What is freedom?

[Chicano Shamrock]

I realize that most of us want to fight for freedom or our idea of freedom. What is your idea of what freedom is? I have been racking my brain for the past few weeks trying to put what I think about freedom into words. I don't think I can put it into words at this point. So what is your idea of freedom?

Is it about working without a boss? Is it working without a wage defining you? Is it the ability to purchase property? Is it to live without hierarchy? Is it to live in a system of stable and comforting hierarchy? Is it your HDTV and nike shoes? Is it the enjoyment of cool grapes on a hot day?

[Raúl Duke]

Well...I heard there are 2 kinds of freedom; negative ("freedom from"; e.g. freedom from wage slavery, freedom from hierarchy, etc. Anarchists and Libertarian Socialists concentrate on this freedom.) and positive ("freedom to"; e.g. Freedom to own a gun, Freedom to make art anywhere, etc. This kind of freedom is the one that usually could affect others freedom through such things as: freedom to employ someone in wage slavery, etc)

I think most of us want a negative freedom in relation to society. We want to be free from class society, wage, capitalism, etc.


What is your idea of what freedom is?

Telling you how many liberties I would need to constitute my idea of freedom would take some time thinking...(I'm posting this early in the morning.)

[R_P_A_S]

I believe, thus far from what I've learn in the last 12 months that my idea of freedom could be to live my life with out being deprived of my human nature.

I should be able to travel with out worrying about money and go to whatever college I want to.
I should be able to fill satisfied at work, not exploited. And I should be able to enjoy what the earth has to offer and this should not be limited to class or money. thats freedom to me! for the most part.

[Tower of Bebel]

A very hard question is this. Let's say freedom to me is freedom from exploitation, but also the freedom to develope yourself. (Both are impossible under capitalsim as capitalism developes money, not humans).

[Cult of Reason]

Absolute freedo, I think can in many ways be seen as the opportunity to make decisions and have a say in everything that immediately effects you. As such we have little freedom now, as all the decisions we can make about how we lead our lives are taken by someone else, except for a few, mostly inconsequential, ones.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I note you are all giving individualistic, petty-bourgeois answers to this question!

Except perhaps Raccoon!

[Cult of Reason]

How the hell is mine individualistic!? Making decisions on your own life includes collective decision-making, like in workers' councils, for instance.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 11:34 am
I note you are all giving individualistic, petty-bourgeois answers to this question!

Except perhaps Raccoon!
First, I fail to see how Raccoon's answer is any less individualistic then the other answers. Secondly I'm going to take objection to your use of "petty-bourgeois" to describe the answers. The term surely has a specific Marxian meaning (the small bourgeois who while owning some means of production are still forced to work at least a certain amount), and by misusing it in this way, you discredit the entire Marxian analysis (in my opinion of course, and others may well disagree with me).

And lastly I'll explain how freedom has to be individualistic. You cannot have a collective freedom for an individual. Yes, you can have freedom for a collective, but that doesn't mean freedom for the people who make up that group.

Society is made up of interactions between people. To be truly "free", one needs to be able to disregard the feelings and so on of others. Of course, this is not true freedom. Anyway, I think my point was that to be free, one needs to be free of the constraints of others. So, you should really be a hermit.

This is a bit rambling, but I know what I mean anyway...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Haraldur, I am glad to hear it.

Perhaps you did not feel you were free to be clear about your ideas at RevLeft?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM, since he mentions 'exploitation' which is a class-based idea.

Note, I said 'perhaps', not 'for sure'!


And lastly I'll explain how freedom has to be individualistic. You cannot have a collective freedom for an individual. Yes, you can have freedom for a collective, but that doesn't mean freedom for the people who make up that group.

That, of course, is not an explanation, just a rehearsal of opinion.

You may or may not be right about freedom of the individual, but I hope you would not disagree with the idea that unless the majority will their freedom from collective oppression/exploitation, then no individual can be free in the sense you seem to mean.


Secondly I'm going to take objection to your use of "petty-bourgeois" to describe the answers.

Disagreement noted, but your argument is conspicuous by its absence.


This is a bit rambling, but I know what I mean anyway

That is perhaps the clearest part of your post, but, I suspect, no less incorrect.

I doubt you do know what you mean.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 01:04 pm
Haraldur, I am glad to hear it.

Perhaps you did not feel you were free to be clear about your ideas at RevLeft?
I fail to see how my original post was anything less than chystal clear, in denotation at least.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

For socialists, shouldn't freedom be understood in terms of social relationships?

I believe Marx always sought to explain how we can collectively reconcile individual freedom with public freedom.

Also, about the idea that freedom under capitalism is limited by Class because the working class has significantly less leisure time to enjoy. Practically none, assuming sleep, eating and general domestic responsiblities don't count as leisure.

[manic expression]

Freedom is defined by society and economic structures. "Freedom" doesn't exist outside of society's definition.

Therefore, the only "freedom" I want is any "freedom" that comes with a socialist society. Anything else is secondary and abstract (read: meaningless).

[Tower of Bebel]

I guess there will only be real freedom if women finally can say they're freed from exploitation.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 10:34 am
I note you are all giving individualistic, petty-bourgeois answers to this question!

Except perhaps Raccoon!
oh yes. not being exploited, wanting to go attend college, travel the world, not be limited by money and fulfill my human nature is soooo petty-bourgeoisie!!! :rolleyes:

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:38 pm
I guess there will only be real freedom if women finally can say they're freed from exploitation.
uh? are you just trying to "score more points" with Rosa Liechtenstein? lol :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Haraldur earlier:


Absolute freedo, I think can in many ways be seen as the opportunity to make decisions and have a say in everything that immediately effects you. As such we have little freedom now, as all the decisions we can make about how we lead our lives are taken by someone else, except for a few, mostly inconsequential, ones

Yes, I note the clear references to class, and collective action.

How stupid of me!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS:


oh yes. not being exploited, wanting to go attend college, travel the world, not be limited by money and fulfill my human nature is soooo petty-bourgeoisie!!!

It's not the pain/oppression/exploitation that defiones a petty-bougeois opinion, but the individualistic solution.

You seem not to know this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS:


uh? are you just trying to "score more points" with Rosa Liechtenstein? lol

He is already ten ahead of you....

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 06:46 pm
RPAS:


uh? are you just trying to "score more points" with Rosa Liechtenstein? lol

He is already ten ahead of you....
whats the prize? haha.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 06:45 pm
RPAS:


oh yes. not being exploited, wanting to go attend college, travel the world, not be limited by money and fulfill my human nature is soooo petty-bourgeoisie!!!

It's not the pain/oppression/exploitation that defiones a petty-bougeois opinion, but the individualistic solution.

You seem not to know this.
take a chill pill for a minute there. im not all up on the damn definitions of what means this and what means that. thats what freedom is to me. thus far OK?

I don't want this for my self only. obviously for all people. DUH! anyways I forgot only your definition can be correct. I apologize. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS:


take a chill pill for a minute there. im not all up on the damn definitions of what means this and what means that. thats what freedom is to me. thus far OK?

No need for such artifical aides; but thankyou for sharing with the good people here, and with me, your own handy solution to anger.


I don't want this for my self only. obviously for all people.

Once again, unless you stress collective class action, this too is compatible with a petty-bourgeois approach to 'freedom'.

Check out the declaration of rights:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

What is missing here, as it is in your repeated protestations, is a reference to workers' power, etc.

They of course had an excuse; they were capitalist bast*rds; you perhaps have only your own slack thinking to blame.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS:


whats the prize? haha.

I get to slap some non-petty-bourgeois sense into you.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 07:09 pm
RPAS:


take a chill pill for a minute there. im not all up on the damn definitions of what means this and what means that. thats what freedom is to me. thus far OK?

No need for such artifical aides; but thankyou for sharing with the good people here, and with me, your own handy solution to anger.


I don't want this for my self only. obviously for all people.

Once again, unless you stress collective class action, this too is compatible with a petty-bourgeois approach to 'freedom'.

Check out the declaration of rights:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

What is missing here, as it is in your repeated protestations, is a reference to workers' power, etc.

They of course had an excuse; they were capitalist bast*rds; you perhaps have only your own slack thinking to blame.
I see now what you mean. but then again I'm supposed to know everything? and have full understanding of this things.. thats why I specified on my first reply that so far this is what I FEEL freedom should be. because this is a question that I', still having trouble answering.

You came on to us on the attack. AT LEAST thats how I felt... and now you are explaining what you mean.

you know that most of us here are for workers rights and liberation. so the moment you imply we are only thinking of our selves.. or like petty-bourgeoisie you are going to set off a lot of people here.

so what do you want of this? you clearly made you point and I get it. you won! happy? ;)

[CheRev]

Individual freedom is the ability to do what you like without effecting other people without their consent.

This includes one's social responsibility i.e. if people don't pull their weight they will negatively effect other people.

[Raúl Duke]

For socialists, shouldn't freedom be understood in terms of social relationships?

Yeah....I thought the same.

I think so; there is no freedom till our class breaks away from the bourgeoisie exploitation.


I note you are all giving individualistic, petty-bourgeois answers to this question!


Did I give a petit-bourgeois answer? :unsure:

Could you tell us what would be the proletarian or revolutionary answer?

Actually, the answer I gave was based on something I read in an anarchist book which mentioned that the type of freedom concentrated by anarchists was the "negative freedom" ("freedom from"; e.g. freedom from slavery, etc.)

So...I really didn't give much of a personal answer, only explaining that 2 types of freedom was defined.

In a way, the answer given by bloody capitalist sham was a type of "negative freedom" based on social relationships. i.e. freedom from wage slavery, freedom from class society, freedom from exploitation, etc.

The only way we could achieve this freedom is through working class collective action (I agree with you on that ;) ).

[Lenin II]

Freedom is the ability to make mistakes. Freedom is the ability to be happy. Freedom is the right to not live in fear.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+May 08, 2007 06:16 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ May 08, 2007 06:16 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:38 pm
I guess there will only be real freedom if women finally can say they're freed from exploitation.
uh? are you just trying to "score more points" with Rosa Liechtenstein? lol :P [/b]
Not at all. Just pleased not to be criticized unlike many others.
But I'm very interested in the subject of gender and socialist feminism. As a young man I attended a congres of a new socialist movement once. I wanted to join the workshop that was working on gender problems and the exploitation of women. It's because I believe that the way women are treated shows us how our society really is.
Socialist feminism is the only feminist current that has good solutions to the exploitation of women.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS:


you know that most of us here are for workers rights and liberation. so the moment you imply we are only thinking of our selves.. or like petty-bourgeoisie you are going to set off a lot of people here.

Yes, I know that, but when it comes to anything philosophical, the vast majority of comrades begin to spout individualistic ideas, since philosophy, as it has been practiced for 2400 years, has been the quintessential domain for ruling-class thought. And since the 17th century, it has been mega-individualistic.

So, it seemed to me that the discussions here about freedom always begin from a bourgeois individualistic angle.

So, it's not just you. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And it's five more points to Raccy baby! ;)

[Alenichev]

"Freedom is the right to do everything you want to without the government looking over your shouloder, the governmand's hands in your pockets, the jewish hands in your pockets." - Redneck Hick in the Ali G show.

[Tower of Bebel]

I also had the idea that there will only be freedom when animals will be "free" in their own way (they will of course still kill each other to survive). Nowadays we see worldwide abuse of animals, and at the same time people are turned into slaves of society.
Just an idea I had several days ago.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+May 08, 2007 10:56 am--> (R_P_A_S @ May 08, 2007 10:56 am)
Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 06:45 pm
RPAS:


oh yes. not being exploited, wanting to go attend college, travel the world, not be limited by money and fulfill my human nature is soooo petty-bourgeoisie!!!

It's not the pain/oppression/exploitation that defiones a petty-bougeois opinion, but the individualistic solution.

You seem not to know this.
take a chill pill for a minute there. im not all up on the damn definitions of what means this and what means that. thats what freedom is to me. thus far OK?

I don't want this for my self only. obviously for all people. DUH! anyways I forgot only your definition can be correct. I apologize. :P [/b]
And I think that is a part of freedom. The freedom to admit that you do not know everything but what you think up is still yours and true to you. I really don't think there can be any wrong answers to this question because the question is based on the freedom to have your opinion on what freedom is.

I guess what I think of freedom is that it has to be individualistic. Sure the individual can't be free without the collective being free but once the group is free it can lead to the individual being free. If the group has to be free first than the individual is last and thus that is the goal.

Freedom to me is the ability to be free of a system that is beyond your control. As long as you are just another cog in any system I believe you are a slave. Whether that system is capitalist, socialist or whatever. Freedom is not present when you are just another number in the line. Freedom isn't present when you have deadlines and foreign regulations. At least that is what I think of freedom at this point in my life.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Raccoon+May 08, 2007 09:19 pm--> (Raccoon @ May 08, 2007 09:19 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:16 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 04:38 pm
I guess there will only be real freedom if women finally can say they're freed from exploitation.
uh? are you just trying to "score more points" with Rosa Liechtenstein? lol :P
Not at all. Just pleased not to be criticized unlike many others.
But I'm very interested in the subject of gender and socialist feminism. As a young man I attended a congres of a new socialist movement once. I wanted to join the workshop that was working on gender problems and the exploitation of women. It's because I believe that the way women are treated shows us how our society really is.
Socialist feminism is the only feminist current that has good solutions to the exploitation of women. [/b]
i was just fucking with you dawg. notice the lil smiley guy.

[DeepWoodsJustice]

What is your idea of what freedom is?

Freedom to me, is being able to work your way up from the bottom to the top, which can happen and is happening in america everyday. It also defines the american way of life, being able to choose what you want to do with your life. and yes, im saying America is a good thing...

[Question everything]

Freedom is equality, all thoughts are accepted, all people are valued, basically no judgement, you may speak you mind...

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:30 pm

What is your idea of what freedom is?

Freedom to me, is being able to work your way up from the bottom to the top, which can happen and is happening in america everyday. It also defines the american way of life, being able to choose what you want to do with your life. and yes, im saying America is a good thing...
So freedom to you is being able to be born on the bottom? What a bleak idea of freedom you have. News flash the American Dream isn't real. People can't just magically work their way to the top of something(top of what I don't know it was your sentence) if they try hard enough. Reality shows a different story. The person picking grapes and cotton all day long in the heat with cut hands from thorns has worked harder than the Exxon pencil pusher but the harder worker has less and is on the bottom.

It can't happen and it isn't happening everyday. But for amusement I would like to know what the "top" is. You say people can work from the bottom to the top. What is the top?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:30 am

What is your idea of what freedom is?

Freedom to me, is being able to work your way up from the bottom to the top, which can happen and is happening in america everyday. It also defines the american way of life, being able to choose what you want to do with your life. and yes, im saying America is a good thing...
Have fun believing your little fairy tale. For the people who have to live it, however, it isn't so fun. The "American way of life" is built upon exploitation and subjugation, workers are forced to work the hardest while they get the least. He who succeeds exploits the most, he who actually works is exploited. Yes, that is "freedom", being able to get stepped on and used your entire life, if you're lucky. Your "freedom" means suffering for the majority of the population, your "freedom" only exists for thsoe who can afford it. Pathetic.

[Lynx]

What is your idea of what freedom is?
Justice. Equality.

Until then, freedom will be known as privilege.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:20 pm

What is your idea of what freedom is?
Justice. Equality.

Until then, freedom will be known as privilege.
Those words are a bit vague. What is justice? Equality as in what?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:30 am

What is your idea of what freedom is?

Freedom to me, is being able to work your way up from the bottom to the top, which can happen and is happening in america everyday. It also defines the american way of life, being able to choose what you want to do with your life. and yes, im saying America is a good thing...
You know that the wealth of Europe and the US is based on severe exploitation of Asian, South-American and African wokers, right?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Notice the return of the petty-bourgeois opinions above!

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class....

[Demogorgon]

Freedom is a word loaded with such emotional baggage that a lot of the time it is little more than rhetoric. Almost every political position says it is for freedom, yet they all have different definitions.

For what it is worth though, I guess we have to look at what the word commonly means. People tend to use it to mean not being a prisoner or not being a slave. Which for me obviously extends to not being a wage slave. So I guess a major part of freedom is going to be not having to sell our labour to the capitalists. So to be free we have to liberate our class from the capitalist system.

That is the main thing and if we do that right everything else follows. Obviously there are a few other more individualistic points as well, such as the freedom to dissent being very important. And also of course not having interference in our personal lives, that is the right to read the books we want to, have sex with those we want to etc. As I say though, end the class system and that follows naturally.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:10 am
People tend to use it to mean not being a prisoner or not being a slave. Which for me obviously extends to not being a wage slave. So I guess a major part of freedom is going to be not having to sell our labour to the capitalists. So to be free we have to liberate our class from the capitalist system.
That is the main thing and if we do that right everything else follows. Obviously there are a few other more individualistic points as well, such as the freedom to dissent being very important. And also of course not having interference in our personal lives, that is the right to read the books we want to, have sex with those we want to etc. As I say though, end the class system and that follows naturally.
I'm glad you brought that up! Yes, I believe freedom should extend to speech, thought, publication, sexual practice, voting (in a communist democracy), personal appearance, diet, and various dissenting activities, such as the right to protest without riot cops showing up with thier stormtrooper helmets and truncheons.

[Boriznov]

Freedom to me is to live in a society where everyone is equal and you don't have to live of money anymore.

[Tower of Bebel]

The last part is no reason why there is no freedom in a society.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+May 09, 2007 03:41 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ May 09, 2007 03:41 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 08:20 pm

What is your idea of what freedom is?
Justice. Equality.

Until then, freedom will be known as privilege.
Those words are a bit vague. What is justice? Equality as in what? [/b]
What is justice? What is injustice?
Equality, as in the absence of discrimination based on class, race, gender, etc

When everyone has rights and are treated equally, there is freedom. When rights are limited to a select group, that is the definition of privilege. When George Bush says he is defending freedom, he is defending privilege.

Privilege may feel exactly like freedom, I will admit that.

[apathy maybe]

Rosa Lichtenstein, would I be correct in thinking that any definition of freedom for you would include some reference to workers power or similar? Perhaps the right of workers to the product of their labour?

Care to give us what you think of freedom? What is *your* idea of freedom?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


What is *your* idea of freedom?

Your request suggests that this word refers to or designates one state of affairs, or even one topic of discussion.

But, I contend that this word has many senses (many of which all of the above comrades run together), and hence many uses.

So, I cannot respond to your request since there is no one thing which is 'freedom'.

As usual, when it comes to philosophical theory, my positive comments are thoroughly deflationary (if not disappointing), since they are deliberately set to challenge the staid old ways of thinking about/answering such questions.

And, my negative ones are generally annoying -- and deliberately so, too -- for the same reason.

Hence my claim to be radical.

[apathy maybe]

OK, you made me laugh. Yes your responses are annoying. However, I disagree with your contention that you are "radical" :P.

How about this, in a political/social sense, does the idea of not being oppressed or exploited (either individually, or as a group) coincide with something that you might call freedom?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


However, I disagree with your contention that you are "radical"

Ok, but in view of the fact that you seem keen to adopt variations of the tired old conservative philosophical theses (that have been bandied about now for 2500 with no progress having been made), and I am not a radical, according to you, for challenging this tradition root and branch, what does that make you?

A reactionary?

So :P to you too!

Exhibit A for the prosecution:


How about this, in a political/social sense, does the idea of not being oppressed or exploited (either individually, or as a group) coincide with something that you might call freedom?

Bold emphasis added.

I must not have made myself clear: there is no 'something' that is 'freedom', just many different uses of this word.

Give me a use, and I will see if it makes sense (even to you!).

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:41 pm
The last part is no reason why there is no freedom in a society.
What i mean with it is that people won't live for the wage anymore, i want abolishment of money. Money has brought so many destruction to families, societies. With money there is greed, that is how i see it.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 09:15 am
AM:


What is *your* idea of freedom?

Your request suggests that this word refers to or designates one state of affairs, or even one topic of discussion.

But, I contend that this word has many senses (many of which all of the above comrades run together), and hence many uses.

So, I cannot respond to your request since there is no one thing which is 'freedom'.

As usual, when it comes to philosophical theory, my positive comments are thoroughly deflationary (if not disappointing), since they are deliberately set to challenge the staid old ways of thinking about/answering such questions.

And, my negative ones are generally annoying -- and deliberately so, too -- for the same reason.

Hence my claim to be radical.
So after telling everyone they had bad answers(to a question of opnion :D) you don't even have an answer?

I think that might have been the most petite bourgeois reply yet. You're soooo radical with your non question answering formula. :P

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:41 am
What i mean with it is that people won't live for the wage anymore, i want abolishment of money. Money has brought so many destruction to families, societies. With money there is greed, that is how i see it.
I reject the belief that money is the root of all evil. It's not money that is the problem, it is greed. Greed runs rampant in capitalist systems. So do away with capitalism, and you'll have people who find it incredibly hard to exploit others to satisfy their greed.

Money should be more like a regulator. You can only buy stuff with money, right? Well if nobody has huge amounts of it, nobody is acquiring more than their share of material goods. The wealth of society can therefore be spread out much more evenly.

That's just the conclusion I've come to, somebody correct me if I'm saying something dumb... :blush:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CS:


So after telling everyone they had bad answers(to a question of opnion ) you don't even have an answer?

I think that might have been the most petite bourgeois reply yet. You're soooo radical with your non question answering formula.

Well, I am sorry your eyesight seems to be failing, since I was quite clear that if there is no 'one thing' that is 'freedom', an answer can only be given to a specific example.

If you do not have one, may I respectfully suggest you occupy your time at the opticians, rather than here.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by StartToday+May 13, 2007 01:27 pm--> (StartToday @ May 13, 2007 01:27 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 07:41 am
What i mean with it is that people won't live for the wage anymore, i want abolishment of money. Money has brought so many destruction to families, societies. With money there is greed, that is how i see it.
I reject the belief that money is the root of all evil. It's not money that is the problem, it is greed. Greed runs rampant in capitalist systems. So do away with capitalism, and you'll have people who find it incredibly hard to exploit others to satisfy their greed.

Money should be more like a regulator. You can only buy stuff with money, right? Well if nobody has huge amounts of it, nobody is acquiring more than their share of material goods. The wealth of society can therefore be spread out much more evenly.

That's just the conclusion I've come to, somebody correct me if I'm saying something dumb... :blush: [/b]
You don't need money in a communist society when you would get the things you need for free. There will always be people that will want more and start to revolt to the society and have a chance to take over and force capitalism back. Not everyone is going to be pleased with communism so there is always a chance. Therefore as i see it with money gone there will be less motivation to have more then an other.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:35 am
Therefore as i see it with money gone there will be less motivation to have more then an other.
But money is just paper. People want lots of it because it represents material posessions, or the ability to acquire material posessions. It's not money that is the problem, but greed. Freedom from an established currency does not do away with greed.

Actually, you would think it would make "playing the system" much easier. In a communist society, you get what you need, so if I tell different people on opposite sides of town that I need a bike, and they both give me one, I have just acted on my greedy impulsions sucessfully.

Capitalism's end will end the uneven distribution of wealth, and everyone will have more money (except for the billionaires, who will have far less), which means an almost equal amount of purchasing power. So nobody can take a surplus of material wealth.

[R_P_A_S]

get ur heads out the dictionary. freedom is freedom damn it. after ready this thread I dont even think i know the definition of a pencil. shit ;)

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 10:34 am
I note you are all giving individualistic, petty-bourgeois answers to this question!

Except perhaps Raccoon!
Rosita.. break this down for me.. this is what I said..


my idea of freedom could be to live my life with out being deprived of my human nature.


under capitalism we are not allowed to developt, fulfill our lives since thats not the point or what makes capitalism function. so i pretty much said something similar to what the homie Raccoon(sp?) said.. nah?


A very hard question is this. Let's say freedom to me is freedom from exploitation, but also the freedom to develope yourself. (Both are impossible under capitalsim as capitalism developes money, not humans)

I don't get it how my response was that of a petty-bourgeoisie. I normally try to be open minded about others opinions or statements. even when they are self-centered and just ignorant. NOT SAYING YOURS ARE LIKE THAT. im just letting you know that im always down to listen, understand and learn something new.

so yeah? what? :blink:

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 09:24 pm
RPAS:


you know that most of us here are for workers rights and liberation. so the moment you imply we are only thinking of our selves.. or like petty-bourgeoisie you are going to set off a lot of people here.

Yes, I know that, but when it comes to anything philosophical, the vast majority of comrades begin to spout individualistic ideas, since philosophy, as it has been practiced for 2400 years, has been the quintessential domain for ruling-class thought. And since the 17th century, it has been mega-individualistic.

So, it seemed to me that the discussions here about freedom always begin from a bourgeois individualistic angle.

So, it's not just you. :)
and Marxism is not the philosophy of the proletariat?