Communist ethics

[black magick hustla]

I am in favor of the destruction of morality and all its alienating institutions in order to lead to a new era of people able to pursue their desires and pleasures without any constraint.

This includes the destruction of ideology and all its mechanisms subjugating mankind to the abstract idea above all men's heads.

However, I desire this society because of my egoism. I want to live completely free, and the only way I am going to achieve this goal is by the help of others. The collective emancipation of humanity is my only choice for this task!

In short, I am an egoist.

However, I do feel empathy for other opressed people around the world. Sometimes, I do feel inside me a moral compass that tells me something is morally wrong with Capitalism, its that something that makes millions of people miserable, either because it deprives people of the basic resources needed to survival, or simply because it alienates people in the first world to the highest peaks of contempt and boredom.

I have heard that communism is completely immoral, we communists want communism because of our selfishness and our materialistic impulses. We know that if we atomize the bourgeoise, we are going to get the whole output of our labor and live a more economically comfortable life. Communists throw away the decadent matter of altruism in order to replace it for complete selfishness!

However, is this how we really feel? Even if they are too arrogant (like me) to admit that capitalism is "morally wrong", most members here do feel about how morally wretched capitalism really is. I have seen redstar2000 condeming capitalist violent acts against historical people he shouldn't really have a concern for-


I am driven by a combination of selfishness and "selflessness". While I want to be able to indulge my body and mind in my desires, dreams, and pleasures, I also want other people to be able to do this, to such a degree that I would definitely help those other people in their fight, even if I don't really get any "benefit" from it.


In short, are we communists really "immoral", are we really just driven by materialistic impulses?

[Commie Rat]

Communists are godless evil hethans.
I do it because feel relly fucking guilty becuase im a middle class ****.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:56 AM

I have heard that communism is completely immoral, we communists want communism because of our selfishness and our materialistic impulses. We know that if we atomize the bourgeoise, we are going to get the whole output of our labor and live a more economically comfortable life. Communists throw away the decadent matter of altruism in order to replace it for complete selfishness!


Excuse me, where did you get this idea about communism? "Materialism" as a philosophy does not mean materialistic impulses and desires. If anything, it is the capitalist system that fosters it. And I don't think communism guarantees a life of comfort, either.

And does it really mean that communists will do away with morality altogether, as in....they become immoral? Religious morality is, perhaps, what you're talking about?

[bezdomni]

Ethics still exist.

Hence the huge list on the Marxists.org website, a bountiful collection of these essays being from Marx and Engels themselves.

Communist Ethics (http://marxists.org/subject/ethics/index.htm)

[red_che]

I do agree with clownpenisanarchy.

There has to be some sort of limitations as to the actions of every communist. What we say freedom is not absolute freedom in its strict (or bourgeois) sense, but only freedom from all forms of exploitation and oppression. In the Communist Manifesto it says:


Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Chrysalis+Mar 22 2006, 03:01 AM--> (Chrysalis @ Mar 22 2006, 03:01 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 07:56 AM

I have heard that communism is completely immoral, we communists want communism because of our selfishness and our materialistic impulses. We know that if we atomize the bourgeoise, we are going to get the whole output of our labor and live a more economically comfortable life. Communists throw away the decadent matter of altruism in order to replace it for complete selfishness!


Excuse me, where did you get this idea about communism? "Materialism" as a philosophy does not mean materialistic impulses and desires. If anything, it is the capitalist system that fosters it. And I don't think communism guarantees a life of comfort, either.
[/b]
I perfectly know what materialism is.

I am just arguing that many communists say they are no "altruists", and that they just pursue their "interests".

Interests could be anything from free time to abundance of material resources.

[JimFar]

Over the years, there has been a diversity of opinion among Marxists concerning ethics. Some Marxists, like the Austro-Marxists have been Kantians or neo-Kantians in their ethical ideas. Ohters, like Karl Kautsky for instance, have been utilitarians. Some of the "god-builders" within the Bolshevik faction embraced a kind of Nietzchean immoralism, as apparently do some participants on this board.

[JimFar]

Karl
Kautsky for instance embraced a utilitarian ethic in contrast to
Kant's. Thus in his Ethics and the Materialist Conception of
History, he wrote:

"The Kantian moral law assumes thus, in the first
place, a harmonious society as desirable and possible.
But it also assumes that the moral law is the means to
create such a society, that this result can be achieved
through a rule which the individual sets to himself.
We see how thoroughly Kant was deceived, when he
thought that his moral law was independent from all
conditions pertaining to the world of sense, and that it
formed thus a princple which would apply to all timeless
spaceless spirits, including God Almighty himself."

Kautsky took Kant to task for embracing a dualism between
the realm of phenomena and a realm of noumena. Likewise,
Kautsly rejected Kant's attempt to justify ethics on a non-naturalistic
basis. Kautsky as both a convinced positivist and an ardent
Darwinian believed in the viability of a naturalist ethic in which
fundamental moral norms would be seen as the most basic
impulses of human nature as shaped by both biological and
social evolution. The former having been explained by Darwin
with the latter having been taken care of by Marx's materialist
conception of history. For Kautsky, historical materialism
was simply the extension of Darwin's methodology into the
social sciences.

For Kautsky a naturalist ethic that would be compatible
with materialism would necessarily be a hedonist one.
Thus he wrote concerning Epicurus:

"This view of Ethics had the advantage that it appeared
quite natural and it was easy to reconcile it with the
needs of those who desired to content themselves
with the knowledge which our senses gives us of the
of the knowable world as the real and to whom human
evidence appeared only part of this world. On the
other hand, this view of ethics was bound to produce
in turn that materialist view of the world. Founding
Ethics on the longing for the pleasure or happiness
of the individual or on egoism and the materialist
world concept, conditioned and lent each other mutual
support. The conncection of both elements comes
most completely to expression in Epicurus (341-270 B.C.).
His materialist philosophy of nature is founded with a
directly ethical aim."

Speaking of different ethical conceptions among Marxists, it is interesting to note that over the years a number of Marxist thinkers have been utilitarians of one sort or another. That's curious in light of the fact that Marx, himself, was quite critical of utilitarianism, and was especially disparaging of Jeremy Benthan and his brand of utilitarianism. Nevertheless, there have been Marxist utilitarians and Marxist utilitarianisms.

Thus for Karl Kautsky. materialism including the materialism of Marx is closely connected with the embracing of a hedonist or utilitarian ethic, and he was convinced that such an ethic provided the best basis for a socialist morality.
Therefore, Kautsky was quite critical of Kant's ethic although he was very much an admirer of Kant's general epistemological project (like most positivists).

Interstingly enough other Marxist thinkers who were quite different from Kautsky have likewise been partial to utilitatarianism. Thus the Frankfurter, Herbert Marcuse took a favorable view of John Stuart Mill's brand of utilitarianism.
And more redently the Marxist philosopher Derek Allen in his paper "The Utilitarianism of Marx and Engels," American Philosophical Quarterly 10 (1973) made the case that Marx & Engels were implicitly utilitarians in terms of
the value judgements that they made in their work. I guess that Karl & Fred would have said that was news to them.

[Scars]

Without any morality the concept of justice quickly goes out the window, this is a very important concept. Why shouldn't I beat your brains out and steal your lollypop? It's in my best interest, if there's no morality no one would or should object, I have proved myself stronger than you and thus my action validates itself. Plus I have a childish love of lollypops.

Without some sort of morality or ethics there is no reason or motivation to treat one another with any sense of decency. This pushes the world into a extreme neo-darwinistic, 'survival of the fittest' situation. Of course, left-wing egoists deny this, but if I care only for my on personal interests (and maybe a couple of others) then I will do anything if it is in MY best interest. I have a big stick, you're my slave. Peel my potatos. It's in MY best interest, it's not in yours- but hey, fuck you! Why should I give a fuck about you? If you're too weak and stupid to not get enslaved then OBVIOUSLY it's your own damn fault!

In my experience such egoism is generally an excuse to fuck loads of people, drink huge amounts of alcohol and smoke, inject, swallow, drink and inhale anything that will give you an even minor buzz. Are they all STD riddled, alcoholic junkies? No, but the egoists I've come into contact with have been some of the most horrible excuses for humanity that I have come across.

Besides, egoism is far more suited to capitalism than any form of communism. Even Proudhon, probably the biggest supporter of 'liberty' said that liberty must be curbed when society starts to become un-just.

And don't bold words you deem important. It's irritating as fuck.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:22 PM
Peel my potatos.
Excuse me. Scars, why are you getting so adrenalized over this? Marmot said only hearsay about the lack of morality. Why are you guys perpetuating this rumor, and then Scar posts something with like 4 Fucks in it? I counted.

No one is doing away with morality. We can't. We're hard-wired for morality. It's like, if one morning the ruler of the State announced that starting this morning, morality is obsolete or no longer required or something, yeah right! It's not like we're all going to start to become immoral. The existence of a moral code is the evidence of our thought that we do subscribe, whether we like or not, to some some form of moral code. Not the other way around. You really think that moral code precedes our "thinking and acting morally"? Wrong. The code, any code, is just the evidence that we do think this way. We're stuck with some form of morality.

[black magick hustla]

Thanks to the people who answered politely.


Without any morality the concept of justice quickly goes out the window, this is a very important concept. Why shouldn't I beat your brains out and steal your lollypop? It's in my best interest, if there's no morality no one would or should object, I have proved myself stronger than you and thus my action validates itself. Plus I have a childish love of lollypops.


Or perhaps, the concept of justice is there in order to satisfy everyone's egoism? It is in the best interest of everyone to have a stable society. If anything, the best justification for justice lies in utilitarianism rather than abstract morals.


Sometimes destruction and chaos can be pretty fun, but not alway. :)



Without some sort of morality or ethics there is no reason or motivation to treat one another with any sense of decency. This pushes the world into a extreme neo-darwinistic, 'survival of the fittest' situation. Of course, left-wing egoists deny this, but if I care only for my on personal interests (and maybe a couple of others) then I will do anything if it is in MY best interest. I have a big stick, you're my slave. Peel my potatos. It's in MY best interest, it's not in yours- but hey, fuck you! Why should I give a fuck about you? If you're too weak and stupid to not get enslaved then OBVIOUSLY it's your own damn fault!


You disregard the feelings of innate love and decency that most people have. This doesn't neccesarily implies a moral code, because there is no sacrifice in it. I don't feel any pleasure whatsoever by treating badly a decent person. Most people feel like this too.

Besides as I said before, there is the whole interest of pursuing a society that will protect everyone's rights. People are not that alienated from each other, and they actually form organizations in order to satisfy everyone's interests.



In my experience such egoism is generally an excuse to fuck loads of people, drink huge amounts of alcohol and smoke, inject, swallow, drink and inhale anything that will give you an even minor buzz. Are they all STD riddled, alcoholic junkies? No, but the egoists I've come into contact with have been some of the most horrible excuses for humanity that I have come across.


What a load of puritian shit!

You proclaim your superiority by looking down to "degenerate" activities like drugs and sex.

The disgusting stench of moral arrogance!




Besides, egoism is far more suited to capitalism than any form of communism. Even Proudhon, probably the biggest supporter of 'liberty' said that liberty must be curbed when society starts to become un-just.

Who speaks about absolute freedom?

Rules are not there to accomplish a divine moral goal. If anything, they are there because it is the best interest of everyone.

I see why you like Rousseau, though. :)




And don't bold words you deem important. It's irritating as fuck.

:lol:

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Marmot
This doesn't neccesarily implies a moral code, because there is no sacrifice in it. I don't feel any pleasure whatsoever by treating badly a decent person. Most people feel like this too.

Besides as I said before, there is the whole interest of pursuing a society that will protect everyone's rights. People are not that alienated from each other, and they actually form organizations in order to satisfy everyone's interests.
er.....the "moral code" is just another way of saying, "I will not treat badly a decent person". You are already saying "ethics" when you say "protect everyone's rights". I agree with Scars in wanting to acknowledge that we need ethics and/or morality---and it does not have to come from religion or some higher being or authority.

Here's two things that whatever we do, we will get, if at least three people were stranded in an island and start a colony, whatever clan, tribe, race, way of thinking, religion or no religion, modern or primitive existence:

1) some form of heirarchy
2) some form of arrangement (morality/ethics) for protection of any kind.

We don't have a choice on these. We are naturally inclined to form these.

[Scars]

<<Or perhaps, the concept of justice is there in order to satisfy everyone&#39;s egoism? It is in the best interest of everyone to have a stable society. If anything, the best justification for justice lies in utilitarianism rather than abstract morals.>>

I&#39;d say that justice exists because a concept of justice, ultimately, serves the common good. Being able to feel fairly secure walking round without getting mugged/raped/set on fire/murdered/etc is generally considered a good thing.


<<Sometimes destruction and chaos can be pretty fun, but not always>>

However constant destruction leaves one with nothing but ashes.

<<You disregard the feelings of innate love and decency that most people have.>>

Love is a thing that most certainly does not apply to all people. This site, in many ways, is dedicated to hatred (of the bourgeoise and other exploiters) and how our hatred can be channeled in such a way to make it constructive in the long run. Decency? People are born decent, feeling only basic urges of survival- infants cry when they&#39;re hungry, when they&#39;re cold, etc. Society, particularly Bourgeois-Capitalist society makes people, largely, indecent. Going by my measure of &#39;perfection&#39; (&#39;perfection&#39; being determined by the impossibilities of existance) I am an incredibly indecent person.


<<This doesn&#39;t neccesarily implies a moral code, because there is no sacrifice in it.>>

You could argue that people love one another because working in groups can serve the individual interest, as well as love can be used to manipulate and control people to your own advantage. In addition love often involves many sacrifices because loyality generally develops with love, so you think about others, as opposed to just yourself.

<<I don&#39;t feel any pleasure whatsoever by treating badly a decent person. Most people feel like this too.>>

Even if treating said person badly will benefit you greatly? If not then you have not abandonned morality, nor are you a &#39;true&#39; egoist.

<<Besides as I said before, there is the whole interest of pursuing a society that will protect everyone&#39;s rights.>>

Why should peoples rights be protected? The road you&#39;re advocating takes you towards Nietzsche, Battaile, Rand and others- none of these people would say that everyone&#39;s rights should be protected. If you want rights you FIGHT for them, if you&#39;re too weak to secure rights then it&#39;s your own fault.

<<What a load of puritian shit&#33;>>

I&#39;m not a puritan.

<<You proclaim your superiority by looking down to "degenerate" activities like drugs and sex.>>

They are not degernerate activities. Sex, in fact, is a very important activity. However I think people and the world would be a better place without drugs and alcohol. I do not engage in casual sex, and I wouldn&#39;t even if I was single, but many people do choose to and that&#39;s their choice. As long as it&#39;s consentual and they use contraception then I don&#39;t care what they do behind closed doors.

<<The disgusting stench of moral arrogance&#33;>>

The bitter lessons of experience, having had problems with alcoholism (clean for about a year) and drugs (about...4 years), plus the acts of petty crime that often go hand in hand with such activities. I believe that I am far better off without these things, and I believe that humanity in general is better off without them. I&#39;m not saying that anyone who occationally smokes weed will turn into a junkie, mugging old ladies- people seem to assume that because I&#39;m opposed to drugs I&#39;m obviously completely ignorant. Actually, I&#39;m very well informed, largely from first hand experience. Plus I find it&#39;s hard to be involved in organisation, agitation, work and so on while drunk/high/whatever and drugs and alcohol help keep large sectiosn of the working class down and out. Just look at the Blacks in the USA, for example.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:02 AM
I am driven by a combination of selfishness and "selflessness". While I want to be able to indulge my body and mind in my desires, dreams, and pleasures, I also want other people to be able to do this, to such a degree that I would definitely help those other people in their fight, even if I don&#39;t really get any "benefit" from it.



I&#39;ll take it you&#39;re an Epicurean Hedonist. I read a little about Epicurus, and he had some good ideas, although he seemed to favour a more simple style of pleasure of divorcing oneself from modern life. the writer described it as "like a hippy commune"

[tambourine_man]

(marmot)
I am in favor of the destruction of morality and all its alienating institutions in order to lead to a new era of people able to pursue their desires and pleasures without any constraint.

This includes the destruction of ideology and all its mechanisms subjugating mankind to the abstract idea above all men&#39;s heads.

However, I desire this society because of my egoism. I want to live completely free, and the only way I am going to achieve this goal is by the help of others. The collective emancipation of humanity is my only choice for this task&#33;


i agree completely.


(scars)

Besides, egoism is far more suited to capitalism than any form of communism

no.
absolute egoism implies that the sole purpose of life is the satisfaction of personal desires, the pursuit of pleasure. capitalism is an inherently constraining, oppressive, resitricting system that renders such satisfaction impossible -
not just for the proletarian, but for the big fat capitalist as well. why? simply because, to quote bakunin,
"no man can achieve his own emancipation without at the same time working for the emancipation of all men around him. my freedom is the freedom of all since i am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men who are my equals."
this is not a call for moralism or self-sacrifice (thankfully). instead, it is the simple recognition that the "liberty" permitted in a society not based on the premise of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is not real liberty, and that, therefore, the continuation of, for example, the present capitalist system, must necessarily limit one&#39;s own potential for movement and happiness (both in relation to others, and in relation to the self).
not to mention the inevitable tendency of late capitalism to eventually prevent completely any authentic human experience and relation by appropriating and transforming those realms into collections of alienated, disjointed commodity values; pseudo-experiences, pseudo-relations.
(marmot)

I am driven by a combination of selfishness and "selflessness". While I want to be able to indulge my body and mind in my desires, dreams, and pleasures, I also want other people to be able to do this, to such a degree that I would definitely help those other people in their fight, even if I don&#39;t really get any "benefit" from it.

you will benefit from it (for the above reasons). not to mention that "selflessness" and self-sacrifice are impossible both theoretically and practically. absolutely everything you do is in your own self-interest simply because any action is predicated on a personal impulse/inclination/desire.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:02 AM



I am in favor of the destruction of morality and all its alienating institutions in order to lead to a new era of people able to pursue their desires and pleasures without any constraint.

No sentient being deserves to derive their pleasure from anothers pain. No one. Something that may lead to ones pleasure may lead to the others sorrow. All beings should have the right to do, or not to do, whatever they want, as long as they do not harm others.


This includes the destruction of ideology and all its mechanisms subjugating mankind to the abstract idea above all men&#39;s heads.

For one thing, what about women? Don&#39;t they have heads too? Or are they just pussies with legs to you? :huh:

Secondly, what you say sounds much like you wish to abolish thinking of things that people don&#39;t understand. This is complete and utter Naïveté, and filled with hypocracy. To abolish thinking of things we don&#39;t understand, we would need to abolish thinking. That doesn&#39;t appeal to me in the slightest.


However, I desire this society because of my egoism. I want to live completely free, and the only way I am going to achieve this goal is by the help of others. The collective emancipation of humanity is my only choice for this task&#33;

You can&#39;t force people to be free.


In short, I am an egoist.

Egoist Socialism is like Communal Capitalism; hypocratic.


I have heard that communism is completely immoral,

You heard wrong.


we communists want communism because of our selfishness and our materialistic impulses.

That&#39;s what Capitalists do, not Communists. The reason Communists fight is because we believe in complete equality.


We know that if we atomize the bourgeoise, we are going to get the whole output of our labor and live a more economically comfortable life. Communists throw away the decadent matter of altruism in order to replace it for complete selfishness&#33;

I fight to help everybody, incluiding myself. I try not to be selfish.


In short, are we communists really "immoral", are we really just driven by materialistic impulses?

It depends on who you ask.