A new workers party.... for workers only?.

[Binkie]

MP3,
I'm pleased if this thread is engaging SWP discussion. Here are some responses to your most recent posting:

real revolutionaries far more than Christians or any other religion truly do have the interests of others, the collective, at heart
I agree - that's important. Watch out for this in 'party leaders' and their 'cadres'. Question their vision and motives. No I'm not an anarchist.

being better than others
I didn't mean of more inherent worth as a person (once born we should all have equal rights in my book) - just more able to come up with good innovative initiatives. This isn't necessarily going to be the guy with the loudest voice, most support or even most experience, although that (experience) usually helps. Or it could be genetic as you suggest. Most probably 'some of these'. I wonder if you'd consider genes as part of the 'memory of the class'. RSVP. No I'm not a racist.

you have to admit the possibility, no matter how remote you believe it to be, that you could be wrong, surely?
Of course. However, only a sentence can be wrong, not a person.

The truth of whether I, or the anarchist, or the social Democrat is right or wrong, can only be proven by making history. Can only be proven in the class struggle. I don't believe this is humility, I believe it is logical.
'Right'? You must mean 'right for us'. Agreed. 'only be proven in the class struggle'? I don't know. You could take power and not know what to do with it. What would come should be new and better, else you've failed. That's why you need a vision - something the potentially progressive class can work towards. And that's why you need morality - a set of values to measure events against. No I'm not a Utopian.

you have to be moral to be a revolutionary, but don't have to be a revolutionary to be moral
Nicely put. Yes I'm saying the first part. As for the second part, that's what I would hope for in a just society. No I'm not a Utopian. I know things will always change. New classes will emerge even in a 'classless society'. Basic Evolution.

what is revolutionary morality? it is the morality of the working class
I'd be careful there. The morality of the working class is currently largely bourgeois. I'd distinguish that from a morality for the working class - a morality that encapsulates their true, objective interests. At the moment, they're living in a dream world - a Disneyland of queens and celebrities, envy and spite.

we all know human beings have the capacity to be illogical as well as logical.
Yes.

I suppose I am arguing real morality, good and evil right and wrong, does not exist.
It does, but you have to qualify it with 'whose' good and evil, right and wrong.


Wanna look at my website? Suggestions welcome.
http://www2.itsligo.ie/staff/jcarter/000000johnandsally/

 

[Fruitloop]

On the key issue of whether Marx endorsed the idea of a dialectic in nature there can be little doubt. In Anti-Dühring Engels specifically quoted Marx's Capital to this effect: 'Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel in his Logic, that merely quantitative changes beyond a certain point pass into qualitative differences.'35 And Marx goes on to say in a footnote that: 'the molecular theory of modern chemistry... rests on no other law'.36 Marx himself had earlier drawn Engels' attention to these passages in Capital, explicitly stating his belief that dialectical laws were in evidence in natural science: 'in that text I quote Hegel's discovery regarding the law that merely quantitative changes turn into qualitative changes and state that it holds good alike in history and natural science'.37 Also in Capital Marx described exchange relations as operating like 'a determining law of nature'. And, despite Carver's claim that Engels' admiration for Darwin is evidence of his inclination toward the model of natural science, Marx shared Engels' assessment: 'Darwin's book is very important and it suits me well that it supports the class struggle in history from the point of view of natural science'.38
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj65/rees.htm

I agree that some of the characteristics of the dialectic can be observed in nature, particularly the interdependence of qualitative and quantitative change. Also, when you look at the effects of capital on society, you have to have some idea of the ground state on whihc capital acts, and for that you need natural science as Marx recognised. Dialectical logic on the other hand can only ever be the story of things that are completely understood by us, either because they are abstractions of human values (Hegel) or because they are nothing more than alienated human labour (Marx).

The point where Engels and other dialecticians of nature go wrong is twofold - firstly that they assume that a dialectics of nature is open to our enquiry, which it is not, and secondly and more seriously because when there is a question of how a natural process works they have an a priori reason for preferring a dialectical explanation, forgetting both that confirmational bias is a dangersous impediment to scientific discovery and also that nature, which is perhaps ultimately irreduceable in its complexity, has no need to abide by purely human intellectual conceits.

 

[Binkie]

What on Earth is the Dialectic?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I agree that some of the characteristics of the dialectic can be observed in nature, particularly the interdependence of qualitative and quantitative change. Also, when you look at the effects of capital on society, you have to have some idea of the ground state on whihc capital acts, and for that you need natural science as Marx recognised. Dialectical logic on the other hand can only ever be the story of things that are completely understood by us, either because they are abstractions of human values (Hegel) or because they are nothing more than alienated human labour (Marx).

The point where Engels and other dialecticians of nature go wrong is twofold - firstly that they assume that a dialectics of nature is open to our enquiry, which it is not, and secondly and more seriously because when there is a question of how a natural process works they have an a priori reason for preferring a dialectical explanation, forgetting both that confirmational bias is a dangersous impediment to scientific discovery and also that nature, which is perhaps ultimately irreduceable in its complexity, has no need to abide by purely human intellectual conceits.

I'm sorry, you need to explain what you are arguing in more lay man's terms. I think I understand what you're arguing, but I'm not positive.

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[TremulousTetra]

Binkie, I am quite disappointed that you did not respond to the other parts of post #113. Though I am happy to go whenever the conversation leads us.

MP3,
I'm pleased if this thread is engaging SWP discussion. Here are some responses to your most recent posting:

which is just normal to me. There is always SWP discussion. In fact about the time of Seattle I was becoming disturbed that that was all we did. It is a myth that there is no internal SW discussion.

real revolutionaries far more than Christians or any other religion truly do have the interests of others, the collective, at heart
I agree - that's important. Watch out for this in 'party leaders' and their 'cadres'. Question their vision and motives. No I'm not an anarchist.

this is another myth about SW. And I never thought you were an anarchist.

being better than others
I didn't mean of more inherent worth as a person (once born we should all have equal rights in my book) - just more able to come up with good innovative initiatives. This isn't necessarily going to be the guy with the loudest voice, most support or even most experience, although that (experience) usually helps. Or it could be genetic as you suggest. Most probably 'some of these'. I wonder if you'd consider genes as part of the 'memory of the class'. RSVP. No I'm not a racist.

perhaps it is because my post was so badly written, but I don't really find any of this interesting, or really relating to what we were discussing, sorry.

you have to admit the possibility, no matter how remote you believe it to be, that you could be wrong, surely?
Of course. However, only a sentence can be wrong, not a person.

okay.

The truth of whether I, or the anarchist, or the social Democrat is right or wrong, can only be proven by making history. Can only be proven in the class struggle. I don't believe this is humility, I believe it is logical.
'Right'? You must mean 'right for us'. Agreed. 'only be proven in the class struggle'? I don't know. You could take power and not know what to do with it. What would come should be new and better, else you've failed. That's why you need a vision - something the potentially progressive class can work towards. And that's why you need morality - a set of values to measure events against. No I'm not a Utopian.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand one of the reasons we are talking at cross purposes.

No, what I meant to say by right, was correct. "The truth of whether I, the anarchist, or the social Democrat has the correct strategy, can only be proven in the class struggle." is what I should have written. See the difference? I suppose I'm basically arguing that we should all logically accept that we could be wrong again, and observe all politicals strategies in the class struggle to see which strategies are correct and incorrect, instead of constantly trying to win the argument. We should accept that we are not going to win the argument, and fraternally work together to see who is right. I suppose like competing scientist with different theories. Hope that makes sense.

you have to be moral to be a revolutionary, but don't have to be a revolutionary to be moral
Nicely put. Yes I'm saying the first part. As for the second part, that's what I would hope for in a just society. No I'm not a Utopian.

no, I don't think you've understood what I'm saying. A Christian is personally "moral". A genuine Christian is genuinely interested in the well-being of others. However, the morality of the Christian is a function of class, and so is produced by bourgeois class interests. So even though the individual is moral in his personal attempts to advance the well-being of others, his strategy is incorrect, it will not achieve the maximum amount of well-being for the maximum amount of people, it will only achieve the maximum amounts of well-being for the bourgeoisie, and so is not moral. And so there are plenty of workers who are personally moral. it is not morality that workers lack, it is revolutionary morality. (And even this is debatable you will see.)

I know things will always change. New classes will emerge even in a 'classless society'. Basic Evolution.

it is my opinion you are wrong here. I quite understand where you're coming from, because I was under the same misconception before going to Marxism 2005. And I basically asked that question here The Dialectic John Molyneux 2005 Discussion Summing Up http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp/m2005home.htm

what is revolutionary morality? it is the morality of the working class
I'd be careful there. The morality of the working class is currently largely bourgeois. I'd distinguish that from a morality for the working class - a morality that encapsulates their true, objective interests. At the moment, they're living in a dream world - a Disneyland of queens and celebrities, envy and spite.

You again misunderstood me here. I was not saying that revolutionary morality is the sum of the current morality of the working-class, which is a function of class society, and so has contradictory levels of consciousness. I was saying what is revolutionary morality? it is the morality of the working class. Let me explain that.

If stripped down to to its barest essence, the morality of the bourgeoisie (Christianity, culture, ideas and justice, the ideology, the dominant ideas in society in sum.) is to maximise the well-being of the bourgeoisie.when stripped down to its barest essence, the morality of the bourgeoisie is merely the interests of the bourgeoisie. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the individual worker thinks, the true morality of the working class is to maximise the well being of the working-class. Because the most logical way to achieve the maximum well-being of the working class, is for them to act in unity as a class for class interests. And so the revolutionary morality, as in "their morals and ours" (I haven't actually read this yet) is the class interests of the working-class.

I suppose I am arguing real morality, good and evil right and wrong, does not exist.
It does, but you have to qualify it with 'whose' good and evil, right and wrong

right, now we are getting down to the crux of the matter. I hope Mutley get back to this, because this is the bit I find interesting.

If anything I think I may be guilty of telescoping. I have just started to read Trotsky's "Their Morals and Ours". And in that article when discussing the social Democrats he talks about "morals being a function of class". When he uses the word function, I think he uses the word in the same way economists use the word function. The "morality", the notion of right and wrong, just and unjust, is a product of and changes according to the class conflict and classes in conflict.So the morality of capitalism, is different to the morality of feudalism, which is different to the morality of slave society. If morality is a function of class, what happens when you don't have any classes? If as Trotsky argues morality is a function of class, morality when laid bare is the sum of the class interests it represents, then went class ceases to exist morality will cease to exist, surely? You see, this goes back to your earlier point where you suggest there will be classes under communism. Marxist do not believe this will be the case. The dialectic between classes will cease to exist, the dialectic that will remain if the dialectic between human beings and nature. This is a dialect that has always existed, the dialectic between species and their environment, the class dialectic in social evolution is a social construct, and so hasn't always existed. At Least 90% of human existence was classless. What provided the dialectical motor from hunter gather a society to the first-class society, was the dialectic between the human species and nature. What provided the dialectical motor for social (accelerated) evolution in later societies, was a dialectical contradiction between classes.

I think when we get to a really classless society it will be self-evident that right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil don't exist. I think this is philosophically true now. However, as I have already said I think I may be guilty of telescoping this into the here and now. In the present material circumstances ther does exist in their morality and ours, not as an eternal truism, but a current truth as a product of the current class conflict.

Respect Resistance MP3

PS. As I say I haven't read any Marxist stuff on this, so I am just kind of making it up as I go along. My posts are more a stream of consciousness, rather than a fully thought out rationale. So if people can understand my posts, I would welcome any criticism, especially from SW members.

 

[kyser_soze]

At Least 90% of human existence was classless

Where exactly do you get this specific detail from? Given that many species of primate have hierachies within their social groups I'd suggest that this is a pretty bold claim without anything to back it up - or is it your own view of H-G society as being some kind of Eden where man existed in perfect balance with nature and human (or proto-human) groups and societies were classless with no hierarchy?

And how different are the moralities of feudalism and capitalism? They both allow for the exploitation of the poor with a window dressing of noblesse oblige, they both entrench power on the basis of an unfair, irrational system which is justified using a higher force (religion for feudalism, meritocratic right in capitalism (those at the top must work hardest and be the most intelligent))

Have you read the New Testament and what Christ actually said? Far from entrenching bourgoies values, JC argued against greed, judgement and argued for treating each other well, not being greedy and getting along - and working together. The only susbstantive difference between this and the morality of communism is that JC said you do it to please God.

I think when we get to a really classless society it will be self-evident that right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil don't exist.

Of course they will - to begin with capitalist ideas and behaviour will be seen as wrong, possibly even evil just as communisim was painted as 'evil' by capitalism. Murder will still be seen as wrong, as would attempting to corece someone into doing something they didn't want to.

There's a lot that's good in Marxism, but don't fall into the trap of taking work that was completed over 150 years ago as being gospel - at the time psychology as we know it didn't exist, for example and morality is a hugely important aspect of human behaviour and psychology. You might want to call it something different, but society is responsible for morals, class merely directs them. A classless society would still have morals and standards of behaviour it considered acceptable and unacceptable.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Where exactly do you get this specific detail from? Given that many species of primate have hierachies within their social groups I'd suggest that this is a pretty bold claim without anything to back it up - or is it your own view of H-G society as being some kind of Eden where man existed in perfect balance with nature and human (or proto-human) groups and societies were classless with no hierarchy?

firstly, I am not imposing my view on others. I'm not saying my view is correct, and any of you have to accept it. I am merely debating, what actually constitutes a Marxist perspective on the issues we are discussing. As you can see there is a debate about this, even amongst SW members, and even I am not claiming MINE is the SW position, or even MY VIEW is thoroughly thought yet. We're just chewing the fat of whether what i feel is true, is.

On your question, if you go back through the thread you will see there is agreed a Marxist definition of class, and my statement was made in context of that. If you want to argue that hierarchies equal class, that is your privilege. But as I say earlier, for Marxist your class is defined by your relationship to the means production. Do you have an alternative Marxist definition?

And how different are the moralities of feudalism and capitalism? They both allow for the exploitation of the poor with a window dressing of noblesse oblige, they both entrench power on the basis of an unfair, irrational system which is justified using a higher force (religion for feudalism, meritocratic right in capitalism (those at the top must work hardest and be the most intelligent))

Have you read the New Testament and what Christ actually said? Far from entrenching bourgoies values, JC argued against greed, judgement and argued for treating each other well, not being greedy and getting along - and working together. The only susbstantive difference between this and the morality of communism is that JC said you do it to please God.

I don't disagree with any of this.

Of course they will - to begin with capitalist ideas and behaviour will be seen as wrong, possibly even evil just as communisim was painted as 'evil' by capitalism. Murder will still be seen as wrong, as would attempting to corece someone into doing something they didn't want to.

There's a lot that's good in Marxism, but don't fall into the trap of taking work that was completed over 150 years ago as being gospel - at the time psychology as we know it didn't exist, for example and morality is a hugely important aspect of human behaviour and psychology. You might want to call it something different, but society is responsible for morals, class merely directs them. A classless society would still have morals and standards of behaviour it considered acceptable and unacceptable.

how can I be said to be repeating what was completed 150 years ago as being gospel, when I have already said I haven't read any Marxist stuff on the topic? (I have just yesterday read about the first eight pages of Trotsky's work. And I only referenced that because binkie mentioned it.)

Secondly, of course capitalist ideas will be seen as wrong, incorrect, as illogical, but not necessarily wrong, evil, and imoral. For example, I don't think we really view today people like Socrates as evil. In Greek and Roman society owning a slave was seen as moral, working was seen as immoral. Were people evil for thinking like this or a product of their material circumstances? Yes slavery is a an example of what at one time was moral is today is considered immoral but, I think we are leaning towards viewing Socrates as a man of his age even within bourgeois society which still has remnants of the ideas of good and evil.

You say on the communist society "murder will STILL be seen as wrong", but his murder always considered wrong today? Executions? War? Justifiable homicide?

My whole argument is, that morality as a guiding principle of society, "the vision", will be replaced with logic, "the vision". (Hegel) and I believe even in "our morality", one can see the seeds of this idea. (I don't know what Trotsky calls "our morality" yet, I havn't got that far.)

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[kyser_soze]

On your question, if you go back through the thread you will see there is agreed a Marxist definition of class, and my statement was made in context of that. If you want to argue that hierarchies equal class, that is your privilege. But as I say earlier, for Marxist your class is defined by your relationship to the means production. Do you have an alternative Marxist definition?

That's a cop out on this issue - and you haven't answered my question about where you get this '90% of human history was classless' guff from. And since there were no means of production as such in an h-g society, 'class' - in the sense of a social hierarchy where one person has power over another and the ability to coerce or pursuade them into doing something they don't want to do, or the ability to deprive them of something - would have existed in some form, whether as a gerontocracy, theological or simply one based around who had the greatest knowledge of specific survival skills. Don't fall into the trap of imagining h-g living in the environment of 10,000 years ago was some kind of easy living paradise.

And all you're doing is replacing the word 'immoral' with 'incorrect' - which I view as a more disturbing term as it carries with it the baggage of those who had 'incorrect thought' even while ole Trots was around and ended up in the Gulag. To imply the notion of 'correct thinking' is to start the language of Orwell - and indeed the Bush administration who's attitude to the press is one of those with 'correct' (on-message) reporting and thinking.

I remember back in the day when I first started posting here and had a similar debate with someone (no longer posting now) about this selfsame subject - they also claimed to have 'no morals' because they were a socialist, but instead had 'guiding concepts' of behaviour toward others - semantics mate, nothing more.

Incidentally - murder as moral...often seen as a necessary evil, but unless applied to killing heathens never seen as a 'moral' duty. Is murder not seen as wrong by most people today? If pushed on the issue do you think that taking someone else's life in a premeditated fashion (which is very different from self defence) is EVER seen as a moral course by anyone? (If you do find someone like that I'd suggest running before they pull the knife out)

Don't mistake the communists need to reclaim and re-badge every element of society as correct - because that is all this is.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's a cop out on this issue - and you haven't answered my question about where you get this '90% of human history was classless' guff from. And since there were no means of production as such in an h-g society, 'class' - in the sense of a social hierarchy where one person has power over another and the ability to coerce or pursuade them into doing something they don't want to do, or the ability to deprive them of something - would have existed in some form, whether as a gerontocracy, theological or simply one based around who had the greatest knowledge of specific survival skills. Don't fall into the trap of imagining h-g living in the environment of 10,000 years ago was some kind of easy living paradise.

I have answered,-= hunter gatherers. There was a means of production -=the land. We have been debating what is and isn't a Marxist definition of class, if you want to challenge that definition with another Marxist definition, fair enough. However if you want to go on a different topic, for example propose an alternative definition of class, you'll have to excuse me as I am enjoying discussing this topic at the moment.

And all you're doing is replacing the word 'immoral' with 'incorrect' - which I view as a more disturbing term as it carries with it the baggage of those who had 'incorrect thought' even while ole Trots was around and ended up in the Gulag. To imply the notion of 'correct thinking' is to start the language of Orwell - and indeed the Bush administration who's attitude to the press is one of those with 'correct' (on-message) reporting and thinking.

I remember back in the day when I first started posting here and had a similar debate with someone (no longer posting now) about this selfsame subject - they also claimed to have 'no morals' because they were a socialist, but instead had 'guiding concepts' of behaviour toward others - semantics mate, nothing more.

Incidentally - murder as moral...often seen as a necessary evil, but unless applied to killing heathens never seen as a 'moral' duty. Is murder not seen as wrong by most people today? If pushed on the issue do you think that taking someone else's life in a premeditated fashion (which is very different from self defence) is EVER seen as a moral course by anyone? (If you do find someone like that I'd suggest running before they pull the knife out)

Don't mistake the communists need to reclaim and re-badge every element of society as correct - because that is all this is.

what can I do with you won't listen to what I have said? I haven't read any Marxist/communist stuff on philosophy. So I am not being duped by any Communists need to reclaim and the badge every element of society. members of my own political party are questioning my speculations. And I would say more than anything my speculations are a product of my own experience of life.

I broke my kneck in a car crash, at age 24, in 1984. Was that good or evil, moral or immoral? You may be able to imagine, that in such circumstances, I have spent a lot of time speculating about this topic. 1001 things have shaped my perspective, so please do not try and reduce my consciousness to a caricature for you to project your prejudices upon.

Philosophy has been explained to me as the search for things which are eternally true. If morality is an eternal truth, and not merely a function of class society, explain to me please how it was moral to own a slave in Greek and Roman society, but it is immoral today?

Do you think the theory of evolution is correct or incorrect? What I mean by "correct or incorrect" is, is it a logical explanation of the evolution of species? Now if you do believe that is a correct logical explanation, then I could point to that as an eternal truth. There is a logic in evolution, that operates whether or not the players involved are conscious of that logic. Evolution occurred before human beings could comprehend it, and it will continue after human beings has ceased to exist.

Now compare that eternal truth, evolution, to morality. Adolf Hitler felt morally justified to exterminate the Jews, who were after all "a disease which threatened the well-being of the Aryan community". Christians felt morally justified investing in the slave trade, because the scientific theories of racism from the plantation owners showed that black people were inferior. And didn't the moral justification of the murder of rich peasants and the monarchy in the Russian Revolution, show AGAIN that revolutionary morality is merely a function of the class interests involved?

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[Binkie]

MP3: What I mean by "correct or incorrect" is, is it a logical explanation
Binkie: ... and accurate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

MP3: What I mean by "correct or incorrect" is, is it a logical explanation
Binkie: ... and accurate.

what are you saying? that the theory of the evolution of species is inaccurate?

So, will morality exist in a classless society?

R+Rmp3

 

[Binkie]

what are you saying? that the theory of the evolution of species is inaccurate?
R+Rmp3

No, just that the validity of any theory is measured by its logic and its accuracy. You left that point out when answering someone. The theory of evolution for example seems to have survived these criteria pretty well so far.

 

[Ave N. Ham]

Bloody hell thinks move fast on here.

ResistanceMP3, you never answered my post about revolutionary unions btw. Not important, I've found out a bit more meself.

 

[Binkie]

So, will morality exist in a classless society?

I can't see into the future but I should hope so. If morality is determined by class, it would follow that in a classless society (actually a single-class society) there would be only one morality. It would serve the objective interests of all and would be identical with law. It would, like law, be constantly revised in light of new developments. A classless society needn't be at all static. In fact I should imagine it would be rather more dynamic than our capitalist epoch, which suffers from so many inhibitory factors (e.g. war, poverty, inequality, duplication of effort, puerile popular culture etc.). It's because of this dynamism that I wouldn't be surprised to see further classes emerging, followed ultimately by further revolutions.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I can't see into the future but I should hope so. If morality is determined by class, it would follow that in a classless society (actually a single-class society) there would be only one morality. It would serve the objective interests of all and would be identical with law. It would, like law, be constantly revised in light of new developments. A classless society needn't be at all static. In fact I should imagine it would be rather more dynamic than our capitalist epoch, which suffers from so many inhibitory factors (e.g. war, poverty, inequality, duplication of effort, puerile popular culture etc.). It's because of this dynamism that I wouldn't be surprised to see further classes emerging, followed ultimately by further revolutions.

1. so far we have been adhering to a Marxist definition of class, debating those definitions and which one is right. According to the Marxist definition of class, class is about the relationships between various groups in society. And so if there is no classeS, more than one, there cannot be a class, for there would be nobody for that class to have interclass relationships with. And so if morality is a function of class, in a classless society there can be no morality.

2. We have agreed that the morality of bourgeois society, is actually the interests of the bourgeoisie. Morality, is an ideological tool for the bourgeoisie to justify to the majority that it is in the interest of all, to look after the interests of the bourgeoisie. Their morality is a function of their class interests.

3. Their Morality and Ours. Our morality, the morality of the revolutionary, is equally a class based morality. Again, the murder of the Royal family of rich peasant etc it is morally justified in order to make the social evolutionary leap to all workers state, and eventually a classless society. Their morality is a function of their class interests.

why I am thinking there would not be morality in a classless society is because there would not be a minority, needing to use an ideology/morality, to justify to the majority minority rule. Not only that, I would argue that the notion of morality is merely a childish feudal way of explaining logic.

You can explain it is evil, wrong, the moral to murder someone, but isn't it even better to explain why it is illogical. For sure you could murder someone and gain hundred pounds, but if everybody's doing that how long will you have your hundred pounds? All questions of morality what is right and what is wrong, have a logical argument/S instead of relying upon some feudal, childish, religious, superstitious notion of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral.

for surein a classless society the ability to change social policy in order to satisfy the needs of people would be the more dynamic, but such changes would be based upon rational logical deducements of what the best achieves the well-being of all, rather than a minority. The rationale is out in the open, will need to be concealed, to conceal the class nature of society as they do today.

from day one this decision is educated through the mental means of production, that the individual is in a dialectical relationship with the community. What is good from the community, is good that the individual, and vice versa. It is class relationships that corrupt this in a community.

however, the logically perfect society will probably be impossible to achieve. It will be the vision that we are striving to attain.

so I think other things that you want to be there, what you associate with morality, are there, they are just taking a more rational form. It is in the classless society we can truly strive for the Hegelian principles.

anyway, I'm going to go and read Trotsky now, and see how I've got all this wrong.

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[Binkie]

1. so far we have been adhering to a Marxist definition of class, debating those definitions and which one is right. According to the Marxist definition of class, class is about the relationships between various groups in society. And so if there is no classeS, more than one, there cannot be a class, for there would be nobody for that class to have interclass relationships with. And so if morality is a function of class, in a classless society there can be no morality.

You're saying that Marxists say you cannot have just one class. For example you might start with two classes, one class removes the other, then there are none. Not sustainable arithmetically. This theory needs revising and developing. Don't worry about criticizing and revising Marxism. Marx did so himself. Scientific theories are unselfconsciously revised. Marxists must develop Marxism. That means change.

 

[kyser_soze]

Again, the murder of the Royal family of rich peasant etc it is morally justified in order to make the social evolutionary leap to all workers state, and eventually a classless society

That's the morality of the Ruling Class - if the peasants get uppity what are they likely to do? Kill them. Killing a Royal Family is simply a reversal of class roles caused by circumstance (the peasants have the monopoly of force) not a different morality.

Binkies first post explains what I meant in my long one BTW.

And here's one...what possible hierarchies could emerge within a future Marxist society?