General values in a society

[Dimentio]

Actually, I tend to take more of a middle ground in the conflict between materialism and idealism. Of course, the economic foundation do have a profound impact on what values the people teter to in a society (take for example the development from moralism to hedonism during the 20th century in the developed nations), but the formulated ideas and concept may indeed self-strengthen the myths of the social community and help it exist under it's economic foundation (which only change when it is turned apparently unsustainable).

On the other hand, some sort of automatic change of values could not be enforced since that in itself spurs opposition. Of course, that depends on the efficiency of propaganda, but an official state ideology cannot seem to emulate genuine cultural traditions and myths (communist propaganda in socialist states have been efficient only mixed with patriotism or nationalism, which have aspects in them more founded on the social language of the country in question).

The same thing with liberalism and multiculturalism. Even though the European establishment, at least in northern Europe, launched event after event to enlighten the population about the dangers of fascism, xenophobic parties are increasingly marching forward, maybe due to the fact that the description of reality between the establishment and the population begins to teter apart.

As for the new post-capitalist society, we must emulate on a discussion on what values we should base it on. Now, I am talking about values which are running below the superstructure of established consensuses.

For example, in the ancient culture, honor, honesty and generosity was seen as good values, while in the current society, we see flexibility, tolerance, entrepreneurship and individualism as good values.

What do you think?

[Sentinel]

Actually, I tend to take more of a middle ground in the conflict between materialism and idealism. Of course, the economic foundation do have a profound impact on what values the people teter to in a society (take for example the development from moralism to hedonism during the 20th century in the developed nations), but the formulated ideas and concept may indeed self-strengthen the myths of the social community and help it exist under it's economic foundation (which only change when it is turned apparently unsustainable).

Our general values are so fundamentally tied to our relation to the means of production and the nature of society we live in, that idealism never can have any real or lasting impact on it's own. But like you implied it's of course a huge bonus if it doesn't contradict material conditions -- as a means of inspiration in struggle.


On the other hand, some sort of automatic change of values could not be enforced since that in itself spurs opposition. Of course, that depends on the efficiency of propaganda, but an official state ideology cannot seem to emulate genuine cultural traditions and myths (communist propaganda in socialist states have been efficient only mixed with patriotism or nationalism, which have aspects in them more founded on the social language of the country in question).

Propaganda is a tool of manipulation used by those in charge, through direct material as well as intellectual superiority. In a communist society without a ruling elite of any kind it would be rendered superfluous, as the influence over production and distribution would be equal, as would be the access to education.


The same thing with liberalism and multiculturalism. Even though the European establishment, at least in northern Europe, launched event after event to enlighten the population about the dangers of fascism, xenophobic parties are increasingly marching forward, maybe due to the fact that the description of reality between the establishment and the population begins to teter apart.

As for the new post-capitalist society, we must emulate on a discussion on what values we should base it on. Now, I am talking about values which are running below the superstructure of established consensuses.

Never do representatives of the capitalist class make any important decisions on idealistic grounds, and to think that the ruling classes of the west when they accept large quantities of immigrants or refugees and praise multiculturalism do so because of such would be naive.

The ruling class of employers rely on an abundance of labor power, ie unemployment in order to create a situation of competition within the working class. The ideal situation from the capitalist perspective is simply one with more workers than there is work that needs to be done. The worker is forced in such a situation to keep his labor an attractive product for the employers to buy: cheap and effective ie accept low wages and long working hours, have few demands etc. In other words, accept wage slavery on the terms of the employers.

A sudden increase of the labor force can therefore be very beneficial to the capitalist agenda, especially these days as the established, centralised labor union movement is weakened/full of sellouts in charge.

As it happens, capitalism also relies on division in the ranks of the working class in order to endure. Fittingly, xenophobia and racism amongst workers is mainly caused by the competition and artificial scarcity characteristic to capitalism; many workers feel threatened by immigration as they fear that could shift the situation on the labor market to the benefit of the employers -- or tear on the funds the ruling class has put on welfare, and this fear is what those xenophobic parties play on, when it comes to the core of things.

The worker is fooled into thinking 'they'll take our jobs!' alternatively 'they'll steal the crumbs the good masters have thrown to us (welfare)', which prevents him from understanding that it of course is the greed of the capitalist class which actually does those things..

The bourgeoisie seems so overpoweringly strong that many proles find it easier to look for scapegoat amongst their own class and take part in the capitalist competition system, regardless of their lousy starting positions. This kind of shortsighted infighting within the working class simply seems easier a way to get an outlet for the frustration caused by being exploited, belonging to the exploited class, rather than confronting the situation by engaging in class struggle. And that fits the goals of the capitalists perfectly.

Class struggle, by organising the workers regardless of origin into one unit fighting for common goals, is really the only way to correct this situation. Only when the worker realises he has everything to gain by class unity, will the ridiculousness of racism be fully exposed to him. Then the little errand boys of the capital, racist propagandists, will be laughed out of any group of workers.

So racism is basically a characteristic of societies with inequal relations to the means of production -- which is a highly material condition. It logically has no place in movements and societies where unity provides strength and better material benefits.


For example, in the ancient culture, honor, honesty and generosity was seen as good values, while in the current society, we see flexibility, tolerance, entrepreneurship and individualism as good values.

In a communistic society all of those (except 'honor' and individualism in the capitalist, every man for himself sense!) would of course be seen as positive characteristics. The difference would be that for the first time they would actually render true benefits to those who possess them, instead of merely being a means of survival.

[Dimentio]

As earlier stated by me on Technet, I think that it might take some generations before the general values of human beings have adapted itself, and most likely, we could never probably answer how they would adapt.

[SkipSievert]

Apparently you are trying to say something here, but I am not sure what, except that it may take generations to change anything, which seems like a morose attitude. :D
Humans are, and have been the same for millenium.
This post is some melancholy attempt at promoting social engineering to someones specifications ?
A slippery slope to control humans. Better they be left to do as they please, as long as no one is being literally hurt.

[Dimentio]

Huh?

All societies have had some general form of basic idea and basic values.

Oh, and hi Skip. Nice to see that you are using Andrew's monad.

[SkipSievert]

As some sources have stated, ' there is nothing new under the sun' in regard to humans. Humans have two basic desires, to procreate, and to survive, in other words to screw and to eat. Most all of the other so called human descriptions are spin offs of these two things.
I would agree that yes, each culture comes up with its own form of brainwashing and social control. Perhaps a culture could be judged poetically on the gradation of how it does or does not try to interfere with its citizens conduct. I would think that the very best type of culture would not resort to trying to manipulate its citizens, with abstract concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' 'good' and 'bad'
Those concepts do not exist in reality. They are in the mind of man, and man has tortured and humiliated man with those concepts for millenia. :angry:
:P
So, good poetry or bad poetry. Its only poetry. All the more reason to have a society that does not try to enforce the opinions of some on others.

[Dimentio]

Even the theory that there is no values and rationalism or empiricism dictates the life and path of the human being is a value. As well as your... uhm... own theory that the human being lives to "screw and eat".

[Sentinel]

The discussion on NET has been split. Link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66632)