps Sod's law) which means communism could potentially be destablised by many wierd and wonderful things

What if the moon falls out of the sky?
Hardly a fair dismissal is it? If we counted the number of times 'reason' has failed us throughout history compared to the number of times the moon has fallen from the sky then one greatly outnumbers the other. Care to guess which way round it is? Humans are fallible...hence reason is also fallible...we must never forget that.

It's called logic.
What do you mean by logic? If you mean general reason then see above. If you mean Logic in the philosophical sense then I fail to see how this helps us. All that type of logic manages to do is reduce complicated squiggles in the form of words, to smaller squiggles in the form of symbols...until what? we end up with a blank page? Language is mysterious so to analyse it seems like a slight waste of time...

Oppression, persecution, exploitation, war, starvation, tyranny and superstition
But what have the oppressor lost? There will be some odd people who side with them even in the future. What are we to do with them and how are we to spot them? Some would argue that we need to address the cause and not the effect.

No! We keep them as a monument of absurdity. We keep them as a reminder of how blind and stupid we were for so longYou credit the human race with being able to look at them and make that distinction. I don't. The ability for humans to do foolish things never surprises me (including my own).

I agree. But we are not talking about a few decades of sporadic upheaval. We are talking about a fundemantel shift of seismic proportion in human understanding
The Earth was created from sporadic upheaval and shifts of seismic proportions. My point is that this doesn't stop it undergoing creation, erosion and destruction.

Can you become apthatic to a life of fulfilment?
People become bored easily. From boredom comes apathy. If monks weren't brainwashed then I'm sure they'd feel their life of fulfilment gradually get duller.

What groups?
Any groups! Fascists, capitalists, homophobes, Utilitarians, The Salvation army...namely anyone who has been a group throughout history and could be brought back. Groups unlike humans can come back from the dead. Hence we need the prefix 'Neo'...

Apathy to a society which provides you with everything in order for you to exist? Existence being your individual ability to achieve anything you desire? No!
Wrong. Apathy to a sosciety which provides you with everything in order for you to LIVE. Existing and living are different things. I also still doubt whether we can achieve everything we desire (see later for a further explanation).

Promises of what? Capitalism? God? These things will disgust people so intensly that anyone attempting to use these things to achieve some power over people will certainly not be welcome
But what about times gone past? If you told someone from Tudor times about a television and then about sex on TV, or someone from ancient Japan about the Second World War and then that they would lose...how do you think they'd react? My point is that things changed for them...why can't we envisage a loss of disgust in a communist society? Say in the event of a huge earthquake which killed thousands...wouldn't some people desire to know a reason...or that their deceased were somewhere nice?

Until they are proven to be irrational by the use of objective logic
What objective logic? How can objective logic be applied in situations where all we have are opinions (like politics for example)? You cannot produce universal, absolute logic from personal, finite experiences.

I can not answer that question. It is so abstract that only someone who understood what these new ideologies were and could see into the future as far as time lasted could answer it
Then how can we say that Communism is the end to societal development?

I take it this is a personal view. I do not think you can judge human happiness based on your own personal experiences
Then you take it wrongly. I am not the only one who dreams. We all dream...and when we reach our goals do we roll over and die? I don't think so. We dream some more...extend our goals until old age finally slows us down. Why would we cease to dream...and so why would we cease to be unhappy even if we had everything we need to live infront of us?

This comes down to a human nature argument. Why would people desire everything? And if they did, how would they succeed in a world where this kind of thought was contemptable, reviled and hated
But I don't believe in human nature and so this doesn't come down to the human nature argument for me. This comes down to the Sartrean notion of the human consciousness being totally free to chose, and so free to chose to try and claim everything if they so wished. It would only be contemptable, reviled and hated if societies view had become static and stable...if things continued to change even on a level of which we were unaware then it could also not be seen this way.

The working class and the oppressed have nothing!

It was a remark aimed at the Western world more then anything else. You also can't appreciate nothing and so you desire more...which was my line of reasoning.

But what relevance does it have to working class struggle
The relevance lies in that after the revolution, the working class cannot sit back on their laurels safe in the knowledge that society will never change. If they do then they risk losing all they have fought for. But then they must allow some changes so how do we demarcate between good and bad changes and decisions without becoming divided.

Then let them be
I'm sure many people said that about Germany after WWI. The fact remains that their are unhappy people...some will do nothing about it....others won't let us off so lightly.

In a revolutionary situation we must be on guard for it
But can we be on guard for something 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Sooner or later we may let our guard slip.

There can be no ideology "greater" than communism
Is this through use of logic or is this a personal view? I agree that it is the greatest so far but I won't be so bold as to say it will not be surpassed ever.

Anything is easily achievable if there is a will and a passion to achieving it
But what about the determinism we were talking about earlier? If I'm bilogically determined to be highly unlikely to be able to do a certain task then all the will and the passion in the world will still do me no good.

May capitalists use this argument, and it comes down to human nature. Human beings desire objects because that is how cpaitalist society has programmed people to be. Remove capitalist society and you remove those desires. All people really want is to live a good, comfortable life, doing what they love to do
I don't argue from human nature, and nor do I argue from a capitalist standpoint. See my earlier answer.

Then let's do it
But who's perfect society? Utopias are always personal and so they will never be. If we tried to make a Communist society more perfect we'd find it being torn in every directions unless a distinction can be made between good and bad change (and one that doesn't use Capitalism Vs Communsim as a yard stick).

I do see a reason. That reason is communism
But how can it utilise change and yet deny change? That remains my question.

redstar2000

18th May 2004, 01:21

My question is, when a Communist/Anarchic society is set up, how are the big quick changes going to be prevented? How can we ever be certain beforehand that there is not any more steps in the evolution of societies worldwide? What happens if there is an ideology that has not yet come into existence? How can we plan for what we are not aware of at this current time?

"Big, quick changes" in the Marxist paradigm have material causes...ultimately resulting from "big changes" in the means of production (technological innovation).

Consequently, the only way to "prevent" such "big changes" would be to stop people from innovating new technology.

Since that's most unlikely to happen, the answer to your question is that "big, quick changes" cannot be prevented.

The Marxist paradigm "ends" with communist society...beyond this, the waters are "uncharted". Marx in one of his famous quips said that communism would mark "the end of pre-history and the beginning of truly human history"...but that's not very helpful.

A "new ideology" would have to have some kind of material basis in order to be of interest to more than a handful of people.

I have no idea what that material basis might be (presumably a new and unanticipated technology).

You are quite right in expressing the difficulty in planning for the entirely unknown. The only thing I can suggest is to attempt to develop plausible future scenarios and plan for them.

There's really nothing we can do about historical "wild cards" (a charismatic new religion, for example) until someone actually throws one down on the table.

But as far as "returning" to some form of class society...well, consider our own times. People who would advocate the re-establishment of feudalism or slavery would find few listeners. Most people would find such ideas too absurd for words. Once in a while someone actually tries to do it (in a commercial setting)...and they go to prison for it.

I think there are really two "versions" of communism that have a different appeal to different people.

One is that communism will be a "stable" and "happy" society where people will, at last, find "peace" and "contentment".

The other, and I think more realistic, is that communism will be even more "restless" and "full of strife" than capitalism...but over matters that will be different than those that presently exist.

There may no longer be wage-labor, nation-states, racism, sexism, etc. People won't fight one another about those things any more than people today would fight over the "rightful king" or who should be the next Duke of Cesspoole.

What would they fight over? Perhaps it will be like the account I read of one of Igor Stravinsky's works performed in Paris...his "new music" provoked fist-fights in the audience between avant-gardists and traditionalists.

In terms of history I see no reason why our future cannot be as colourful (and bloody) as our past...

I don't know about the "bloody" part but you are almost certainly right about the "colorful" part.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

The Feral Underclass

18th May 2004, 08:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:55 PM
Fine. The issue of change still remains valid none the less as this adminstration must involve discussion amongt the members of society, and so change is still relevant.
But change of the magnitude you describe?

I never said that communism excluded these things, nor did I ever try to imply it. Love of myth, power, beauty, historical groups...hatred of formerly demarcated groups along the lines of sexuality, race, or ability (maybe even religion if it somehow lasts that long)...hatred of things we find repulsive and ugly...a desire for greatness beyond that of a mere member of society...fascination with historical events and interpretations of them...and a failure in the educational process. All of these can have the potential to bring about fundamental change.

I do not believe that sexism or racism will exist in a communist society. Love of myth if it so desired, power, beauty are things which should be embraced, but embraced for the collective good. That is the point of communism.

All of these can have the potential to bring about fundamental change.

Possibly. But I do not see how, or at least I do not see how they could for the worse. But maybe that isn't what you are implying?

I find divisions are rarely deducible to mere black and white.

I think it is easy to define who is who in a revolutionary situation.

What about when two groups of equally dedicated communists disagree?

This has happened before, there is no reason to assume it won't happen again. The left is so fractured at the moment that if a revoultion did suddenly happen tomorrow, there would be a hell of lot of "infighting."

A revolution is not going to have tomorrow, and I don't believe in the next 50 years, and I believe that when it does, these fractured groups will have to have found some common platform. The reovlutionary left needs to learn from our mistakes and I think each has to be willing at some point to compromise? Is this going to happen? We will have to wait and see.

Do we dismiss one group as not being communist enough...?

I would like to say that we would work it out. Spain, Ukraine, Kronstadt makes me think differently.

But how can we make such a bold statement? We're dealing with the human race here (and perhaps Sod's law) which means communism could potentially be destablised by many wierd and wonderful things

I believe the human race have the potential to create a system of "peace" and "contentment" and teach the virtues of it, and defend it with their last dying breath. That is the nature of class consciousness, and I do not believe it can be destablilised. I think it can be improved and developed, if by change that is what you mean.

Hardly a fair dismissal is it? If we counted the number of times 'reason' has failed us throughout history compared to the number of times the moon has fallen from the sky then one greatly outnumbers the other.

Indeed. But one must have reason to loose it. Human society has thus far not been reasonable, rational or logical. When the working class embrace communism, they will do so because they are reasonable, rational and logical. You can not loose it once you have it, except if the entire of society goes clinically insane. Which I suppose is posisble, much like the moon falling from the sky.

Care to guess which way round it is? Humans are fallible...hence reason is also fallible...we must never forget that.

Give me one example of human history where humans have acted in a reasonable way.

What do you mean by logic?

I mean to take a situation and analyze it in a critical, calm, rational, objective way, working together with your community to come to a decision. Being respectful, civil, democratic.

But what have the oppressor lost? There will be some odd people who side with them even in the future.

Redstar gave his opinion on this and I agree with him. If you imagine someone attempting to convert society back to feudel times, how would we react now? I think it would be much the same.

You credit the human race with being able to look at them and make that distinction. I don't. The ability for humans to do foolish things never surprises me (including my own).

Why do you think human beings do foolish things?

People become bored easily. From boredom comes apathy. If monks weren't brainwashed then I'm sure they'd feel their life of fulfilment gradually get duller.

I don't see how people could get bored of doing what they wanted. If they were doing something that bored them, they would just do something else.

Any groups! Fascists, capitalists, homophobes, Utilitarians, The Salvation army...namely anyone who has been a group throughout history and could be brought back. Groups unlike humans can come back from the dead. Hence we need the prefix 'Neo'...

Let them try.

Say in the event of a huge earthquake which killed thousands...wouldn't some people desire to know a reason...or that their deceased were somewhere nice?

Earthquakes happen because of plates under the earth that shift, that is the reason it happens, and there is nowhere nice for people to go when they die. No matter how much it is preferable to you.

What objective logic? How can objective logic be applied in situations where all we have are opinions (like politics for example)?

In any administrative task, or debate within a community, region, nation or internationally, you look at the facts, then you make a decision democratically. This is the point.

In reference to insane people. If someone believes they are a donut, you can easily deduce, using objective logic that they are not:

Donuts are pastry deserts
Humans are not pastry deserts
Patient X is a human
Patient X is not a pastry desert.

I think it is easy to apply this rule to the governing of peoples lives.

Then how can we say that Communism is the end to societal development?

Development fine, but a new revolution of fundamental proportion? To overthrow what? Happiness, equality? The traditionalists overthrowing the avant-gardists? It dosnt make any sense?

Why would we cease to dream...and so why would we cease to be unhappy even if we had everything we need to live infront of us?

Unhappiness is a feeling brought about by external realities. The things you imagine we are unhappy will not exist. But be unhappy, if that is what you desire. Society will not make it so.

This comes down to the Sartrean notion of the human consciousness being totally free to chose, and so free to chose to try and claim everything if they so wished.

But these actions will have consequences. Of course someone is "free" to accumulate mass wealth, but would they want too? Would their community let them? No, No!

I'm sure many people said that about Germany after WWI. The fact remains that their are unhappy people...some will do nothing about it....others won't let us off so lightly.

Fine.

But can we be on guard for something 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Sooner or later we may let our guard slip.

I think we can get close.

But what about the determinism we were talking about earlier? If I'm bilogically determined to be highly unlikely to be able to do a certain task then all the will and the passion in the world will still do me no good.

Will that lead people to want to overthrow a communist society?

If we tried to make a Communist society more perfect we'd find it being torn in every directions unless a distinction can be made between good and bad change (and one that doesn't use Capitalism Vs Communsim as a yard stick).

I put my faith in humanities ability to be rational, logical, fair, kind and democratic.

But how can it utilise change and yet deny change? That remains my question.

Change as you desribe it, yes.

The Feral Underclass

18th May 2004, 08:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 03:21 AM
One is that communism will be a "stable" and "happy" society where people will, at last, find "peace" and "contentment".

The other, and I think more realistic, is that communism will be even more "restless" and "full of strife" than capitalism...but over matters that will be different than those that presently exist.
I couldn't help but feel this was directed towards me in some way.

Indeed, I do think it is possible for people to be happy and contented. Maybe there will be arguments about books, groups advocating different artistic methods. Groups which may dislike each other. But does that exclude happiness and contentedness?

Trissy

18th May 2004, 12:57

But change of the magnitude you describe?

Perhaps. I think my initial use of the word politics was a poor use of words on my part more then anything. Debate and communication...democracy...that was what I should have put.

I do not believe that sexism or racism will exist in a communist society.
But wouldn't that have to involve some bad faith somewhere along the line? For racism and sexism to not exist then we must all freely reject it and I can't see that happening unless some of us employ bad faith in order to feel Universal love. Universal love for universal love's sake? I don't believe in that anymore then I believe in a scientist's claim that he searches for truth for truth's sake. As a human being I am free to love and hate things at will and completely irrationally. Love is at times the most irrational of all things...

Love of myth if it so desired, power, beauty are things which should be embraced, but embraced for the collective good. That is the point of communism
But what if it is not desired for the collective good? I don't think we can hope that social disapproval or an appeal to rationality will save us here. Society has disapproved of many things on that basis (children outside of marriage, single parents, divorce, etc) but it hasn't stopped people going against it namely because we disagree over what is rational.

Possibly. But I do not see how, or at least I do not see how they could for the worse
If an object or idea can be used for something that implies it had a purpose. It can then in theory be misused or abused by using it for things which are not in line with this purpose or by doing the exact opposite of this purpose. If there can be change (which is a means to an end) then that implies it has a purpose...and so if things can be done for a good reason then they can just as easily be done for a bad reason (which we happen to mistake for a good reason some would say).

I think it is easy to define who is who in a revolutionary situation
But how? Don't we fall into George Bush logic of saying that you're either for us or against us? Wouldn't that cause people who were borderline be grouped in with the other side through slight disagreement?

A revolution is not going to happen tomorrow, and I don't believe in the next 50 years, and I believe that when it does, these fractured groups will have to have found some common platform
I agree partly. I do see Capitalism as being in its youth and that revolution isn't likely within the next century but I think there will still be disagreement. After all many people disagree about the mere use of words and names, so when it comes to more complicated aspects of ideology what leads us to think any differently?

That is the nature of class consciousness, and I do not believe it can be destabilised
But when class is removed then all we'll be left with is consciousness. Consciousness is a peculiar thing especially considering we're often unconscious of a lot of things. I'm unconscious of what is going on immediately behind my head, I'm almost totally unconscious when I'm asleep or sedated in some way, and my consciousness is distorted by various drugs or through certain influences. If this applies to my consciousness as a person, why can't we apply this to mass consciousness?

Indeed. But one must have reason to lose it
But that's my point...can we call reason an 'it'? Can we say that there is one abstract thing called reason which people use or they don't use? I don't think we can. Sure there are different types of reasoning which we see are either more or less rational based on our past experiences but I don't believe there is one pure process that we can call 'reason'.

You cannot lose it once you have it, except if the entire of society goes clinically insane. Which I suppose is possible
But what about if we all become complacent with it? Complacency is the bane of many things.

Give me one example of human history where humans have acted in a reasonable way
I'm aware that I'll probably spark a heated debate but I'd be tempted to say the setting up of the welfare system and the NHS were steps in the right direction (and hence quite reasonable considering the times).

I mean to take a situation and analyze it in a critical, calm, rational, objective way, working together with your community to come to a decision. Being respectful, civil, democratic
But what is objectivity? I don't think we can ever be truly objective and I've stated my problems with the idea of rationality. Critical, calm, respectful, civl and democratic I have little problem with but then again I don't think they apply to logic in a strict sense. Logic in my mind is the use of objective reasoning when applied to a situation (especially relating to language) and as such is a cold and uncaring thing that leaves us with nothing but hollow words. Any appeal to reason or logic conjures up pictures of Kant in my mind.

If you imagine someone attempting to convert society back to feudal times, how would we react now? I think it would be much the same
Maybe this is true for feudalism but we needn't go back so far. In England we're forever having 'good, old Victorian family values' rammed down our throats and this has entrapped many a person in the nostalgic conservative trap. Many people envoke great historical figures or times in order to influence the masses...they're just giving them the side of the story they wish to hear.

Why do you think human beings do foolish things?
I think we do foolish things because we are free to do foolish things. We are condemned to be free and this comes with its prices...

I don't see how people could get bored of doing what they wanted. If they were doing something that bored them, they would just do something else.
But people wouldn't be doing what they wanted, they'd be doing what they had the 'ability' to do (to quote Marx). There is a difference between what I want to do and what I can do, just like there is a difference between theory and practicality. Just because I want to change job, it doesn't follow that society can support me for all the time I need training (especially if I am biologically determined to be inferior in certain tasks...it could take me decades instead of a few years to overcome this).

Let them try
Letting them try is just a short step from letting them win. Letting them try assumes the arrogant or presumptuous position that they can't win and we can't lose. It's dangerous

Earthquakes happen because of plates under the earth that shift, that is the reason it happens, and there is nowhere nice for people to go when they die. No matter how much it is preferable to you
I know that but I also recognise that a human being, when faced with the glaring and obvious truth, will often want to turn and flee. There is a difference between seeing the truth, knowing the truth, accepting the truth and denying the truth...all of which occur on a daily basis.

In reference to insane people. If someone believes they are a donut, you can easily deduce, using objective logic that they are not
Life isn't as easy as this though. The example used dealt only with definitions and so it was easy to deduce the answer. But when faced with the world and all its complexities...how are we to use such logic? If we employ it we must be entirely dispassionate...if reason told us that due to a worrying population explosion threatening our ability to live off our resources it was necessary for no more then 5% of us had children for a few decades...how would you decide who could and could not?

Development fine, but a new revolution of fundamental proportion? To overthrow what?
To overthrow any old and outdated parts of a system that still allow (or are percieved to allow) unhappiness amongst the masses...

Unhappiness is a feeling brought about by external realities. The things you imagine we are unhappy will not exist. But be unhappy, if that is what you desire. Society will not make it so
I don't quite agree. Unhappiness is a feeling brought about by external realities in relation to our ideal vision for the world. If I am an awful musician who has very little skill then I can be happy....but if I desire to play at the Royal Albert Hall then I may be unhappy. Society may not be able to make it so, but I think I could still hold the desire to try and make society make it so...or to try and punish people I believe are preventing it from being so.

But these actions will have consequences. Of course someone is "free" to accumulate mass wealth, but would they want too? Would their community let them? No, No!
Whether or not the community lets them is up to the community. Their consciousness is as free as the person who desires to accumulate wealth. No more, no less...

I think we can get close
But how? We'd have to either be on our guard constantly and so become paranoid, or we'd have to allow certain people to constantly monitor such actions in which case we run the risk of spiralling towards becoming a police state.

Will that lead people to want to overthrow a communist society?
Perhaps. If I am bioogically determined to be inferior at a certain task then I may desire to remove that characteristic from the gene pool. If I persuaded enough people to support my idea no matter how rational or irrational it is, then we have the potential to destabilise a communist society.

I put my faith in humanities ability to be rational, logical, fair, kind and democratic
Democratic? Yes. Kind and fair? Perhaps. Rational and logical? That is where I run into trouble...

As regards for faith, then my signature should be sufficient for people to guess my stance.

redstar2000

18th May 2004, 14:32

I couldn't help but feel this was directed towards me in some way.

No...more towards the generalized feeling among many that communism is a "warm & fuzzy", almost womb-like, environment.

Possibly this may turn out to be the case, but I would be greatly surprised if it did.

Humans are a cantankerous and contentious species, as far as I've seen, and it's difficult to believe that they will just "settle down and be nice"...ever.

For racism and sexism to not exist then we must all freely reject it and I can't see that happening unless some of us employ bad faith in order to feel Universal love.

Universal love, whatever that might be, is not required. Universal respect -- or the public appearance of that -- will do the job nicely.

One need only compare Yugoslavia under Tito and the same place under his successors to see what can be achieved with a little effort...and what happens when that effort ceases.

People may have as many "bad thoughts" as they wish -- or act in "bad faith" as you put it -- but any "bad deeds" or advocacy thereof will run into some intolerance with teeth.

In England we're forever having 'good, old Victorian family values' rammed down our throats and this has entrapped many a person in the nostalgic conservative trap. Many people evoke great historical figures or times in order to influence the masses...they're just giving them the side of the story they wish to hear.

Well, you are speaking of a particular ruling class tactic in a specific historical situation (the present).

It may evoke nostalgia, but I doubt very much if the average person in your country takes it very seriously.

In communist society, there may be passing nostalgic fads for this or that earlier era...people may play at being businessmen and workers, the way some people now play at being lords and ladies (what is a "renaissance faire" but an exercise in nostalgia?).

But the actual historical record of the last pre-communist societies will be rich and easily accessable...a suitable selection of 20th century movies would give a vivid picture of "what it was really like" -- a devastating blow to anyone who actually took nostalgia seriously.

Indeed, virtual reality might well be advanced to the point where you could directly experience, for example, the less savory aspects of class society...a few hours in a trench during one of the mutual slaughters (called, for some reason, "battles") of World War I would be a pretty good antidote to "war nostalgia". Feel the cold, the hunger, the weariness, the fear; hear the artillery fire, the clatter of machine-guns, the screams of the dying; smell the piss and the shit and the blood; etc., etc.

A "renaissance faire" wouldn't be much fun if people suddenly started dying of the plague right in the middle of the festivities. (It was a rather ugly and quite spectacular death according to contemporary accounts.)

Usually, nostalgia is a harmless diversion...but should it become a problem, there will be people quite skilled in presenting a more realistic account of things.

I think they will be heard...and will prevail.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Saint-Just

18th May 2004, 16:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 12:57 PM
Maybe this is true for feudalism but we needn't go back so far. In England we're forever having 'good, old Victorian family values' rammed down our throats and this has entrapped many a person in the nostalgic conservative trap. Many people envoke great historical figures or times in order to influence the masses...they're just giving them the side of the story they wish to hear.
What values precisely?

I live in England and have not noticed it at all. I don't find many people in any kind of nostalgic conservative trap either. I think our greatest problem is having an American lack of values and the American sex culture 'rammed down our throats'.

The Feral Underclass

18th May 2004, 16:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:57 PM
Perhaps. I think my initial use of the word politics was a poor use of words on my part more then anything. Debate and communication...democracy...that was what I should have put.
Perhaps. I think my initial use of the word politics was a poor use of words on my part more then anything. Debate and communication...democracy...that was what I should have put.

I don't understand why these things will create such social upheaval as to remove an entire societal structure?

But what if it is not desired for the collective good?

Then we do not live in a communist society.

If there can be change (which is a means to an end) then that implies it has a purpose...and so if things can be done for a good reason then they can just as easily be done for a bad reason (which we happen to mistake for a good reason some would say).

We will have to wait and see then.

But how? Don't we fall into George Bush logic of saying that you're either for us or against us? Wouldn't that cause people who were borderline be grouped in with the other side through slight disagreement?

Communist class struggle is about the working class removing the ruling class and creating a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical and thus classless society. You either want that, or you don't want that. You either want communism, or you don't want communism. It is as simple as that.

Can we say that there is one abstract thing called reason which people use or they don't use?

Yes

Sure there are different types of reasoning which we see are either more or less rational based on our past experiences but I don't believe there is one pure process that we can call 'reason'.

That is why we have philosophers. One day, maybe they will work it out. Until then, the revolutionary communists of the world will be trying to achieve a communist society.

I think we can judge reason based on what we as human beings, when reduced right back to our individual state desire for ourselves. Do we desire to be hungry? no! do we desire to be cold? No! do we desire to be unhappy? No! Whether or not these things are truths in the universal abyss of human thought, is quite frankly irrelevant. We as humans desire to be fed, warm and happy. They are universal desires, with which we can base reason on. If that is what we all desire, then it is unreasonable and illogical to accept anything less.

But what about if we all become complacent with it? Complacency is the bane of many things.

Then we will sit down, discuss it and find out what the next human project will be.

I'm aware that I'll probably spark a heated debate but I'd be tempted to say the setting up of the welfare system and the NHS were steps in the right direction (and hence quite reasonable considering the times).

They were certainly a step in the right direction. They were not being objective in my opinion. The fact is that capitalism created the problems the labour government attempted to solve with the NHS. They simply built a new problem on top of an existing problem. They did not remove the actual problem. The NHS now does not work, and it continues to fail because of class interests within society. The only way, we will ever have a functioning health service which is free and easily accessible for all, at all times, is when we have re-organised society, removing the ruling class and the state which protects them.

The same for the welfare system. The reasonable solution to solving people who have no money is not by giving them shit benefit payments. It's by giving them control of society.

But what is objectivity?

Drawing conclusions from facts.

I don't think we can ever be truly objective and I've stated my problems with the idea of rationality.

Then continue to think about it.

Critical, calm, respectful, civil and democratic I have little problem with but then again I don't think they apply to logic in a strict sense.

No, I agree, but combined and you have a perfect society.

I think we do foolish things because we are free to do foolish things. We are condemned to be free and this comes with its prices.

Sartre was a Marxist.

Human development has created consciousness which makes us foolish. We are condemned to be free, to exist freely. But many people are not aware that they exist. They simply survive, daily, believing what they are told. believing the reality around them. Reality as it is now is ridiculous, absurd and cruel. Ridiculous, absurd and cruel things are bound to make humans foolish.

Just because I want to change job, it doesn't follow that society can support me for all the time I need training (especially if I am biologically determined to be inferior in certain tasks...it could take me decades instead of a few years to overcome this).

Why can you not assume that a human being will be able to admit this as fact and move on with their life?

Letting them try is just a short step from letting them win. Letting them try assumes the arrogant or presumptuous position that they can't win and we can't lose. It's dangerous

Then what do you want me to say? They will try, and they may win, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't attempt to make them loose.

To overthrow any old and outdated parts of a system that still allow (or are perceived to allow) unhappiness amongst the masses...

Fine.

I don't quite agree. Unhappiness is a feeling brought about by external realities in relation to our ideal vision for the world. If I am an awful musician who has very little skill then I can be happy....but if I desire to play at the Royal Albert Hall then I may be unhappy.

Then either get better or accept that you are a useless musician and move on with your life.

Society may not be able to make it so, but I think I could still hold the desire to try and make society make it so...or to try and punish people I believe are preventing it from being so.

But then you are being ridiculous and must be told that that is the case.

But how? We'd have to either be on our guard constantly and so become paranoid, or we'd have to allow certain people to constantly monitor such actions in which case we run the risk of spiralling towards becoming a police state.

You live in Sheffield, the same town as me. You live in Broomhill, a community of a few thousand. A community which is collectivised, a community that is united in a common interest, working to make society function and work for all. That was the purpose of the revolution. Imagine being an individual within that community who wakes up one day and attempts to go out into that community and break the equilibrium. I do not think you would get very far. Someone will notice you, and they will inform the rest of the community. There is no need to have a police state, there is no need to be paranoid, you only need to be aware of the dangers. And we will be.

Democratic? Yes. Kind and fair? Perhaps. Rational and logical? That is where I run into trouble...

Said the philosophy student to the revolutionary :P

Trissy

18th May 2004, 20:19

I don't understand why these things will create such social upheaval as to remove an entire societal structure?
Okay, what does debate and discussion boil down to? Reason and choice. If we have different views and different reasons then we are faced with choices...and these opposing views aren't necessarily reconcilable. If they are not reconcilable then this could lead to a destabilisation of society which could ultimately end in the changing of the structure of the society.

Then we do not live in a communist society.

But that is not what my initial question was about. It was about how a communist society deals with change once it has been established. Humans have disagreed for thousands of years all because of differences in reason...I just fail to see why this would change. If there is a slight majority view and slight minority view that cannot be reconciled then we are faced with a big problem.

Communist class struggle is about the working class removing the ruling class and creating a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical and thus classless society. You either want that, or you don't want that. You either want communism, or you don't want communism. It is as simple as that
My initial question was how does a communist society deal with change. That would assume that communism has been successfully established. I think it will still be faced with dilemmas and choices and ones that will be very tough and not easy to work out. That is why I wish to know how you differentiate between good changes and bad changes...we do not yet have an objective scale to tell how communist a person or their propositions are.

That is why we have philosophers. One day, maybe they will work it out
How can we be so sure? Philosophers have considered the issue of reason for nearly three thousand years and as of yet we are no closer to discovering 'it' then when we started. If (and that's a big if) there is one objective and universal reason and we have managed to establish a communist society, who is to say that we will have discovered this reason? If we haven't then what will we do? If we are waiting around for it then I may suggest we'll be waiting for at least another 3000 years.

I think we can judge reason based on what we as human beings, when reduced right back to our individual state desire for ourselves. Do we desire to be hungry? no! do we desire to be cold? No! do we desire to be unhappy? No!
Do we desire more then the biological necessities for life? Yes! Do we desire to be in control of our world? Yes! Do we desire to influence the lives of those around us? yes! Do we necessarily have to consider others when making our choices? No! Do we always desire to renounce our own unavoidably subjective reasoning in favour of some objective, universal reasoning? No!

Then we will sit down, discuss it and find out what the next human project will be
And this will vanquish our complacency? These tactics are employed by our current political leaders to seemingly little avail.

They were certainly a step in the right direction. They were not being objective in my opinion
This raises nicely another point. Whatever we say it will always be 'in my opinion' and hence humans cannot be objective due to our inability to separate ourselves from our lives and the influences upon them. I cannot see the world outside the view from my life....I cannot occupy a neutral part of the Universe and gaze upon our actions...I cannot be unbiased in some slight way. If we cannot be objective then we cannot be rational in the sense you imply. Therefore rationality and reason must come from somewhere else...and what does that leave us with? Some mythical Godlike figure...

Drawing conclusions from facts
But how do we establish what these 'facts' are? Epistemology is filled with difficult issues which have yet to be worked out. This also doesn't take into account the numerous flaws with objectivity (i.e. such as the above point...how can humans be objective?)

Then continue to think about it.

Oh I will (and I will do so with all the effort I can muster). All I ask is people continue to think with me and never be so bold as to assume they have somehow stumbled across the truth.

No, I agree, but combined and you have a perfect society
But that's it. You cannot combine the cold and somewhat ruthless nature of reason and logic to a society of critical, calm, respectful, civil and democratic people as ultimately these people see the world subjectively (with thoughts, feelings, emotions and the such like). I'd hate to employ a term I dislike but logically it is impossible.

Sartre was a Marxist
I was under the impression he was a Maoist towards the end of his life. I know they are similar but I don't know the exact differences between the two.

But many people are not aware that they exist
Or they are aware of their freedom to exist but they freely chose to reject it out of fear that they will be responsible for their choices and the subsequent consequences of those choices (i.e. bad faith)

Reality as it is now is ridiculous, absurd and cruel
And why should we believe that it will ever cease to be ridiculous, absurd and (perhaps less frequently) cruel?

Why can you not assume that a human being will be able to admit this as fact and move on with their life?

I cannot assume this because of my experience of the strength of the human will in regards to the things it desires. Many people are unable to have children for whatever reason but does that stop them in their quest? No. Occasionally they will come to terms with it but they will rarely ever move on with their life.

Then what do you want me to say? They will try, and they may win, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't attempt to make them loose
All I merely want from you is to put forward your thoughts on how a communist society can overcome the apparent conflict between itself and change.

Then either get better or accept that you are a useless musician and move on with your life
But it won't be that simple for the masses due to the problems of freedom and bad faith...and how these relate frustrated desires.

But then you are being ridiculous and must be told that that is the case
People can tell me I'm the King of Mars...it doesn't follow that I'll agree with them. After all I'm sure some people told Saddam and Hitler they we being foolish....and then they ended up dead...no doubt due to the power of Hitler and Saddam to persuade the relevant sections of the masses.

Imagine being an individual within that community who wakes up one day and attempts to go out into that community and break the equilibrium. I do not think you would get very far. Someone will notice you, and they will inform the rest of the community. There is no need to have a police state, there is no need to be paranoid, you only need to be aware of the dangers. And we will be
But I won't wake up one day and suddenly do that. These things will often grow beneath the surface...I may not necessarily share my thoughts with people at first...then I may share it with a few people under the disguise of jest to see their reaction...or I may wait for a relevant time to raise these issues (such as a relevant news event) with my comrades and so seize the moment. Also we cannot say they WILL inform the rest of the community. They MIGHT inform the rest of the community...if this is a friend or a close loved one then we will be faced with a dilemma...and so the issue of our freedom poses us with problems. I can see no other apparent way of overcoming this without the use of paranoia or a police state (i.e. the idea that someone is always watching you).

Said the philosophy student to the revolutionary :P
Perhaps :lol:

Trissy

18th May 2004, 20:41

I live in England and have not noticed it at all. I don't find many people in any kind of nostalgic conservative trap either. I think our greatest problem is having an American lack of values and the American sex culture 'rammed down our throats'
Well pay attention to the media...to the news in the papers, to the articles on TV and the radio. They often cover very similar issues which have just been repackaged to fit the current set of headlines. I listen to the radio a fair bit and all the debates they have are all on the same issues....sex, money, health, education, etc. and our responce to these issues. If you read the papers then you'll find more conservative papers (such as the Telegraph, Times, Express and Mail) then anything else and they all harp on about the loss of family values (namely a stable family with two married parents who rule their children with an iron fist and tell their children that drugs, sex and equality are wrong and working hard is right).

Also I don't think American lack values...I just think they have a wider range of values do to the size of their country and the range of factors influencing it. There are some very conservative, religious areas and there are some very liberal, secular ones. One thing they don't lack is values...they may not always know how they arrive at these values....but they don't lack them none the less.

Saint-Just

18th May 2004, 21:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 08:41 PM

I live in England and have not noticed it at all. I don't find many people in any kind of nostalgic conservative trap either. I think our greatest problem is having an American lack of values and the American sex culture 'rammed down our throats'
Well pay attention to the media...to the news in the papers, to the articles on TV and the radio. They often cover very similar issues which have just been repackaged to fit the current set of headlines. I listen to the radio a fair bit and all the debates they have are all on the same issues....sex, money, health, education, etc. and our responce to these issues. If you read the papers then you'll find more conservative papers (such as the Telegraph, Times, Express and Mail) then anything else and they all harp on about the loss of family values (namely a stable family with two married parents who rule their children with an iron fist and tell their children that drugs, sex and equality are wrong and working hard is right).

Also I don't think American lack values...I just think they have a wider range of values do to the size of their country and the range of factors influencing it. There are some very conservative, religious areas and there are some very liberal, secular ones. One thing they don't lack is values...they may not always know how they arrive at these values....but they don't lack them none the less.
I don't read the right wing newspapers very much. But, for example, last week The Express had an article in favoure of abortion, that doesn't seem particularly victorian to me. Also, these newspapers don't ever comment on the immorality displayed in various American films or TV shows, which is a big source of the American cultural infection in this country.

Also, many people read papers such as The Sun and The Mirror which are not conservative. I don't deny that a number of values from the Victorian era exist in our society, as you mentioned families. However, I think there is massive freedom to escape from those values in our society and indeed the unfettered promotion of them, for example look at a programme like Friends or a film such as American Pie.

On American values. You are right that they do have values. However, I would say that they lack values, they allow people great freedom to do things that badly affect the rest of society because they have a lack of social values.

Our leaders, the journalists, film producers and so on are not concerned with morality and social values, they are concerned with making money. So, values really take a backseat.

Trissy

18th May 2004, 23:20

I don't read the right wing newspapers very much. But, for example, last week The Express had an article in favoure of abortion, that doesn't seem particularly victorian to me
I don't have accesss to the Express on a daily basis but I occasionally read the Sunday Express whenever I happen to be at home (my parents get the Mail during the week). I cannot comment on their article in favour of abortion but I can comment on their defence of the Robert Kilroy-Silk when he wrote his article savaging the whole of Islam...it was far from accepting and understanding...in fact I found it repulsive in parts.

Also, these newspapers don't ever comment on the immorality displayed in various American films or TV shows, which is a big source of the American cultural infection in this country
That is because a significant part of right wing ideology is concerned with nationalism, and so as such they wouldn't care about developments in America. They would only ever pass comment if they thought it affected us (which at times they can do...like when we talk about violence on TV)

Also, many people read papers such as The Sun and The Mirror which are not conservative
I'd agree with you that The Sun is conservative (because it's owned by Mr.R.Murdoch) but I'd disagree slightly with the Mirror. The Mirror is not that right wing and I read it a few times a week because of its stance on many things and because I don't have the time (or effort) to read the deeper articles found in the Guardian or the Independant.

However, I think there is massive freedom to escape from those values in our society and indeed the unfettered promotion of them, for example look at a programme like Friends or a film such as American Pie
I don't think they're really promoted, I think they're merely accepted in a capatilist society due to the fact that they pose no threat and they can produce profit in one way or another.

However, I would say that they lack values, they allow people great freedom to do things that badly affect the rest of society because they have a lack of social values
But only in the sense that they are of no threat to capitalist society, and they produce profit for the elite.

Our leaders, the journalists, film producers and so on are not concerned with morality and social values, they are concerned with making money. So, values really take a backseat
I'd disagree. I think they care about values, money, and especially the relationship between the two. If teenage pregnancy or the Pink pound didn't produce profit for someone do you think they'd be legal or have become more socially acceptable?

The Feral Underclass

19th May 2004, 12:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:19 PM

I don't understand why these things will create such social upheaval as to remove an entire societal structure?
Okay, what does debate and discussion boil down to? Reason and choice. If we have different views and different reasons then we are faced with choices...and these opposing views aren't necessarily reconcilable. If they are not reconcilable then this could lead to a destabilisation of society which could ultimately end in the changing of the structure of the society.

Then we do not live in a communist society.

But that is not what my initial question was about. It was about how a communist society deals with change once it has been established. Humans have disagreed for thousands of years all because of differences in reason...I just fail to see why this would change. If there is a slight majority view and slight minority view that cannot be reconciled then we are faced with a big problem.

Communist class struggle is about the working class removing the ruling class and creating a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical and thus classless society. You either want that, or you don't want that. You either want communism, or you don't want communism. It is as simple as that
My initial question was how does a communist society deal with change. That would assume that communism has been successfully established. I think it will still be faced with dilemmas and choices and ones that will be very tough and not easy to work out. That is why I wish to know how you differentiate between good changes and bad changes...we do not yet have an objective scale to tell how communist a person or their propositions are.

That is why we have philosophers. One day, maybe they will work it out
How can we be so sure? Philosophers have considered the issue of reason for nearly three thousand years and as of yet we are no closer to discovering 'it' then when we started. If (and that's a big if) there is one objective and universal reason and we have managed to establish a communist society, who is to say that we will have discovered this reason? If we haven't then what will we do? If we are waiting around for it then I may suggest we'll be waiting for at least another 3000 years.

I think we can judge reason based on what we as human beings, when reduced right back to our individual state desire for ourselves. Do we desire to be hungry? no! do we desire to be cold? No! do we desire to be unhappy? No!
Do we desire more then the biological necessities for life? Yes! Do we desire to be in control of our world? Yes! Do we desire to influence the lives of those around us? yes! Do we necessarily have to consider others when making our choices? No! Do we always desire to renounce our own unavoidably subjective reasoning in favour of some objective, universal reasoning? No!

Then we will sit down, discuss it and find out what the next human project will be
And this will vanquish our complacency? These tactics are employed by our current political leaders to seemingly little avail.

They were certainly a step in the right direction. They were not being objective in my opinion
This raises nicely another point. Whatever we say it will always be 'in my opinion' and hence humans cannot be objective due to our inability to separate ourselves from our lives and the influences upon them. I cannot see the world outside the view from my life....I cannot occupy a neutral part of the Universe and gaze upon our actions...I cannot be unbiased in some slight way. If we cannot be objective then we cannot be rational in the sense you imply. Therefore rationality and reason must come from somewhere else...and what does that leave us with? Some mythical Godlike figure...

Drawing conclusions from facts
But how do we establish what these 'facts' are? Epistemology is filled with difficult issues which have yet to be worked out. This also doesn't take into account the numerous flaws with objectivity (i.e. such as the above point...how can humans be objective?)

Then continue to think about it.

Oh I will (and I will do so with all the effort I can muster). All I ask is people continue to think with me and never be so bold as to assume they have somehow stumbled across the truth.

No, I agree, but combined and you have a perfect society
But that's it. You cannot combine the cold and somewhat ruthless nature of reason and logic to a society of critical, calm, respectful, civil and democratic people as ultimately these people see the world subjectively (with thoughts, feelings, emotions and the such like). I'd hate to employ a term I dislike but logically it is impossible.

Sartre was a Marxist
I was under the impression he was a Maoist towards the end of his life. I know they are similar but I don't know the exact differences between the two.

But many people are not aware that they exist
Or they are aware of their freedom to exist but they freely chose to reject it out of fear that they will be responsible for their choices and the subsequent consequences of those choices (i.e. bad faith)

Reality as it is now is ridiculous, absurd and cruel
And why should we believe that it will ever cease to be ridiculous, absurd and (perhaps less frequently) cruel?

Why can you not assume that a human being will be able to admit this as fact and move on with their life?

I cannot assume this because of my experience of the strength of the human will in regards to the things it desires. Many people are unable to have children for whatever reason but does that stop them in their quest? No. Occasionally they will come to terms with it but they will rarely ever move on with their life.

Then what do you want me to say? They will try, and they may win, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't attempt to make them loose
All I merely want from you is to put forward your thoughts on how a communist society can overcome the apparent conflict between itself and change.

Then either get better or accept that you are a useless musician and move on with your life
But it won't be that simple for the masses due to the problems of freedom and bad faith...and how these relate frustrated desires.

But then you are being ridiculous and must be told that that is the case
People can tell me I'm the King of Mars...it doesn't follow that I'll agree with them. After all I'm sure some people told Saddam and Hitler they we being foolish....and then they ended up dead...no doubt due to the power of Hitler and Saddam to persuade the relevant sections of the masses.

Imagine being an individual within that community who wakes up one day and attempts to go out into that community and break the equilibrium. I do not think you would get very far. Someone will notice you, and they will inform the rest of the community. There is no need to have a police state, there is no need to be paranoid, you only need to be aware of the dangers. And we will be
But I won't wake up one day and suddenly do that. These things will often grow beneath the surface...I may not necessarily share my thoughts with people at first...then I may share it with a few people under the disguise of jest to see their reaction...or I may wait for a relevant time to raise these issues (such as a relevant news event) with my comrades and so seize the moment. Also we cannot say they WILL inform the rest of the community. They MIGHT inform the rest of the community...if this is a friend or a close loved one then we will be faced with a dilemma...and so the issue of our freedom poses us with problems. I can see no other apparent way of overcoming this without the use of paranoia or a police state (i.e. the idea that someone is always watching you).

Said the philosophy student to the revolutionary :P
Perhaps :lol:
I made a reply, but then lost it thanks to this shit fucking internet. You will have to forgive me if I dont reply straight away. I dont have the patience to do it again.

Saint-Just

19th May 2004, 17:09

I don't have accesss to the Express on a daily basis but I occasionally read the Sunday Express whenever I happen to be at home (my parents get the Mail during the week). I cannot comment on their article in favour of abortion but I can comment on their defence of the Robert Kilroy-Silk when he wrote his article savaging the whole of Islam...it was far from accepting and understanding...in fact I found it repulsive in parts.

Racism has little to do with Victorian morality though, on Victorian morality... the right-wing papers have very little.

That is because a significant part of right wing ideology is concerned with nationalism, and so as such they wouldn't care about developments in America. They would only ever pass comment if they thought it affected us (which at times they can do...like when we talk about violence on TV)

But they show these programmes in the UK, American culture affects us greatly. Also, I am not sure if the people who own these papers such as The Mail, Express etc. are nationalist at all, they only really care about money and use nationalism to appeal to the readership. The readers of The Mail etc. are the ones who are nationalists, at least this seems true to some extent.

I'd agree with you that The Sun is conservative (because it's owned by Mr.R.Murdoch) but I'd disagree slightly with the Mirror. The Mirror is not that right wing and I read it a few times a week because of its stance on many things and because I don't have the time (or effort) to read the deeper articles found in the Guardian or the Independant.

Yes, thats somewhat true, The Sun could be called conservative. The problem is that it tries to appeal to a slightly conservative audience, and the owner is conservative but politically they always aim to support who they think will win the next election: at present the Labour Party.

I don't think they're really promoted, I think they're merely accepted in a capatilist society due to the fact that they pose no threat and they can produce profit in one way or another.

Yes, you are exactly right.

But only in the sense that they are of no threat to capitalist society, and they produce profit for the elite.

Again, you are right and I should have modified my statement slightly.

I'd disagree. I think they care about values, money, and especially the relationship between the two. If teenage pregnancy or the Pink pound didn't produce profit for someone do you think they'd be legal or have become more socially acceptable?

I don't think I am understanding this. You seem to say that they value morality above money at first but then go on to say that teenage pregnancies and pronogrpahy is only accepted because it can make money.

The Feral Underclass

19th May 2004, 17:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:19 PM
Okay, what does debate and discussion boil down to? Reason and choice. If we have different views and different reasons then we are faced with choices...and these opposing views aren't necessarily reconcilable. If they are not reconcilable then this could lead to a destabilisation of society which could ultimately end in the changing of the structure of the society.
The conclusion of all this are what if's? I believe by the nature of a communist society that these things will not lead to the fundamental societal change you describe. Why? Because I believe that human beings have the potential to be logical, rational, reasonable and democratic. Why? Because that is what communism teaches, and without it, we wouldn't have communism.

You can say that we do not know what logic is etc, but I think that's a philosophers answer, and irrelevant to the actual material conditions within society and universal desires of human beings.

But that is not what my initial question was about. It was about how a communist society deals with change once it has been established.

If it is for the benifit of humanity then we embrace it. If it is not then we fight it, or we deal with it together.

I just fail to see why this would change.

Because it has always changed. Illogical systems of governance have always, at some point, been caught out and changed. It will change because we will make it change by propogating out ideals among the exploited and the oppressed. It will change because peace, contentment, solidarity and direct democracy are the best way for us to live, the most logical way, based on our understanding of our material conditions.

This seems Utopian and to some extent naive, but of course it would. Why would anyone believe that we could live in such a society when our present reality forces us to accept that nothing is possible. When it forces people to scrape out an existence of survival. Why would anyone believe that any other kind of world was possible. Much like the light bulb was a fantastic idealistic idea so is this. To concieve of such a thing must have seemed rediculous, utopian and even naive, yet here and now we have a light bulb, computers and cars. Utopian, idealistic and naive ideas do become realities, we just have to make them become realities.

First we have to change ourselves and believe that this utopian society can happen, and that another world is possible, because anything is possible. We just have to fight for it.

If there is a slight majority view and slight minority view that cannot be reconciled then we are faced with a big problem.

I do not see this as a big problem, I see it as a challange. An interesting challange and possibly a difficult one, but not so big that the whole of society will collapse.

I think it will still be faced with dilemmas and choices and ones that will be very tough and not easy to work out.

I agree.

That is why I wish to know how you differentiate between good changes and bad changes

Either they benifit society as a whole, or they do not.

How can we be so sure? Philosophers have considered the issue of reason for nearly three thousand years and as of yet we are no closer to discovering 'it' then when we started.

My point was more about relevance. Marx found that reason which you say is so difficult to pin point. It is based on our material conditions and our relation to them. Kropotkin took it further by saying that right and wrong is defined by how we, as individuals desire our world. That is to say, we desire our conditions to be, desirable. Warmth, happiness, safty etc By these things we can deduce what is reasonable and what is not. If we desire something, then to accept anything less is unreasonable. It is irrelevant where this came from or if indeed it came from anywhere. What is relevant is that we change an unreasonable society into a reasonable one, based on these understandings.

If we are waiting around for it then I may suggest we'll be waiting for at least another 3000 years.

Possibly, but I doubt capitalism will survive that long.

Do we desire to be in control of our world? Yes! Do we desire to influence the lives of those around us? yes!

And we should control out world. As for influencing others around us, why is that necessarily a bad thing. By your own argument if something can go one way it can go the other.

Do we necessarily have to consider others when making our choices? No!

You are right, we don't have to consider them, but I people can want to.

Do we always desire to renounce our own unavoidably subjective reasoning in favour of some objective, universal reasoning? No!

No. But that doesn't mean we can't.

But how do we establish what these 'facts' are?

Our material conditions.

All I ask is people continue to think with me and never be so bold as to assume they have somehow stumbled across the truth.

I do understand the truth. I udnerstand the truth of my material conditions. Anything outside of that is irrelevant. The concept of god, the philosophical question of logic is irrelevant. All that matters to me, and to my friends and families and indeed the entire world are our material conditions. The world around us. That is the truth. Starving children is a fact. Exploitation is a fact. War is a fact. Are the right, many people tell you there right, but if you sat them down, individually and independently they would tell you that starving children, exploitation or war are not desirable and that we should live in a world without them! How do we make that happen, by overthrowing capitalism, the state and the ruling class that perpetrate them and creating a communist society. Fact!

Or they are aware of their freedom to exist but they freely chose to reject it out of fear that they will be responsible for their choices and the subsequent consequences of those choices (i.e. bad faith)

Do you honestly believe people have choices. Of course people fear taking responsability, society makes people they are unworthy of such responsability. If you are told this, time and time again, directly or simply by your position within society, then why would you believe any differently.

And why should we believe that it will ever cease to be ridiculous, absurd and (perhaps less frequently) cruel?

because we all desire a world without them.

All I merely want from you is to put forward your thoughts on how a communist society can overcome the apparent conflict between itself and change.

I believe I have answered this question.

I can see no other apparent way of overcoming this without the use of paranoia or a police state (i.e. the idea that someone is always watching you).

I can.

Trissy

19th May 2004, 18:46

Racism has little to do with Victorian morality though, on Victorian morality... the right-wing papers have very little
Coming from Bristol I can tell you that racism is easily related to Victorian morality. The majority saw nothing wrong with racism and a lot of Bristol's wealth came from the city's shameful role in the slave trade. Also the British saw nothing wrong with using slaves anywhere in our vast empire (like India for example) at the time, and a lot of them were treated like dirt. If you don't call that racism then what do you call racism?

As for right wing papers, you said yourself that you don't read them too often. The Mail (and the Express from time to time) always writes about how immigrants are stealing our jobs, how political correctness means that this country is being overrun with 'these people' who abuse the system, how there is far too much sex on TV, how gay charities get awarded lottery grants when charities for war veterans don't....if this isn't all based on an idealised vission of Victorian England then what is it based on? We're no longer a Superpower...we no longer rule the sea and a vast proportion of the world....it's over yet their nostalgia still remains (plus they rarely admit the Victorian era was filled with faults).

Also, I am not sure if the people who own these papers such as The Mail, Express etc. are nationalist at all, they only really care about money and use nationalism to appeal to the readership
In the 1930's the owner of the Mail was a leading figure in the British fascist party...all that has changed between now and then is they've stopped wearing uniforms and started wearing suits, smiling and pretending they're nice people. I agree with you that they desire money, but I don't agree with you that they're not nationalists in some sense. I believe they not only give their readership what they want to hear, but that they also amplify some of the feelings of their readership.

I don't think I am understanding this. You seem to say that they value morality above money at first but then go on to say that teenage pregnancies and pronogrpahy is only accepted because it can make money

I can't remember saying they value morality above money...rather it's the other way round (morality is a useful tool for the capitalist).

Okay I'll reword my point for you. Capitalism cares about both profit and morality. The realtionship between the two is important. Take a look at homosexuality or having children outside marriage. In the Victorian period one was illegal and the other was frowned upon seriously...why? because society disapproved of it and because they believed that both would bring them little profit. As society begins to accept these things (mainly due to the fact they couldn't be surpressed entirely) Capitalism sees that it may have underestimated the marketing potential in these two areas...hence the media slowly but surely begins to accept these things and Capitalism can exploit the new markets that have opened up...

I don't think this is a fool proof explanation but it's something I'm still thinking through.

Saint-Just

20th May 2004, 11:23

Coming from Bristol I can tell you that racism is easily related to Victorian morality. The majority saw nothing wrong with racism and a lot of Bristol's wealth came from the city's shameful role in the slave trade. Also the British saw nothing wrong with using slaves anywhere in our vast empire (like India for example) at the time, and a lot of them were treated like dirt. If you don't call that racism then what do you call racism?

I think that is more to do with capitalism. It is part of Victorian morality but not victorian sexual morality.

As for right wing papers, you said yourself that you don't read them too often. The Mail (and the Express from time to time) always writes about how immigrants are stealing our jobs, how political correctness means that this country is being overrun with 'these people' who abuse the system, how there is far too much sex on TV, how gay charities get awarded lottery grants when charities for war veterans don't....if this isn't all based on an idealised vission of Victorian England then what is it based on? We're no longer a Superpower...we no longer rule the sea and a vast proportion of the world....it's over yet their nostalgia still remains (plus they rarely admit the Victorian era was filled with faults).

That is true. I'd have to retract my argument there somewhat, yes the papers so possess some victorian morality if what you say is true (I admit I do not read them much). But the amount of people who read these papers is not that large. Particularly with young people, there are very few who read these papers.

In the 1930's the owner of the Mail was a leading figure in the British fascist party...all that has changed between now and then is they've stopped wearing uniforms and started wearing suits, smiling and pretending they're nice people. I agree with you that they desire money, but I don't agree with you that they're not nationalists in some sense. I believe they not only give their readership what they want to hear, but that they also amplify some of the feelings of their readership.

He withdrew his support when it started affecting business. Its speculative really, I don't know if they are nationalists, I have not researched it. It was an idea put forward by my father who used to work in the Murdoch media empire, News Corp.

Okay I'll reword my point for you. Capitalism cares about both profit and morality. The realtionship between the two is important. Take a look at homosexuality or having children outside marriage. In the Victorian period one was illegal and the other was frowned upon seriously...why? because society disapproved of it and because they believed that both would bring them little profit. As society begins to accept these things (mainly due to the fact they couldn't be surpressed entirely) Capitalism sees that it may have underestimated the marketing potential in these two areas...hence the media slowly but surely begins to accept these things and Capitalism can exploit the new markets that have opened up...

I understand exactly what you are saying now. Yes, I would have to think about it, but I would say looking at history that would be quite logical.

Trissy

20th May 2004, 13:39

I believe by the nature of a communist society that these things will not lead to the fundamental societal change you describe. Why? Because I believe that human beings have the potential to be logical, rational, reasonable and democratic. Why? Because that is what communism teaches, and without it, we wouldn't have communism.
But if humans don't have a set nature due to the fact that we are free, it seems odd that communism can have a set nature when in theory the lives of the people involved contributes to a what type of society we live in. If humans are free and can change their lives fundamentally, then it seems plausible that a communist society can change fundamentally due to their freedom too.

You can say that we do not know what logic is etc, but I think that's a philosophers answer, and irrelevant to the actual material conditions within society and universal desires of human beings
It may be irrelevant to the actual material conditions within society but in your communist society you said that you would employ reason and logic to settle issues that cropped up. Therefore the nature of reason and logic are far from irrelevant. If they are a part of how communist theory is applied to a communist society then these questions are of vital importance. As my example of the 'birth dilemma' shows logic and reason are cold and calculating...and as such they are of little help when we need to use assess certain situations.

Because it has always changed
It has changed in amount of agreement and disagreement we experience but there has NEVER been a time when human beings have either all agreed with one another or all disagreed with one another. Even if we examine the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we see that this is little more then a sham in places. This I believe is largely related to our freedom to choose.

The communist society you describe is democratic one but one where everyone freely decides to go along with what is rational and logical. I just severely doubt that this situation will ever occur.

This seems Utopian and to some extent naive, but of course it would. Why would anyone believe that we could live in such a society when our present reality forces us to accept that nothing is possible. When it forces people to scrape out an existence of survival. Why would anyone believe that any other kind of world was possible
I don't agree with this entirely. I think society makes us believe that communism is impossible because it is in a capitalist society's interest for us to believe that. People (including me) still believe in that though. I think it seems Utopian and naive because the only example of such a smoothly running community in the wild that I can think of is ants and that is to do with their nature. We have no such nature because our existence proceeds our essence. This leads me to fail to see how a similarly smooth running community can be created.

Much like the light bulb was a fantastic idealistic idea so is this. To conceive of such a thing must have seemed ridiculous, utopian and even naive, yet here and now we have a light bulb, computers and cars.
But there is a key difference. We don't deny the fact that the light bulb could be changed and maybe even one day replaced by something superior but as of yet unthought-of, whereas this appears to be denied in your view of a communist society where change can never destabilise it enough for it to be replaced.

We just have to fight for it
That I do not deny. I merely think we need to consider our communist future, and maybe a future beyond the start of our communist future. We need to consider any problems in the theory and need to consider how exactly it will be applied practically.

I do not see this as a big problem, I see it as a challenge. An interesting challenge and possibly a difficult one, but not so big that the whole of society will collapse
The Cuban Missile crisis was an interesting challenge and that almost ended up with a nuclear war. Interesting challenges, big problems, call them what you will. I still think they are significant enough for us to worry about.

Either they benefit society as a whole, or they do not
But it will be difficult to foresee the benefits before we implement some ideas. Some people will foresee benefit, others doom.

Marx found that reason which you say is so difficult to pin point. It is based on our material conditions and our relation to them
To a point I agree with him but I think that's far to narrow (it also doesn't prove that it a single, objective, universal reason exists). For a start it's only subjective reasoning and not the objective reasoning you initially claimed it was. Subjective reasoning that could ultimately bring conflict.

Additionally:
a) all animals with albinism are white
b) this animal has albinism
> c) therefore it is white.
That is a logically valid deduction but it has little or nothing to do with material conditions or our relation to them, nor. That could be argued to be closer to objective reasoning then Marx's definition.

Kropotkin took it further by saying that right and wrong is defined by how we, as individuals desire our world
Which sounds similar to ethical relativism which is subjective and relative, not absolute, universal and objective.

By these things we can deduce what is reasonable and what is not
But subjectively...our subjective feelings could only ever produce subjective reasoning.

It is irrelevant where this came from or if indeed it came from anywhere. What is relevant is that we change an unreasonable society into a reasonable one, based on these understandings
Of course it's relevant. Initially you claimed that we will use the objective reasoning searched for and desired by many generations of Rationalist philosopher. That objective reasoning cannot be come from us as humans was my point. So far you have only presented subjective reasoning, which is fine, but subjective reasoning that can never arrive at completely satisfactory answers to everyone. It will ultimately lead to a situation where people are practically saying 'my subjective reasoning is better then your subjective reasoning'. This can rarely ever overcome dilemmas where people disagree strongly and hence change will be a key issue.

Possibly, but I doubt capitalism will survive that long
In which case what will we use to settle issues before we've discovered Reason?

And we should control out world. As for influencing others around us, why is that necessarily a bad thing? By your own argument if something can go one way it can go the other
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a bad thing if you're arguing that we can have a communist society immune to big changes. If it can go both ways then we can end up in a situation where people can either persuade people for the benefit of a communist society or to persuade people against it.

No. But that doesn't mean we can't
Oh I acknowledge it doesn't mean we can't. I'm just showing that the chance of getting anything remotely close to universal agreement on any one matter is slim even if we do discover an objective, absolute and universal Reason because of our freedom.

I do understand the truth. I understand the truth of my material conditions
Which will be a relative and subjective truth. Also 'my' implies possession which opens a fresh can of worms.

Anything outside of that is irrelevant. The concept of god, the philosophical question of logic is irrelevant
I could not disagree more. 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it'. This quote can be seen as a criticism of philosophers, but I prefer to find a subtler meaning in it...philosophers are first and foremost men in the world and as such they should seek to apply their interpretations to the world around us instead of merely thinking about abstract things. As for changers...well change is all well and good but unless you have successfully interpreted the world, and attempted to interpret the full set of potential consequences of your changes...the all your work could be in vain. I realise that people will probably demolish my interpretation of that quote but it is mine none the less. People may feel that I am not a revolutionary because I lack faith...I feel I am a revolutionary because I lack faith...because I question...because I dare to question where my dreams will lead me!

The world around us. That is the truth
I agree. Sounds similar to something Wittgenstein might say

Starving children is a fact. Exploitation is a fact. War is a fact
Agreed. These may be less prevalent and less likely in a Communist society but they'll remain a potentiality none the less.

How do we make that happen, by overthrowing capitalism, the state and the ruling class that perpetrate them and creating a communist society. Fact!

Yes but to think that they will be eternally banished from this globe, that they will never return...that they may never return in a communist society...it just strikes me as a fool's paradise. We may desire them not to happen, we may fight for them not to happen, we may do everything within our power to prevent them...but that is still won't necessarily be enough.

Do you honestly believe people have choices?
Yes.

Of course people fear taking responsibility, society makes people feel they are unworthy of such responsibility
Society does not MAKE people feel they are unworthy...it may suggest it but they are free to reject such influences. Blaming society is itself an act of bad faith.

If you are told this, time and time again, directly or simply by your position within society, then why would you believe any differently?
Because we are free. I can be told until the end of time that I am not but at the end of the day I can say 'Yes, I agree' or 'No, I disagree'...it is a sign of my freedom...of the freedom of my consciousness. The inidividual choses bad faith, and never society making it that way.

I believe I have answered this question
To which I have raised more (probably annoying) questions.

Trissy

20th May 2004, 13:47

I think that is more to do with capitalism. It is part of Victorian morality but not victorian sexual morality
Well I still disagree ever so slightly. I initially mentioned Victorian family values, by which I meant morality prevalent in Victorian society (i.e. not just Victorian sexual morality). In the Victorian era most of the values were capitalist values but I don't think they all were. The idea that you owned someone and could treat them as you wish is capitalist but I feel the belief that you are better then someone on the grounds of race is not soley and essentially a capitalist value (after all we have rich capitalists of all races now).

The Feral Underclass

20th May 2004, 15:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:39 PM
If humans are free and can change their lives fundamentally, then it seems plausible that a communist society can change fundamentally due to their freedom too.
I do not agree. There is no reason that you have shown so far to suggest that communism will one day be replaced with something else. It may well change, but insofar as it is made better.

in your communist society you said that you would employ reason and logic to settle issues that cropped up. Therefore the nature of reason and logic are far from irrelevant.

The concepts of logic and reason exist regardless of whether you understand where they came from, or even if you believe the exist at all.

If they are a part of how communist theory is applied to a communist society then these questions are of vital importance.

Why? We have far more important things to worry about than understanding the reason we are be able to function in an objective way.

It has changed in amount of agreement and disagreement we experience but there has NEVER been a time when human beings have either all agreed with one another or all disagreed with one another.

I never talked about every single human being agreeing with each other. I am talking about wage-slaves and economically oppressed people taking control of society.

Whether or not the rest agree is inconsequential.

Even if we examine the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we see that this is little more then a sham in places. This I believe is largely related to our freedom to choose.

Bourgeois politicians creating bourgeois protections in a bourgeois political system. The bourgeoisie are in conflict throughout the entire world. It was not the working class who disagreed it was there rulers, and each and every set of rulers has their own political, social and economic agenda.

The communist society you describe is democratic one but one where everyone freely decides to go along with what is rational and logical.

Indeed it does.

I just severely doubt that this situation will ever occur.

Maybe so. But what have we got to loose?

I think it seems Utopian and naive because the only example of such a smoothly running community in the wild that I can think of is ants and that is to do with their nature. We have no such nature because our existence proceeds our essence.

But we have the ability to define our essence and create what ever world we want.

whereas this appears to be denied in your view of a communist society where change can never destabilise it enough for it to be replaced.

Change it yes, destabilise, no. There is no one or anything which could destabilise it.

The Cuban Missile crisis was an interesting challenge and that almost ended up with a nuclear war. Interesting challenges, big problems, call them what you will. I still think they are significant enough for us to worry about.

When ruling classes colide!

For a start it's only subjective reasoning and not the objective reasoning you initially claimed it was.

Explain this please. Are you trying to argue that exploitation is a subjective concept?

That is a logically valid deduction but it has little or nothing to do with material conditions or our relation to them, nor. That could be argued to be closer to objective reasoning then Marx's definition.

But Albino animals have no relevance to class struggle do they?

Which sounds similar to ethical relativism which is subjective and relative, not absolute, universal and objective.

No one wants to be exploited. No one wants to be murdered. No one wants to be raped. No one wants to be starving. No one wants to have no home. People want to be free to make choices in their lives. People want to be fed and to have a house. People want to be safe from attacks and persecution.

No one cares if it is an absolute truth! Only you!

But subjectively...our subjective feelings could only ever produce subjective reasoning.

Fuck philosophy!!!

Of course it's relevant. Initially you claimed that we will use the objective reasoning searched for and desired by many generations of Rationalist philosopher.

All fucking bourgeois prats who had to much time on their hands. Why not put they time and effort into making the world a better place.

So far you have only presented subjective reasoning, which is fine, but subjective reasoning that can never arrive at completely satisfactory answers to everyone....It will ultimately lead to a situation where people are practically saying 'my subjective reasoning is better then your subjective reasoning'.

Imagine being in a room with six other people from your community. You are there to make a decision about how you are going to repair the road. Three people say "I think it is important that the entire community repairs the road" and three other people say "I think it is important that we have professional road repairers come and repair our road."

There are two things that could happen right now? They could start screaming at each other. They could start hitting each other. They could walk out of the room and never speak to each other again. They could start pressure groups to try and stop the other group from doing what it is they want..

Or. They could say "ok. So we have two ideas here. Now we have to find which is the best solution. Group one, you give your argument why you think we should have the community fix the road. And then group two will give their argument of why we should have profesional road repairers fix the road."

Each group gives their argument. They debate it. They come to a conclusion and the road gets fixed. I see that as being logic. Objective logic. I don't give two flying fucks why it is. It just is. It's a far more logical and fair way to govern ourselves, and I believe that human beings have the potential to behave in that way.

Which will be a relative and subjective truth. Also 'my' implies possession which opens a fresh can of worms.

No. It is not relative. I live a relativly good life compared to the people in Mozambique, but I can see that they are suffering due to realities which exist as truths within society. Or is starvation subjective as well?

'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it'.

I believe it was Satre who said that? And he was a marxist!

People may feel that I am not a revolutionary because I lack faith...I feel I am a revolutionary because I lack faith...because I question...because I dare to question where my dreams will lead me!

I wouldn't say you weren't a revolutionary because of these reasons.

And you can think too much. By the time you have finished thinking about where your dreams will lead you, you will have no time left to lead them.

Yes but to think that they will be eternally banished from this globe, that they will never return...that they may never return in a communist society

Maybe it is attempted. But they will not win.

Yes.

Then I think you should come out into the real world!

Society does not MAKE people feel they are unworthy...it may suggest it but they are free to reject such influences.

How can someone be free to make a choice if they are not aware that those choices exist. If they were, the world wouldn't be the way it is.

Because we are free.

You are free. I am free. We are free, because we are aware that we are free. Try going onto Park Hill flats and you will see very quickly that people are not aware that there are other choices.

I can be told until the end of time that I am not but at the end of the day I can say 'Yes, I agree' or 'No, I disagree'

Then you belong to the fortunate.

Trissy

20th May 2004, 18:32

I do not agree. There is no reason that you have shown so far to suggest that communism will one day be replaced with something else. It may well change, but insofar as it is made better
Okay fine. I will provide a brief summary of my argument none the less in case others can't be bothered to read all of our long debate.

1.Human beings are free (in the Sartrean sense).
2.We use subjective reason.
3.In democratic societies there are debates, and this is not always productive (i.e. we sometimes don't solve these splits [e.g. the Iraq war])
4. Unless we use objective reason then we can't settle our differences.
5. I don't think there is one objective reason due to the fact we can never separate ourselves from our specific lives.
6.If we can't settle an issue then this could lead to a divide forming.
7.This divide can potentially either weaken society and allow someone to take over through force or lead to direct conflict which results in the losing side being penalised in some way.
8.So unless a communist society can address some of the above points it always has the potential to be replaced by an old ideology or a new ideology we have not yet come to think of. As such a communist society has no necessary way of preventing a large change in the structure of society.

The concepts of logic and reason exist regardless of whether you understand where they came from, or even if you believe the exist at all
I don't deny that the concepts exist, I deny that we've been shown anything that correlates to the concept. Your argument seems slightly weak here because I think you'd agree that a theocratic society is inappropriate because we have no evidence of God's existence, yet they could use your argument to say that there is a concept 'God'. You'd demand evidence of a God if you were to abide by 'His' decisions, and so why can't I demand your evidence for the existence of an objective 'Reason' if I am to abide by what it says?

Why? We have far more important things to worry about than understanding the reason we are be able to function in an objective way.

Because it is at the centre of how the people in your communist/anarchic society govern themselves. If one of the pillars of your system fails, then the whole system is weakened. We may have important practical issues to solve, but we also have to know our own weaknesses and address them to because otherwise somebody else will and they can take advantage of the situation.

I am talking about wage-slaves and economically oppressed people taking control of society. Whether or not the rest agree is inconsequential
I didn't question that. I agree with that. I questioned how the people in the new communist state govern themselves. If they can't resolve change then they leave themselves open to become divided, and hence conquered by anyone who manages to gain enough support in this divided society.

Maybe so. But what have we got to loose?

The dream. We have the potential to turn a dream into a reality, but with that we then have the possibility of losing that dream.

But we have the ability to define our essence and create what ever world we want
Exactly! Our essence is never concrete as it is for the being-in-itself. We are being-for-itself, and as such we are fluid and constantly changing...hence society can change...nothing is absolute apart from change to refer back to Heraclitus.

Change it yes, destabilise, no
But you've yet to explain how we can have one but not the other.

There is no one and nothing which could destabilise it
But how can we say this? Freedom surely means that it is a possibility.

When ruling classes collide!
In a democratic communist society you will have opposing sides colliding unless their is universal acceptance of every policy (which would require both objective reason AND universal submission to that reason).

Explain this please. Are you trying to argue that exploitation is a subjective concept?

No. I'm trying to argue that my relation to my material conditions is subjective. My feelings of hunger, coldness, etc are all subjective. Sartre wrote Being and Nothingness as a piece of phenomenological ontology (or put into plain English - 'how things appear to be' to the individual). That's why I think Existentialism is important here. It relates to my world...my experiences of these sensations...and so my relation to my material conditions HAS to be subjective...I am using subjective reasoning if you say Marx discovered reasoning in thinking 'It is based on our material conditions and our relation to them'. Not the objective reasoning you initially implied.

But Albino animals have no relevance to class struggle do they?

Exactly!!! So how can objective reasoning relate to class struggle??? How can we use objective reasoning?

No one wants to be exploited. No one wants to be murdered. No one wants to be raped. No one wants to be starving. No one wants to have no home. People want to be free to make choices in their lives. People want to be fed and to have a house. People want to be safe from attacks and persecution.

No one cares if it is an absolute truth! Only you!

Incorrect. I don't care about absolute truth. I care about how this communist society is going to run itself. If there are contradictions in our theory then it will not work and all these people will be screwed at some time or another...

Fuck philosophy!!!

This implies fuck thinking, which more or less leads to fuck life...one cannot stop thinking when it looks like we're running into trouble. That's what we leave the religious to do...

All fucking bourgeois prats who had too much time on their hands. Why not put they time and effort into making the world a better place
Some of them probably believed they did. After all why did Kant come up with his Categorical Imperative if he didn't desire to make the world a better place using mere reason applied to actions?

Or they could say "ok. So we have two ideas here. Now we have to find which is the best solution. Group one, you give your argument why you think we should have the community fix the road. And then group two will give their argument of why we should have professional road repairers fix the road."
Each group gives their argument. They debate it. They come to a conclusion and the road gets fixed. I see that as being logic. Objective logic
But this doesn't always follow. Palestinians and Israelis have two ideas...they've tried to come to a conclusion but got nowhere. Result? Destabilisation of the region as a whole.

Compromise is not logic though...it is compromise. Both suggestions are logical so how can one be more logical?

A) Everybody working on a damaged road repairs it B) This is a damaged road > C) If everybody works on it the road it will be repaired.

A) Professionals working on a damaged road repairs it B) This is a damaged road > C) If professionals work on it the road it will be repaired

It will be prediction and subjective reasoning that will tell us in advance which is the 'better' plan. Not objective reasoning.

I don't give two flying fucks why it is. It just is
That's just my point. It isn't.

No. It is not relative. I live a relatively good life compared to the people in Mozambique, but I can see that they are suffering due to realities which exist as truths within society. Or is starvation subjective as well?

I explained this earlier in this reply under the link between Sartre, Marx and Reason.

I believe it was Sartre who said that? And he was a Marxist!

Then you believe wrong. My initial thought that it was correct seems to be verified by people with more time to check these things on the web. He said it in
'Theses on Feuerbach', XI apparently.

And he was a Maoist in the end as I said. He fell out with the Communist party over the way they crushed the Hungry uprising. Just like Camus fell out with them over Algeria...

By the time you have finished thinking about where your dreams will lead you, you will have no time left to lead them
I try to think and dream and live all at the same time. It's very fun at times :D

But they will not win
maybe.

Then I think you should come out into the real world!

I could say the same thing about you :) Reject the bad faith! Those who are truly conscious of it should...

How can someone be free to make a choice if they are not aware that those choices exist. If they were, the world wouldn't be the way it is
I never said they are unaware. I said they are aware but they reject it through fear of what freedom brings with it. They are aware they make choices, they just try to deny they do it. Asked why the don't murder anybody they might reply 'because the Bible says murder is wrong'...when in fact they have made a choice not to murder anyone, and a choice to agree with what they Bible says.

You are free. I am free. We are free, because we are aware that we are free. Try going onto Park Hill flats and you will see very quickly that people are not aware that there are other choices
As I said above they are also aware...they just don't want to be. They find life easier to cope with if they deny that they are aware, if they deny they make choices, and if they deny that they can try and change their world.

Then you belong to the fortunate
I belong to a group of thought known as Existentialist. Whether I am fortunate or not is up to you.

The Feral Underclass

21st May 2004, 07:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:32 PM
You'd demand evidence of a God if you were to abide by 'His' decisions, and so why can't I demand your evidence for the existence of an objective 'Reason' if I am to abide by what it says
Facts! God can not be proven by fact, neither is it materially possible for him to exist. Therefore he doesn't. Fact, fact, fact, fact, fact! Using fact, do draw a conclusion is objective reasining!!!

I didn't question that. I agree with that. I questioned how the people in the new communist state govern themselves. If they can't resolve change then they leave themselves open to become divided, and hence conquered by anyone who manages to gain enough support in this divided society.

Go back through my posts for your answer....again!

We are being-for-itself, and as such we are fluid and constantly changing...hence society can change

I have maintained throughout the debate that change is possible.

But you've yet to explain how we can have one but not the other.

In order for a communist society to be destablised there has to be a conflict of interests between a group large enough to actually effect change. No conflict like this will exist on the magnitude. The functioning of society will be so rational, that if a conflict ever came about, it would seem so absurd to create divisions that could have the potential to destroy the equalibrium, people would say "this is rediculous. There must be another way to solve our differences." and the other people will say "I agree." Why? because they are united in one common interest, communism and the perpetration of peace, freedom and equality.

But how can we say this? Freedom surely means that it is a possibility.

Yes it is a possibility, just like an asteroid the size of the moon coming crashing into the earth is a possibility. Conflicts and ideologies have sprung forth from the human mind because of our relationship to our material conditions. Any political party serves a class interest which boils right down to where they are positioned on the economic scale. These conflicts occur because of the inequality of the economic systems which have existed throughout history. No such conflicts will exist in a communist society.

Of course, as Redstar said, there could be a new peace of technology which some how creates the potential of such conflicts between people, but even then, why would a society based on peace, freedom and equality destroy itself over a peace of technology when they coudl just harness it for the good of everyone. That was why the communist society exists. It was created for this very purpose.

In a democratic communist society you will have opposing sides colliding unless their is universal acceptance of every policy (which would require both objective reason AND universal submission to that reason).

People have the potential to accept when they are wrong and submit to reason. And I am sure there will be opposing sides in the administration of society, but in order to get to that point the working class have to have realised their material conditions, how they relate to them, and how to change them. This understanding will bring about the ability to look at the facts and make rational decisions, and the ability to submit for the benifit of the greater good. That is how a communist society will be created, and will be created because of a love for that idea and will be protected because of that idea.

My feelings of hunger, coldness, etc are all subjective.

Your feeling of hunger is due to the fact that your body has not had an intake of food in order to generate energy and provide you with the necessary nutriants to survive. You feel a sense of emptiness in your stomach, which makes the gasses bubble in an attempt to digest food which isn't there. Your body becomes weaker and weaker until eventually you pass out through lack of energy.

When you feel cold you do so because the external temperature is so low that your internal temperature begins to decrease, making you shiver in an attempt to jolt the energy in your body to make you warmer.

How are these things subjective?

Some of them probably believed they did. After all why did Kant come up with his Categorical Imperative if he didn't desire to make the world a better place using mere reason applied to actions?

This quote is from a Russian Nihilist, it isn't very relevant, but I like it nonetheless:

"I will be immoral! I will be immoral and why should I not?...Must I be moral because Kant tells me of a categoric imperative, of a mysterious command which comes to me from the depths of my own being and bids me be moral? But why should this "catagoric imperative" exercise a greater authority over my actions than that other imperative, which at times may command me to get drunk. A word, nothing but a word, like the words 'Providence' and 'Destiny,' invented to conceal our ignorance."

Compromise is not logic though...it is compromise. Both suggestions are logical so how can one be more logical?

Because there are a thousand facts which must be taken into consideration when making a decision on something.

A) Everybody working on a damaged road repairs it B) This is a damaged road > C) If everybody works on it the road it will be repaired.

A) Professionals working on a damaged road repairs it B) This is a damaged road > C)

It will be prediction and subjective reasoning that will tell us in advance which is the 'better' plan. Not objective reasoning.

Plan A maybe faster but more expensive, while plan B is more slower but less expensive. The groups may have a deadline and a set budget. The set budget may exceed greatly the cost of having professionals build the road and they also need it repaired as quickly as possible. Maybe they do not have a big budget but have a deadline so they decide to have half the road repaired by professionals and ther est by the community. Maybe they have neither a budget nor a deadline so the community must repair the road. The facts could be endless, but they all must be taken into consideration when drawing a conclusion.

And he was a Maoist in the end as I said

If he had lived to see how that turned out I doubt he would have continued to be a Maoist. I think Sartre became disillusioned with Stalin, if indeed her supported him at all, and saw Maoism as an interesting way to organise.

I could say the same thing about you

No, actually you couldn't. Mozambique doesn't get any realer.

Reject the bad faith!

What bad faith?

I belong to a group of thought known as Existentialist. Whether I am fortunate or not is up to you.

If only the entire world new they exist what peace we would have.

The Feral Underclass

21st May 2004, 07:46

This is the entire quote. It is taken from Peter Kropotkin's essay "Anarchist Morality" where he quotes a letter written as a statement by a young Russian Nihilist in the 18th Century. It maybe of interest to you.

"I will be immoral! I will be immoral and why should I not? Because the bible wills it? But the bible is just a collection of Babylonian and Hebrew traditions, traditions collected and put together like the Homeric poems, or as is being done still with Basque poems and Mongolian legends. Must I then go back to the state of mind of the half civilized people of the east?

Must I be moral because Kant tells me of a categoric imperative, of a mysterious command which comes to me from the depths of my own being and bids me be moral? But why should this "catagoric imperative" exercise a greater authority over my actions than that other imperative, which at times may command me to get drunk. A word, nothing but a word, like the words 'Providence' and 'Destiny,' invented to conceal our ignorance.

Or perhaps I am to be moral to oblige Bentham, who wants me to believe that I shall be happier if I drown to save a passerby who has fallen into a river than if I watched him drown?

Or perhaps because such has been my education? Because my mother taught me morality? Shall I then go and kneel down in church, honour the Queen, bow before a judge I know to be a scoundrel, simply because our mothers, our good ignorant mothers, have taught us such a pack of nonsense.

I am prejudiced - Like everyone else. I will try to rid myself of prejudice? Even though immorality be distasteful, I will yet force myself to be immoral, as when I was a boy I forced myself to give up fearing the dark, churchyards, ghosts and dead people - all of which I had been taught to fear.

It will be immoral to snap a weapon abused by religion; I will do it, were it only to protect against the hypocrisy imposed on us in the name of a word to which the name morality has been given."

Trissy

21st May 2004, 14:31

Indeed it is very interesting! It sounds quite Nietzschean and so it is right up my street. Nietzsche often wrote that he was an immoralist, and what is described sounds very much like his noble ethics or the morality of Zarathustra. In fact you could even call it existential ethics similar which could be drawn from Sartre or Kierkegaard. Very interesting indeed ^_^

Trissy

21st May 2004, 20:46

Facts! God can not be proven by fact, neither is it materially possible for him to exist. Therefore he doesn't. Fact, fact, fact, fact, fact! Using fact, do draw a conclusion is objective reasoning!!!
I'm glad you like the word fact. Now let me be scandalous here if I may...

HUMANS CAN PROVE NOTHING CONCLUSIVELY AND SO HAVE NO WAY OF ESTABLISHING CONCLUSIVE FACTS!!!!

Therefore objective reasoning is impossible for another reason. If you want to know my precise views on the relationship between humans, truth, knowledge and fact then you'll have to read some my (long :unsure: ) views of the following threads (Sorry!) as they give a rough account of my views. The second one with me debating with Redstar may be more helpful as he provides lots of very good (long :unsure: ) responses. You'll have to scroll down a bit on both...

If you don't want to then you can just ask me to type my views, although it will take a longish post...

An introduction to my views on science... (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21933&hl=)
My extremely interesting debate with Redstar (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22274&hl=)

Go back through my posts for your answer....again!

I shall but I still think I'll see arguments involving established facts and objective reason, both of which I deny can exist.

No conflict like this will exist on the magnitude. The functioning of society will be so rational, that if a conflict ever came about, it would seem so absurd to create divisions that could have the potential to destroy the equilibrium, people would say "this is ridiculous. There must be another way to solve our differences." and the other people will say "I agree." Why? because they are united in one common interest, communism and the perpetration of peace, freedom and equality
Rational in an objective sense or a subjective one?

No such conflicts will exist in a communist society
because it will be rational objectively?

And I am sure there will be opposing sides in the administration of society, but in order to get to that point the working class have to have realised their material conditions, how they relate to them, and how to change them. This understanding will bring about the ability to look at the facts and make rational decisions, and the ability to submit for the benefit of the greater good
So from our subjective position in relation to the material world around us we'll magically become objective?

Your feeling of hunger is due to the fact that your body has not had an intake of food in order to generate energy and provide you with the necessary nutrients to survive. You feel a sense of emptiness in your stomach, which makes the gasses bubble in an attempt to digest food which isn't there. Your body becomes weaker and weaker until eventually you pass out through lack of energy.

When you feel cold you do so because the external temperature is so low that your internal temperature begins to decrease, making you shiver in an attempt to jolt the energy in your body to make you warmer.

How are these things subjective?
I think the highlighting provides you with your answer but in case it doesn't I shall elaborate.

I eat an apple...yum I think! My friend Clyde frog eats and apple...yuck he thinks and spits it out!

I eat a couple of bowls of cereal a day, a packet of crisps, 750g of food maybe, and a couple of litres of fluid. I feel full up. Buck the yank eats the same and feels hungry.

I enter a room at 298K and feel warm. Bruce the Aussie does it and feels a bit chilly.

Our senses provide us with different sensations depending on our exact body set up and so they are personal and subjective. Also our feeling of pleasure and pain are relative to our experiences of pleasure and pain...when I say stubbing my toe is painful it is relative to both my most painful experience and my most pleasurable experience...I can not possibly imagine extreme hunger, or giving birth, or eating the finest food money can buy because I have not experienced them. These feelings are not objective but subjective and in some cases relative. They may be universal in the sense that we all flee from pain and desire pleasure but that does not make them objective. The whole world can agree that they know what hunger is like but they will only ever know from a subjective position.

This quote is from a Russian Nihilist, it isn't very relevant, but I like it nonetheless
No...it is very interesting and relative because if people ever find your objective reason then they could respond in a similar way to you.

Because there are a thousand facts which must be taken into consideration when making a decision on something
There are more then a thousand facts and none of them will be truly provable (see links). Also you will have to draw a line between relevant facts and irrelevant facts which will itself require use of subjective reasoning. If it doesn't then you end up in an infinite regress...

Plan A maybe faster but more expensive, while plan B is more slower but less expensive
sorry...this is off the point but I'd always thought that money would not be needed in such a society as it is a mere idea linked to human desire and possession. As nobody will truly possess anything why would we need money?

Also why is time an issue? We have all the time in the world some could argue. Time is only of interest if your after making profit which we're not...

The facts could be endless, but they all must be taken into consideration when drawing a conclusion.
Hurray! You acknowledged my point from a few moments ago...now how do we prevent an infinite regress?
Also what if it ends 34 fact to 54 facts? We may have to rely on our subjective experience of our 'objective reasoning' and it's application to the world if we are to chose one.

No, actually you couldn't. Mozambique doesn't get any realer
No...you said I should come into the real world, and I replied in the sense that you were trying to deny that people have chosen bad faith...

Do you honestly believe people have choices. Of course people fear taking responsibility, society makes people they are unworthy of such responsibility. If you are told this, time and time again, directly or simply by your position within society, then why would you believe any differently.
How can someone be free to make a choice if they are not aware that those choices exist. If they were, the world wouldn't be the way it is
You are free. I am free. We are free, because we are aware that we are free. Try going onto Park Hill flats and you will see very quickly that people are not aware that there are other choices
which is itself an act of bad faith, not on your part but in trying to defend their denial of freedom. They are aware of their choices, they are aware they are free...they just try not to admit it to themselves that they are because they find it easier. That is why I said you should come into the real world...

What bad faith?
See above.

If only the entire world new they exist what peace we would have
They do know they exist. They just prefer to believe they merely live. It might not be more peaceful in such a new world but it would be interesting and different and so I shall strive to make such a world...

The Feral Underclass

24th May 2004, 18:09

The "is this pen really a pen" argument is just an exercise in mental masturbation and serves no real purpose. Bourgeois thinkers with too much time on their hands. Useless waste of time and energy.

Trissy

24th May 2004, 21:22

I am neither bourgeois, nor someone with too much time on their hands. You've mistaken my argument if you honestly think it boils down to "is this pen really a pen?"

There is a difference between doubting ones senses or whether we exist or not, to doubting what the human mind can 'know'. I am merely pointing out that one man's fact is another man's fiction and that I believe science (how else are you going to arrive at your facts?) cannot tell us what is true or false, only what is true for us at a moment in time.

an exercise in mental masturbation
Are you a fan of Berkeley? With his "Esse Est Percipi" ('To be is to be perceived') everything is mental masturbation ^_^

I think you'll find that with me nothing could be further from reality...

The Feral Underclass

25th May 2004, 07:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:46 PM
HUMANS CAN PROVE NOTHING CONCLUSIVELY AND SOHAVE NO WAY OF ESTABLISHING CONCLUSIVE FACTS!!!!
Then how do you even know that you are alive?

Your feeling of hunger is due to the fact that your body has not had an intake of food in order to generate energy and provide you with the necessary nutrients to survive. You feel a sense of emptiness in your stomach, which makes the gasses bubble in an attempt to digest food which isn't there. Your body becomes weaker and weaker until eventually you pass out through lack of energy.

When you feel cold you do so because the external temperature is so low that your internal temperature begins to decrease, making you shiver in an attempt to jolt the energy in your body to make you warmer.

How are these things subjective?

"is this pen really a pen?"

Pointless!

I eat a couple of bowls of cereal a day, a packet of crisps, 750g of food maybe, and a couple of litres of fluid. I feel full up. Buck the yank eats the same and feels hungry.

What does that prove? Nothing. It proves that some people need to eat more to feel hungry. That doesn't stop your hunger being an actual thing which exists. Hunger is not subjective. It is a fact! There maybe different people who feel hunger differently, but that does not make any less a fact!

Our senses provide us with different sensations depending on our exact body set up and so they are personal and subjective

The argument here is whether or not human beings have the ability to be objective, in the sense that they take facts and consider them calmly in making a decision. YOu are claiming that facts do not exist, I use hunger as an example, and now you are attempting to disprove what hunger is by claiming it isn't a universal fact because it is personal...Ok! So you might no get full up after eating a donut and I might, that means nothing to the fact that hunger exists!!! Nothing !

There are more then a thousand facts and none of them will be truly provable

*Shrugs shoulders*

sorry...this is off the point but I'd always thought that money would not be needed in such a society as it is a mere idea linked to human desire and possession. As nobody will truly possess anything why would we need money?

<_<

Also why is time an issue? We have all the time in the world some could argue.

Maybe in three weeks time a huge festival or shipment of food will pass threw the road..

Trissy

25th May 2004, 13:15

Then how do you even know that you are alive?
I take it as an assumption that I'm alive but if I wanted to be really pedantic then I'd point you in the direction of Descartes and his famous 'I think therefore I am'.

It's still debated today as to whether or not it proves personal existence but it'll do for me anyday.

"is this pen really a pen?"

Pointless!
I was answering your question so no it is not pointless! You asked me a question as to how these feelings are subjective and I gave you a reply. You're the one who has some kind of low opinion of things that are subjective not me. Plus don't get me started on this "is this pen really a pen?" bullshit as it strikes me as nothing more then a convenient get out clause.

I've never doubted that hunger exists, or my own existence or any other of that crap. I merely doubt if humans can ever 'know' facts....it's not a crime!

That doesn't stop your hunger being an actual thing which exists
I've never doubted that it exists!!!! But it exists subjectively....that does not make it any less important or mean that it not something we experience. We just experience these things subjectively...

Hunger is not subjective. It is a fact!
It is subjective as I have explained. It belongs to a body, to your body and this correlates to the feelings you experience.

sub·jec·tive adj.

1a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. 1b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

2.Moodily introspective.

3.Existing only in the mind; illusory.

4.Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

5.Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.

6.Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.

7.Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.

8.Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
When I use the word I use it in the sense of either 1a (for thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc) or 1b like here...when it's something personal.

If I say 'I am feeling hungry', how do you know if what I say is true or not? You cannot scientifically prove whether the statment is true or not, only I know the truth of the statement. I am not saying that hunger does not exist...what I am saying is that it is personal and hence subjective. It may be a fact but it is not one that can be established scientifically or objectively.

The argument here is whether or not human beings have the ability to be objective, in the sense that they take facts and consider them calmly in making a decision. YOu are claiming that facts do not exist, I use hunger as an example, and now you are attempting to disprove what hunger is by claiming it isn't a universal fact because it is personal...Ok!
No it's not okay because that is not my argument. My argument is that humans cannot ever be objective. We cannot do it! We cannot stand outside of our own existence and make totally unbiased decisions. I have never doubted that facts exist nor have I doubted that the world exists...the point I'm making is there is a difference between the world as it is (noumenal) and the world as it appears (phenomenal)...we see the world as it appears and I'm saying we can never see it as it is. I'm not saying hunger is a universal fact nor am I saying it isn't. I'm saying it is not something that can be seen objectively. You can look at me until the end of time but you can never tell if I am hungry or not.

ob·jec·tive adj.

1.Of or having to do with a material object.

2.Having actual existence or reality.

3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. 3b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

4.Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.

5. Grammar a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
When I use the term objective I use it in the third sense. What I am doubting is that 3b is correct. I am saying that 3b is illogical based on my previous definition of logics (deduction, induction, other things that apply to language, etc).

The Feral Underclass

25th May 2004, 13:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:15 PM
I was answering your question so no it is not pointless!
I mean pointless in the sense that it the idea has no value. It doesn't achieve anything. It's pointless to engage in such a belief because it does not serve anyone, or anything, only confuses you and makes you more ignorant to the world are you.

You asked me a question as to how these feelings are subjective and I gave you a reply.

Who cares if your feeling of hunger is any more real than my feeling of hunger, hunger still exists. It is a fact, and therefore it is objective and therefore we can make logical decisions on effecting society.

You're the one who has some kind of low opinion of things that are subjective not me.

I find the whole think irritating and extremly pedantic to the point of irrelevance!

Plus don't get me started on this "is this pen really a pen?" bullshit as it strikes me as nothing more then a convenient get out clause.

It amounts to no less. This strain of thinking has no more value than whether or not you believe hunger is an objective fact.

I merely doubt if humans can ever 'know' facts....it's not a crime!

Then that very sentence reinforces the whole question "is this pen really a pen." By your assertion we can never know.

that does not make it any less important or mean that it not something we experience. We just experience these things subjectively

I can accept that. But does this mean that objective realities are non-existent. No! Someone might look at a pen and percieve it to be something other than it is. It doesnt alter the fact that it is a pen.

Some people percieve capitalism to be an efficient system. It isn't. The facts prove that it isn't. I believe that human beings have the ability to understand those facts.

Trissy

25th May 2004, 14:21

I mean pointless in the sense that it the idea has no value. It doesn't achieve anything. It's pointless to engage in such a belief because it does not serve anyone, or anything, only confuses you and makes you more ignorant to the world are you
The starting point for this line of our discussion was whether or not we can have objective reason. The point in this line of thought is that when a communist society arises people will question it especially if anyone tells somebody 'this is a fact' or 'this is rational' (in an objective sense). Doubting what we can know is slightly different from 'is this a pen?' (which I agree can be seen as a logical extension of the argument) and I shall address this later. 'Is this a pen?' is pointless...asking on what grounds we accept an argument is not...it is vital as it holds the key as the the successful chances of putting communism into practise.

hunger still exists
agreed.

It is a fact
perhaps...I still don't think we can prove it as such.

therefore it is objective
but how? the closest I can get to seeing it as objective is if we used 'Having actual existence or reality' as the definition, in which case I still struggle to see it as objective because more precisely it is the lack existence of something (ie food) in the body, not the actual existence of something (which in any case doesn't stop it being personal).

I find the whole think irritating and extremly pedantic to the point of irrelevance!

I can't help your subjective feelings. I'm merely trying to apply the logic you were saying we should use earlier. You can't turn logic off like a tap when it suits you...

Then that very sentence reinforces the whole question "is this pen really a pen." By your assertion we can never know
But there are different types of 'knowing'. I see a pen as a pen because I can experience it empirically...for the same reasons I don't doubt the existence of the world around me. I would perhaps say we can never know whether a pen is a pen, but that won't stop me using a pen nor will it disable me in my ability to live. Empiricism is like that...it deals with the subjective...it doesn't say we can know things for certain but then doesn't say we should give up living because of it. Rationalists and scientists may think we can use things like science to know the existence of things like electrons, or hunger, but they never say why knowing something objectively is preferable to knowing it subjectively. My own view is that they merely want it to make their arguments superior to those of others. I don't deny hunger exists, nor do I say we shouldn't seek to remove it from the world. All I am saying is that in a communist society you will not be able to sway people by flinging facts at them because you will always omit some and ignore others for subjective reasons...

But does this mean that objective realities are non-existent. No!
Indeed but it is saying that we can never know them! Why worry about objective realities? Why can't we deal with the problems we see all around us subjectively? Hunger and famine still exist...why do we wish to know what goes on objectively?
that is what strikes me as 'irritating and extremly pedantic to the point of irrelevance'.

Some people percieve capitalism to be an efficient system. It isn't. The facts prove that it isn't
The facts may prove this but we won't know it because of that. It will be shown in to be inefficient through our experiences of it and the way it makes a few wealthy at expense of the suffering of masses.

Trissy

30th May 2004, 19:51

Okay, sorry to drag this topic up again but I think I found a passage in 'Existentialism & Humanism' by Sartre that highlights my general position. To give a background to this passage it begins when Sartre explains what 'despair' means to the Existentialist. He states that it means relying upon ourselves and never having expectations beyond what is a possibility, hence we should act without hope.

He continues:

Marxists, to whom I have said this, have answered: "Your action is limited, obviously, by your death; but you can rely upon the help of others. That is, you can count both upon what others are doing to help you elsewhere, as in China and in Russia, and upon what they will do later, after your death, to take up your action and carry it forward to its final resolution. Moreover you must rely upon this; not to do so is immoral." To this I rejoin, first, that I shall always count on my comrades-in-arms in the struggle, in so far as they are committed, as I am, to a definite, common cause; and in the unity of a party or a group which I can more or less control - that is, in which I am enrolled as a militant and whose movements at every moment are known to me. In that respect, to rely upon the unity and the will of the party is exactly like my reckoning that the train will run to time or that the tram will not be derailed. But I cannot count upon the men whom I do not know, I cannot base my confidence upon human goodness or upon man's interest in the good of society, seeing that man is free and that there is no human nature which I can take as foundational. I do not know whither the Russian revolution will lead. I can admire it and take it as an example in so far as it is evident, today, that the proletariat plays a part in Russia which it has attainted in no other nation. But I cannot affirm that this will necessarily lead to the triumph of the proletariat: I must confine myself to what I can see. Nor can I be sure that comrades-in-arms will take up my work after my death and carry it to the maximum perfection, seeing that those men are free agents and freely decide, tomorrow, what man is to be. Tomorrow, after my death, some men may decide to establish Fascism, and others may be so cowardly or so slack as to let them do so. If so, Fascism will then be the truth of man, and so much the worse for all of us. In reality, things will be such as men decide they shall be. Does that mean that I should abandon myself to quietism? No. First I ought to commit myself and then act my commitment, according to the time-honoured formula that "one need not hope in order to undertake one's work." Nor does this mean that I should not belong to the party, but only that I should be without illusion and that I should do what I can. For instance, if I ask myself "Will the social ideal as such, ever become a reality?" I cannot tell, I only know that whatever may be in my power to make it so, I shall do; beyond that, I can count upon nothing.

This passage sums up why I believe a Communist society can never rule out a next step, and as such why change (on a big scale) can never be ruled out (which is what Marxism could be said to argue).