- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,468
- Country
- Romania
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dam, I know that feeling.
The Spanish version of article I quoted is here:
Guevara (1965): El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba.
The links below may be very useful. Its easily the best resource for original Marxist material on the internet.
Marxist Internet Archive (Spainish): Marxists Internet Archive - Sección en Español
Available works of Che Guevara (Spainish): Che Guevara: Escritos
Thanks. Its a question with far-reaching consequences and I'm not really sure which side I'm on ultimately. Its worth mentioning that the very definition of "freedom" is different in Marxist literature than will be found amongst "Classical Liberal" texts.
So using Google search, Liberty is defined as:
"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views."
The Marxist definition of freedom is different because of the background philosophy to it. I'll quote it in context so you get an idea of why it's different. Marxists believe that everything is governed by laws of cause and effect or necessity, and so it is only by gaining knowledge of those laws that we can harness them and use them in such a way that serves our interests.
"Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence of natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental life of men themselves- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought and not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with real knowledge of the subject ... Freedom therefore consists of the control over ourselves and over external nature which is founded on the knowledge of natural necessity." (Quote from Fredrick Engels, Anti-Duhring)
The idea of defining Freedom as Control obviously raises some hair-raising questions as if freedom means control over other people effectively as slaves, making them instruments to serve anothers interests. Freedom, or rather "freedom of action" basically means Power (using Google again):
"the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way."
So its not very re-assuring when this is applied to legal and constitutional arrangements. There is no consistent position on Marxists on whether "Liberty" actually has a place in a Communist system. For example, "Freedom of Speech" under Communism means something different because it assumes a) the validity of Marxist conception of nature and society that everything is governed by casual laws and b) that those laws must be harnessed in the interests of the Communist Party representing the ruling class in the worker's state. i.e. you can only say what the communist party agrees with based on the assumption it is the source of scientific knowledge for "correctly" managing society. Speech which is regarded as distorting Marxist "Scientific" knowledge is therefore regarded as harmful and restricted.
So if the basic philosophy behind Marxism is wrong, its not hard to see how economic and political liberalism could therefore have advantages if you don't want to have a society where you are going to be compelled to do what the Party tells you to. Its a leap in the dark from what we are used to however you look at it.
Dam, I know that feeling.
The Spanish version of article I quoted is here:
Guevara (1965): El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba.
The links below may be very useful. Its easily the best resource for original Marxist material on the internet.
Marxist Internet Archive (Spainish): Marxists Internet Archive - Sección en Español
Available works of Che Guevara (Spainish): Che Guevara: Escritos
Thanks. Its a question with far-reaching consequences and I'm not really sure which side I'm on ultimately. Its worth mentioning that the very definition of "freedom" is different in Marxist literature than will be found amongst "Classical Liberal" texts.
So using Google search, Liberty is defined as:
"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views."
The Marxist definition of freedom is different because of the background philosophy to it. I'll quote it in context so you get an idea of why it's different. Marxists believe that everything is governed by laws of cause and effect or necessity, and so it is only by gaining knowledge of those laws that we can harness them and use them in such a way that serves our interests.
"Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence of natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental life of men themselves- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought and not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with real knowledge of the subject ... Freedom therefore consists of the control over ourselves and over external nature which is founded on the knowledge of natural necessity." (Quote from Fredrick Engels, Anti-Duhring)
The idea of defining Freedom as Control obviously raises some hair-raising questions as if freedom means control over other people effectively as slaves, making them instruments to serve anothers interests. Freedom, or rather "freedom of action" basically means Power (using Google again):
"the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way."
So its not very re-assuring when this is applied to legal and constitutional arrangements. There is no consistent position on Marxists on whether "Liberty" actually has a place in a Communist system. For example, "Freedom of Speech" under Communism means something different because it assumes a) the validity of Marxist conception of nature and society that everything is governed by casual laws and b) that those laws must be harnessed in the interests of the Communist Party representing the ruling class in the worker's state. i.e. you can only say what the communist party agrees with based on the assumption it is the source of scientific knowledge for "correctly" managing society. Speech which is regarded as distorting Marxist "Scientific" knowledge is therefore regarded as harmful and restricted.
So if the basic philosophy behind Marxism is wrong, its not hard to see how economic and political liberalism could therefore have advantages if you don't want to have a society where you are going to be compelled to do what the Party tells you to. Its a leap in the dark from what we are used to however you look at it.
Another question for the communist: how can you write such a fine post about the Orwellian nature of Marxism, atheism and scientism (i.e., the pretzel logic and the intellectual dishonesty involved), and still call yourself an atheist communist? You're a better spokesman than I am against all, yet you wish to try to cling to it?Thanks. Its a question with far-reaching consequences and I'm not really sure which side I'm on ultimately. Its worth mentioning that the very definition of "freedom" is different in Marxist literature than will be found amongst "Classical Liberal" texts.
So using Google search, Liberty is defined as:
"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views."
The Marxist definition of freedom is different because of the background philosophy to it. I'll quote it in context so you get an idea of why it's different. Marxists believe that everything is governed by laws of cause and effect or necessity, and so it is only by gaining knowledge of those laws that we can harness them and use them in such a way that serves our interests.
"Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence of natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental life of men themselves- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought and not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with real knowledge of the subject ... Freedom therefore consists of the control over ourselves and over external nature which is founded on the knowledge of natural necessity." (Quote from Fredrick Engels, Anti-Duhring)
The idea of defining Freedom as Control obviously raises some hair-raising questions as if freedom means control over other people effectively as slaves, making them instruments to serve anothers interests. Freedom, or rather "freedom of action" basically means Power (using Google again):
"the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way."
So its not very re-assuring when this is applied to legal and constitutional arrangements. There is no consistent position on Marxists on whether "Liberty" actually has a place in a Communist system. For example, "Freedom of Speech" under Communism means something different because it assumes a) the validity of Marxist conception of nature and society that everything is governed by casual laws and b) that those laws must be harnessed in the interests of the Communist Party representing the ruling class in the worker's state. i.e. you can only say what the communist party agrees with based on the assumption it is the source of scientific knowledge for "correctly" managing society. Speech which is regarded as distorting Marxist "Scientific" knowledge is therefore regarded as harmful and restricted.
So if the basic philosophy behind Marxism is wrong, its not hard to see how economic and political liberalism could therefore have advantages if you don't want to have a society where you are going to be compelled to do what the Party tells you to. Its a leap in the dark from what we are used to however you look at it.
Another question for the communist: how can you write such a fine post about the Orwellian nature of Marxism, atheism and scientism (i.e., the pretzel logic and the intellectual dishonesty involved), and still call yourself an atheist communist? You're a better spokesman than I am against all, yet you wish to try to cling to it?
Marxism would claim to be a science.
Marxism would claim to be a science. If I watch a person fall off a cliff, I may think that the law of gravity is immoral because it kills people. That does not change whether gravity exists though. The same problem applies to Communism as based on "laws of history". If those laws of history exist objectively, regardless as to whether I desire their course or outcome, communism is still the ultimate outcome. The fact it may be evil doesn't change their reality. Put another way, an evil god is still god and something you have to reckon with.
Intellectually, its not a straight forward case of Marxism being "false", that laws of history do not exist and communism cannot/will not happen again. Arguing that Capitalism is "natural" and therefore an eternal and permanent condition doesn't sit easily with the fact it is only two or maybe three hundred years old. Certain ideas in Marxism may continue to be true or useful even if the ideology as a whole leads down a blind alley. It is a complex system of ideas and to reject Marxism in one go would be like many atheists saying Christianity is "wrong" or "evil" without understanding the history, theology or even reading the bible and key texts. (i.e. Extremely simplistic at best, intellectually dishonest and shallow bigotry at worst).
Personally, I wrestle with this a great deal. On the one hand, it is horrific to think of a society based on unlimited, unrestricted and arbitrary power because of all the potential and actual abuses, but on the other it is a logical extension of the social progress that (eventually) we will get scientifically and technologically so advanced that we can effectively control everything and know everything. We could read people's minds eventually. Our society has put microphones and cameras in every home by making them commercially available in laptops, smart televisions, game consoles, phones, etc. We have developed an online network in which people share their entire lives and can be publicly criticised and humiliated in hysterical bursts of public outrage over slight deviations for "normal" behaviour. Facebook has been used to manipulate people's moods, can predict your political views based on what you "like" and search engines can change how you vote. And then we have surveillance drones to watch you when you are offline. The NSA could do a lot more than spy on their girlfriends.
Unfortunately, this degree of knowledge and control is also a precondition for any meaningful utopia in the future; if you can't control the world in some form, you can't make it serve human interests and make it "better". The tricky part is that anyone who has the power to make heaven on earth can use it to make hell on earth as well. Who has the power to decide what is "better" and put it in to practice? This is where the moral dilemma's kick in and there aren't easy answers to it because it is about how people chose to use that power. Being a Communist can therefore be a useful insight.
What happens gain economic favor and then uses said prominence and influence to use the state to systematically oppress any undesirable classes or groups of people they simply do not feel fondly towards or perhaps may potentionally be a threat to those in powers dominance or social standing?hey there,
I've been a Communist sympathiser for nearly ten years. It is the closest thing I have to a "faith" and the decision to "convert" was one I made at a vulnerable time in my life when I started suffering from depression and came out as bisexual. Had I not been an atheist, I probably would have had a religious conversion to something else entirely but that's how it turned out. Its value is very debatable but it is part of who I am and works well enough for me on a day to day basis, even with the problems coming from depression.
As it is taboo, its difficult to make a meaningful contribution to a forum unless your open about it as you're never quite sure what to say or how people react. You all seem like nice people and I hope I can find a useful and lasting place here on CF even with the obvious differences of opinion.
As far as I can tell its ok to post this here, so you are very welcome to ask about personal stuff, or communist theory, history, etc. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have.
Wasn't it the forbidden fruit?The fact you claim their volunteerism is antithetical to true socialism illustrates my point.
Socialism takes other people's possessions by force, and that's what makes it so sinful.
Exodus20v17
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Socialism points the finger at your neighbour's nice house, donkey, car, house, money etc. and says, "Vote for me and I will make him give his money to you!"
Its theft driven by covetousness, but if we call it taxes we can get away with it.
I cannot see how any Christian can fear God and be a socialist. The two are mutually exclusive.
Yeah I guess it really is just communism. It's not so much the idea of evenly distributing the wealth, or social assistance but the idea of communism itself, lol. I would say then you can only be a socialist then I supppose.The best summing up I've ever come across of the fundamental error of Marxism is the memorial to victims of communism in Prague. The idea that 'scientific' social engineering and doing away with intangible notions of man having a soul or the importance of family can somehow lead to a beneficial outcome is probably the dumbest idea any person has ever had. Reading some of Marx's bizarre rantings at God over some unspecified disappointment in his life gives an insight into the deeper roots of his ideas. He most certainly wasn't a altruist.
Yeah I guess it really is just communism. It's not so much the idea of evenly distributing the wealth, or social assistance but the idea of communism itself, lol. I would say then you can only be a socialist then I supppose.
Even classicsl liberalism is in line with socialism is still considered conservative, but it's just blah. There needs to be something directed at helping people though. I don't know if the rich continually getting wealthier while the rest of the world lives in abjacent poverty is really in anyway justifiable though either.
I think Churchill was right in saying that the western capitalist model of democracy is absolutely the worst form of government - apart from all the others.
Superficial notions about the evils of capitalism don’t really have the same ring that they did in the first half of the last century. It would be hard to argue that brutal corporate practices across Latin America didn’t create the conditions for revolution, but it’s just as hard to argue now - without relying on jingoism and simplistic, one-sided notions about the free market model - that there exists any other system of government that has, in actual, realistic, pragmatic terms, brought more benefit to more people than the free market economy, flawed and abused as it is.
What would you define as free or in what way benefited though? It can be really dependant upon the framework that one is looking through when defining or placing value as those concepts.
But I've never entirely been against the free market at all, it does work and I don't have any problems with it but I can't help but feel like it's an ideal almost more then anything at this point. I guess I don't entirely have a vast knowlege of the economics behind it though, it's kind of dependant on what your views are.
Ha ha yes, if only there were reneweable energy sources.Yes it is kind of an ideal. But it’s the best way, in the ‘world’ as in outside of the kingdom, to provide people the opportunity to exercise the freedom to act fairly and to make the best use of their abilities for self and others. That not everyone chooses to do that, and that some choose to limit other’s freedoms, is just as much about the failings of human nature as under any other system.
Ha ha yes, if only there were reneweable energy sources.
Well yes, even here in Canada we have made strides to utilize our solar wind energy more so, but what has American done, lolololololllol.There seems to be progress. Some countries, including Portugal for some reason, are ahead of the curve
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?