Contradictory opinions

[79dougb]

I was speaking with a friend a while back on the subject of society systems. The gist of the conversation was that he maintained the view that being anti-capitalist and being pro-self responsibilty are contradictory standpoints.

I argue that as a Socialist, I see no conflict with thinking that whilst capitalism propagates the ethos of "every man for himself", it is no detriment to Socialism for each individual to be the best he/she can be by being accountable for our actions.


Ps I have just read a book on Stalin...it strikes me that he was fascistic?! Please correct me if I'm wrong


Regards

Doug

[Invincible Summer]

I don't think it's wrong for one to call oneself a Socialist and then say that everyone should have personal responsibility - it's no use to society if everyone needs their asses wiped, for the lack of a better term.

The goal of socialism isn't to create some sort of insect colony which everyone is connected to a "hive mind." Socialism is where the working class controls the means of production in order to fulfill their own needs and destinies, rather than those things being at the whim of the capitalist or other authoritative figure; each individual has to be responsible and accountable for their own actions, or they would not feel the need to keep their part of society running smoothly.

For example, if a worker in a textiles factory decided to slack off and the system did not make anyone personally responsible, then what would prevent any worker from slacking off? Nothing, and therefore nothing would be accomplished.

I don't believe that socialism necessarily entails that no one has personal responsibility, although (for some reason unknown to me), it is common to believe that everyone is exempt from responsibility in a socialist system and that the whole collective acts as a single entity.

As far as I know, that is incorrect.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

79Dougb. you are right, Stalin was a mass murdering git, but he was just the figurehead of a brutal, antisocialist regime that helped bury the Russian revolution.

More details here:

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm

And, there is all the difference between self-love and love of self (from Rousseau):


[Amour propre and amour de soi -- French, self-love or love of self] Rousseau's term for the instinctive sentiment or disposition of self-preservation which human beings have in the state of nature. It is born to humans, but also belongs to other animal creatures. Amour-propre and the natural feeling of pity are two supreme principles governing human behavior prior to the formation of society. Acts out of amour de soi tend to be for individual well-being. They are naturally good and not malicious because amour de soi as self-love does not involve pursuing one's self-interest at the expense of others. The sentiment does not compare oneself with others, but is concerned solely with oneself as an absolute and valuable existence. It is related to an awareness of one's future and can restrain present impulse. For Rousseau, amour de soi contrasts with amour-propre, a self-love that presupposes a comparison between oneself and others and consequently generates all the vicious and competitive passions. “Amour de soi-mâme is a natural feeling which leads every animal to look to its own preservation, and which, guided in man by reason and modified by compassion, creates humanity and virtue.”

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067952_ss 1-103

More details here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rousseau.htm

[lombas]

What's up with all these people demanding thougts aren't contradictory and self-evident? Is this the influence of p(l)ain Libertarianism?

I for one applaud contradictions as they are the only real instruments with which to construct an ideology --- visions, not zealotry.

[StalinFanboy]

Stalin was a huge douche bag.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iombas:


I for one applaud contradictions as they are the only real instruments with which to construct an ideology --- visions, not zealotry.

Full marks for enigmatic prose; zero out of ten for clarity, I'm afraid.:(

Unless, of course, if you want to contradict yourself...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bring it!: well put, if a little 'unscientific'!

[lombas]

Full marks for enigmatic prose; zero out of ten for clarity, I'm afraid.:(

Unless, of course, if you want to contradict yourself...

I just meant an ideology cannot be non-contradictory because it is made up from visions, not by zealously considering whether this or that isn't contradictory.

I'm sorry, maybe it's my English that is getting worse every day.

:D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iombas:


I just meant an ideology cannot be non-contradictory because it is made up from visions, not by zealously considering whether this or that isn't contradictory.

Well it seemed to me that you were celebrating this defect.

[StalinFanboy]

Bring it!: well put, if a little 'unscientific'!
I try to be as straightforward as possible.

[Invincible Summer]

Stalin was a huge douche bag.


You should write books - I'm sure people would like you better than Chomsky seeing as how you write unpretentiously :cool:

[Vendetta]

The gist of the conversation was that he maintained the view that being anti-capitalist and being pro-self responsibilty are contradictory standpoints.

What exactly did he/you mean by pro-self responsibility? That usual 'anyone who's anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps' stuff?

[79dougb]

What I meant by pro-self responsibility is the notion of being accountable for one's actions. For example, if I was to rob a bank and got caught, it would be false of me to appropriate blame elsewhere (upbringing, environment etc)


Regards

[79dougb]

I mean in a free will sense.

[lombas]

Iombas:



Well it seemed to me that you were celebrating this defect.

I was celebrating it because I don't see it as a defect. I see it as unnecessary, at most. At least, it is uncomfortable in dealing with zealots.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iombas:


I was celebrating it because I don't see it as a defect.

Surely then this should be:


I was and I wasn't celebrating it because I do and I don't see it as a defect.

[lombas]

In a philosophical kind of way, yes, but I only studied philosophy for half a year so that pardons me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Or, it does and it doesn't...

[lombas]

Or, it does and it doesn't...


:lol:

You're right. What's this contradiction anyway?

[DesertShark]

Stalin was a huge douche bag.
Indeed, well said! He was also a fascist and, as RL said: "mass murdering git". [Props on the word 'git,' I had to look up its meaning, but it definitely fits (rotter: a person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible and a relatively mild slang term used in European English to denote a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, or childish person).]