evolution v. revolution

[tambourine_man]

this is my first post...!
i hope i am posting in the right location...

i am a communist...but many people, when they hear this, immediately decry communism as a failed theory. i understand and explain to them the reasons why the ussr, china, cuba, etc. do/did not properly exemplify uncorrupted communism; that, in fact, in all of these countries there was a conscious and willfull perversion of marx's ideas.
however, the main objection seems to be...people believe that communism requires a morality impossible to achieve and, indeed, in direct conflict with "human nature."
i believe that communism is the inevitable result of the total progression of society and that, since the dawn of civilization, there has been a moral evolution that will eventually culminate in the dissolution of the state and the development of a harmonious world in which the individual retains full autonomy uninhibited by even the most fundamental of societal regulations (he will have freedom of thought, freedom from assumption, etc.). that is, the "human nature" that they cite is not absolute, but is dynamic.
thus, the level of moral development and progression of a certain region can likely be measured (in a democracy) by the liberality of the government and its willingness to accomodate more tolerant and just ideas into official policy. i think europe most clearly demonstrates this trend, since it is indisputable that the europe of today is infinitely more tolerant than the europe of the middle ages and beyond (because of its historical tendency towards democracy...moreso than most other places anyway)...but of course, when "measuring" progression in such a way, we must also accomodate small-scale shifts in the public morality determined by acute circumstance (i.e. nazi germany exemplified a moral decadence that would be unexpected considering that the general trends of european policy at the time were far less authoritarian and...fascist). so i try to think of those specific instances as small divets in a larger line that, as a whole, is always becoming more positive (as in a graph!).
therefore...according to this line of thought (no pun intended!), in time, the general morality in the world will (not uniformly, of course) reach a point where man is finally capable of exhibiting christ-love, and has achieved selflessness. (that is, if the nuclear apocalypse doesn't come first). so, it seems that, according to this theory of moral evolution, revolution would merely accomplish what would otherwise be accomplished without bloodshed, and, moreover, would likely fail, since the general people would have not yet achieved the general selflessness that a stateless society demands.
that is just one perspective...then again, i sometimes think the exact opposite...that revolution is totally viable and that thru an ultra-centralised government, the old lifestyle would be completely eliminated thru policy (we would have to have very competent leaders, though), and the new morality would thereby be forced on the people (least effective on the older generation who have already experienced and accepted certain notions of life, but very effective on their children!). and that the bloodshed demanded by the revolution is justified by the bloodshed it eliminates by expediating the liberation of man from societal slavery.
i wonder what you all will say :unsure: ...byebye for now

[Paradox]

then again, i sometimes think the exact opposite...that revolution is totally viable and that thru an ultra-centralised government, the old lifestyle would be completely eliminated thru policy (we would have to have very competent leaders, though), and the new morality would thereby be forced on the people (least effective on the older generation who have already experienced and accepted certain notions of life, but very effective on their children!).

Ultra-centralized government? I see no way how that could lead to a classless society. I also don't think that forcing people to accept the new society will work, and that it is a counterproductive tactic. The people have to want Communism and work for it themselves, not be forced to accept a revolution by any leaders.


in time, the general morality in the world will (not uniformly, of course) reach a point where man is finally capable of exhibiting christ-love, and has achieved selflessness.

I'm not sure what "christ-love" has to do with it, but I don't think any drastic changes will be necessary in so far as selflessness. We can't make everyone totally altruistic, and people act when it benifits themselves, not just out of selflessness. Of course people will work to benefit society, the community, but they do that because it benefits them as well. If working for the community gave no benefit to them, then why would they work? People will always have that selfish element, and in order for Communism to come about, you have to show them that Communism will BENEFIT THEM. If they can't see how it will benefit them, why would they work to realize it? Sure, we have to get people to think in terms of Humanity as a whole, rather than just their own countries, states, cities, and neighborhoods. But unless we convince them that Communism will benefit them, they aren't going to take it seriously.


i understand and explain to them the reasons why the ussr, china, cuba, etc. do/did not properly exemplify uncorrupted communism

They did not/do not represent Communism at all.

[Paradox]

so, it seems that, according to this theory of moral evolution, revolution would merely accomplish what would otherwise be accomplished without bloodshed, and, moreover, would likely fail, since the general people would have not yet achieved the general selflessness that a stateless society demands.

Are you suggesting that the bourgeoisie will just dissolve itself through "moral evolution?" That they'll voluntarily give up their power, and that no revolution will be necessary? If that's what you're saying, then I'm inclined to think you are too optimistic.

[tambourine_man]

Ultra-centralized government? I see no way how that could lead to a classless society.

well, the general idea is that through a powerful government directly reflecting the interests of the people, all capitalist influence could be forcibly denied, thereby effectively imposing the communist morality on even the most reactionary elements, and consequently expediating the dissolution of the state itself. but of course, i am not fixed on this idea, and would welcome your ideas on revolutionary "government."

as for selflessness...it is my personal opinion that such should be the goal of mankind...and the communist philosophy provides a conduit through which it can be achieved. my aim is not to create yet another society wherein the primary motivation for existence and struggle is self-interest. as long as self-interest exists in even the most remote form, as long as competition exists, there will be an oppressed and an oppressor. the stateless "society," that is, the final objective of communism, is only viable in a world where men work to feed themselves, yes...but feed themselves only to be able to feed others. in such a way, i think, man can realize happiness and freedom.


Are you suggesting that the bourgeoisie will just dissolve itself through "moral evolution?" That they'll voluntarily give up their power, and that no revolution will be necessary? If that's what you're saying, then I'm inclined to think you are too optimistic.

yes, that is what i am saying...though it would be a gradual dissolution in proportion with the progression of moral man as a whole. if such progression does exist, then such a result is inevitable. but, if you are saying that such moral progression does not exist (though history has argued otherwise), then i am inclined to think that you are too pessimistic.

on another note, i mentioned christ because he is generally thought of as the embodiment of selflessness.

[Paradox]

well, the general idea is that through a powerful government directly reflecting the interests of the people, all capitalist influence could be forcibly denied, thereby effectively imposing the communist morality on even the most reactionary elements, and consequently expediating the dissolution of the state itself. but of course, i am not fixed on this idea, and would welcome your ideas on revolutionary "government."

Yes, I know. That's the IDEA. In reality however, those who are controlling this powerful "ultra-centralized" government, they will simply become the new ruling class. I seriously doubt that any heavily centralized government is going to dissolve into a stateless, classless society. I think that this government supposedly imposing "Communist morality" would ITSELF become reactionary, in that it would not give its power because the masses "aren't yet ready for Communism and need leaders."


as long as self-interest exists in even the most remote form, as long as competition exists, there will be an oppressed and an oppressor.

Self-interest will ALWAYS EXIST. Think about it. There's more to it than self-interest, but it plays a big role in our lives. Whenever we buy something, work, take part in recreational activities, go on dates, etc., self-interest is playing a major role. Yes, we need to get people to think more about others, and a system that will benefit ALL HUMANITY, not just a small group or ruling class, but to say we can eliminate self-interest "in even its most remote forms," is nonsense.


yes, that is what i am saying...though it would be a gradual dissolution in proportion with the progression of moral man as a whole. if such progression does exist, then such a result is inevitable.

I'm not saying that morals do not change, don't evolve, I'm saying that the thought of the bourgeoisie just stepping aside because they've "changed morally," is quite outlandish. Morals have been changing for a long time, yes. But there is still a ruling class which is hostile to any actions against it. Even if members of the ruling class spoke of morals, I would just consider it rhetoric, much like religious talk; it's just to keep the masses from taking any significant action and challenging the ruling class, to quiet them down so to speak.

[tambourine_man]

i don't think a stateless society could function so long as individual man had his own interests in mind.

in any case......i think we just have a fundamental difference in our assessments of the potential/aspirations of the masses.

[Paradox]

i don't think a stateless society could function so long as individual man had his own interests in mind.

I'm not saying that an individual's self-interest will be the only thing he or she is considering when making any kind of decision or taking action, no. What I'm saying is that we can't eliminate self-interest completely. Say for example, there's a commune, and an individual is working in that commune, performing some productive task that will benefit the community, the commune. That work the individual does, not only does it benefit the commune as a whole, but it benefits that individual as well. Working in teams, in groups, not only benefits the team as a whole, but the individuals in that team independently, as well. Communism will not only benefit Humanity as a whole, but the individuals who make up Humanity independently. It will benefit Humanity as a whole in that no one will be without the essentials for existance, i.e. food, clothing, health care, etc., and it will be a truly democratic society run by the people themselves. It will benefit the individuals in that it will give them a greater say in what happens in their communities, how things are run, and because there will be zero unemployment, they will work much shorter hours and will have much more free time to take up hobbies, learn new skills, and so on. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to establish Communism, just as much as it is in the interest of Humanity as a whole.


Differences between us aside, welcome to the RevolutionaryLeft. :D