The Problem with Communism

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Hello. I'm a Communist. I like Communism because it is a practical, concrete implementation of philosophical principles I have already aquired (the rights of the individual, solidarity, the best society for all, etc.). But in this connection I realized: Classical Communism is only a half theory. Communism carries an elaborate half of a political theory: The practical, concrete side. But it lacks any normative argument. It lacks the should and shall. The only justification Marx offers for why Communism should be implemented, is historical necessity. Marxism is purely descriptive, not normative. Therefore it is not a complete political theory, it only describes itself and its coming into being, but it does not justify.

Let us do a rough comparison between Communism and for example Kantian morals (not that I agree with Kant). Kantian morals have a complete normative justification. The whole Kantian ethics IS a normative justification. What it lacks is the concrete political implementation, the practical consequenses for society and politics. Communism has this this part, the descriptive part, but it in turn lacks the whole Kantian deal, the normative justification. Kantianism and Communism are both necessary opposite halves of political theory.
Communism is only political science. Kantianism is only ethical justification. A political theory needs both.

Therefore, I think Communism, at least Classical forms, must be given a philosophical normative justification to become a complete political theory (actually, I think it CAN merge with Kantianism. For example.).

What do you think? Is this assesment of Communism wrong? Which theories are eligible as the normative spine of Communism? What kind of theory is needed (i.e. how can Communism be justified)?

[NovelGentry]

The practical, concrete side. But it lacks any normative argument. It lacks the should and shall. The only justification Marx offers for why Communism should be implemented, is historical necessity. Marxism is purely descriptive, not normative. Therefore it is not a complete political theory, it only describes itself and its coming into being, but it does not justify.

I think it is only to it's strengths that it avoids such. A question of should is really rather meaningless if you've figured out what would. Why you should support communism is of course your own decision. I think most people here support it because they see existing class systems as unjust and unfair.

Certainly you could then give it some broader underlying theme of prevailing justice, but in my view that is only going to discredit it. Such things are focused on enough as it is, and a lot of it leads to people's misunderstanding of communism.

Why should communism be implemented? Why should any system be implemented? Such arguments frequently generate into idealism, that's one place I would like to see communist theory avoid evolving into.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

But how should one justify Communism? We have to be able to tell our conservative aquentances: This is why you should be a Communist, this is why this is right. And we also have be sure it is right, or we risk falling into dogmatism. When it comes to politics, we should not avoid idealism completely, because politics is an ideal and normative matter, which has practical implications of course, and there we have the strength of Communism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I don't fully understand the point of this question. It seems to me that you are asking for an ethical justification for Communism. Sort of the "morals question of creating a Communist society? ...and why we should do it."

I don't think it is incredibly difficult to provide a moral case for Communism. One would only have to list the crimes of Capitalism. Africa, South America, Asia etc.

It is also pretty well known that a Communist society would be incredibly liberal. No sexual oppression, full liberation of children, no patriarchy etc. These if you wish, could be called "Communist ethics."

Also if you wish for another ethical reason, you could use Peter Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid." I haven't read it, but as I understand it, he advocates that there is not only a scientific reason for a cooperative society, but that there an ethical basis for human society to cooperate.

Here is a link to an online version -- Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)


Originally posted by NovelGentry+--> (NovelGentry)Such arguments frequently generate into idealism, that's one place I would like to see communist theory avoid evolving into.[/b]

I totally agree.


Kamerat Voldstad
But how should one justify Communism?

This is a difficult one and everyone will choose a different tactic, depending on that persons own view of Communism and the view point of the person they are talking too.

It is always difficult to "justify" anything and arguments alone don't achieve justification. If Marx was right, when certain material circumstances arise, people will become receptive to revolutionary theory.

Until then, we can bang on and hope to "enlist" a few people and attract them to the revolutionary camp.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Kamerat [email protected] 20 2005, 06:49 PM
But how should one justify Communism? We have to be able to tell our conservative aquentances: This is why you should be a Communist, this is why this is right. And we also have be sure it is right, or we risk falling into dogmatism. When it comes to politics, we should not avoid idealism completely, because politics is an ideal and normative matter, which has practical implications of course, and there we have the strength of Communism.
There is no underlying reason in the world why communism should exist. There is however very convincing evidence that it will exist. Communism only has a materialist side as it is not an ideal but a political/economic science.

If you need reasons to help explain why communism is desirable then point to solid, real ones, such as the freedom from wage slavery or the complete democratisation of society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kamerat Voldstad
We have to be able to tell our conservative acquaintances...

Not really.

People who are "unreceptive" to revolutionary ideas are unlikely to be "convinced" by a "moral argument".

The "revolutionary option" only makes sense to people who, as a consequence of their life's experiences, have concluded that the present social order is deeply and profoundly unacceptable.

Some may "toy" with the idea out of "intellectual curiosity"...but then they give it up and move on to other (usually more financially rewarding) concerns.

That seems to be "just the way things happen".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Why 'should' communism exist? In this question, you are looking for 'moral' support for communism, obviously. This moral support, of course, then depends upon what you think is 'morally good'.

Is the abolition of class 'morally good' to you? If so, then that can be seen as 'moral support' for communism in your case. The answer to the question 'what is morally good?', however, changes from person to person. If we accept that all people have varying ideas of 'what is right and wrong' and that there is no 'absolute right' or 'absolute wrong' then it is impossible to 'justify' communism to all people. Individuals must find out for themselves whether communism agrees with their morals.

This above only concerns the present, however. As Armchair Socialism points out, "If Marx was right, when certain material circumstances arise, people will become receptive to revolutionary theory."

[STREETasmyCanvas]

your politics are boring as fuck

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:28 AM
your politics are boring as fuck
You're lucky Crimethinc. doesn't copyright their material, otherwise you'd go to jail.

"Boring" or not, I think my politics are right (as in, factually correct rather than morally).

Just because something isn't "fun" doesn't mean it isn't useful or worthwhile. Likewise, the fact that some forms of "political action" (the type of silly lifestylist immaturity that passes for "political" with crimethinc.ers) are fun doesn't mean that they're useful or worthwhile if your goal is the destruction of capitalism.


On to more useful discussion...

It's true that Marxism isn't normative. It's completely empirical. The reason for this is that there is no reason that communism "should" be established other than pure self-interest. As a member of the working class in a capitalist society, it will be a net material benefit for capitalism to be overthrown and replaced with communism.

That's really all there is to it.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Originally posted by STI+Dec 21 2005, 10:06 PM--> (STI @ Dec 21 2005, 10:06 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 06:28 AM
your politics are boring as fuck
You're lucky Crimethinc. doesn't copyright their material, otherwise you'd go to jail.

"Boring" or not, I think my politics are right (as in, factually correct rather than morally).

Just because something isn't "fun" doesn't mean it isn't useful or worthwhile. Likewise, the fact that some forms of "political action" (the type of silly lifestylist immaturity that passes for "political" with crimethinc.ers) are fun doesn't mean that they're useful or worthwhile if your goal is the destruction of capitalism.


On to more useful discussion...

It's true that Marxism isn't normative. It's completely empirical. The reason for this is that there is no reason that communism "should" be established other than pure self-interest. As a member of the working class in a capitalist society, it will be a net material benefit for capitalism to be overthrown and replaced with communism.

That's really all there is to it. [/b]
Excellent. Marx and Engels wrote for their time. The working class does not want to get involved in a moral discussion, they want something better than the society that is misusing them.

But I am looking for a moral justification. We have to know that this is right. If it is not, we are immoral in our support.

When I enter a debate with a conservative or liberalist, we have to take distance from the demands of one class and look at the subject together as an object and look at the involved persons and classes as objects, if we are to reach a common truth. We must objectify the whole matter and become equal participants in search of the truth through arguments. The conservative or liberal is used to back up his/hers agenda with principles. Am I to stand there and say: The proletariat wants, the proletariat needs; or may I also enter the discussion of principles, in which it is possible to find not only a common truth, but the truth, something that interests me whether my discussion partner agrees with it or not (probably not).

So, we have to go morally on this for our own sake, for the sake of all, and for the sake of convincing. In other words: for the sake of truth.

[monkeydust]

Marx does actually provide some more or less normative reasons for justifying communism and condemning capitalism, especially in his early work.

He talks about how in capitalism man is alienated from his work, and therefore alienated from him or herself, and that this state of affairs leads to the reification and dehumanization of the worker. Man is taken out of what should be his natural state, and thereby becomes something less than he should be.

Not to mention that some of the more scientific side of Marxism also has implicit moral undertones.

[ComradeOm]

Excellent. Marx and Engels wrote for their time. The working class does not want to get involved in a moral discussion, they want something better than the society that is misusing them.

But I am looking for a moral justification. We have to know that this is right. If it is not, we are immoral in our support.
You’re missing the point here. There is no moral justification for communism, just as there is none for capitalism or feudalism. These societies come about anyway and when they do they tend to invent moral justification for themselves.

Five hundred years ago it was the divine right of monarchs, today its these individual rights and democracy. These are fabrications designed to legitimise one class’s rule over another. In communism there will be no need for such bullshit.

Communism will come about because the proletariat desires it. There is no other reason, certainly none that depends on subjective "morals".

[STREETasmyCanvas]

Comrade Om...are you a leninist?

[anomaly]

Certainly, ComradeOm, that is the reason communism will come about. But I think our friend here wants some justification for why this should come about.

There is no such thing as 'absolute right' or 'absolute wrong', so communism is simply not 'morally right' for everyone. So, Kamerat Voldstad, you must find for yourself whether communism agrees with your morals. I'm sure everyone on this board, whether they admit it or not, believes that capitalism is morally wrong and communism is morally right. In fact, this sense of it being right is what draws many young people to Marx in the first place. Of course, after this they begin to accept material reasons, rather than moral reasons, for why communism will come about.

Even with this, however, we do not lose our sense that communism is 'right', and capitalism is 'wrong'. I, for example, think that it is 'wrong' that a man with money in capitalism is looked upon as more deserving and 'better' than a man with no money. I think that wage-labor is 'wrong'. Not everyone feels this way obviously. The question is, Kamerat Voldstad, do you agree with such a 'moral outlook'? Or do you think that inequality and the neccesity of poverty is 'right'?

Do not think that we can convince to 'everyone' that communism is 'right'. It is impossible, because all people have different feelings of 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'. And so, individual moral justification is, at this point in time, all one can seek. And so, the obvious question is do you find the details of communism morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:57 PM
Certainly, ComradeOm, that is the reason communism will come about. But I think our friend here wants some justification for why this should come about.

There is no such thing as 'absolute right' or 'absolute wrong', so communism is simply not 'morally right' for everyone. So, Kamerat Voldstad, you must find for yourself whether communism agrees with your morals. I'm sure everyone on this board, whether they admit it or not, believes that capitalism is morally wrong and communism is morally right. In fact, this sense of it being right is what draws many young people to Marx in the first place. Of course, after this they begin to accept material reasons, rather than moral reasons, for why communismk will come about.

Even with this, however, we do not lose our senser that communism is 'right', and capitalism is 'wrong'. I, for example, think that it is 'wrong' that a man with money in capitalism is looked upon as more deserving and 'better' than a man with no money. It think that wage-labor is 'wrong'. Not everyone feels this way obviously. The question is, Kamerat Voldstad, do you agree with such a 'moral outlook'? Or do you think that inequality and the neccesity of poverty is 'right'?

Do not think that we can convince to 'everyone' that communism is 'right'. It is impossible, because all people have different feelings of 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'. And so, individual moral justification is, at this point in time, all one can seek. And so, the obvious question is, do you find the details of communism morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'?
Nice post, I agree.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:57 AM
Certainly, ComradeOm, that is the reason communism will come about. But I think our friend here wants some justification for why this should come about.

There is no such thing as 'absolute right' or 'absolute wrong', so communism is simply not 'morally right' for everyone. So, Kamerat Voldstad, you must find for yourself whether communism agrees with your morals. I'm sure everyone on this board, whether they admit it or not, believes that capitalism is morally wrong and communism is morally right. In fact, this sense of it being right is what draws many young people to Marx in the first place. Of course, after this they begin to accept material reasons, rather than moral reasons, for why communism will come about.

Even with this, however, we do not lose our sense that communism is 'right', and capitalism is 'wrong'. I, for example, think that it is 'wrong' that a man with money in capitalism is looked upon as more deserving and 'better' than a man with no money. I think that wage-labor is 'wrong'. Not everyone feels this way obviously. The question is, Kamerat Voldstad, do you agree with such a 'moral outlook'? Or do you think that inequality and the neccesity of poverty is 'right'?

Do not think that we can convince to 'everyone' that communism is 'right'. It is impossible, because all people have different feelings of 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'. And so, individual moral justification is, at this point in time, all one can seek. And so, the obvious question is do you find the details of communism morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'?
Good, you have understood my question. I ask not why Communism will or will not happen, I ask whether it should happen, whether one should back it or not.

Notice that last line. I say 'one should'. That shows where we disagree. I think there can be universal morals. If universal morals could not exist, morals would be meaningless. Morality would not be problem if not people with purpose lived amongst people with purpose so that their purposes may and will cross. The point of morality is to solve the problem of diverging purposes, to create a universal code of behavior to the maximum good of everyone. The universal moral is the one that truly solves the whole thing.

Besides, relativism contradicts itself, in putting forward a universal claim that nothing is universal. To say that there is no universal moral is to create an anarchic relativist universal moral.

I have to mention that this metamoral subject is very interesting to discuss, but I feel some sadness in the fact that it will take centuries before ordinary people will think so far. And therefore you are quite right when you write that we cannot convince everyone. But if we were only interested in pragmatic practical concerns, we would not be having this discussion. That is why its good we have those notions you mentioned of justice and rightness that drive us way left (as it happened to me and probably most of us).

By the way, we share moral sentiments :D

[STI]

But I am looking for a moral justification. We have to know that this is right. If it is not, we are immoral in our support.

There is no "right" or "wrong".

The fact that nobody can actually come up with a universal "moral justification" for communism should be demonstrative of this.

You'll never find a satisfactory moral justification for communism, because it doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist for communism, and it doesn't exist for anything else.


When I enter a debate with a conservative or liberalist, we have to take distance from the demands of one class and look at the subject together as an object and look at the involved persons and classes as objects, if we are to reach a common truth.

If we're debating with liberals or conservatives, they're either:

working class people, in which case it's more effective to appeal to their material interests

or

Not workers, in which case we can't count on them to ever become communists, ever.

Morals can justify anything. They're intellectually useless.


We must objectify the whole matter and become equal participants in search of the truth through arguments

There is no "moral truth", so all you can do is argue facts, which is fine. You can argue facts from which conclusions are drawn.

But arguing in favour of communism requires only appeals to self-interest.


The conservative or liberal is used to back up his/hers agenda with principles

Good thing we're not conservatives or liberals, then!


Am I to stand there and say: The proletariat wants, the proletariat needs; or may I also enter the discussion of principles, in which it is possible to find not only a common truth, but the truth, something that interests me whether my discussion partner agrees with it or not (probably not).


"Common truth" doesn't exist when it comes to morals, only material facts.

And there's no point in trying to convince liberals to support communism 'because the proletariat would benefit from it', as such a position implies that the liberal is not a worker.

We should "stand there and say": as a worker, it's in your material inerest to have a communist society.

That's all that'll work.


So, we have to go morally on this for our own sake, for the sake of all, and for the sake of convincing. In other words: for the sake of truth.

No, because the only people we need to convince will respond to arguments to self-interest, since it is in their self-interest.

Anybody else (liberal politicians) are a waste of time to debate with anyway.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Two questions, comrade STI.

You keep claiming there is no moral truth. Why not? You must have a different conception of or association with the term 'morals' than me if you can claim that. Try to show me how your claim follows from it.

You are factually correct in your reasonings about the practical task of convincing the unconvinced. But I'm asking: Why should we convince them at all? Where is our justification? To justify an action means to appeal to morals, so the question becomes: How are we good in doing this? Even though discussing and solving this question cannot be trusted to get us very far in our convincing.


As I see it, according to your implied view of morals, the question is meaningless, for if there cannot be created a universal code or principle of behavior, nothing can be justified. It can just feel right to the individual. I cannot accept that view, because the problem of morals is created by all individuals insofar as they can affect one another, and the solution, which must be created out of this problem, must therefore involve all individuals. Simply subjective morals would not, therefore, really be morals.

[STI]

You keep claiming there is no moral truth. Why not? You must have a different conception of or association with the term 'morals' than me if you can claim that. Try to show me how your claim follows from it.

What I mean is that there is no "right" or "wrong", since there are no universal criteria by which to determine whether or not any given action or event is "right" or "wrong".

Name something you think to be "wrong" or "right", and I'll show you how it is neither.


You are factually correct in your reasonings about the practical task of convincing the unconvinced. But I'm asking: Why should we convince them at all?

We should try to convince them because, without mass participation, capitalism can't be overthrown.

I want capitalism gone out of self-interest. That's why we should convince them: self-interest.


Where is our justification?

We don't have a "justification", that implies that there is "just" and "unjust", which are both as non-existant as "right" and "wrong".

We don't need a "justification" because no such thing exists for any action.


To justify an action means to appeal to morals, so the question becomes: How are we good in doing this?

So, then, since morals don't exist to appeal to, no action can be justified or unjustified. Trying to becomes, in effect, a waste of time.


Even though discussing and solving this question cannot be trusted to get us very far in our convincing.


Then why bother?


As I see it, according to your implied view of morals, the question is meaningless, for if there cannot be created a universal code or principle of behavior, nothing can be justified

Correct.


I cannot accept that view, because the problem of morals is created by all individuals insofar as they can affect one another, and the solution, which must be created out of this problem, must therefore involve all individuals.

Whether you accept it or not, it's the truth. There are no universal moral criteria. Period. They simply do not exist. We should act accordingly, regardless of how much you'd like to wallow in the mud of moralism (for whatever reason), regardless of how little (ie: nothing) there is to be gained by doing so.


Simply subjective morals would not, therefore, really be morals.

True, but that's the only kind that there are.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Interesting. Our discussion has become one of metamorals - We ask whether morals as such (universal) exist or not, whether Communism is simply self-interest or if it can also be justified or denoted.

I bet you like Nietzsche (I think he's got many fine points too).

The problem is, you can't argue against the existence of something solely because you have not encountered it. That is empirical induction, not proof. And in unempirical philosophical questions like these, questions where the result will be a creation of reason and never something present to us (as all metaphysical questions - when we can see them, the become physical questions), it certainly is not enough that the most of us have never met a perfectly solid dedution of morals to, in the style of natural science, assume it cannot exist.

The task remains. The thing is, we need some universal code of behavior. If we did not need morals, it would not exist. We create the question out of our need for compatible wills, we must create the answer out of the factors involved. It is not a question of whether morality, as some independent entity, exists, it is more a question of (according to the antikantian dialectic view of the basis of morality I have presented) whether "how one should act" is a question relevant for individuals or subjects living in the vicinity of others equally individual and subject. And we cannot deny that this question, how I, how One, should act, measuring one's will against the other's and the conflicts between them, is important to us, it has meaning and relevance.

As long as we are willing individuals, the question of what should and what should not be willed occurs. And this question becomes only meaningful when there are more than one individual's will to consider, because their purposes will come in conflict, and it creates the problem or question (or challenge) of what universal principles of action would be best for all. This conflict may be resolved, our task, by mutual restriction of will. This restriction is morality's area. This is the question, the restriction will be the answer. So we need some principles for how to act, delegating certain rights to all individuals and delegating corresponding duties (or 'retrictions') to all individuals. And so the wills and purposes of all individuals fit together and everyone is as happy as they can be without being happy at the expense of others.

Of course, a society based on this will not exist in our lifetime. But the important thing is that these rights, these duties, these principles a study or deduction of morality would present to us, will be our guiding light when making the decisions. These moral, right or good decisions will move us to a better world for all. Morality is important no matter the scale.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Come an, people! Anyone! We had a good discussion going here!

[enigma2517]

I'm going to have to agree with STI and say that morals don't exist.

Yes, for each situation there is a behavior that is more beneficial and less beneficial. But beneficial for who? Yourself? Others? To what degree?

Its not so much that morals don't exist as it is useless to try and define them. Could you ever hope to come up with some perfectly uniform standard? It's been tried, i.d. religion. Look where that ended up.

I think its better to avoid the entire metaphysical realm and just encourage people to look at their decisions in the most objective and material way possible.

Like I said, there is usually a choice that works better than another choice, but I have a hard time with accepting the fact there is a rigid standard that can applied to two configurations of matter interacting with each other.

A bit nihilistic perhaps? Well, I could certainly see the logic in it.

[Zingu]

Arguing with morals will only lead to a sticky mess of questions and issues that you will never get out of. Its best just to dump morals, and go with a much cleaner outlook, which Marx adopted. And if it isn't clear, its probably not true...morals don't exist...theres many "verions" of morals....

[STI]

Yeah, we need standards of behaviour, but those are borne out of material, not moral, sources.

The first source is practical self-interest. I don't want to be killed, therefore I'll try to make it against the rules to be killed, because then I'll be less likely to be killed.

The second is the preservation of the status quo. The ruling class makes up some laws as a means of ensuring their rulership. These standards would exist in a communist society, for the preservation of that society.

The third source is irrationality. Sometimes laws are just irrational and should be abolished.

No morals are involved here.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Morality is born out of material sources. There is no distinction, no different realms, no metaphysics. Morality is a material problem.

We need standards of behaviour, yes. Ethics is the study of: which standards?


Excepting ethics, three other things go together and create standards:

The right of the strongest.

Culture (which is always conservative).

Self interest.


If we are gonna have standards, why not try to find the best one? Contemporary philosophy has gotten very far (especially the last 200years).


Morality is the objective (as far as objectivity exists - not independently or completely) realm of conduct.

[STI]

If we are gonna have standards, why not try to find the best one? Contemporary philosophy has gotten very far (especially the last 200years).

Because which standard is "the best" is a matter of pure subjectivity.

What makes it the best? Says who? Who is that person to decide? Why?

It just doesn't work.


Morality is the objective (as far as objectivity exists - not independently or completely) realm of conduct.

Not in any practical sense.

[commie kg]

...whether Communism is simply self-interest or if it can also be justified or denoted.

Communism is absolutely about the self-interest of the working class.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

(Good day. My net broke down for a couple of months, I got it going again yesterday.)

When I talk about morality, I distinguish two 'wills', one concrete and one abstract. (Pardon me if I get a little Rousseau and Rawls, but I respect their way of thinking, though I disagree with fundamental parts and false practical deducements of their theories. You should read them if you haven't!)
There is the individual will. This is the only guide for action that you, the antimoralists, allow.
And there is the general will. That is the abstract will of the community of wills, or, less confusingly put, the will of the regulated wills. The very fact that there is a community of wills creates the question of how the wills should be regulated according to each other. This is the subject of politics, at least at the ideological level.

To avoid the in this situation unecessary discussion of morals (at least for a while), I should specify that by 'Marxism's lack of normative aspect' I specifically mean not morality, but normative politics, i.e. ideology (versus ideology). This simplifies the matter (because morality includes not only the civil life, that is the duties and rights of citizens of society, but the question of how to act at all), and makes it possible for us to agree about a lack in Marxism and discuss ways to fill this gap, despite our differences in the question of morals.

The question of ideology is the question of the best way to regulate the wills to each other (the question of how society should be structured, here we see the normative aspect) i.e. the question of what the 'general will' specifically is.
Classical marxists (but perhaps not newer, more philosophical marxists) does not explain why Communism is the best ideology, or structure of society, why it is the general will. Therefore, a normative lack. They explain ( obviously a little too deterministically) why and how Communism will happen, but not why it should happen.

I know that for most of us Socialism will be our own interest, and therefore the majority of individual wills, were it better informed and less corrupted by culture, education and milieu, would want it (actually, their selfinterest does want it - it just doesn't know it because it doesn't understand the opportunity). But the general will, which I seek in the interest of truth, as something more worthy than the revolution rather than something to serve it (some dogmatics among us tend to place the revolution above all - truth, morality, rights, individuals), is more than the selfinterest of the majority.
For example, if the majority of wills is served by oppressing a minority, the majority does not concur with the general will. For the general will of a community of wills would not accept oppressions of the minority, for it is unacceptable for every individual to be the sacrifice of such careless (unecessary, 'undeserved' - though I despise the obscuring bourgouis word 'deserve') violence (whereas everyone would agree to that, should he/she be a great oppressor like a capitalist, it would be correct, right, to oppress this oppression with all necessary means - for it is far more likely that one is in the opposite proletarian position, which is much worse to endure if one did not expropriate the expropriators).

Presupposing a normative exposition of Communism (adding an aspect that would make it a much more serious, real and actual philosophical and political theory), I would say that the majority acts wrong because it not only doesn't consistently follow its selfinterest, but because it does not concur with the general will (though, uintellectual and partly antiintellectual as the majority is, this last point is almost only of interest in lecture halls).