Why we Communists are immoral

[Entrails Konfetti]

Morals aren't universal, they are particular to groups of people, and their hypothesis can't be tested.

We believe in having a civil-society, and that if anything disturbs civility it must be done away with. Everywhere you go everyone wants a civil society as well as to be treated equal.

Capitalism disturbs civil society through unequal treatment, causing social upheaval.

[ElCheanarchy]

Morals do not exist they are ideas, ur ideas are immoral to most people ( not me) but its all interpataion.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:04 PM
Morals do not exist they are ideas, ur ideas are immoral to most people ( not me) but its all interpataion.
So a civil-society based on equallity is immoral?

Those ideas are based on acutal evidence, because everyone wants that.

Morals are based on strong convictions, or a likelihood. The ideas of right and wrong are different for everyone.

I never said civility and equality are right; its what everyone wants.

[loveme4whoiam]

But then what about laws? Are they not (in theory of course) the written-down embodiment of morals that are socially valued?

[violencia.Proletariat]

I stay away from moral arguements and excuses for doing things. I do things in my class interest and for rational reasons, not moral feelings.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:19 PM
But then what about laws? Are they not (in theory of course) the written-down embodiment of morals that are socially valued?
Some are some aren't.

Most laws are a product of class society, property and the monetary system; based on morality.

Laws such as speed limits make sense, because that enforces the safety of everyone else. A car can become uncontrollable if its going 50mph through a bend, and crash into other people. Speeding voilates everyones equallity in safety.
A law prohitibiting wanton battery on an unsuspecting person is correct, because this violates the attacks persons equallity, and disrupts civil society.

A law that prohibits shoplifting is moral, because its violates property rights of the upper-class. This law states that its right for the upperclass to have property over you, but its wrong to take from this property; though this could mean starvation for you.

Can the idea thats shoplifting is wrong be proven?
Some people say that if you are starving or cold, and you can't afford to remedy your needs, you should take from a store of somesort: Therefore making shoplifting correct in this aspect.

We see how property over others violates civil-society, and we see how it truly is the ruling class who decides morality.

Before there was a ruling class, and you were hungry you walk by a tree and take your pick, take a goat out of the pen and slaughter it, or tell the cheiftain that they were hungry.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Nietzsche has something useful to say on this. Basically he saw moral codes as serving a purpose in the progression of man, and only to be maintained so long as they were useful. When these codes inevitably become outdate they must be replaced.

He was so anti religion because the codes they implied were self preservatory. The tried to justify their existence through its own dogma. This is why they must be destroyed.

The only "morals" in communism are those necessary for the establishment and perpetuation of egalitarian society. These are not derived from some divine being, or supernatural phenomena, but from reason and logic. We must realise the "morals" that exist, do so only as they are necessary.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:45 PM
The only "morals" in communism are those necessary for the establishment and perpetuation of egalitarian society. These are not derived from some divine being, or supernatural phenomena, but from reason and logic. We must realise the "morals" that exist, do so only as they are necessary.
Why would we need "morals", when our basis is rational?

I can't believe there isn't a word for a set of standards that everyone wants in their society.

Well I'm calling them "rationals".

[encephalon]

Communism isn't immoral, it's amoral. And in practice, this get's a little sticky. Most of us are enraged, for instance, that people starve to death. We say that such things shouldn't happen. This is a normative statement, and in the domain of ethical philosophy. Many of us here think that things ought or must change. That's a normative statement too.

If you're saying that something can't be defended with a moral argument, I might agree with that. But to say that we're all "immoral" is to say we don't make normative statements, and contradicts what most of us do in practice.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:39 AM
We say that such things shouldn't happen. This is a normative statement, and in the domain of ethical philosophy. Many of us here think that things ought or must change. That's a normative statement too.

Hows it ethical, when ethics are a system of moral values?
Its not a question if its right or wrong for a person to eat when hungry, its an necessity, and an established standard.


But to say that we're all "immoral" is to say we don't make normative statements, and contradicts what most of us do in practice.
Okay, so I was wrong with my definition. We don't intentionally go against moral principles.

[encephalon]

Hows it ethical, when ethics are a system of moral values?

Because when you say something ought or ought not be, you are making a normative statement. This is the realm of Moral Philosophy. Saying "one ought to have according to his own need and ought give according to his own ability" is a normative statement. We may have reasons for saying it, but it does not change the basic nature of a normative statement; it is a value judgement, defined by a philosophy of ethics.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 16 2006, 12:12 AM
Why would we need "morals", when our basis is rational?

I can't believe there isn't a word for a set of standards that everyone wants in their society.

Well I'm calling them "rationals".
Most morals are considered rational by those that uphold them, or even as self evident. The point is that whilst they are subjective, they are merely an oppinion and should be recognised thus.

If they are objectional and rational then you may term them as something else, as "moral" implies an a-priori stance on ethics. Essentially what we call them does not matter. There are certain requirements that society must impose upon itself in order for it to succeed within communism. These are derived rationally, and that is all. As long as we realise this is the case, and the reasons for holding them it isn't important. It becomes clear that even if they are termed "moral," they are not moral in the reactionary sense of the word.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by encephalon+Mar 16 2006, 06:38 AM--> (encephalon @ Mar 16 2006, 06:38 AM) Because when you say something ought or ought not be, you are making a normative statement. This is the realm of Moral Philosophy. [/b]
But as long as the morals are rational, and they don't harm anyone I don't see anything wrong.

Its rational that a starving person should be given food, because their objective condition can't control its cravings, and it interferes with the persons equallity.


Saying "one ought to have according to his own need and ought give according to his own ability" is a normative statement. We may have reasons for saying it, but it does not change the basic nature of a normative statement; it is a value judgement, defined by a philosophy of ethics
Well yeah, we have reasons which are proved for our statement.


Hegemonicretribution
If they are objectional and rational then you may term them as something else, as "moral" implies an a-priori stance on ethics. Essentially what we call them does not matter. There are certain requirements that society must impose upon itself in order for it to succeed within communism. These are derived rationally, and that is all. As long as we realise this is the case, and the reasons for holding them it isn't important. It becomes clear that even if they are termed "moral," they are not moral in the reactionary sense of the word.
I see your point.
The point I was trying to make is that the common irrational morality doesn't exist because it isn't objective, or rational.

What annoys me is that if you were to explain rational, objective morals to a nihilist, they'd still claim them to be subjective.

[Floyce White]

There is a communist ideology that is the ideas of struggle of the poor against the rich. Similarly, there is a communist morality that is the evaluation of the usefulness of various actions (and their representation as ideas) in struggle for a caring society. "Right" and "wrong," "good" and "bad" depend on what you are trying to accomplish, and how that accomplishment fits in with the well-being of others.

It is anti-communism to assert that only the upper class is capable of moral judgment.

By the way, if civility and equality are wanted "by everyone," it is not communist morality any more than "everyone" is working class. Civility and equality are relative opposites of baseness and injustice that co-exist in class society. "Everyone" wants to avoid the unpleasantness of class society. That does not mean avoiding unpleasantness is communist.

Hegemonicretribution (now there's a nick you have to cut-and-paste!), subject and object are only points of view. Objectiveness does not in any way imply that a point of view is not opinionative. Every point of view is.

El Kablamo, nihilists are conscious liars. I never worry about what those anti-communists say.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 17 2006, 03:41 AM
It is anti-communism to assert that only the upper class is capable of moral judgment.
Well my first impression of morality was that it was baseless, and outdated.
For example: It used to be necessesary for a couple to marry so that the parents would take responsibility for their children, but now you can make either parent responsible for the child by getting DNA tests, and signing legal papers. So no one has to get married to have children, yet the reactionaries still believe in the sanctity of marriage, which is outdated and baseless.

Morals change as society changes.


By the way, if civility and equality are wanted "by everyone," it is not communist morality any more than "everyone" is working class. Civility and equality are relative opposites of baseness and injustice that co-exist in class society. "Everyone" wants to avoid the unpleasantness of class society. That does not mean avoiding unpleasantness is communist.
I should have mentioned that civility, and equallity are meant differently in the bourgoeis society civilty for the upper-class means to be able to have their property undisturbed, and equality means that everyone is entitled to that lame vote every four years.


El Kablamo, nihilists are conscious liars. I never worry about what those anti-communists say.
I don't either because their dream society could only exist in a vacuum, or on a basis for the individual in another society.

[chebol]

http://www.resistancebooks.com/catalog/pro...?products_id=93 (http://www.resistancebooks.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=93)

[Ol' Dirty]

Marxism is based on material and social factors; many of us have moral and ethical beliefs. Simply because we base our economic beliefs in the labor theory of value and in the revolution against the bourgoise does not negate our social beliefs. I consider myself a very ethical, moral person. Some people consider themselves amoral, or without belief in morals, and I respect that; but to making blanket generalizations that all Communists and other leftist groups are amoral is an ignorant thought.

[flyby]

We communists are not "amoral" -- we have a communist morality (which takes as its basis not reactionary and supernatural moral codes, but the longrage perspective of liberating humanity."

Ithink one place to start to grapple with what that communist morality is -- is the book written by Maoist leader Bob Avakian on this topic.

It is called "preaching from a pulpit of bones -- we need morality, but not TRADITIONAL morality."

The whole book is not online -- but here are some excerpts I have studied and recoomend:

http://rwor.org/a/019/avakian-preaching-pulpit-bones.htm

And there are further excerps here:

http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#preachingfrom

My particular favorite is short and tidy ( http://rwor.org/a/v20/980-89/981/moral1.htm ) and so i will just post it as its own post.

[flyby]

[note from flyby: in particular the idea of linking communist morality with "abolishing the four alls" is something no one has mentioned, and is actually central to the whole concept of communist morality -- so it is worth digging into and discussing here.]


Putting An End to `Sin'
What is Communist Morality
By Bob Avakian

"From whatever vantage point one looks, it is unmistakable that there is what could be called `a moral crisis in America.' There has been, to a significant degree, `a breakdown of traditional morality,' But the answer to this--at least the answer that is in the interests of the majority of people in the U.S. and the overwhelming majority of humanity--is not a more aggressive assertion of that `traditional morality' but winning people to a radically different morality, in the process of and as a key part of radically transforming society and the world as a whole. It is not the tightening but the shattering of tradition's chains that is called for."
Bob Avakian


In light of the power struggle now threatening to bring down a president, the 1996 essays by Bob Avakian on the `crisis of morality' in U.S. society are both timely and insightful. These important essays include: "Preaching From a Pulpit of Bones: The Reality Beneath William Bennett's `Virtues,' Or We Need Morality, But Not Traditional Morality"; and "Putting An End to `Sin' Or We Need Morality, But Not Traditional Morality (Part 2)." In the following excerpt from "Putting An End to `Sin'" he discusses communist morality.

Other selections from Avakian's essays will follow in future issues and the entire series will soon be available on our website at http://rwor.org

The basis for communist morality is contained, in a concentrated way, in what Maoists refer to as the "4 Alls." This is drawn from the summary by Marx of what the communist revolution aims for and leads to: the abolition of all class distinctions (or "class distinctions generally"); the abolition of all the relations of production on which these class distinctions rest; the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production; and the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations. (See "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850.") This provides the basic principle underlying communist morality and the basic standard for determining what is and what is not in accordance with communist morality: Whatever conforms to and contributes to these "4 Alls" is consistent with communist morality; whatever does not is opposed to, and opposed by, communist morality.

This, of course, does not mean that whenever someone claims to be a communist, and says that anything she or he does is in pursuit of these "4 Alls," then that automatically makes their actions an expression of communist morality. It does not mean that "anything goes" so long as it is presented as an expression of "communist morality" and a part of achieving communist aims. While the "4 Alls" sets the general standard for communist morality, how that must be applied in different circumstances is a matter of concrete analysis and application--as indeed it is with all morality (which is why, for example, there is such continual dispute among those who uphold the Bible and "traditional morality" about just what it means and how it should be applied in different situations).

One of the main accusations from those who oppose communism is that communists believe "the ends justify the means"--that anything is permissible so long as it can be said to be helping to move things toward the attainment of communism, eventually. This is not only untrue, it is an inversion of the truth. It is a principle of communism that the means must be consistent with and must flow from the ends (or aims). It is often necessary, and desirable, for communists to struggle for goals that are short of the final aim represented by the "4 Alls"--since this can contribute to the ultimate achievement of those "4 Alls"--but it is never acceptable for communists to uphold or fight for things, or to use means and methods, that are in basic opposition to that final aim. Communism demands the most determined and daring search for the truth, even if that truth should make one uncomfortable in the short run, because the more one grasps the truth--the more one has a correct and as comprehensive as possible an understanding of objective reality--the more possible it is to transform objective reality in a direction that best serves the interests of humanity.

In fact, it is the bourgeois exploiters who uphold and apply the notion that "the ends justify the means." This is particularly evident with the U.S. ruling class, whose "American pragmatism" makes a philosophical principle out of denying the existence of truth apart from its practical usefulness--and in particular its usefulness in effecting and defending the worldwide exploitation and plunder carried out by this class. It is precisely with such a philosophy, in the service of such exploitation and plunder, that means and ends become tautologically equated: whatever strengthens the position of this ruling class and its ability to enforce its oppressive rule, whatever enhances its "bottom line" of capital accumulation, is by definition true, good, justified and virtuous, and there is no truth, goodness, justice, or virtue outside of (or opposed to) this. ("Beauty is truth, truth beauty--that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know," the poet Keats once, mistakenly, wrote; the pragmatic morality of the U.S. ruling class produces a perverse twist on this which could be rendered as follows: "We are truth and goodness, truth and goodness are us--that is all you need to know on earth.") If such people search for and then reveal the truth in anything, this is never as a matter of principle but is merely coincidence--a matter of their believing that, in this instance, such truth is useful to them and their ends.

This pragmatic outlook is the essential reason why representatives of the U.S. ruling class--including those who are themselves, privately, atheists or agnostics --incessantly insist upon "traditional morality" and promote the Bible and religion: they understand that this is useful, indeed very important, for them ideologically and politically, in reinforcing their rule and perpetuating their system (when was the last time an American President did not end a speech with something like "God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America"?).

Here one is reminded of the scene in Spartacus where two members of the Roman ruling class are talking and one asks the other, "Don't you believe in the gods?"--to which the reply is: "Privately I believe in none of them, publicly I believe in them all." What is expressed here is the same understanding that Napoleon (himself a skeptic, personally, when it came to religion) enunciated, setting forth a principle that has been found useful by exploiting classes throughout history: "Society [Napoleon declared] is impossible without inequality; inequality [is] intolerable without a code of morality; and a code of morality is unacceptable without religion."

In direct opposition to all this, communism is based on the understanding that humanity has reached the point where inequality is no longer necessary or tolerable; that it is impossible for human society to advance further without abolishing all social inequality; and that the accomplishment of this historic goal requires a radically new "code of morality"--communist morality--which gives expression to and serves the struggle to abolish all social inequality and oppression. In accordance with these principles, communism rejects pragmatic rationalization and the notion that "the ends justify the means"--it demands that, in the struggle for the final aim represented by the "4 Alls," the aims and methods, the ends and means, that are adopted at every point along the way toward that final aim must be in fundamental unity with that final aim.

This is not to say that everyone claiming to be a communist has always adhered to this principle--or to deny that genuine communists have fallen into pragmatism and other erroneous tendencies at various times. But the point is that this principle--concerning the fundamental unity of communist ends and communist means at every point in the revolutionary struggle--provides a standard for waging and leading that struggle and for distinguishing genuine communism from phony communism and other principles and practices that are opposed to the fundamental interests of the great majority of humanity.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Morals are nonexistent, mainly because they are subjective. The problem with the "good-guy badge," and the "amoral deviant badge," system is that religious convictions are thrown in, which makes the individual less likely to admit that they could be wrong, because their moral code was "ordained from a higher source." However if I was fighting for a cause, like I am sure the Communists here are, I wouldn't be labeling myself amoral, or immoral, because that would definitely turn a lot of people off.

People don't want to be called a sexual deviant, or immoral, they want to have the mental reassurance that what they are doing is ok, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. There shouldn't be a set laws, or moral laws for everyone because some laws would work well here, and the same laws wouldn't work, or be needed in another place. It comes down to perspective.

Laws and so called "morals," should be progressive, fitting for the times, then being abolished when becoming obsolete. Responsibility to the responsible.