Morals - Why?

Socialism still has class antagonisms. They mst be eliminated to proceed to communism.

NoJustice.NoPeace wrote:

Me? I don't think i do. I'd love it if you contributed.

I just wanna know why some people on this site cling to 'morals'.

So people don't steal, kill, and rape just because they feel like it.

MarxistFreeman wrote:

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

But this requires a transitional period. It's not just gone out of nowhere. That's the only point i was attempting to make.

Quote :

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

I don't believe in political democracy, so i won't argue with this. I didn't know this is what you meant.

Quote :

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

Heh, ya, i know that. I meant, who made the claim that it is possible to immediately abolish bourgeois ideology?

Quote :

So people don't steal, kill, and rape just because they feel like it.

Morals don't stop this from happening. Everyone has these morals, and yet people steal, kill and rape.

And again, my question was more geared to communists on this site that believe it's right to put restrictions on things like pornography, prostitution, drugs and the like. I shouldve made that clear, my fault.

[quote="NoJustice.NoPeace"]

MarxistFreeman wrote:

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

But this requires a transitional period. It's not just gone out of nowhere. That's the only point i was attempting to make.

you are absolutely correct. Socialism is the transitional state. Abolition of privatized means of production in itself is a major bound though.

Quote :

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

I don't believe in political democracy, so i won't argue with this. I didn't know this is what you meant.

alrighty

Quote :

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

Heh, ya, i know that. I meant, who made the claim that it is possible to immediately abolish bourgeois ideology?

Reformists, anarchists, idealists...

Quote :

Reformists, anarchists, idealists...

Someone you know? I don't know any anarchists that actually believe that's possible; that there won't be a counter-revolution. Or are you refering to pre-Bakunin? Because theory before him was almost non-existent.

Hell, i don't even know any reformists who believe this.

And of course, if someone does believe this, they are idealist, so there's no arguing with the third.

Quote :

But this requires a transitional period.

So you agree?

Bourgeois ideology is the ideology of greed, violence, racism, religion, etc. Communist society can not survive with these kind of thoughts in people's minds.

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

But this requires a transitional period.

So you agree?

Erm, no. I wasn't agreeing so much as making a point that this ideology won't just vanish. I was using your ideologies way of thinking in this regard.

Quote :

Bourgeois ideology is the ideology of greed, violence, racism, religion, etc. Communist society can not survive with these kind of thoughts in people's minds.

Care to share why you believe that?

Greed meance you can't have communist economy. Violence means you cant have no staydt.

Pannekoek wrote:

Greed meance you can't have communist economy.

That's not an answer as to why you can't have a communist society, but an ideal communist society. If a political revolution comes before a social revolution, then, as history has shown, it can only be/become bourgeois.

Quote :

Violence means you cant have no staydt.

Try and spell that last word one more time.

Communist society is necessarily ideal. Unideal communism= lower communism= socialism.

*state

Emy is sorely mistaken.

"Bougeois right" refers to feelings of enitlement and giving workers what they have given back to society rather than "to each according to his ability to each according to his need"

you need the former for a SOCIALIST society to function.

THAT in accordance with democracy is the "Bourgeois right" Lenin refers to and that will be abolished as the state whithers away and a state of abundance is achieved.

SO how the hell was I mistaken?

i misread

i thought you were saying a communist/social society needs greed and whatnot to function

sorry

That's what I thought. That is exactly what I thought.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

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

I think people are frightened by lack of control over oneself and those around them. Drugs inhibit ones ability to maintain control of themselves. prostitution may be frowned upon for several reasons firstly that it is dangerous hygienically to have such a multitude of sexual partners. secondly i think we are all animals when you get to the core of us, and animals reproduce. a prostitute has sex with no intention of ever conceiving a child (as do most of us) but for whatever reason prostitution is seemingly more unsettlingly to the general public then a couple using contraception. and pornography... well pornography i can't oppose

Certinaly people are behavioraly dispossed as the result of our unique evolution but there is also a history of culture behind the complexities of human aversion. Aversion is very powerful adaptive mechanism. We avoid pain because of the benifits of keeping our bodies intact. We are adverse to bitter tastes because poisons are often bitter.

When aversion is the result of culture it takes the form of taboo. Taboo's can result from an ecological need but they can also result from attempts by law makers to objectify the masses.

Somewhere in this complex exist moral norms.

davidhume2000 wrote:

Certinaly people are behavioraly dispossed as the result of our unique evolution but there is also a history of culture behind the complexities of human aversion. Aversion is very powerful adaptive mechanism. We avoid pain because of the benifits of keeping our bodies intact. We are adverse to bitter tastes because poisons are often bitter.

When aversion is the result of culture it takes the form of taboo. Taboo's can result from an ecological need but they can also result from attempts by law makers to objectify the masses.

Somewhere in this complex exist moral norms.

That is why i see Anarchy as a fabulous alternative to capitalism. because in an anarchist society the only taboos would be towards things that are directly detremental to society as a whole. this of course would elliminate the opposition to harmless social states of being; sexuality, race ect.

Quote :

That is why i see Anarchy as a fabulous alternative to capitalism. because in an anarchist society the only taboos would be towards things that are directly detremental to society as a whole. this of course would elliminate the opposition to harmless social states of being; sexuality, race ect.

Please do not make moral statements like "anarchy is better than capitalism". you know this kind of moral statement is just as dogmatic and unjustified as saying gay people are evil. so dont say such tihings.

Watermelon wrote:

Quote :

That is why i see Anarchy as a fabulous alternative to capitalism. because in an anarchist society the only taboos would be towards things that are directly detremental to society as a whole. this of course would elliminate the opposition to harmless social states of being; sexuality, race ect.

Please do not make moral statements like "anarchy is better than capitalism". you know this kind of moral statement is just as dogmatic and unjustified as saying gay people are evil. so dont say such tihings.

what? haha note the: "That is why i see" at the begging. its my personal opinion... isnt that what this place is for? haha

my personal opinion is that gay people are evil. i have no justification is just think so for no reason. you cant critisise that because its my opinoin.

Watermelon wrote:

my personal opinion is that gay people are evil. i have no justification is just think so for no reason. you cant critisise that because its my opinoin.

you are being rediculous. that is not a fair comparision to my argument for anarchism. all my opinions are grounded with alot of good resoning behind them. would you like me to explain WHY i have those opinions? would that better legitimize them for you?

moral statements NEVER have justification. but try to justify it. this will be good.

Watermelon wrote:

moral statements NEVER have justification. but try to justify it. this will be good.

firstly that was NOT a moral statement. i did NOT say capitalism was "immoral" nor did i say that Anarchism is moraly superior. my aurgument was that in an anarchist society the public view of "morality" would be much more aware of society as a whole. it would be unlikely that homosexuality would be frowned upon because that is generaly a religous belief and in an anarchist society religoun would be obsolete. this is because it offers nothing more than incentive to be "moral" and in a fully functiong anarchist society the only necissary incentive is the want to better society. this because betterung society is the only way to better yourself. also there would be no taboo against theft because theft wouldnt even exist. material possesions are the property of society as a whole and without financial incentive i.e. currency the genral public would have less of a sense of personal possesion and a stronger want towards bettering society as a whole and in turn bettering the individual's state of being.

you have not justified why anarchism is better than nazism. you have just said theres no religion no theft blahblahblah who cares. you are just saying nothing.

Watermelon wrote:

you have not justified why anarchism is better than nazism. you have just said theres no religion no theft blahblahblah who cares. you are just saying nothing.

Saying nothing? 90% of what i've seen you write on here was spam haha. besides that i think that a society in which all people are only concerend with bettering the public is a very succsesfull one. you are being standoffish and its limiting your abillity to expand your beliefs.