What is the philosophical basis for...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

caring about the working classes? Or does that matter. Something I've been tackling, input appreciated.

[Pawn Power]

I presume it all depends on if you philosophical beliefs on morals and ethics and if they exist or not.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

What is bourgouis morality anyway and how will socialist morality differ?

It seems to me if you cant answer the first question you dont know why you are a socialist.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Simple. I don't want to be bossed around by the ruling class(es), and the only way to ensure that won't happen is that nobody is bossed around.


Originally posted by As Bakunin put it
I, who wish to be free, cannot be so, because around me are men who do not yet desire freedom, and, not desiring it, become, as opposed to me, the instruments of my oppression.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ®evolution of the mind
Simple. I don't want to be bossed around by the ruling class(es), and the only way to ensure that won't happen is that nobody is bossed around.

That's very well put!

I knew a fellow once who said that the reason he became interested in communism is that he was "sick of taking orders from stupid people!"

Wage-slavery is degrading...therefore we should abolish it!

:redstar2000:

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

[The Feral Underclass]

Nice to see you back among us :)


Originally posted by Geist+Jan 10 2005, 05:34 PM--> (Geist @ Jan 10 2005, 05:34 PM) caring about the working classes? Or does that matter. Something I've been tackling, input appreciated. [/b]
Peter Kropotkin in his essay Anarchist Morality (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/kropotkin/anmorality/) came to a very basic and simple conclusion to how we should conduct ourselves. Simply, do not do what you would not have done to yourself.

It's an extremly basic, and even idealistic idea but it's extremly effective if applied by people. Would George Bush like to have his family bombed? Would the factory boss like to be exploited by someone? Of course they wouldn't which makes these actions unjustified.

It could be that standards of interaction with each other are determined by how we feel about our actions. Would I want to have my things stolen. No? Then it doesn't follow logically why someone else would.

This could be a basis for how we feel about society. Working class people are oppressed and exploited in the most vile ways. Can this be justified? The answer is no.


Anarchist Morality
We do not wish to be ruled. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody? We do not wish to be deceived, we wish always to be told nothing but the truth. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves do not wish to deceive anybody, that we promise to always tell the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth? We do not wish to have the fruits of our labour stolen from us. And by that very fact, do we not declare that we respect the fruits of others' labour?

By what right indeed can we demand that we should be treated in one fashion, reserving it to ourselves to treat others in a fashion entirely different? Our sense of equality revolts at such an idea.

Equality in mutual relations with the solidarity arising from it, this is the most powerful weapon of the animal world in the struggle for existence. And equality is equity.

By proclaiming ourselves anarchists, we proclaim beforehand that we disavow any way of treating others in which we should not like them to treat us; that we will no longer tolerate the inequality that has allowed some among us to use their strength, their cunning or their ability after a fashion in which it would annoy us to have such qualities used against ourselves. Equality in all things, the synonym of equity, this is anarchism in very deed. It is not only against the abstract trinity of law, religion, and authority that we declare war. By becoming anarchists we declare war against all this wave of deceit, cunning, exploitation, depravity, vice--in a word, inequality--which they have poured into all our hearts. We declare war against their way of acting, against their way of thinking. The governed, the deceived, the exploited, the prostitute, wound above all else our sense of equality. It is in the name of equality that we are determined to have no more prostituted, exploited, deceived and governed men and women.

[stefan]

do not do what you would not have done to yourself

Is some ting thought up by Emanuel Kant the filosopher.

And a society based on that assumption is great but not all people are the same. Lots of people will work that code but some people it simply will not work. I am a biologist and can tell you now that some people are born with out a sense of wirght or wrong. Or how about the person that is a born psygopath who can not feel for others?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:25 PM
I am a biologist and can tell you now that some people are born with out a sense of wirght or wrong. Or how about the person that is a born psygopath who can not feel for others?
Obviously there will always be some people that want to oppress and do bad things to others who do not wish such treatment. The oppression part should be effectively suppressed by others wanting to be free and simply not submitting to the wannabe-tyrant's will.

Chronically violent people obviously can't be left to wander freely, but what would you like to be done if you were deemed one? Would you like to be put in prison? I didn't think so. Wouldn't something more akin to house arrest and care be more appropriate? In Iain M. Banks' Player of Games such people were looked after by droids... when the revolution happens, our technology might be at that level :).

[redstar2000]

Actually, "do not do to others what you would not like someone to do to you" goes back to the liberal Jewish rabbi Hillel -- a near contemporary of "Jesus" by the way.

:redstar2000:

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

[STI]

t's an extremly basic, and even idealistic idea but it's extremly effective if applied by people. Would George Bush like to have his family bombed? Would the factory boss like to be exploited by someone? Of course they wouldn't which makes these actions unjustified.

It could be that standards of interaction with each other are determined by how we feel about our actions. Would I want to have my things stolen. No? Then it doesn't follow logically why someone else would.

But how does that apply to revolution? I "wouln't want to have my factory occupied" and I "wouldn't want to have my wealth deprived", so how, by that standard, could revolution be "moral"?

[Monty Cantsin]

I "wouln't want to have my factory occupied" and I "wouldn't want to have my wealth deprived", so how, by that standard, could revolution be "moral"?

because it's not theirs (in totality) in the first place.

[STI]

Fine. Apply it to something else. I "Wouldn't want to have my rulership ended". Or, I "wouldn't want to be offed during the revolution".

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:20 PM
What is bourgouis morality anyway and how will socialist morality differ?

It seems to me if you cant answer the first question you dont know why you are a socialist.
Bourgouis morality is mainly fueled by liberalism --> an urge for individualistic progress; everyone cares for their own success. Emphasis on positive rights/liberties and actions (i.e. as long as i don't hurt you driectly, i am void of blame)

Socialist moriality---> A communitarian mentality where the collective being of thre society is valued. Egalitarianism is emphasized to do what's best in putting everyone in equal footings.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:29 AM
Fine. Apply it to something else. I "Wouldn't want to have my rulership ended". Or, I "wouldn't want to be offed during the revolution".
Noam Chomsky talks alot about "justification" and that is what the core of Kropotkin's argument is. Justification. Can exploitation and other forms of dominance be justified?

Someone may not want to have their power taken away, but can the dominance of individual power be justified?

Also, what is a revolution? Violence has only ever occured in that situation in self defence. Of course no-one wants to be "offed", but is self defence justified?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:49 PM
Actually, "do not do to others what you would not like someone to do to you" goes back to the liberal Jewish rabbi Hillel -- a near contemporary of "Jesus" by the way.

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Cheers, I'll take this in and come back with criticisms as they come to my head, I am still not sure what morality will replace bourgeios morality, something of course must eventually.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:51 PM
I am still not sure what morality will replace bourgeios morality, something of course must eventually.
Morality in what sense?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

A system of values that we live by, I mean the values of a socialit/anarchist society, what are they in relation to peadophillia,torture blah blah blah or will they all just disappear...?

[Monty Cantsin]

so Geist what do you think bourgeois morality is towards such things? Saint-just style ‘prove you're virtue or go to prison’ (or guillotine)?

It’s evident that orthodox Marxists variant have used the Jacobin maxim “a patriot is he who supports the republic in general; whoever opposes it in detail is a traitor”. With slit variations (trade patriot for revolutionary and traitor for counter-revolutionary) Lenin didn’t take it to such an extreme but Stalin certainly did. But then it’s evident that I don’t like orthodox Marxists of any variant one reason being they are morally bankrupt (they considered capital a totality economic work). Terror and the like don’t work and didn’t work for the Jacobins, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. They all failed in creating a new order one reason being their use of terror.


edit: what would be the bais for a neo-marxian morality i think rational self-interest.

i just read over what i wrote and realise it has not got much in connection with everything else that was said, though it's probably something that needs a going over in its own right.

[Trissy]

What is the philosophical basis for caring about the working classes?
Well I cannot say what the philosophical basis is but I can say what is my philosophical basis for caring about the working classes. This is because I see there as being two different driving forces behind it and both of them you'll be familiar with as a fellow reader of Nietzsche.

I try (and most probably fail) to ground my thoughts in the Noble morality and the morality of the Superman. I care for the working classes only because I care for myself and I realise that if I want to live a life according to my own will then it may be necessary for me to unburden myself from time to time. In other words I care for the working classes only because I see them as no immediate threat to my life in the manner that the ruling classes are. If I ever attain a position in life where I have total control over my life then I would not aim to hurt the working classes because I would aim to have no reason to. Attacking others is a sign of lack of will-to-power rather than a sign of an abundance of will-to-power. I would aim to help the working classes precisely because I was powerful enough to do so...because my cup overflows and I have no need for excess in my life.

The alternative view is that of slave morality. Those who recognise their weakness and instead of trying to conquer it, they think that they can overcome stronger foes by sheer numbers. It is a desire to hurt others as much as they hurt us, and this can only be done with other weak people on our side. This vengefulness is found on both sides as you'll find many wealthy people who indentify themselves with the ruling classes merely because they recognise they're too weak to do anything by themselves. It is the herd mentality that drives people to collect into big groups so that they can wilfully ignore the fact that they do not know how to be who they are, and so instead live the life assigned to them by the many. It's why there is such a desire in society to be 'normal'.


What is bourgouis morality anyway and how will socialist morality differ?

Bourgouis morality is grounded in mostly the Slave morality with a odd aspect of Noble morality. Socialist morality will not differ unless it aligns itself more with the principles of Noble morality.

N.B. Please do not be confused by these labels. Nietzsche was apolitical and so these are not his ideas but rather me applying some of his ideas to this issue.


Simply, do not do what you would not have done to yourself.

The problem comes in implementing this across society because we cannot establish an objective and Universal reasoning based on our subjective likes and dislikes. A person may be heavily into forms of sex that involve degradation of some sort but that does not mean that everybody will agree with that person being able to carry out acts of degradation on anybody they happen to meet. In a similar many of us agree to people having the right to self-defence but we disagree on what this entitles us to. The American gouvernment took this to the extreme in their pre-emptive invasion Iraq, and so did the Third Reich with the Jews. We may not like the idea of being slaughtered but we may like the idea of being allowed to defend ourselves. Like with all morality the lines become blurred...


I am a biologist and can tell you now that some people are born with out a sense of wirght or wrong. Or how about the person that is a born psygopath who can not feel for others?
What??? You honestly believe there is a scientific basis for the presence or absence of a conscience? Psychopaths are suffering from a mental illness. Misanthropy on the other hand is freely chosen. Why we have to deny human freedom through biology and psychology is beyond me here.


Noam Chomsky talks alot about "justification" and that is what the core of Kropotkin's argument is. Justification. Can exploitation and other forms of dominance be justified?

Someone may not want to have their power taken away, but can the dominance of individual power be justified?

But once more the issue rises of to whom I am justifying my actions. Why do I need to justify myself to anybody apart from myself? Is this justification going to be subjective or objective. Why should I bow to the reasoning of others unless there is some sort of Universal and objective reasoning out there...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:46 PM






Well I cannot say what the philosophical basis is but I can say what is my philosophical basis for caring about the working classes. This is because I see there as being two different driving forces behind it and both of them you'll be familiar with as a fellow reader of Nietzsche.

Do you think the distinction Nietzsche outlines in the GM has become blurred, I've been thinking about that. The noble's he examine and his aristocratic contemporaries are a far cry from what we have today. Who is noble now?

Are the working classes applying 'evil' to the corporations and 'good' to themselves? I wonder, certainly one worth thinking about. Finally what do you think of the idea of socialists and anarchists suffering from ressentiment?


In other words I care for the working classes only because I see them as no immediate threat to my life in the manner that the ruling classes are.

Interesting so you do not direct hate towards the ruling class, but realise that they are a threat to your ideas of whatever it is you hold dear and thus must be opposed, in the noble spirit? The noble spirit recosnises his enemy to be noble like him however in Nietzsche, perhaps this needs to be overtuned in our age.


Bourgouis morality is grounded in mostly the Slave morality with a odd aspect of Noble morality. Socialist morality will not differ unless it aligns itself more with the principles of Noble morality.

Exactly.

[Trissy]

Do you think the distinction Nietzsche outlines in the GM has become blurred, I've been thinking about that. The noble's he examine and his aristocratic contemporaries are a far cry from what we have today. Who is noble now?
Well I think they were slightly blurred in Nietzsche's day but I certainly agree with the idea that the lines have become more blurred. In N's day all he really had to do was to distinguish between decadent members of the ruling class and those who exhibit noble characteristics, whereas now we find noble ethics and slave ethics present in both the ruling classes and the working classes. Perhaps this is a sign of society becoming evermore decadent? I certainly see why Nietzsche felt the need to distance himself from the politics of his day because his philosophy is not an easy subject to combine with political philosophy. My personal view is that nobility cannot be identified with any one class now, but rather it lies in individuals on both sides, and that any major changes in society (such as those desired by Marx) will only come about when significant numbers on either side individually embrace the principles of Noble ethics. To me political choices cannot be separated from personal (and hence existential) choices and for this reason significant changes in society become increasingly more difficult.


Are the working classes applying 'evil' to the corporations and 'good' to themselves?
I think in many cases they are, just as the supporters of Capitalism in Opposing Ideology apply the labels 'good' to Capitalism and 'evil' to their idea of Communism. The words 'good' and 'evil' in these senses are just attempts at justifying one's own actions to oneself, and to persuade other weak-minded individuals to follow our example. All are cases of bad faith in my eyes.


Finally what do you think of the idea of socialists and anarchists suffering from resentment?
Again, I think Nietzsche was partly right in his aphorisms that attack the vengefulness in socialism and anarchism. When I read discussions on here about the execution of the bourgeois in the event of a revolution I can see no other explanation for these ideas except revenge. For some these are necessary actions but for me they all depend on the individual circumstances. I think that one can be a socialist or an anarchist without being inspired by feelings of resentment and this is why I feel that noble ethics or the ethics of the Superman are not necessarily opposed to those of socialism and anarchism. My greatest fear in all of this is that I am merely fooling myself...

Who knows? I think I'll have many more a sleepless night thinking these things through with a bottle or two of wine...


Interesting so you do not direct hate towards the ruling class, but realise that they are a threat to your ideas of whatever it is you hold dear and thus must be opposed, in the noble spirit?
Yes, I do not direct my hatred at the ruling classes blindly. I do not just see a politician and feel a visceral hatred towards them. To me there has to be a distinction between someone or something as a personal threat and something that just happens to be linked to a threat. Take the Tory MP Boris Jonhson for example! In him all I see is a rather funny foolish character who speaks his mind and has little regard for the consequences. I was far more worried about what I was not being taught at school then Boris Johnson. In this sense my actions are inspired more by threats to my life and things that are too close to me for comfort then by those who just happen to find themselves wealthy or powerful.

All threats to my life and my ideas aren't necessarily opposed by me but rather most of them are willfully opposed in the noble spirit. My actions are not determined but freely chosen (or at least this is the appearance).


The noble spirit recognises his enemy to be noble like him however in Nietzsche, perhaps this needs to be overturned in our age.
I think the idea does need to be reconsidered in our age but then again it would not be a surprise for me to support a Neo-Nietzschean and a Neo-Existentialist movement. The Noble individual may also see a threat in the ethics of the Slaves. I accept that they are perhaps not the greatest threat but in sheer numbers and advantages they may pose some sort of a threat if they can significantly limit an individual’s actions and thoughts. Perhaps an example of this would be the Soviet crushing of the Hungarian rebellion in 1956?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:46 PM
The problem comes in implementing this across society because we cannot establish an objective and Universal reasoning based on our subjective likes and dislikes.
I think there is a universal understanding that we can base this on. Everyone agrees that pain is disagreeable in all instances. Everyone agrees that starvation is disagreeable etc.

We cannot establish a fact, I agree, but we can come to mutual understandings.


A person may be heavily into forms of sex that involve degradation of some sort but that does not mean that everybody will agree with that person being able to carry out acts of degradation on anybody they happen to meet.

That's the reverse of what I am saying though.


The American gouvernment took this to the extreme in their pre-emptive invasion Iraq

America didn't invade Iraq as a pe-emptive act of defence.


the Third Reich with the Jews.

The Germans were not a superior race.



Noam Chomsky talks allot about "justification" and that is what the core of Kropotkin's argument is. Justification. Can exploitation and other forms of dominance be justified?

Someone may not want to have their power taken away, but can the dominance of individual power be justified?

But once more the issue rises of to whom I am justifying my actions

You are justifying your actions to yourself; based on your own actions.

We exist as individuals: If a man asks himself "do I want to be exploited" the answer will be no. If he then exploits a man, how then is it justified?


Why should I bow to the reasoning of others unless there is some sort of Universal and objective reasoning out there...

You should acknowledge yourself when you make choices.

[Trissy]

I think there is a universal understanding that we can base this on. Everyone agrees that pain is disagreeable in all instances. Everyone agrees that starvation is disagreeable etc.
I agree with you to a point although I cannot see how things can ever be truly Universal in the sense that they apply to all people, everywhere and at all times. Not everyone agrees that pain is disagreeable in all instances because for the masochist and the sadomasochist pain is very much agreeable in mnay instances.

Likewise there may instances where you need not equate 'disagreeable' with 'bad' because we have to take into consideration short term consequences and long term consequences. Nearly everyone will agree that starvation is disagreeable when we see the devastation and the suffering it causes but then in the West severly overweight people often embark on extreme diets which are effectively starvation. In the case of the overweight people many would argue that although it is disagreeable in the short term, in the long term they will benefit from better health. I know they're not quite the same but such issues are important in ethics. Plato argues like this for a system of ethical hedonism in the Protagoras.


That's the reverse of what I am saying though
How is it the reverse? The person asks themselves if they would like to be humiliated and they answer 'yes'. Following the logic of 'do unto others...' this leads them to the conclusion that they can humiliate others doesn't it?


America didn't invade Iraq as a pe-emptive act of defence.

We may not think so but there are many people who would offer that up as the in vogue defence of America's actions.


The Germans were not a superior race.
Agreed but there are still a few who would try to justify Hitler's actions that way. A similar thing can be seen in the way that many Western countries deal with immigration now. We have an immigration system that is full of problems precisely because we need some immigrants to support our economy, and yet too many immigrants would threaten our economy. This argument doesn't use the words superior but I'm confident their will be some BNP idiots using a similar argument to fuel their bigoted views.


You are justifying your actions to yourself; based on your own actions.

We exist as individuals: If a man asks himself "do I want to be exploited" the answer will be no. If he then exploits a man, how then is it justified?
Yes but this still runs into problems. Ask a man if he wants to be killed and he will say no. Ask the same man if he wants the right to do anything to defend himself and he will say yes. If he then kills a man in self-defense is he justified?

Also we have the problem of rational and irrational attempts at justification. What I may see as a rational attempt at justification may be to you completely irrational. Who is correct? Unless we can establish a way of sorting rational from irrational then we're stuck. Then we also have to consider the hiden motives of those who wish for you to follow their 'objective' reasoning. What exactly are they getting out of it?


You should acknowledge yourself when you make choices.
Many people do. The problem for them arises when they don't acknowledge other people as being their equals...

[che's long lost daughter]

Well I think it's but human nature to care about other people. I think everyone has the so-callled Maternal Instincts. Also, men basically have moral principles and it includes not being indifferent to the state of other people especially those of the exploited class.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Thats not true though, we have to face that. History shows the exact opposite, case for case on a grand political scale. Even now in liberalism, the most free society in terms of lifestyle, choice etc. man fucks others over. It ugly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Trissy

I think that it is generally acceptable to use the idea "do not do what you would not have done to yourself" as a way to living our lives and also as a basis for morality in a future society.

At this point I become frustrated with philosophy. The quest for truth or untruth as is the case here and the dissecting of concepts; attempting to rationalise or irrationalise it in the great expanse of knowledge and the unknown just leads [me] to confusion and ultimately irrelevancy.

Once you breakdown my argument like this I just can't help but feel, quite frankly, who cares? I think [living in rebellion] and simply chosing to do good, what ever that means and why, is good enough.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:17 PM
Thats not true though, we have to face that. History shows the exact opposite, case for case on a grand political scale. Even now in liberalism, the most free society in terms of lifestyle, choice etc. man fucks others over. It ugly.
History has been motivated by those who control it. It is not necessarily synonymous with humanity or their instinct for solidarity or compassion. In fact, if you look at individual human history, rather than the political or social history of groups or of "era's" you can see that human interaction is based on those two things.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

The individual uses groups to control their own lot, the individual is always involved implicitly with some form of mini-society. Those who are noble will end up dominating the weak, thats how history is.

The individual is all very well but this is politics and politics is pretty much a group problem.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:52 PM
The individual uses groups to control their own lot, the individual is always involved implicitly with some form of mini-society. Those who are noble will end up dominating the weak, thats how history is.

The individual is all very well but this is politics and politics is pretty much a group problem.
This is one of the reasons why anarchism exists.

[Trissy]

At this point I become frustrated with philosophy. The quest for truth or untruth as is the case here and the dissecting of concepts; attempting to rationalise or irrationalise it in the great expanse of knowledge and the unknown just leads [me] to confusion and ultimately irrelevancy.
Perhaps it is part of the role of Philosophy to frustrate. At every turn it usually leads us not to answers but to just more questions. Many see this as a negative aspect of philosophy and for that reason they reject it, but whether they are better off for doing so shall always be debateable...

Many people like the idea 'ignorance is bliss'. It soothes them to sleep in the dark hours where troubled minds struggle to remain sane. But ultimately where does this leave us? Ignorance leads to some of the greatest crimes imaginable and to the some of the greatest suffering too.

I need philosophy despite the frustration that it occasionally brings because otherwise I would not be able to wake up in the morning and feel different to those who either profess to have knowledge or profess to be happy in their ignorance. I like to think of it as the absurd task of revealing the true state of our ignorance at the same time as trying to create some value in life. It is not so much attempting to seperate rational from irrational, but rather distinguishing valuable irrational things from worthless irrational things. Without consistancy what can we ever hope to achieve in our short lives? It follows from this that I must question the things I support with as much effort as those that I do not...

To me the worst crime a philisopher can commit is incosistancy. The worst thing they can be is a hypocrite. Oddly enough my thoughts on John Locke became worse today for these very reasons! I didn't think I could dislike him any more but it seems I was wrong.


Once you breakdown my argument like this I just can't help but feel, quite frankly, who cares?
I can't help but feel that you might care if some people who profess to share your exact thoughts took them to their logical conclusions and in doing so commited things that you would consider truly terrible. I'm not saying that I hold any thoughts that are any less problematic, I'm just revealing what appear to me to be loopholes through which horror could crawl...


I think [living in rebellion] and simply chosing to do good, what ever that means and why, is good enough.
If that is good enough for you then so be it. I just cannot help but imagine that many people have said the same thing...people who dropped the atomic bomb, or Blitzed London, or destroyed Dresden, or enslaved/slaughtered whole races or nations...

Considering all the suffering that the world has seen throughout time, I think we'd find a lot less people then we liked who admitted to having knowingly done wrong. That's the problem with morality. In the end who is solely right? Who is solely wrong?