Results 1 to 20 of 41
Heraclitus supposedly saidand this is held to be a statement that the only eternal thing in the Universe is change.
Society too changes. At times it appears that nothing changes when in reality there are small changes in the makeup of the society we are in. At other times the changes are rapid and noticeable such as in the event of a revolution or an invasion (such as Iraq). If we look at some political philosophers such as Hegel, Marx and Fukuyama all suggest that there will come a time when society ceases to evolve/change on a large scale and becomes fairly stable or static barring small changes and there (whether this is a Communist society, a liberal society or Absolute Knowledge).
Big changes tend to occur when the time is right and not before. By this I mean when the masses (or their 'leaders' to start with) are conscious of their unrest, there is enough power amassed in one group, and the current setup is seen to have weaknesses that can be exploited. My question is, when a Communist/Anarchic society is set up, how are the big quick changes going to be prevented? How can we ever be certain beforehand that there is not any more steps in the evolution of societies worldwide? What happens if there is an ideology that has not yet come into existence? How can we plan for what we are not aware of at this current time?
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Unless it's a reactionary counter-revolution, why should we stop any social change?
We can't be certain, but even communism/anarchism will be replaced with something else.
then it will gain popularity and spread. and depending on how successful it is, it will achieve some or all of it's goals.
By critically analysing whatever comes up.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
It needn't be a direct counter-revolution, I was thinking more along the lines of social changes that are more borderline (i.e. some are for it and some against it). How are we to judge what is classified as social progress, especially considering the errors that have been made in the past? A borderline case could cause problems in that it could make the chances of a counter-revoltion succeeding greater (i.e. united we stand, divided we fall).
That's my point. The end of Marx's dialectic is communism and the end of Hegel's is Absolute Knowledge...what next? Fukuyama is slightly different in the sense that he sees Liberalism as the end of our ideological development. If it's truly the end then there will be no big changes...if it is not however then what is to come? I don't see many political philosophers or politicians trying to write theories about this in the way the three I mentioned have...
But where will this leave communism? If communists believe it is the final stage of societal evolution then will they desire to hinder such changes? What if the next step is a step away from communism? What if that type of change gains the support of the majority?
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
The question I think you have to answer is, how do you judge what history is and continues to be? Marx defined the process of history as being something which developed based on economic necessities, which has throughout our time on earth created class distinctions. The oppressed, the not so oppressed and the oppressors.
As techonolgy develops, so do processes of thought, which leads to antagonisms between these classes. The development of one class becomes hindered because of the provailing class above them. Marx believed that history develops because of these class antagonisms which ultimatly leads one class to overthrow another class to assert itself as the ruling class. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy to assert itself as a new ruling class because they're economic development and freedom was being hindered. Thus feudelism was replaced with liberal democracy/capitalism.
There are now only two antagonistic classes which remain. The working class and the new ruling class, the bourgeoisie. As history develops the last oppressed class will move to overthrow the bourgeoisie and assert itself as the new ruling class. Only this time, it will be about bringing economic freedom and development for everyone. Capitalism will be replaced with communism, which seeks to destroy class. Therefore class antagonisms will not exist anymore. There will be no class which is oppressed and therefore there will be no need for the change you are describing. There maybe counter-revolutionaries, who seek to re-establish the old world order, but that has to be stopped.
As for new ideologies. What new ideology could there be? Freedom, equality and sustainability in all areas of existence is desriable for the working class. There could be no ideology which could ask for anything else. History stops at communism. Communism is the final chapter in historical development. When the working class are no longer oppressed, class will not exist, and therefore there will be no antagonisms which can create such change. There is no where else for history to go, only back. And that is why we will have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that dosnt happen.
Indeed but part of me wishes to question whether economic determination is the sole factor influencing society. I admit that economic needs have probably the biggest influence over our lives at the moment, and that this is linked to our needs, and our desires, but are there any other things that influence us, and would remain in a classless society?
Class antagonism will have ceased but what about other influences over man? If there is to be no detrimental change to society (which I believe is your postion), does that mean we must prevent all change? My point is that there will be matters which affect society and force change because our environment (and our place in it) is constantly changing. How are we to prevent these necessary changes spilling over to bigger ones? Words can be very persuasive and if employed perfectly can woo the masses if they lose consciousness of their role in society.
But that appears to assume that the number of ideas there are is fininite. I think people will always come up with new ideas, refreshed old ideas, or a mixture of old ideas, and so why should we doubt that some of these could be linked together to form a coherent ideology? We also have to consider the position of humans in relation to being content. Humans, unlike many of our animal ancestors, are rarely content with what we have and so even if we have freedom, equality and stability we needn't assume that everyone will be happy with this arrangement. In such circumstances it could envision the creation of an ideology that plays on peoples' desires, especially if they can find a division amongt a classless society (see posts above if this seems illogical or vague).
Time and tide wait for no man.
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Yes of course. Our parents, our teachers, books, films, art etc all influence us. But our influence in changing society is determined by our economic conditions.
I don't think I understand you. There will be many things that continue to influence us, but not in the sense you imagine them to. Politics, religion, economics will become irrelevant. The only thing we will have left to explore space. Of course there maybe philosophers who continue to talk about their thoughts, but materially, the conditions will be perfect, what influence could there be that would be relevant.
Such as what?
Reactionary change has to be stopped. If the bourgeoisie attempt to subvert society back to capitalism then they have to be fought against.
When you talk about change I find it difficult to visualise what change could possibly happen. What change could there possibly be that would benifit us in anyway?
Matters such as what?
We work together, in a unified, democratic way, using reason and logic to deal with any change. But we must always remember what we fought a revolution to achieve. And that was communism.
It would be extremly difficult for a personality to achieve a position where he or she could "woo the masses." Once you have a class consciousness, I find it hard to believe you could loose it again. Without feeling a sense of utter guilt and shame. How could you turn your back on your comrades and community, after having fought so hard to get to where you are, to follow someone who would change that?
The only thing I could imagine happening to change class consciousness and rally people around a person would be for God to burst forth from the skies with a thunderous roar wearing a crown of fire, surrounded by tens of thousands of angels booming "I am your god...worship me." And we all know, or at least reasonable, rational people know, that isn't ever going to happen.
Of course there will be many ideas, many desires, many influences. We may find that God exists, we may find another race of people in a far away galaxy. Human development may find out how to travel across the stars at the speed of light. New intergalactic treaties between alien races may happen. We might find the meaning of life. None of these things could alter the fact that every single human being within a communist society will be free, equal and able to live their existence free from hunger, cold and persecution. All human beings want, no matter what the idea, is to be happy.
For what and for who would this ideology serve a purpose? It can not serve the vast majority of humanity because they will not need anything.
You think there are people in the world who would rather be discontent, unhappy and instable? I do not. There maybe people who wish to accumulate more than they need in order to be rich, or more powerful, but those people will be few, if any, and must be fought against.
Desires for what? To expand into space? To build a city under the sea? To have a new car? These things are desires which can be facilitated in a communist society. Space explorasion will be the task which will consume humanity in a communist society I believe. People's desires will be vast and plenty, but the difference is to now, in a communist society, people will be free to meet those desires, become and be whatever it is they want. What ideology could match that?
But where will people go? There is no where else!
But can't we question what determines us and what influences us? If we're determined by economics then can't we be determined by psychology, sociology, and numerous other things?
But why not? Politics I don't think will ever become irrelevant due to the fact that even if the material conditions are perfect, we'll still desire to maintain them that way, plus there will still be some new political issues to address (mainly involving the appropriate application of communist theory). Religion and economics may fall by the wayside but what about love, hate, beauty, power, greatness, history, education? All these and probably many more influence man and so could become his downfall.
love, hate, beauty, power, greatness, history, education...I'm sure I could think of others if need be but these are the ones that spring to mind immediately. I'll also explain them if needs be.
True, but then how do we distinguish between beneficial change for a communist society, and change that is borderline and could stregthen the counter-revolutionary cause?
Even though the material conditions are perfect, we'll still need to change in order to suit our environment (i.e. migration for certains jobs,and coping with famine, population explosions, natural disasters and the such like). No doubt there will be more then one possible solution to these things and no doubt there will be much debate amongst the respective communities to try and solve these issues. My point is how can you differentiate between these changes and changes which could destabilise communist society?
I find it difficult to imagine a society which doesn't change and becomes completely stable.
But what if reason fails us? I find it hard to envisage a truly universal and infallible reason which we all can use. Indeed we'll need to remember a revolution but then what do we do with history? History will remind us of what we have gone through but it will also remind others of what they have lost. Do we censor it or burn these books? I think not as that would place us with the likes of the Nazis. Education and history can be abused as well as used.
I disagree. It could be argued that class consciousness was greater amongst the previous generations (60's, 70's and 80's) then amongst the current generation. Apathy sets in when it looks like little will change and so how do we prevent it from occurring in a communist society that doesn't require change? If a third or fourth generation of a communist society felt apathetic and then certain groups could use this to their advantage. As for guilt and shame, these are more often then not linked with morality and if this is related to social morals then if apathy becomes mainstream then they'll have no reason to feel this way.
This needn't be the case. People will follow others if they believe they can keep their promises. All you need is apathy, a dip in class consciousness, belief in a cause and a leader/group to fan the flames.
You raised an important point. There is a difference between people and rational people. All but a fraction of the insane consider themselves to be rational.
But what if the race or God we discovered were not it lines with the communist society? What if they favoured certain people over others, or used force to impose their will? I don't mean to take this too far into fantasy but my point remains. If there are new ideologies which we have not come accross yet, how can we be certain that in a clash of these ideologies ours will triumph? Human happiness is also an odd thing because no matter how happy we are it is rarely enough. If we had a fair share of things but we wanted it all then many would still risk it all for absolute power. We seldom appreciate what we have until it is gone...
But some may believe they do need things. For whom and what this ideology will serve I cannot tell because it would never be more then mere speculation. All I can say is that it still remains a possibility, and so a possibility that needs to be considered if it not to be our downfall.
I do believe there will be people who are discontent and unhappy (as for unstable I can but guess this is also a possibility). They may be few per section of the community but as a collective group then can achieve a great deal if they are suitabley educated (as we must admit that knowledge is often linked to wealth and power). I'm not saying that they will be a risk on their own...more that in them you may find the seeds of the next great ideology.
But only if there desires are a) in line with the communist society and b) they are easily achievable. I may have to work as a chemist because it is what I am good at...but I may desire to be an actor or a musician or a space man (to use your example) but it may be beyond my capability both intellectually and physically. Likewise I may desire to own land and houses and other things beyond my grasp in the communist society. Herein lies the potential for evolution of society...after all we can always add to our visions of a perfect society.
In terms of history I see no reason why our future cannot be as colourful (and bloody) as our past...
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Yes.
Indeed. But I do not see these tasks as political, but as administrative.
But what have these things got to do with a desire to change a communist society?
Communism does not exclude these things. This just seems like a lot of neurosis! Please explain why these things would effect such a fundemantel change of societal structure.
Communists on one side and capitalists on the other!
Agreed.
Agreed.
Nothing could destablise a communist society, except for counter-revolution, which is defined by anyone attempting to reinstate capitalism or bourgeois politics.
You're not the only one.
What if the moon falls out of the sky?
It's called logic.
Oppression, presecution, exploitation, war, starvation, tyranny and superstition.
No! We keep them as a monument of absurdity. We keep them as a reminder of how blind and stupid we were for so long.
I agree. But we are not talking about a few decades of sporadic upheavel. We are talking about a fundemantel shift of sizmic proportion in human understanding.
Can you become apthatic to a life of fulfilment?
What groups?
Apathy to a society which provides you with everything in order for you to exist? Existence being your individual ability to achieve anything you desire? No!
Promises of what? Capitalism? God? These things will disgust people so intensly that anyone attempting to use these things to achieve some power over people will certainly not be welcome.
Until they are proven to be irrational by the use of objective logic.
Is that a moon falling from the sky?
I can not answer that question. It is so abstract that only someone who understood what these new ideologies were and could see into the future as far as time lasted could answer it.
I take it this is a personal view. I do not think you can judge human happiness based on your own personal experiences.
This comes down to a human nature argument. Why would people desire everything? And if they did, how would they succeed in a world where this kind of thought was contemptable, reviled and hated.
The working class and the oppressed have nothing!
But what relevance does it have to working class struggle.
Then let them be.
In a revolutionary situation we must be on guard for it.
There can be no ideology "greater" than communism.
Anything is easily achievable if there is a will and a passion to achieving it.
What is human existence if it is not to try. Human solidarity, unity and assistence. Mutual co-operation and passion are things which can drive human beings. With that, anything is possible.
May capitalists use this argument, and it comes down to human nature. Human beings desire objects because that is how cpaitalist society has programmed people to be. Remove capitalist society and you remove those desires. All people really want is to live a good, comfortable life, doing what they love to do.
Then let's do it.
I do see a reason. That reason is communism.
Fine. The issue of change still remains valid none the less as this adminstration must involve discussion amongt the members of society, and so change is still relevant.
I never said that communism excluded these things, nor did I ever try to imply it. Love of myth, power, beauty, historical groups...hatred of formerly demarcated groups along the lines of sexuality, race, or ability (maybe even religion if it somehow lasts that long)...hatred of things we find repulsive and ugly...a desire for greatness beyond that of a mere member of society...fascination with historical events and interpretations of them...and a failure in the educational process. All of these can have the potential to bring about fundamental change. If you accept my neurosis then I'll accept yoush34r: There's always some method to my madness...
I find divisions are rarely deducible to mere black and white. What about when two groups of equally dedicated communists disagree? Do we dismiss one group as not being communist enough...?
But how can we make such a bold statement? We're dealing with the human race here (and perhaps Sod's law) which means communism could potentially be destablised by many wierd and wonderful things
Hardly a fair dismissal is it? If we counted the number of times 'reason' has failed us throughout history compared to the number of times the moon has fallen from the sky then one greatly outnumbers the other. Care to guess which way round it is? Humans are fallible...hence reason is also fallible...we must never forget that.
What do you mean by logic? If you mean general reason then see above. If you mean Logic in the philosophical sense then I fail to see how this helps us. All that type of logic manages to do is reduce complicated squiggles in the form of words, to smaller squiggles in the form of symbols...until what? we end up with a blank page? Language is mysterious so to analyse it seems like a slight waste of time...
But what have the oppressor lost? There will be some odd people who side with them even in the future. What are we to do with them and how are we to spot them? Some would argue that we need to address the cause and not the effect.
You credit the human race with being able to look at them and make that distinction. I don't. The ability for humans to do foolish things never surprises me (including my own).
The Earth was created from sporadic upheaval and shifts of seismic proportions. My point is that this doesn't stop it undergoing creation, erosion and destruction.
People become bored easily. From boredom comes apathy. If monks weren't brainwashed then I'm sure they'd feel their life of fulfilment gradually get duller.
Any groups! Fascists, capitalists, homophobes, Utilitarians, The Salvation army...namely anyone who has been a group throughout history and could be brought back. Groups unlike humans can come back from the dead. Hence we need the prefix 'Neo'...
Wrong. Apathy to a sosciety which provides you with everything in order for you to LIVE. Existing and living are different things. I also still doubt whether we can achieve everything we desire (see later for a further explanation).
But what about times gone past? If you told someone from Tudor times about a television and then about sex on TV, or someone from ancient Japan about the Second World War and then that they would lose...how do you think they'd react? My point is that things changed for them...why can't we envisage a loss of disgust in a communist society? Say in the event of a huge earthquake which killed thousands...wouldn't some people desire to know a reason...or that their deceased were somewhere nice?
What objective logic? How can objective logic be applied in situations where all we have are opinions (like politics for example)? You cannot produce universal, absolute logic from personal, finite experiences.
Then how can we say that Communism is the end to societal development?
Then you take it wrongly. I am not the only one who dreams. We all dream...and when we reach our goals do we roll over and die? I don't think so. We dream some more...extend our goals until old age finally slows us down. Why would we cease to dream...and so why would we cease to be unhappy even if we had everything we need to live infront of us?
But I don't believe in human nature and so this doesn't come down to the human nature argument for me. This comes down to the Sartrean notion of the human consciousness being totally free to chose, and so free to chose to try and claim everything if they so wished. It would only be contemptable, reviled and hated if societies view had become static and stable...if things continued to change even on a level of which we were unaware then it could also not be seen this way.
It was a remark aimed at the Western world more then anything else. You also can't appreciate nothing and so you desire more...which was my line of reasoning.
The relevance lies in that after the revolution, the working class cannot sit back on their laurels safe in the knowledge that society will never change. If they do then they risk losing all they have fought for. But then they must allow some changes so how do we demarcate between good and bad changes and decisions without becoming divided.
I'm sure many people said that about Germany after WWI. The fact remains that their are unhappy people...some will do nothing about it....others won't let us off so lightly.
But can we be on guard for something 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Sooner or later we may let our guard slip.
Is this through use of logic or is this a personal view? I agree that it is the greatest so far but I won't be so bold as to say it will not be surpassed ever.
But what about the determinism we were talking about earlier? If I'm bilogically determined to be highly unlikely to be able to do a certain task then all the will and the passion in the world will still do me no good.
I don't argue from human nature, and nor do I argue from a capitalist standpoint. See my earlier answer.
But who's perfect society? Utopias are always personal and so they will never be. If we tried to make a Communist society more perfect we'd find it being torn in every directions unless a distinction can be made between good and bad change (and one that doesn't use Capitalism Vs Communsim as a yard stick).
But how can it utilise change and yet deny change? That remains my question.
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
"Big, quick changes" in the Marxist paradigm have material causes...ultimately resulting from "big changes" in the means of production (technological innovation).
Consequently, the only way to "prevent" such "big changes" would be to stop people from innovating new technology.
Since that's most unlikely to happen, the answer to your question is that "big, quick changes" cannot be prevented.
The Marxist paradigm "ends" with communist society...beyond this, the waters are "uncharted". Marx in one of his famous quips said that communism would mark "the end of pre-history and the beginning of truly human history"...but that's not very helpful.
A "new ideology" would have to have some kind of material basis in order to be of interest to more than a handful of people.
I have no idea what that material basis might be (presumably a new and unanticipated technology).
You are quite right in expressing the difficulty in planning for the entirely unknown. The only thing I can suggest is to attempt to develop plausible future scenarios and plan for them.
There's really nothing we can do about historical "wild cards" (a charismatic new religion, for example) until someone actually throws one down on the table.
But as far as "returning" to some form of class society...well, consider our own times. People who would advocate the re-establishment of feudalism or slavery would find few listeners. Most people would find such ideas too absurd for words. Once in a while someone actually tries to do it (in a commercial setting)...and they go to prison for it.
I think there are really two "versions" of communism that have a different appeal to different people.
One is that communism will be a "stable" and "happy" society where people will, at last, find "peace" and "contentment".
The other, and I think more realistic, is that communism will be even more "restless" and "full of strife" than capitalism...but over matters that will be different than those that presently exist.
There may no longer be wage-labor, nation-states, racism, sexism, etc. People won't fight one another about those things any more than people today would fight over the "rightful king" or who should be the next Duke of Cesspoole.
What would they fight over? Perhaps it will be like the account I read of one of Igor Stravinsky's works performed in Paris...his "new music" provoked fist-fights in the audience between avant-gardists and traditionalists.
I don't know about the "bloody" part but you are almost certainly right about the "colorful" part.
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
But change of the magnitude you describe?
I do not believe that sexism or racism will exist in a communist society. Love of myth if it so desired, power, beauty are things which should be embraced, but embraced for the collective good. That is the point of communism.
Possibly. But I do not see how, or at least I do not see how they could for the worse. But maybe that isn't what you are implying?
I think it is easy to define who is who in a revolutionary situation.
This has happened before, there is no reason to assume it won't happen again. The left is so fractured at the moment that if a revoultion did suddenly happen tomorrow, there would be a hell of lot of "infighting."
A revolution is not going to have tomorrow, and I don't believe in the next 50 years, and I believe that when it does, these fractured groups will have to have found some common platform. The reovlutionary left needs to learn from our mistakes and I think each has to be willing at some point to compromise? Is this going to happen? We will have to wait and see.
I would like to say that we would work it out. Spain, Ukraine, Kronstadt makes me think differently.
I believe the human race have the potential to create a system of "peace" and "contentment" and teach the virtues of it, and defend it with their last dying breath. That is the nature of class consciousness, and I do not believe it can be destablilised. I think it can be improved and developed, if by change that is what you mean.
Indeed. But one must have reason to loose it. Human society has thus far not been reasonable, rational or logical. When the working class embrace communism, they will do so because they are reasonable, rational and logical. You can not loose it once you have it, except if the entire of society goes clinically insane. Which I suppose is posisble, much like the moon falling from the sky.
Give me one example of human history where humans have acted in a reasonable way.
I mean to take a situation and analyze it in a critical, calm, rational, objective way, working together with your community to come to a decision. Being respectful, civil, democratic.
Redstar gave his opinion on this and I agree with him. If you imagine someone attempting to convert society back to feudel times, how would we react now? I think it would be much the same.
Why do you think human beings do foolish things?
I don't see how people could get bored of doing what they wanted. If they were doing something that bored them, they would just do something else.
Let them try.
Earthquakes happen because of plates under the earth that shift, that is the reason it happens, and there is nowhere nice for people to go when they die. No matter how much it is preferable to you.
In any administrative task, or debate within a community, region, nation or internationally, you look at the facts, then you make a decision democratically. This is the point.
In reference to insane people. If someone believes they are a donut, you can easily deduce, using objective logic that they are not:
Donuts are pastry deserts
Humans are not pastry deserts
Patient X is a human
Patient X is not a pastry desert.
I think it is easy to apply this rule to the governing of peoples lives.
Development fine, but a new revolution of fundamental proportion? To overthrow what? Happiness, equality? The traditionalists overthrowing the avant-gardists? It dosnt make any sense?
Unhappiness is a feeling brought about by external realities. The things you imagine we are unhappy will not exist. But be unhappy, if that is what you desire. Society will not make it so.
But these actions will have consequences. Of course someone is "free" to accumulate mass wealth, but would they want too? Would their community let them? No, No!
Fine.
I think we can get close.
Will that lead people to want to overthrow a communist society?
I put my faith in humanities ability to be rational, logical, fair, kind and democratic.
Change as you desribe it, yes.
I couldn't help but feel this was directed towards me in some way.
Indeed, I do think it is possible for people to be happy and contented. Maybe there will be arguments about books, groups advocating different artistic methods. Groups which may dislike each other. But does that exclude happiness and contentedness?
Perhaps. I think my initial use of the word politics was a poor use of words on my part more then anything. Debate and communication...democracy...that was what I should have put.
But wouldn't that have to involve some bad faith somewhere along the line? For racism and sexism to not exist then we must all freely reject it and I can't see that happening unless some of us employ bad faith in order to feel Universal love. Universal love for universal love's sake? I don't believe in that anymore then I believe in a scientist's claim that he searches for truth for truth's sake. As a human being I am free to love and hate things at will and completely irrationally. Love is at times the most irrational of all things...
But what if it is not desired for the collective good? I don't think we can hope that social disapproval or an appeal to rationality will save us here. Society has disapproved of many things on that basis (children outside of marriage, single parents, divorce, etc) but it hasn't stopped people going against it namely because we disagree over what is rational.
If an object or idea can be used for something that implies it had a purpose. It can then in theory be misused or abused by using it for things which are not in line with this purpose or by doing the exact opposite of this purpose. If there can be change (which is a means to an end) then that implies it has a purpose...and so if things can be done for a good reason then they can just as easily be done for a bad reason (which we happen to mistake for a good reason some would say).
But how? Don't we fall into George Bush logic of saying that you're either for us or against us? Wouldn't that cause people who were borderline be grouped in with the other side through slight disagreement?
I agree partly. I do see Capitalism as being in its youth and that revolution isn't likely within the next century but I think there will still be disagreement. After all many people disagree about the mere use of words and names, so when it comes to more complicated aspects of ideology what leads us to think any differently?
But when class is removed then all we'll be left with is consciousness. Consciousness is a peculiar thing especially considering we're often unconscious of a lot of things. I'm unconscious of what is going on immediately behind my head, I'm almost totally unconscious when I'm asleep or sedated in some way, and my consciousness is distorted by various drugs or through certain influences. If this applies to my consciousness as a person, why can't we apply this to mass consciousness?
But that's my point...can we call reason an 'it'? Can we say that there is one abstract thing called reason which people use or they don't use? I don't think we can. Sure there are different types of reasoning which we see are either more or less rational based on our past experiences but I don't believe there is one pure process that we can call 'reason'.
But what about if we all become complacent with it? Complacency is the bane of many things.
I'm aware that I'll probably spark a heated debate but I'd be tempted to say the setting up of the welfare system and the NHS were steps in the right direction (and hence quite reasonable considering the times).
But what is objectivity? I don't think we can ever be truly objective and I've stated my problems with the idea of rationality. Critical, calm, respectful, civl and democratic I have little problem with but then again I don't think they apply to logic in a strict sense. Logic in my mind is the use of objective reasoning when applied to a situation (especially relating to language) and as such is a cold and uncaring thing that leaves us with nothing but hollow words. Any appeal to reason or logic conjures up pictures of Kant in my mind.
Maybe this is true for feudalism but we needn't go back so far. In England we're forever having 'good, old Victorian family values' rammed down our throats and this has entrapped many a person in the nostalgic conservative trap. Many people envoke great historical figures or times in order to influence the masses...they're just giving them the side of the story they wish to hear.
I think we do foolish things because we are free to do foolish things. We are condemned to be free and this comes with its prices...
But people wouldn't be doing what they wanted, they'd be doing what they had the 'ability' to do (to quote Marx). There is a difference between what I want to do and what I can do, just like there is a difference between theory and practicality. Just because I want to change job, it doesn't follow that society can support me for all the time I need training (especially if I am biologically determined to be inferior in certain tasks...it could take me decades instead of a few years to overcome this).
Letting them try is just a short step from letting them win. Letting them try assumes the arrogant or presumptuous position that they can't win and we can't lose. It's dangerous
I know that but I also recognise that a human being, when faced with the glaring and obvious truth, will often want to turn and flee. There is a difference between seeing the truth, knowing the truth, accepting the truth and denying the truth...all of which occur on a daily basis.
Life isn't as easy as this though. The example used dealt only with definitions and so it was easy to deduce the answer. But when faced with the world and all its complexities...how are we to use such logic? If we employ it we must be entirely dispassionate...if reason told us that due to a worrying population explosion threatening our ability to live off our resources it was necessary for no more then 5% of us had children for a few decades...how would you decide who could and could not?
To overthrow any old and outdated parts of a system that still allow (or are percieved to allow) unhappiness amongst the masses...
I don't quite agree. Unhappiness is a feeling brought about by external realities in relation to our ideal vision for the world. If I am an awful musician who has very little skill then I can be happy....but if I desire to play at the Royal Albert Hall then I may be unhappy. Society may not be able to make it so, but I think I could still hold the desire to try and make society make it so...or to try and punish people I believe are preventing it from being so.
Whether or not the community lets them is up to the community. Their consciousness is as free as the person who desires to accumulate wealth. No more, no less...
But how? We'd have to either be on our guard constantly and so become paranoid, or we'd have to allow certain people to constantly monitor such actions in which case we run the risk of spiralling towards becoming a police state.
Perhaps. If I am bioogically determined to be inferior at a certain task then I may desire to remove that characteristic from the gene pool. If I persuaded enough people to support my idea no matter how rational or irrational it is, then we have the potential to destabilise a communist society.
Democratic? Yes. Kind and fair? Perhaps. Rational and logical? That is where I run into trouble...
As regards for faith, then my signature should be sufficient for people to guess my stance.
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
No...more towards the generalized feeling among many that communism is a "warm & fuzzy", almost womb-like, environment.
Possibly this may turn out to be the case, but I would be greatly surprised if it did.
Humans are a cantankerous and contentious species, as far as I've seen, and it's difficult to believe that they will just "settle down and be nice"...ever.
Universal love, whatever that might be, is not required. Universal respect -- or the public appearance of that -- will do the job nicely.
One need only compare Yugoslavia under Tito and the same place under his successors to see what can be achieved with a little effort...and what happens when that effort ceases.
People may have as many "bad thoughts" as they wish -- or act in "bad faith" as you put it -- but any "bad deeds" or advocacy thereof will run into some intolerance with teeth.
Well, you are speaking of a particular ruling class tactic in a specific historical situation (the present).
It may evoke nostalgia, but I doubt very much if the average person in your country takes it very seriously.
In communist society, there may be passing nostalgic fads for this or that earlier era...people may play at being businessmen and workers, the way some people now play at being lords and ladies (what is a "renaissance faire" but an exercise in nostalgia?).
But the actual historical record of the last pre-communist societies will be rich and easily accessable...a suitable selection of 20th century movies would give a vivid picture of "what it was really like" -- a devastating blow to anyone who actually took nostalgia seriously.
Indeed, virtual reality might well be advanced to the point where you could directly experience, for example, the less savory aspects of class society...a few hours in a trench during one of the mutual slaughters (called, for some reason, "battles") of World War I would be a pretty good antidote to "war nostalgia". Feel the cold, the hunger, the weariness, the fear; hear the artillery fire, the clatter of machine-guns, the screams of the dying; smell the piss and the shit and the blood; etc., etc.
A "renaissance faire" wouldn't be much fun if people suddenly started dying of the plague right in the middle of the festivities. (It was a rather ugly and quite spectacular death according to contemporary accounts.)
Usually, nostalgia is a harmless diversion...but should it become a problem, there will be people quite skilled in presenting a more realistic account of things.
I think they will be heard...and will prevail.
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
What values precisely?
I live in England and have not noticed it at all. I don't find many people in any kind of nostalgic conservative trap either. I think our greatest problem is having an American lack of values and the American sex culture 'rammed down our throats'.
Formerly known as Chairman Mao
Between the people and their enemies there can be nothing in common but the sword; we must govern by iron those who cannot be governed by justice
~Saint-Just
I condemn the dust of which I am made, this dust that speaks to you now. It can be persecuted, it can be brought to death. But I challenge the world to take from me that part of me which will live through the centuries and survive in the skies.
~Saint-Just
Perhaps. I think my initial use of the word politics was a poor use of words on my part more then anything. Debate and communication...democracy...that was what I should have put.
I don't understand why these things will create such social upheaval as to remove an entire societal structure?
Then we do not live in a communist society.
We will have to wait and see then.
Communist class struggle is about the working class removing the ruling class and creating a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical and thus classless society. You either want that, or you don't want that. You either want communism, or you don't want communism. It is as simple as that.
Yes
That is why we have philosophers. One day, maybe they will work it out. Until then, the revolutionary communists of the world will be trying to achieve a communist society.
I think we can judge reason based on what we as human beings, when reduced right back to our individual state desire for ourselves. Do we desire to be hungry? no! do we desire to be cold? No! do we desire to be unhappy? No! Whether or not these things are truths in the universal abyss of human thought, is quite frankly irrelevant. We as humans desire to be fed, warm and happy. They are universal desires, with which we can base reason on. If that is what we all desire, then it is unreasonable and illogical to accept anything less.
Then we will sit down, discuss it and find out what the next human project will be.
They were certainly a step in the right direction. They were not being objective in my opinion. The fact is that capitalism created the problems the labour government attempted to solve with the NHS. They simply built a new problem on top of an existing problem. They did not remove the actual problem. The NHS now does not work, and it continues to fail because of class interests within society. The only way, we will ever have a functioning health service which is free and easily accessible for all, at all times, is when we have re-organised society, removing the ruling class and the state which protects them.
The same for the welfare system. The reasonable solution to solving people who have no money is not by giving them shit benefit payments. It's by giving them control of society.
Drawing conclusions from facts.
Then continue to think about it.
No, I agree, but combined and you have a perfect society.
Sartre was a Marxist.
Human development has created consciousness which makes us foolish. We are condemned to be free, to exist freely. But many people are not aware that they exist. They simply survive, daily, believing what they are told. believing the reality around them. Reality as it is now is ridiculous, absurd and cruel. Ridiculous, absurd and cruel things are bound to make humans foolish.
Why can you not assume that a human being will be able to admit this as fact and move on with their life?
Then what do you want me to say? They will try, and they may win, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't attempt to make them loose.
Fine.
Then either get better or accept that you are a useless musician and move on with your life.
But then you are being ridiculous and must be told that that is the case.
You live in Sheffield, the same town as me. You live in Broomhill, a community of a few thousand. A community which is collectivised, a community that is united in a common interest, working to make society function and work for all. That was the purpose of the revolution. Imagine being an individual within that community who wakes up one day and attempts to go out into that community and break the equilibrium. I do not think you would get very far. Someone will notice you, and they will inform the rest of the community. There is no need to have a police state, there is no need to be paranoid, you only need to be aware of the dangers. And we will be.
Said the philosophy student to the revolutionary :P
Okay, what does debate and discussion boil down to? Reason and choice. If we have different views and different reasons then we are faced with choices...and these opposing views aren't necessarily reconcilable. If they are not reconcilable then this could lead to a destabilisation of society which could ultimately end in the changing of the structure of the society.
But that is not what my initial question was about. It was about how a communist society deals with change once it has been established. Humans have disagreed for thousands of years all because of differences in reason...I just fail to see why this would change. If there is a slight majority view and slight minority view that cannot be reconciled then we are faced with a big problem.
My initial question was how does a communist society deal with change. That would assume that communism has been successfully established. I think it will still be faced with dilemmas and choices and ones that will be very tough and not easy to work out. That is why I wish to know how you differentiate between good changes and bad changes...we do not yet have an objective scale to tell how communist a person or their propositions are.
How can we be so sure? Philosophers have considered the issue of reason for nearly three thousand years and as of yet we are no closer to discovering 'it' then when we started. If (and that's a big if) there is one objective and universal reason and we have managed to establish a communist society, who is to say that we will have discovered this reason? If we haven't then what will we do? If we are waiting around for it then I may suggest we'll be waiting for at least another 3000 years.
Do we desire more then the biological necessities for life? Yes! Do we desire to be in control of our world? Yes! Do we desire to influence the lives of those around us? yes! Do we necessarily have to consider others when making our choices? No! Do we always desire to renounce our own unavoidably subjective reasoning in favour of some objective, universal reasoning? No!
And this will vanquish our complacency? These tactics are employed by our current political leaders to seemingly little avail.
This raises nicely another point. Whatever we say it will always be 'in my opinion' and hence humans cannot be objective due to our inability to separate ourselves from our lives and the influences upon them. I cannot see the world outside the view from my life....I cannot occupy a neutral part of the Universe and gaze upon our actions...I cannot be unbiased in some slight way. If we cannot be objective then we cannot be rational in the sense you imply. Therefore rationality and reason must come from somewhere else...and what does that leave us with? Some mythical Godlike figure...
But how do we establish what these 'facts' are? Epistemology is filled with difficult issues which have yet to be worked out. This also doesn't take into account the numerous flaws with objectivity (i.e. such as the above point...how can humans be objective?)
Oh I will (and I will do so with all the effort I can muster). All I ask is people continue to think with me and never be so bold as to assume they have somehow stumbled across the truth.
But that's it. You cannot combine the cold and somewhat ruthless nature of reason and logic to a society of critical, calm, respectful, civil and democratic people as ultimately these people see the world subjectively (with thoughts, feelings, emotions and the such like). I'd hate to employ a term I dislike but logically it is impossible.
I was under the impression he was a Maoist towards the end of his life. I know they are similar but I don't know the exact differences between the two.
Or they are aware of their freedom to exist but they freely chose to reject it out of fear that they will be responsible for their choices and the subsequent consequences of those choices (i.e. bad faith)
And why should we believe that it will ever cease to be ridiculous, absurd and (perhaps less frequently) cruel?
I cannot assume this because of my experience of the strength of the human will in regards to the things it desires. Many people are unable to have children for whatever reason but does that stop them in their quest? No. Occasionally they will come to terms with it but they will rarely ever move on with their life.
All I merely want from you is to put forward your thoughts on how a communist society can overcome the apparent conflict between itself and change.
But it won't be that simple for the masses due to the problems of freedom and bad faith...and how these relate frustrated desires.
People can tell me I'm the King of Mars...it doesn't follow that I'll agree with them. After all I'm sure some people told Saddam and Hitler they we being foolish....and then they ended up dead...no doubt due to the power of Hitler and Saddam to persuade the relevant sections of the masses.
But I won't wake up one day and suddenly do that. These things will often grow beneath the surface...I may not necessarily share my thoughts with people at first...then I may share it with a few people under the disguise of jest to see their reaction...or I may wait for a relevant time to raise these issues (such as a relevant news event) with my comrades and so seize the moment. Also we cannot say they WILL inform the rest of the community. They MIGHT inform the rest of the community...if this is a friend or a close loved one then we will be faced with a dilemma...and so the issue of our freedom poses us with problems. I can see no other apparent way of overcoming this without the use of paranoia or a police state (i.e. the idea that someone is always watching you).
Perhaps
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Well pay attention to the media...to the news in the papers, to the articles on TV and the radio. They often cover very similar issues which have just been repackaged to fit the current set of headlines. I listen to the radio a fair bit and all the debates they have are all on the same issues....sex, money, health, education, etc. and our responce to these issues. If you read the papers then you'll find more conservative papers (such as the Telegraph, Times, Express and Mail) then anything else and they all harp on about the loss of family values (namely a stable family with two married parents who rule their children with an iron fist and tell their children that drugs, sex and equality are wrong and working hard is right).
Also I don't think American lack values...I just think they have a wider range of values do to the size of their country and the range of factors influencing it. There are some very conservative, religious areas and there are some very liberal, secular ones. One thing they don't lack is values...they may not always know how they arrive at these values....but they don't lack them none the less.
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
I don't read the right wing newspapers very much. But, for example, last week The Express had an article in favoure of abortion, that doesn't seem particularly victorian to me. Also, these newspapers don't ever comment on the immorality displayed in various American films or TV shows, which is a big source of the American cultural infection in this country.
Also, many people read papers such as The Sun and The Mirror which are not conservative. I don't deny that a number of values from the Victorian era exist in our society, as you mentioned families. However, I think there is massive freedom to escape from those values in our society and indeed the unfettered promotion of them, for example look at a programme like Friends or a film such as American Pie.
On American values. You are right that they do have values. However, I would say that they lack values, they allow people great freedom to do things that badly affect the rest of society because they have a lack of social values.
Our leaders, the journalists, film producers and so on are not concerned with morality and social values, they are concerned with making money. So, values really take a backseat.
Formerly known as Chairman Mao
Between the people and their enemies there can be nothing in common but the sword; we must govern by iron those who cannot be governed by justice
~Saint-Just
I condemn the dust of which I am made, this dust that speaks to you now. It can be persecuted, it can be brought to death. But I challenge the world to take from me that part of me which will live through the centuries and survive in the skies.
~Saint-Just
I don't have accesss to the Express on a daily basis but I occasionally read the Sunday Express whenever I happen to be at home (my parents get the Mail during the week). I cannot comment on their article in favour of abortion but I can comment on their defence of the Robert Kilroy-Silk when he wrote his article savaging the whole of Islam...it was far from accepting and understanding...in fact I found it repulsive in parts.
That is because a significant part of right wing ideology is concerned with nationalism, and so as such they wouldn't care about developments in America. They would only ever pass comment if they thought it affected us (which at times they can do...like when we talk about violence on TV)
I'd agree with you that The Sun is conservative (because it's owned by Mr.R.Murdoch) but I'd disagree slightly with the Mirror. The Mirror is not that right wing and I read it a few times a week because of its stance on many things and because I don't have the time (or effort) to read the deeper articles found in the Guardian or the Independant.
I don't think they're really promoted, I think they're merely accepted in a capatilist society due to the fact that they pose no threat and they can produce profit in one way or another.
But only in the sense that they are of no threat to capitalist society, and they produce profit for the elite.
I'd disagree. I think they care about values, money, and especially the relationship between the two. If teenage pregnancy or the Pink pound didn't produce profit for someone do you think they'd be legal or have become more socially acceptable?
<span style=\'color:blue\'>'That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this' - Nietzsche, the Anti-christ </span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language' - Wittgenstein</span>
<span style=\'color:green\'>'We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact' - Sartre</span>
'There is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble, I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people ... I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses ... I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy' - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
