PDA

View Full Version : communist morality



kowalskil
February 19th, 2011, 05:07 PM
Browsing the Internet I found a website with a one-year-old thread entitled “Ethical Stalinism.” The person who started the thread wrote:

Marx predicted a future revolution in which the working class would own the means of production. Lenin realized it would take too long and advocated a militant vanguard that would expedite the revolution and operate the means of production owned by the workers.

www.newyouth.com/archives/marxisttheory.asp

Stalin promoted a rapid and pugnacious transfer to a communist economy regardless of the collateral damage. Setting aside Stalin's paranoia, personal failings, unconscious motives and ruthless behavior, I want to focus on the ethics of his program of rapid rural collectivization and urban industrialization. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Is it ever ethical to harm a few in order to benefit a majority in the future? For example, is it ever ethical to allow a few to starve to death in order to divert food so a larger number will remain alive even at a subsistent level? Is it ever ethical to sacrifice the living in order to benefit a larger unborn future generation? Is it ever ethical to abolish resisters in the road to achieving your goal of a œUtopian? society in the future? Is it ever ethical to usurp the slow progress of democracy if it results in a better society in a shorter timespan?

One person responded: “I would say violence is most necessary for a revolution, and insofar as it for this cause, its ok.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Responding to the above I wrote: “You asked if it is ethical to sacrifice the living in order to benefit a larger unborn future generation? Please answer the following four questions:

a) Who benefitted from killing Bukharin, Trotsky and a large number of other old bolsheviks?

How did killing of Tukchachevsky, and a large number of generals (in late 1930s) help the country to defend itself in 1941?

c) How did forced collectivization (and liquidation of New Economic Policy established by Lenin) help the country to feed itself?

d) How did the deportation of all Chechens (and other national minorities from Georgia, after WWII) to Kazakhstan helped the USSR to consolidate its brotherhood of nations? “

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

My questions were not unanswered. Any comments? BY THE WAY,

The book "Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime," at


http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/father2/introduction.html

describes horrors with which most of you are probably familiar. But Section 3.7, entitled "Communist Morality," is probably worth reading and discussing on this forum (and possible on History forum). Two more things worth reading are Chapter 7 and Section 4.5

Chapter 7 is a discussion of Stalinism (by professors at Montclair State University). Section 4.5 provides numerical data on how little American students (also at Montclair State University) know about Stalin. This short and easy-to-read book was written for students like them. Please share the link with history teachers you know; perhaps some of them will assign this FREE ON-LINE book to students. It can also be a base for discussing idea of proletarian dictatorship, which unites all Marxists.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University

BlueStar
February 20th, 2011, 01:14 PM
Interesting. I studied Marxism as part of my social science degree and must admit that I found the core concepts appealing and noble. But sadly, all attempts to actually implement it have been nightmarish as you said. To me, the end can never justify the means - especially when it comes to creating misery and murdering countless innocent people. Unless there is a definite shift in human consciousness, and an increase in compassion and regard for all sentient beings, then any attempts to force in new ideologies will just end up replicating the same basic human dysfunctions, and perhaps even exacerbate them as usually happened with communism. Attempting to change the outer while neglecting to change the inner is futile, hopeless. The outer invariably always ends up reflecting the inner state of the human psyche.

Just my thoughts...

Lion Spirit Walker
February 26th, 2011, 02:22 AM
I completely agree with BlueStar.

kowalskil
April 4th, 2011, 02:46 PM
I completely agree with BlueStar.

Me too.

Ludwik
.
.

Jester Black
April 4th, 2011, 06:09 PM
Interesting. Unless there is a definite shift in human consciousness, and an increase in compassion and regard for all sentient beings, then any attempts to force in new ideologies will just end up replicating the same basic human dysfunctions, and perhaps even exacerbate them as usually happened with communism. Attempting to change the outer while neglecting to change the inner is futile, hopeless. The outer invariably always ends up reflecting the inner state of the human psyche.

Just my thoughts...


Interetsing...thats my EXACT argument as to why i think the Zeitgist movement can only fail

just an observation. agree with all coments here

BlueStar
April 4th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Interetsing...thats my EXACT argument as to why i think the Zeitgist movement can only fail

just an observation. agree with all coments here

I really love the idea behind the Zeitgeist movement and would love it to work. But yeah, the shift in consciousness has to come first. I don't know how we could feasibly implement such a radical change without first changing ourselves. I doubt even the poorest people in our society would want to give up the notion of possessions and ownership at present, even if they possess and own next to nothing. It would almost be funny, but it's not. I don't entirely know how we go about elevating human consciousness. With all these natural disasters and times of strife, maybe it will be done for us. I don't actually think it's something you can force.

Jester Black
April 4th, 2011, 07:51 PM
I really love the idea behind the Zeitgeist movement and would love it to work. But yeah, the shift in consciousness has to come first. I don't know how we could feasibly implement such a radical change without first changing ourselves. I doubt even the poorest people in our society would want to give up the notion of possessions and ownership at present, even if they possess and own next to nothing. It would almost be funny, but it's not. I don't entirely know how we go about elevating human consciousness. With all these natural disasters and times of strife, maybe it will be done for us. I don't actually think it's something you can force.

Its almost as if you have to wipe society off the face of the earth and start over with humanity holding on for dear life and thats really what i was trying to convey before i got shot down in that thread lol. Frank Herbets Golden Path in the Dune saga comes to mind.

Anyway, tis off subject. No ideology is greater than the sum of humanity as a whole or as individuals. Its something Im sworn to protect, even to the death. I spent time in China in the early 80s before they started opening up their society and their economy and saw communism at work. i remember thinking "the creative spirit and genious of these people is being crushed for the greater good. But whose greater good?"

BlueStar
April 5th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Its almost as if you have to wipe society off the face of the earth and start over with humanity holding on for dear life and thats really what i was trying to convey before i got shot down in that thread lol. Frank Herbets Golden Path in the Dune saga comes to mind.

Anyway, tis off subject. No ideology is greater than the sum of humanity as a whole or as individuals. Its something Im sworn to protect, even to the death. I spent time in China in the early 80s before they started opening up their society and their economy and saw communism at work. i remember thinking "the creative spirit and genious of these people is being crushed for the greater good. But whose greater good?"

Yup the Venus Project does raise a lot of questions, but I still think it could be attainable, perhaps by setting up a few trial cities, seeing how they operate, learning from the mistakes and then addressing feasibility concerns. It's such a great idea (and necessary - our society simply cannot go on as it is, most experts agree it's utterly unsustainable) that it seems a shame to completely dismiss it because there are (legitimate) questions of how it would be done. The idea may need to be changed or re-evaluated - and it may come inherent with dangers if the people involved don't simultaneously shift their attitudes and reactions to life and others, but I think it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a world I'd like to live in :)

I agree that ideology is dangerous though. Ideology is a product of the human mind - it's abstract, conceptual and because the human mind is by its nature limited, any ideology ever created will also be limited. I think one of the biggest problems with humankind is simply being lost in thought, lost in concepts, ideas and mental abstractions, which come between us and experiencing life simply as it is, right now. So I think modelling society on an ideology is dangerous because no ideology is ultimately true (at best it might contain elements of truth, or a 'map' of understanding reality). I could be wrong, but I interpreted the Venus Project proposals as being driven more by practicality or necessity than ideology, in which case I think that's a better approach.

But I do share your distrust of ideologies and the way they are so readily abused. The ideologies that underpin our western world and so familiar to us that many people don't even recognise them or realise that they exist. Capitalism is very much the engine of our society and while on the surface it seems benign and fair, it simply can't continue indefinitely (we'll eventually run out of resources to exploit). I hope that by the time it's run its course, human consciousness has risen beyond its current level, so we don't end up replacing it with another outmoded ideology that will imprison our minds and souls.

Just my thoughts. V cool discussion!

kowalskil
April 6th, 2011, 01:44 PM
... I agree that ideology is dangerous though. Ideology is a product of the human mind - it's abstract, conceptual and because the human mind is by its nature limited, any ideology ever created will also be limited. I think one of the biggest problems with humankind is simply being lost in thought, lost in concepts, ideas and mental abstractions, which come between us and experiencing life simply as it is, right now. So I think modelling society on an ideology is dangerous because no ideology is ultimately true (at best it might contain elements of truth, or a 'map' of understanding reality). I could be wrong, but I interpreted the Venus Project proposals as being driven more by practicality or necessity than ideology, in which case I think that's a better approach.

But I do share your distrust of ideologies and the way they are so readily abused. The ideologies that underpin our western world and so familiar to us that many people don't even recognise them or realise that they exist. Capitalism is very much the engine of our society and while on the surface it seems benign and fair, it simply can't continue indefinitely (we'll eventually run out of resources to exploit). I hope that by the time it's run its course, human consciousness has risen beyond its current level, so we don't end up replacing it with another outmoded ideology that will imprison our minds and souls.

Just my thoughts. V cool discussion!


Yup the Venus Project does raise a lot of questions, but I still think it could be attainable, perhaps by setting up a few trial cities, seeing how they operate, learning from the mistakes and then addressing feasibility concerns. It's such a great idea (and necessary - our society simply cannot go on as it is, most experts agree it's utterly unsustainable) that it seems a shame to completely dismiss it because there are (legitimate) questions of how it would be done. The idea may need to be changed or re-evaluated - and it may come inherent with dangers if the people involved don't simultaneously shift their attitudes and reactions to life and others, but I think it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a world I'd like to live in :)

I agree that ideology is dangerous though. Ideology is a product of the human mind - it's abstract, conceptual and because the human mind is by its nature limited, any ideology ever created will also be limited. I think one of the biggest problems with humankind is simply being lost in thought, lost in concepts, ideas and mental abstractions, which come between us and experiencing life simply as it is, right now. So I think modelling society on an ideology is dangerous because no ideology is ultimately true (at best it might contain elements of truth, or a 'map' of understanding reality). I could be wrong, but I interpreted the Venus Project proposals as being driven more by practicality or necessity than ideology, in which case I think that's a better approach.

But I do share your distrust of ideologies and the way they are so readily abused. The ideologies that underpin our western world and so familiar to us that many people don't even recognise them or realise that they exist. Capitalism is very much the engine of our society and while on the surface it seems benign and fair, it simply can't continue indefinitely (we'll eventually run out of resources to exploit). I hope that by the time it's run its course, human consciousness has risen beyond its current level, so we don't end up replacing it with another outmoded ideology that will imprison our minds and souls.

Just my thoughts. V cool discussion!

Capitalism today is different from what it was in 19th century. And it will probably be very different in 22nd century.

Jester Black
April 6th, 2011, 02:51 PM
Capitalism is very much the engine of our society and while on the surface it seems benign and fair, it simply can't continue indefinitely (we'll eventually run out of resources to exploit). I hope that by the time it's run its course, human consciousness has risen beyond its current level, so we don't end up replacing it with another outmoded ideology that will imprison our minds and souls.


Human consciousness would HAVE TO rise beyond its current level because capitalism is completely in line with human behaviour. People dont generally go out on a limb unless they have something to gain from it and thats true in any system or ideology.

the way i see it the flaws of capitalism are the potential for greed and corruption. the upside is that its an incentivized system that breeds invention through competition (in theory)

the flaws of socialism/communism is that it stagnates invention through a lack of competition and government control breeds inefficiency and government corruption. the upside is that no one goes hungry (in theory)

as far as the resources argument goes, well that really has little to do with capaitalism or socialism. all you have to do is look at the worlds two largest oil consumers and producers of greenhouse gases, the United States (capitalist) and China (communist). both systems are equally liable and responsible. The difference is that in a capatalist system he who comes up with a better mouse trap stands to make a ton of cash because it becomes part of the free market economy. In the socialist system, there is no such incentive, leaving it completely to the goodwill of its leaders to "do the right thing". Governments that are not mandated by the will of its people dont have any incentive for "doing the right thing".

Clearly the solution lies somehere in the middle or in something completely different and as weve already discussed, that kind of change would require a change in the human mindset.

However, I will say this. My own journey from the wrong side of the tracks to where I am today would not have been possible in anything other than a capitalist system. Over the years I have done a TON of volunteer work and am constantly working to help those in need like when I went to Haiti last year or all the work Ive done in New Orleans...well none of that would have been possible had I not risen to a position that would allow me to so while maintaining the needs of my family.

Its not capitalism or socialism that's flawed, but rather the mindset that doesnt allow far too many of us to see anything beyond our own noses.

BlueStar
April 6th, 2011, 07:27 PM
Capitalism today is different from what it was in 19th century. And it will probably be very different in 22nd century.

Good point! Do you think capitalism will continue and evolve or do you think it's a system with a limited lifespan? I recall Marx originally saw it as just a stage in an ongoing process - a stage we might have got stuck in. Of course communism has changed a lot from Marx's original ideas and its disastrous implementations in the 20th century. I wonder!


Human consciousness would HAVE TO rise beyond its current level because capitalism is completely in line with human behaviour. People dont generally go out on a limb unless they have something to gain from it and thats true in any system or ideology.

the way i see it the flaws of capitalism are the potential for greed and corruption. the upside is that its an incentivized system that breeds invention through competition (in theory)

the flaws of socialism/communism is that it stagnates invention through a lack of competition and government control breeds inefficiency and government corruption. the upside is that no one goes hungry (in theory)

as far as the resources argument goes, well that really has little to do with capaitalism or socialism. all you have to do is look at the worlds two largest oil consumers and producers of greenhouse gases, the United States (capitalist) and China (communist). both systems are equally liable and responsible. The difference is that in a capatalist system he who comes up with a better mouse trap stands to make a ton of cash because it becomes part of the free market economy. In the socialist system, there is no such incentive, leaving it completely to the goodwill of its leaders to "do the right thing". Governments that are not mandated by the will of its people dont have any incentive for "doing the right thing".

Clearly the solution lies somehere in the middle or in something completely different and as weve already discussed, that kind of change would require a change in the human mindset.

However, I will say this. My own journey from the wrong side of the tracks to where I am today would not have been possible in anything other than a capitalist system. Over the years I have done a TON of volunteer work and am constantly working to help those in need like when I went to Haiti last year or all the work Ive done in New Orleans...well none of that would have been possible had I not risen to a position that would allow me to so while maintaining the needs of my family.

Its not capitalism or socialism that's flawed, but rather the mindset that doesnt allow far too many of us to see anything beyond our own noses.

Excellent post and lots of interesting commentary. I can relate to a lot of it. It seems each system has advantages and disadvantages...i wonder if there's any way we can learn from this and use this wisdom to create something which embodies the best of all worlds while avoiding the pitfalls. Again, the mindset of the human race has to change. The mechanism of capitalism (me - things - ownership - power) is so deeply ingrained in us, that a profound shift is needed. While it does give us the impetus to develop innovation and competition, the pursuit of 'things' at the expense of others is a great tragedy when it ends up in the current situation of winners and losers - the losers being the famine-stricken nations that can afford nothing and are saddled with dreadful debt. This clearly has to stop. The elevation of human consciousness is necessary - if only so people are no longer trapped in themselves and their own concerns, and can begin to care more about others and develop a more holistic worldview. How do we go about that I wonder!

Jester Black
April 6th, 2011, 07:44 PM
...i wonder if there's any way we can learn from this and use this wisdom to create something which embodies the best of all worlds while avoiding the pitfalls. Again, the mindset of the human race has to change.

I do believe its possible, but its going to take something extraordinary and I doubt it will happen before the water wars that are sure to happen in the next 50 years. but that in itself may give us all the incentive we need........though I truly hope not

again, the Golden Path comes to mind in which Leto, the God Emperor, purposely becomes history's most despised tyrant in order to unite the whole of humanity against a common and deadly foe....himself. in his tyrany, he saves humanity from itself