The Ends and the Means

[consuming negativity]

I think that "the ends justify the means" is in actuality a defense mechanism that justifies cowardice and inaction through an intellectualization process that dissociates a person from their circumstances. They are no longer the bad person that they wish they weren't, and they no longer have to feel guilty because of the cognitive dissonance between what they know is right and the way that they acted. They're "smart" and the way they acted is in fact better because they're being strategic... or at least what they're able to convince themselves of. But in reality this defense mechanism has led to some of the most heinous crimes of humanity against humanity by collective delusion and an overvaluation of life. Which is probably the most interesting implication of this thought process - it is not a devaluation of the lives of the people being slaughtered or subjected to misery that leads us to allow them to suffer, but it is an overvaluation of our own lives and a fear of death, pain, or adversity that forces us into the rationalization and depersonalization process.

But because of our inability to understand what's actually going on, we simply associate these acts as "evil" and find it hard to describe how a person could be "driven" to commit heinous acts. We are unable to recognize that evil is not pathological but is instead a fundamental part of the human condition; evil does not exist, only humans exist. Through this contradiction we can understand and even sympathize with "megalomaniacs" and mass murderers and the people who stood by them. When we talk about everybody needing to be loved and cared for, who did we think it was that needed kindness and understanding? What actions did we think it was that people were unable to equate themselves to? And because we associate heinous acts with evil, and know well that we ourselves are not evil, we are forced to dissociate from our actions rather than engage in critical analysis. Because we are not "bad people" and thus our actions cannot be what we presume to be "evil". Thus the cycle repeats.

[GanzEgal]

The idea of violent or military Socialist revolution, attacking the bourgeois and causing the death of many people in the process, is an "ends justify the means" idea.

Personally I feel reluctant to participate even in a thought play of organizing a violent or military attack on someone. Who takes up the sword, falls by the sword. The odds are so easily against you, in a bloody way, if citizens try to overthrow the state army. I have more faith in peaceful and gradually growing cooperation between the willing, without attacking or forcing the unwilling. Live and let live is better than kill and be killed.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There's a difference between knowing intellectually that no class gives up power without a fight and the revenge fantasies that get posted on here by some people. But even in the case of the later I don't think it's an ends vs. means thing, I think it's just people fetishising the means separate of anything else. Which yeah is pretty weird.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Tbh communer I've read your post 3 times and am still not 100% sure what you're saying so feel free to correct me. When you say 'we' disassociate ourselves from the horrendous acts of other by arbitrarily assigning them to the category of evil, you're really just talking about a small segment of the population doing that and forcing it on the rest. If we examine critically the actions of a spree killer for instance, we ask questions that ultimately put the kind of society we recreate each day on trial. The owners of this society are not going to take kindly to that and instead prefer to paint these individuals as evil, even if that evil is just the result of a psychological disorder and not something ordained by a higher power. But I think this has more to do with the current philosophical outlook of modern western states, how they view their role in our society at this point in history. They have no solution for the problem of spree killing, a solution would require fundamental changes to society which is off the table. Instead all they can do is manage the disruption caused by spree killings; how do you get people to feel comfortable in malls, or movie theatres? How do you convince people to get used the fact of spree killings and get on with daily production in spite of it, etc, etc.

This question is ultimately a political one in my mind and not so much an issue of individuals trying to escape cognitive dissonance or whatever.

[Rafiq]

Personally I feel reluctant to participate even in a thought play of organizing a violent or military attack on someone. Who takes up the sword, falls by the sword.

All those willing to take up the sword must be ready to meet the same fate as their enemies. That is unquestionable - a revolution is not a luxury, it is not a consensual affair. A revolution is the destruction and replacement of our basis and foundations of survival - a revolution is the catastrophic disruption of the fundamental relations of power. A revolution happens when all are ready to die - when all are ready to suffer. When nothing of the old war binds them to their servility - there is just nothing, nothing at all to lose. All revolutionary action has begun with sacrifice. If this prospect is too scary even to accept on an intellectual level do not profess yourself to be a socialist. The overthrow of the class enemy is scary, a revolution is a terrible process. When many are already being killed, in a world of servility and exploitation, in a world where all are deprived of life - who are you to say this process can be "consensual"? Socialism is not about an intellectual disagreement - because when it comes down to it, those in power know what they want, and so do we. On that basis there can be no disagreement. The point of the Communists is to make this condition known to the masses. If the injustices of this world are not an infinitely more violent and revolting reality to you than even the most bloody imaginable revolution - you are not a socialist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually like that Trotsky quote (possibly paraphrasing) "the ends justify the means only as long as the ends themselves are justified"

A lot of times people argue for the ends justifying the means, but their "ends" don't even look that appealing to me when they're subjected to a real analysis.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Trotsky points out that Capitalists and counter-revolutionaries are often the biggest proponents of the idea that the "ends justify the means", not the Communists. The Bolsheviks executed the Romanov children, but Capitalist society condemned millions of children to work and often die in Industrial conditions because it was perceived as "necessary" to maintain the interests of state and capital.

In fact I think weighing ends and means is a basic part of human reasoning.

[Hit The North]

I think the real problem is that the means often condition the ends. In both the French and Russian revolutions, the centralised waging of terror against the officially defined "enemies of the revolution" contributed to undermining the aims of the revolution.

[consuming negativity]

I think the real problem is that the means often condition the ends. In both the French and Russian revolutions, the centralised waging of terror against the officially defined "enemies of the revolution" contributed to undermining the aims of the revolution.

Precisely. The means and the ends are inseparable, because the ends are the direct result of the means combined with circumstance.

[ckaihatsu]

Handy diagram...(!)


universal context

[Hit The North]

Handy diagram...(!)

You blow my mind!

[consuming negativity]

I understand the image but I don't understand how it is applicable here.

[ckaihatsu]

You blow my mind!

You're lucky -- I usually *charge* for that particular service....


x D

[ckaihatsu]

I understand the image but I don't understand how it is applicable here.

In terms of trajectory, etc.

[Rafiq]

I think the real problem is that the means often condition the ends. In both the French and Russian revolutions, the centralised waging of terror against the officially defined "enemies of the revolution" contributed to undermining the aims of the revolution.

Was this really the case? Was the centralization of terror alone the cause of the "undermining of the aims of the revolution". No. There were more important and significant factors.

The problem with the Great Terror is not the mere existence of terror. It was what this terror was being utilized for, the desperate attempts for a paranoid state to sustain itself in a world that was completely hostile towards it. If anything, the centralization of terror was positive - local, unorganized terror is like a carnival - it has no internalized standards consistent with the ideals of the revolution, it is not disciplined and often times it amounts to reactionary violence (rape, and so on). The Cheka, and I say this controversially, was one of the greatest achievements of the October revolution.

If anything, and in both circumstances, the terror greatly prolonged any potential hope for the revolution. Thermidor didn't happen, contrary to what historians claim, because the logic of revolutionary terror was turned on Robespierre himself. It was the result of corrupt officials and cowards trying to save their own asses from the terror. If anything, the Jacobins of Robespierre didn't do enough - Robespierre could have orchestrated a coup knowing full well of the coming treachery, but did not.

I can understand how one could come to this conclusion - It's just an incredibly lazy analysis. It is without doubt that the pattern - the influence of the red terror, the so-called "logic" was present in Stalinist terror - but the problem wasn't the logic itself, but it's inappropriate (to the October Revolution's ideas) application.

[robbo203]

Broadly speaking, the ends determine the means rather than "justify" them. If you want a free and democratic alternative to the world we live in you ain't gonna get it by methods that are unfree and undemocratic. I think history has pretty much vindicated such a position

[Rafiq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation