Morals - Why?

I wanted to say, that the morals we grew up with are the morals of our parents. Over the course of our lives we will adjust them according to our perceptions of society and raise our children according to our values.

Democracy and determinism don't mix well. Democacy depends on consent, which can only be achieved by compromises.

Can someone finally put a post up, in which communist economy is defined. We can argue all day long if not even the communists agree, with themselves.

I'm always talking about my own morals, if I don't mention explicetly otherwise.

and i can't handle that edit button, properly.

Quote :

Freedom is black and white, you either have it or you don't.

Nothing is black and white, no one can be totally 'free', all that exists are various degrees of freedom and restraint. The ideal is to find a balance that grants both enough individual personal freedom and also ensures a healthy society.

Quote :

You're talking about what i labeled 'authority'. Once you begin to hurt others, you are no longer acting in freedom, but authority, as i said before.

Yes to assume unjust authority over others is immoral - I think we agree only you seem to dislike the term 'morality'. Even so if the term did not exist nothing would change.

Quote :

That's why i'm fighting against imperialism. No country and its countrymen and women should be restrained like this.

What kind of imperialism ? I disagree with economic + military imperialism
but have issues with the term - cultural imperialism since I believe that all cultures are eventually destined to merge.

Quote :

So what's the point of the law then, if people are going to commit the crime? The law wasn't enough of a deterent here. Neither was indoctrination; that just tells you a lot about our society.

No you misunderstood - In Saudi Arabia the punishment for theft is the chopping off of a hand - In the US its a fine or a little jail time.
Theft is not a big problem in Saudi Arabia, you could leave your wallet in the middle of a shopping center for an hour and chances are it would be there when you returned.

Quote :

But we have law, and it is consistantly enforced, and still you agree that the 100 dollars would be jacked.

Whatever crime you have with the law it would become far worse without the law.

Quote :

Then they weren't educated about it. If they were, they'd know they would almost immidieately become dependant. I know the potentials of herione, and i won't touch that shit.

You are not everyone. Educated people can do stupid things.
The problems heroin causes extend beyond the individual to society which is why it should be banned by society. True the individual buys heroin and decides to take it - when dependance sets in the medical and social problems extend beyond the individual and cause trouble to everyone.

Quote :

Yes, it's a matter of need, so it is in their interest to get more heroine, by any means. If they don't get a fix, they may exhibit signs of the beginning of withdrawals.

Quote :

Again, this is an affect of poverty. This wouldn't be a problem in a communist society. They will be no ones burden because they can still be a part of the work force and get their fix.

They would be ineffective to the work force in a state of dependence - heroin addicts suffer from wide range of medical problems rendering them sick due a poor immune system. Teeth fall out - they get cold sweats they are tired all the time - a flu like state, their muscles begin to deteriarate ect. Eventually they die due to poor health- oversdose or withdrawal not aided by morphine.

A communist society would act in the best interests of all individuals and ban heroin and other drugs classified as high risk - crystal meth - amphetemine - cocaine -ect

Quote :

Socialist as in socialism, or socialist in the general, umbrella grouping way? If you mean the latter, then no, that's not a socialist arguement. They wouldn't be capitalising in a communist society, cos you can't capitalise. In a capitalist society this argument still doesn't stand, because they must find a way to survive on their own, so they are only becoming a part of the machine, as do many socialists. We and they (prostitutes) are victims of material conditions, so we must conform.

True but we don't live in a communist society, today prostitution is part of the capitalist system which means that people profit and are exploited - I think prostitution should be 100% state controlled.

I think this should be sorted out and when prob like this are delt with we can talk about gradually legalizing it in a safe manner.

Quote :

I don't advocate prostitution, i just think it should be the woman's (or man's) decision to partake or not.

[/quote]

I agree, but the point was to stress that all people be treated with the same respect.

Quote :

That's only part of the story. More so, in my opinion, morals are used to attain conformity at the risk of being labeled deviant. Yes, some things are obviously wrong, but these things are not what i'm questioning in this thread; it's interesting that none of the people whose beliefs i question actually participated in this debate.

Certain morals should have changed with society but never did - some morals will never change - do not kill, lie, cheat ect generally speaking

Quote :

I don't understand this statement. What does the individual remaining the same have to do with the rest of this statement?

Morals and are relative to whichever society you are a part of.
-the reason that morality exists always remains the same, although individual morals may change.

The reason they exist is to - ensure individuals act for the good of society.

Pannekoek wrote:

Okay, but I'm pretty sure that what I said was communism.

But you won't explain? Then i can only assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote :

no one can be totally 'free', all that exists are various degrees of freedom and restraint. The ideal is to find a balance that grants both enough individual personal freedom and also ensures a healthy society.

People can be totally free. All that exists now is varying degrees of freedom and restraint, i'll give you that. But this doesn't mean people cannot be totally free. And i still believe it's black and white. If you are "restricting" my freedom, you are not allowing me to be who i am, or who i aspire to be. In that way, i'm not really free.

Quote :

Yes to assume unjust authority over others is immoral - I think we agree only you seem to dislike the term 'morality'. Even so if the term did not exist nothing would change.

I don't care, you can call it that. I just think morals have been used to create complete conformity, and that we should move away from this. I'm wary about using the term because it's been corrupted.

Quote :

What kind of imperialism ? I disagree with economic + military imperialism

Agreed

Quote :

but have issues with the term - cultural imperialism since I believe that all cultures are eventually destined to merge.

And this entails what, exactly? Seems to me that cultural imperialism is like what the europeans did when they came to america. Imposing their culture on the natives. But i'll wait for you to clarify before i give my two cents on the subject.

Quote :

No you misunderstood - In Saudi Arabia the punishment for theft is the chopping off of a hand - In the US its a fine or a little jail time.
Theft is not a big problem in Saudi Arabia, you could leave your wallet in the middle of a shopping center for an hour and chances are it would be there when you returned.

Christ, you condone this? If not, then, like i said to VoR, what idealistic law do you believe in?

Quote :

Whatever crime you have with the law it would become far worse without the law.

You base this on what? In america sure, but take away poverty and social antagonisms, and with it, you will take away the vast majority of crime.

Unfortunately, i have to go. I should be on tomorrow to answer to the rest. Sorry for the hastle Ink.

Quote :

But you won't explain? Then i can only assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Communism is a stateless classless moneyless society where the economy is from each according to ability to each according to need. If people are paid according to their contribution they have limits on their consumption and they may not be completely satisfying their needs.

[Back to topic]

I think that Its all becous its averted to pre-marrige sex, and in Christianity its a horendous sin, Taboo and all that - and becous Sex always atracted interest.

thats chill with me emy

and sex is a natural bodily function

Prior to the days of monogamy you have societies that had promiscuous sex between all members of society.

No one was neglected

ALL children were your sons and daughters because the males didn't know who exactly was the father of the child but because private property hadn't com into existence and monogamy hadn't been introduced, it wasn't a bad thing. There was no "illegitimate" child (which is a horrid name for a child)
pre-marriage sex is freedom

and marriage is just the perpetuation of the reactionary family as the social unit of society

Are you sure that's posted in the right thread?

i was just responding to CU

Oh, I thought this was continuing on the thing about love is whatever.

I'll start with pannekoek before i move back to the original topic:

Pannekoek wrote:

Communism is a stateless classless moneyless society

Agreed

Quote :

where the economy is from each according to ability to each according to need.

Yes, it is. So if there ability allows them to work a moderate amount, and they choose to be a lumpen because they think they can get away with exploiting the labour of others, why should we allow them to. Of course this is different for the disabled, but i wasn't saying anything about them. i was gonna quote this if you didn't, since i know how much you like Marx.

Quote :

If people are paid according to their contribution they have limits on their consumption and they may not be completely satisfying their needs.

I have no fear of the quote button (so use it), because you cannot find, in my post, where i said this was the case.

inkus2000 wrote:

They would be ineffective to the work force in a state of dependence - heroin addicts suffer from wide range of medical problems rendering them sick due a poor immune system. Teeth fall out - they get cold sweats they are tired all the time - a flu like state, their muscles begin to deteriarate ect. Eventually they die due to poor health- oversdose or withdrawal not aided by morphine.

There are functional addicts even in a capitalist society. There would be no reason for someone to be a dysfunctional addict in a communist society since they would be taken care of, drug wise and job wise. It wouldn't be difficult to support themselves while taking heroin.

Health risks are just something that comes with the territory. If they are gonna start using the drug, they have to take responsibility for what it *could* possibly entail.

Quote :

True but we don't live in a communist society, today prostitution is part of the capitalist system which means that people profit and are exploited - I think prostitution should be 100% state controlled.

People profit and are exploited wherever you go in a capitalist society. Does that mean industrial work should be banned? We need to make changes to increase acceptance and safety, not alienate.

Quote :

Morals and are relative to whichever society you are a part of.

Yes, but i was posing this question to communists on this site who cling to these backwards views, disrespecting autonomy.

Again, though, these people chose not to debate, for whatever reason.

is this a political provocation?

can you show me where I do not allow moral freedom?

My question is: Why are people morally averse to things like drugs, prostitution, pornography, and the like?

Because all these things are harmful to people/ or they exploit people.

-drugs destroy your health and are heavily addictive
-prostitution is sexual exploitation, because it is done for money.
If the woman would like it, she would do it for free
-pornography is also often done with poor people who have no other chance earning as much money.

Quote :

if you want to be allowed to continue trade with others, you must do your fair share of the work.

Quote :

Why should we use resources on people who are not willing to contribute?

^^ Yes, and? Those are quotes of me, but they don't pertain to any of your attacks about me not being communist...

You said it yourself, "From each according to his ability, To each according to his need". If they are unable to contribute, that is much different from being unwilling. You're twisting my words to meet your needs. If someone is disabled or in some other way unable to work, they should be taken care of, absolutely.

But if they are "able", and choose, instead, to leech off of the labour of everone else, why, in your mind, should this be tolerated?

NJNP wrote:

if you want to be allowed to continue trade with others, you must do your fair share of the work.

This quote was just a manner of speaking. Doesn't mean i believe there will be money.

MarxistFreeman wrote:

is this a political provocation?

can you show me where I do not allow moral freedom?

Me? If so, i wasn't responding to anything you said.

Quote :

-drugs destroy your health and are heavily addictive

"Certain drugs" are heavily addictive. And what gives you the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body?

Quote :

-prostitution is sexual exploitation, because it is done for money.
If the woman would like it, she would do it for free

I don't see how that follows, logically. If she likes it AND can make a living out of it, why should she not?

Not to mention that almost everything in a capitalist society is exploitation. Every proletarian will have to choose which way they want to be exploited, that's about as far as the choice goes.

In a communist society there would be no profit, so why couldn't she take this up as her job if it is something the community wants. As long as she contributes, i don't see why it should be banned.

Quote :

-pornography is also often done with poor people who have no other chance earning as much money.

In the context of capitalism, sure. But think outside this context since we are, indeed, communists. Would it still be be exploitation if no one is profiting from it?

Quote :

But if they are "able", and choose, instead, to leech off of the labour of everone else, why, in your mind, should this be tolerated?

Everyone will work according to their ability. That's the only way communism will happen in the first place.

Pannekoek wrote:

Everyone will work according to their ability.

And you know this for a fact? I think you're giving people too much credit. You really think nillerz would work according to his ability?

There would have to be socialism first to eliminate class antagonisms but yes.

Pannekoek wrote:

There would have to be socialism first to eliminate class antagonisms but yes.

And? How does that ensure people are doing work according to their ability? That just means there's no competition.

Because alienation is gonn. like the breeze.

NoJustice.NoPeace wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

There would have to be socialism first to eliminate class antagonisms but yes.

And? How does that ensure people are doing work according to their ability? That just means there's no competition.

Lenin admitted that there would have to be some amount of "bourgeois right" within socialism until the ability to truly meet peoples needs according to their own ability is truly reached.

Workers will be given as much as they have given to society in some aspects.

You can't abolish bourgeois ideology immediately and completely from society.

Democracy in itself contradicts a classless society so...thats an example of "bourgeois right" that will remain in socialist society

I was readin the proletarian revolution and the renegade kautsky(very thorough pwning of karl) and there is no such thing as "pure" democracy. democracy is for one class. proletarian and bourgeois democracy. Democracy is always a dictatorship.

Pannekoek wrote:

I was readin the proletarian revolution and the renegade kautsky(very thorough pwning of karl) and there is no such thing as "pure" democracy. democracy is for one class. proletarian and bourgeois democracy. Democracy is always a dictatorship.

i am so fucking proud of you emy

They have all lenin's and marx's and trotsky's works on marxists.org lenin is so awesome and funny. he pwns people very awesomely.

Quote :

Because alienation is gonn. like the breeze.

Just like that? What do you suggest, killing them? Brainwashing them? What does this entail?

Quote :

Democracy in itself contradicts a classless society

Not if class antagonisms are gone, as Pannekoek suggests. This would only be the case during socialism, no?

Quote :

You can't abolish bourgeois ideology immediately and completely from society.

Who made this claim?

NoJustice.NoPeace wrote:

Quote :

Because alienation is gonn. like the breeze.

Just like that? What do you suggest, killing them? Brainwashing them? What does this entail?

Simply placing everyone just as close to the means of production as workers abolishes alienation from the means of production.

Quote :

Democracy in itself contradicts a classless society

Not if class antagonisms are gone, as Pannekoek suggests. This would only be the case during socialism, no?

Democracy in and of itself is the repression of one group by another and is necessary only in a state of scarcity. A communist society is a classless one in a state of abundance

Quote :

You can't abolish bourgeois ideology immediately and completely from society.

Who made this claim?

Lenin
but he put emphasis on "immediately" that the state and "bourgeois right" will whither away as society moves closer to a communist one