Morals in a communist society?

[forward]

Will morals be prevelant? To me, it seems as if morality will be non-existant in a communist society. Need some clarifaction.

[Q]

Please don't feed this troll anymore.

[forward]

I'm never going to learn anything if I dont get any answers. I'm dont have any strong convictions, I want to ask a question simply.

[mykittyhasaboner]

you dont want to learn, you just want to agitate.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm never going to learn anything if I dont get any answers. I'm dont have any strong convictions, I want to ask a question simply.

I was going to do my best with your original question, but my fellows here posted a couple of warnings above so I went and looked at your previous posts... you sure do have some "strong convictions."

And on a side note, your original question is a little too vague to receive a solid response.

- August

[forward]

No that is not true, I am sorry if it seemed otherwise. Is it the way that I write this question?Okay what I mean by this, is ideally will drugs be legalized, abortion be avaliable, etc. I mean what will the family structure be like?

[Niccolò Rossi]

The dominate moral and ethical systems present in society are like all super-structural social elements dependant on the material conditions and economic basis of the society in question. For example what may be considered moral today may have been blasphemous 2000 years ago, the reasons being reducible to material conditions.


will drugs be legalized, abortion be avaliable, etc.

We don't prefigure the future and dream up utopian pictures of how society should function, but matters such as Abortion and drug use are fairly straight forward. Abortion must be freely available for all who seek to terminate their pregnancy. Likewise there must be no restrictions on the use of drugs and other substances. These two (and many more) boil down the the principle of personal autonomy (a communist moral principal if you will).


I mean what will the family structure be like?

As with morality discussed above, the structure of the family is an example of a super-structural formation dependant on the prevailing material conditions and economic formations. For example: the family structure in primitive pre-agrarian societies is vastly different from that present in modern day capitalism. Thus we can conclude that with the differing economic relations and material conditions present in a communist mode of production we can predict that the family structure may differ (ie. children would have greater autonomy, no longer seen as the "property" of, or dependant upon, their parents)

But speculation and hypotheticals are oh so unfulfilling and pointless. As I recomended in your other thread, if you really want to learn start from the basics and go read instead of trolling a legitmate internet forum "to learn".

[shorelinetrance]

morals don't exist in a capitalist society, communism only serves to improve existing pseudo morals...

[RedAnarchist]

morals don't exist in a capitalist society, communism only serves to improve existing pseudo morals...

Could you expand on that a little, I can't fully understand what you're trying to say.

[Leo]

Here's a good article on marxism and morality:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/marxism-and-ethics

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/marxism-and-ethics-pt2


Morality is an indispensable guide of behaviour in the world of human culture. It identifies the principles and rules which regulate the living together of the members of society. Solidarity, sensitivity, generosity, support for the needy, honesty, friendliness and politeness, modesty, solidarity between generations, are treasures which belong to the heritage of humanity. They are qualities, without which society becomes impossible. This is why human beings have always recognised their value, just as indifference towards others, brutality, greed, envy, arrogance and vanity, dishonesty and infidelity have always provoked disapproval and indignation.

As such, morality fulfils the function of favouring the social as opposed to the anti-social impulses in humanity, in the interests of the maintenance of community. It canalises psychic energy in the interest of the whole. The way in which this energy is channelled varies according to the mode of production, the social constellation etc. The fact of the harnessing of these forces is as old as society itself.

(...)

Morality is much more than the sum of rules and customs of behaviour. It is an essential part of the coloration of human relationships in any given society. It reflects, and is an active factor, both of how man sees himself, and how he reaches understanding with his fellow man.

Moral evaluations are necessary not only in response to everyday problems, but as part of a planful activity consciously directed towards a goal. They not only guide singular decisions, but the orientation of a whole life or a whole historical epoch.

(...)

In his “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” Engels uncovers the roots of morality in social-economic relationships and class interests. But he also shows their regulating role, not only in the reproduction of the existing social structures, but also in the emergence of new relations. Morality can either hamper or accelerate historical progress. Morality frequently reflects, earlier than philosophy or science, hidden changes under the surface of society.
The class character of a given morality should not blind us to the fact that each moral system contains general human elements, which contribute to the preservation of society at a given stage of its development. As Engels points out in Anti-Dühring, proletarian morality contains many more elements of general human value, because it represents the future against the morality of the bourgeoisie. Engels insists on the existence of moral progress in history. Through the efforts, from generation to generation, to better master human existence, and through the struggles of historic classes, the wealth of moral experience of society has increased. Although the ethical ascent of man is anything but linear, progress in this realm can be measured in the necessity and possibility of solving ever more complex human problems.

(...)

For Marxism, the origin of morality lies in the entirely social, collective nature of humanity. This morality is the product, not only of profound social instincts, but of the dependence of the species on planful, common labour and the increasingly complex productive apparatus this entails. The basis and heart of morality is the awareness of the necessity of solidarity in response to the insufficiency of the individual, to the dependence on society. This solidarity is the common denominator of everything positive and lasting which has been brought forth in the course of the history of morality. As such, it is both the yardstick of moral progress and the expression of the continuity of this history - in spite of all the breaks and set-backs.

This history is characterised by the awareness that the chances of survival are all the greater, the more unified society or the social class is, the firmer its cohesion, the greater the harmony of its parts. But it is not only a question of survival. Ever deeper forms of collectivity are the precondition for the development of the personality and for the fullest development of the potentiality of society and its members. It is only through relating to others that human beings can discover their own humanity. The practical pursuit of the collective interest is the means of the moral uplifting of the members of society. The richest life is that which is most anchored in society, with the most involvement in the lives of others.

The reason why only the proletariat could answer the question of the origin and essence of morality, is because the understanding of the communist perspective of humanity is the key to grasp the history of morals. The proletariat is the first class in history which is united through a true socialisation of production – the material basis of a qualitatively superior level of human solidarity.

(...)

Proletarian morality develops in combat against the dominant values, not in isolation from them. The growing unbearability of the ruling values, itself becomes one of the main motors of the development of the opposing, revolutionary morality, and of its capacity to grip the masses.

The kernel of the morality of bourgeois society is contained in the generalisation of commodity production. This determines its essentially democratic character, which played a highly progressive role in the dissolution of feudalism, but which increasingly reveals its irrational side with the decline of the capitalist system.

Capitalism subjects the whole of society, including labour power itself, to the quantification of exchange value. The value of human beings and their productive activity no longer lies in their concrete human qualities and their unique contribution to the collectivity, but can only be measured quantitively, in comparison to others and to an abstract average - which confronts society as an independent, blind force. By thus pitting man as competitor against man, obliging him to constantly compare himself with others, capitalism corrodes the human solidarity at the basis of society. By abstracting from the real qualities of living human beings, including their moral qualities, it undermines the very basis of morality. By replacing the question “what can I contribute to the community” by the question “what is my own value within the community” (wealth, power, prestige), it questions the very possibility of community.

The tendency of bourgeois society is to erode the moral acquisitions of humanity accumulated over thousands of years, from the simple traditions of hospitality and the respect of others in everyday life, to the elementary reflex to help those in need.

With its entry into its terminal phase of decomposition, this inherent tendency of capitalism tends to become dominant. The irrational nature of this tendency – in the long term incompatible with the preservation of society – is revealed in the necessity for the bourgeoisie itself, in the interests of profitable production, to have scientists investigate and develop strategies against “mobbing”, to employ pedagogues who teach schoolchildren how to deal with conflicts, and to make the increasingly rare quality of being able to work in a group, the most important qualification demanded of new employees in many companies today.

Specific to capitalism is exploitation on the basis of the "freedom" and juristic "equality" of the exploited. Hence the essentially hypocritical character of its morality. But this specificity also alters the role which violence plays within society.

As opposed to what its apologists claim, capitalism employs not less, but much more brute force than any other mode of exploitation. But because the enforcement of the process of exploitation itself is now based on an economic relationship, rather than physical constraint, there results a qualitative leap in the employment of indirect, moral, psychic violence. Slandering, character assassination, scapegoating, the social isolation of others, the systematic demolition of human dignity and self confidence, have become everyday instruments of social control and competitive struggle. More than that: they have become the manifestation of democratic freedom, the moral ideal of bourgeois society. And the more the bourgeoisie can rely on this indirect violence, and on the sway of its morality, against the proletariat, the stronger its position is.

The struggle of the proletariat for communism constitutes by far the summit of society's moral evolution to date. This implies that the working class inherits the accumulated products of culture, developing them at a qualitatively higher level, thus saving them from liquidation by capitalist decomposition. One of the main goals of the communist revolution is the victory of the social feelings and qualities over the anti-social impulses. As Engels argued in Anti-Dühring, a really human morality, beyond class contradictions, will only become possible in a society where not only the class contradiction itself, but the very recollection of it, has disappeared in the practice of daily life.

The proletariat absorbs into its own movement ancient rules of community, as well as the acquisitions of more recent and complicated manifestations of moral culture. These include such elementary rules as the forbidding of theft, which for the workers' movement is not only a golden rule of solidarity and mutual confidence, but a irreplaceable barrier against the alien moral influence of the bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletariat.

The workers' movement lives also from the development of social life, the concern for the lives of others, the protection of the very young, the very old, and the needy. Although love of humanity is not solely restricted to the proletariat, as Lenin said, this working class re-appropriation is necessarily a critical one, striving to overcome the rawness, pettiness and provincialism of non-proletarian exploited classes and layers.

(...)

For the working class, ethics is not something abstract, standing outside of its own struggle. Solidarity, the foundation of its class morality, is at the same time the first precondition of its very capacity to affirm itself as a class in struggle.

Today the proletariat is faced with the task of reconquering its class identity, which suffered such a set back after 1989. This task is inseparable from the struggle to reappropriate its traditions of solidarity.

Solidarity is not only a central component of the daily struggle of the working class, but carries the germ of the future society. Both aspects, relating to the present and future, mutually influence each other. The redeployment of class solidarity within the workers struggles is an essential aspect of the present dynamic of the class struggle and opening of the road toward a new revolutionary perspective. And such a perspective when it emerges will, in turn, be a powerful factor of the reinforcement of solidarity within the immediate struggles of the proletariat.

This perspective is thus decisive in the face of the problems with which capitalist decadence and decomposition confront the working class. For instance: the question of immigration. In ascendant capitalism the position of the workers' movement, in particular of the left, was that of the defence of open frontiers and the free movement of labour. This was part of the minimum programme of the working class. Today, the choice between open and closed frontiers is a false alternative, since only the abolition of all frontiers can resolve the issue. Under the conditions of decomposition, the issue of immigration tends to erode class solidarity, threatening even to infect workers with the pogrom mentality. In face of this situation, the perspective of a world wide community based on solidarity is the most effective factor in defence of the principle of proletarian internationalism.

[shorelinetrance]

Could you expand on that a little, I can't fully understand what you're trying to say.

think nietzsche "god is dead", i can draw parallels between the meaning of that quote, and existing "morals" in a capitalist society.

we hate murderers but yet we kill them in the name of "justice"?

communism will improve the "morals" we have today to a whole new level..

[Demogorgon]

Morality is a very complicated affair and it tends to be that the more you consider it, the less sure you become of anything. There are aspects of morality so basic that hardly anybody disagrees with them, those being that murder, rape and so on are wrong-even those who commit such acts, usually try to rationalise it so that they are the exception rather the rule. Of course, the problem is that nobody can agree on exactly why these things are wrong.

Nonetheless, I think it is important to have a proper, functioning moral compass. If you cannot work out that murder, rape, exploitation and so on are wrong, you are likely to spin off into very bad behaviour. We should be careful not to be moralistic though, pointless condemnation of people for not meeting impossible standards is as pointless as it is cruel.

As for what a good moral system might look like, it will presumably try to maximise certain principles; human happiness, human emancipations, autonomy and so on. From that you can try and work out "the rules". Of course, sometimes different principles will come into conflict and it is not always easy to work out what the correct course of action is. It is one of life's ironies that the more you know about something, the less sure you become about anything concerning it. Morality will tie you in knots.

For personal morality and the way you should treat other people however, I think it is a little easier, at least in day to day terms when there are no big decisions to make. Treat people with kindness and respect and you won't go far wrong. I think that is a great part of the appeal of Communism for me, true Communism, not the display of blood-letting some people here think it will be; a society where people are generous and respectful towards one another is a deeply appealing one.

The way people act of course is very much dependent on their circumstances. There is the stereotype of New York for instance that if someone sees an old lady struggling to get into a Taxi, he will kick her in the shins, so he an get into the cab first. Obviously it is an exaggeration (though not by much from some of the behaviour I have seen over there) but there is a general bad attitude. That isn't because people there are naturally bad, but simply because circumstances bring out that kind of behaviour. Communism is the kind of social system that should bring out good behaviour in most people, and that is something worthwhile in my view.

[shorelinetrance]

Communism is the kind of social system that should bring out good behaviour in most people, and that is something worthwhile in my view.

exactly what i was trying to elucidate, capitalism produces pithy morals and i see communism as something that will bring common decency back to human civilization.

as marx said, material conditions dictate consciousness.

[Dean]

Will morals be prevelant? To me, it seems as if morality will be non-existant in a communist society. Need some clarifaction.

Communism is about applying a humanist, fluid morality to all human beings. It is about extending our respect, love and compassion saved for our closest friends to all human beings, accepting all human beings as intrinsically similar. It is about nurturing one another, and striving to allow, encourage and support others in becoming what they potentially are. It is the total actuation of our associative social nature.

[Sir Comradical]

I've always felt that only one moral principle has ever been needed. Treat others like you'd like to be treated (given that you are a rational human being).

[mykittyhasaboner]

I've always felt that only one moral principle has ever been needed. Treat others like you'd like to be treated (given that you are a rational human being).

as corny as it sounds, that is absolutely true.

[Bud Struggle]

as corny as it sounds, that is absolutely true.

I very much agree. I also loved the opportunity to become a successful businessman--I hope other have that opportunity, too. :)

[Decolonize The Left]

I've always felt that only one moral principle has ever been needed. Treat others like you'd like to be treated (given that you are a rational human being).

Ah the 'golden rule.' Surprisingly enough, this rule can be rationally justified as well - It is not some bogus 'external' moral theory as many may wish to argue.

On a side note, and most certainly to be a controversial one, Jesus' moral teachings was basically a differentiated approach to this moral principle.

- August

[Sir Comradical]

Ah the 'golden rule.' Surprisingly enough, this rule can be rationally justified as well - It is not some bogus 'external' moral theory as many may wish to argue.

On a side note, and most certainly to be a controversial one, Jesus' moral teachings was basically a differentiated approach to this moral principle.

- August

Yes, the simplicity of this teaching makes it an objective moral code that applies equally to everyone. Explain the Jesus part?

[forward]

While I do agree with some of your moral values, one must remember that morality is objective in many cases. Also how will these moral values be enforced if there is no government? I mean, say for example, someone kils someone, what should happen with that individual?
Communism is the kind of social system that should bring out good behaviour in most people, and that is something worthwhile in my view.Sorry
I do not think the economic system can change humanity. People are not good nor evil because of the environment alone, some people you cannot reason with, some people just LIKE killing (as disgusting as that sounds). You cannot change these people, regardless of how ideal the system seems.

[forward]

lol my post is all screwed up, I meant t o quote another user's comment.Can someone tell me how to quote pleeeeeeeease? I tried, but t didnt work. Communism is the kind of social system that should bring out good behaviour in most people, and that is something worthwhile in my view.
the abive menat to be quote

[Lost In Translation]

lol my post is all screwed up, I meant t o quote another user's comment.Can someone tell me how to quote pleeeeeeeease? I tried, but t didnt work. Communism is the kind of social system that should bring out good behaviour in most people, and that is something worthwhile in my view.
the abive menat to be quote
There should be a quote button on the bottom right hand corner of every post. Click on that one if you want to put that quote in your post.

[forward]

yeah i tried that before, but I just want to quote one sentence not the whole user's post

[Lost In Translation]

yeah i tried that before, but I just want to quote one sentence not the whole user's post
Quote the entire post, then delete the parts that you don't want...

[Kami]

yeah i tried that before, but I just want to quote one sentence not the whole user's post


You can delete what you don't want. Alternatively, cut n' paste what you want, highlight it, and press the quote button to wrap it in quote tags. If you want to add who the quote is from, just put (for example) =forward in the first tag after QUOTE

[Niccolò Rossi]

While I do agree with some of your moral values, one must remember that morality is objective in many cases.

Morality...Objective... How? Where?


Also how will these moral values be enforced if there is no government?

The government is not a moral police. Whilst government policy and the laws of a particular nation may have some basis in morality, they are not directly related.


People are not good nor evil because of the environment alone, some people you cannot reason with, some people just LIKE killing (as disgusting as that sounds). You cannot change these people, regardless of how ideal the system seems.

Of course biology also play a part in some examples such as the case with some particular mental illnesses, however this is a very extreme and minor factor. The fact is morality is dynamic and has it's basis in the material conditions of society. As material conditions change, as the social formation changes, so does morality

[Tungsten]

The dominate moral and ethical systems present in society are like all super-structural social elements dependant on the material conditions and economic basis of the society in question. For example what may be considered moral today may have been blasphemous 2000 years ago, the reasons being reducible to material conditions.
Are you kidding?

Society says rape is unethical. What materials conditions are responsible for reducing that to the realm of immorality? None: Raping someone doesn't improve or alter one's "material conditions", nor is it dependent on them.

In what way can a societies attitue toward non-consensual sex possibly be dependent on material conditions or economics? It can't.

[Chapter 24]

Morality is subjective. A set/code of morals would be considered unnecessary. There are of course objective morals, such as rape being immoral.

[Robert]

A set/code of morals would be considered unnecessary.Sure about that, are you?

Anyway, you will without codes have vigilante justice and wildly disproportionate sentencing. Codes will arise as the people demand to know what is permitted and what is prohibited, and if the latter, how annoyed will you be if they do it anyway?

Who even decides what is permitted? Who put them in charge? Can I appeal? To whom? Who put the second group in charge?

Codes answer these questions.

I know. I read it.

In a code.

That's a joke.

[Decolonize The Left]

Morality is subjective. A set/code of morals would be considered unnecessary. There are of course objective morals, such as rape being immoral.

You're aware that you have contradicted yourself here?


Yes, the simplicity of this teaching makes it an objective moral code that applies equally to everyone. Explain the Jesus part?

'The golden rule' can be interpreted as an external moral code, but it is easily justified through basic reason. When the latter is done, it is no longer an 'external code' but one which an individual has adopted for themselves with justification.

Forget the Jesus part, I was terribly confused.

- August

[Chapter 24]

You're aware that you have contradicted yourself here?


Now that I look at it, yes I do. Whoops.

I guess what I meant was that certain morals should be taken as natural, like the golden rule. But there shouldn't be a "written moral code" that everyone lives by.

Again, my mistake for saying that.

[Decolonize The Left]

Now that I look at it, yes I do. Whoops.

I guess what I meant was that certain morals should be taken as natural, like the golden rule. But there shouldn't be a "written moral cod"e that everyone lives by.

Again, my mistake for saying that.

It's quite alright. What do you mean by "taken as natural?"

- August

[Chapter 24]

It's quite alright. What do you mean by "taken as natural?"

- August

Hmmm I guess what I meant by that is that there are just certain actions such as rape and murder that should be... taken objectively by their very nature?

[Bud Struggle]

Just think, this girl:

http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/6373015.jpg

With no morals! :rolleyes::lol:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Just think, this girl:

http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/6373015.jpg

With no morals! :rolleyes::lol:

Oh noes! *Hides*