How Do You Define Morality?

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.

The trouble arises in the gulf between theory and practice. In Russia there were Soviets in every workplace and town. My father-in-law had to watch pro-communist films at night after working all day, and if he nodded off in exhaustion he was woken up with the business end of an assault rifle. The kulaks in Ukraine didn't want their farms taken away and collectivized, so Stalin deliberately starved them to death. The democratic part broke down.

Originally Posted by DanaC

We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.

Some of them were the monasteries (I am familiar with Orthodox monasteries, rather than RC ones)! The communal model has always been the monastic standard. However, these are small communities whose main raison d'etre isn't to attempt an ideal economic or social system. Most small communes I've read about that are based primarily on a social model don't seem to have done well long-term. Still, I realize there was a great deal of legitimate unrest and frustration in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Originally Posted by DanaC

And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".

While the Soviets in Russia didn't dictate who should get married, they did control education, activities, and careers. China has dictated number of children per family. I admit that sex and parentage are an extrapolation, but one that isn't far-fetched if a very efficient government were in control. It would be the logical development of assessing each person's appropriate contribution to society.

In Canada the public schools promote socialist philosophy, and kids are taught that policies different from Canada's are 'bad' (my kids experienced this when we were back there for a couple of years). No discussion of alternate policies or politics was permitted. This, in my view, is one type of socialist control of education. Whereas in American schools my kids have been presented with and have discussed several models of government, politics, and issues such as health care.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about increasing freedom, not curtailing it.

I completely agree with the institution of labor laws that provided for safe working environments, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor. Unfortunately, in Canada leftwing activism has led to unions that do curtail freedoms - that dictate who can do what trade or job, and who employers must or must not hire. The streets are monitored with video cameras and a pilot project is in place to try interactive video, i.e. allowing the 'watcher' to shout orders or warnings to people who are violating accepted behavior. In spite of the fact that the government constantly told me (through radio and TV commercials and broadcasts) what I should be doing to be a safe, healthy, good citizen, I did not feel protected. I felt spied on, helpless, and angry.

[piercehawkeye45]

The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.

The best example of what communism is meant to be would what Venezuela is striving for by switching from Social Democracy to Democratic Socialism but it is still far from the communist idea.

In Canada the public schools promote socialist philosophy, and kids are taught that policies different from Canada's are 'bad' (my kids experienced this when we were back there for a couple of years). No discussion of alternate policies or politics was permitted. This, in my view, is one type of socialist control of education. Whereas in American schools my kids have been presented with and have discussed several models of government, politics, and issues such as health care.

Yes, but there is a main focus on capitalism and democracy. They may go over what they are but they don't actually dwell into the theories or how it works. No free thinking is involved.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.

This is such an old and nonsensical argument. If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The best example of what communism is meant to be would what Venezuela is striving for by switching from Social Democracy to Democratic Socialism but it is still far from the communist idea.

Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes, but there is a main focus on capitalism and democracy. They may go over what they are but they don't actually dwell into the theories or how it works. No free thinking is involved.

I disagree with your comment about no free thinking being involved. My (four) kids have had an enormous amount of opportunity and time to discuss and argue in class, and many teachers and students are very pro-socialist. The theories may not be developed at an advanced level (although they will be in whatever colleges the kids attend) but they are well covered. And I think it appropriate that capitalism and democracy are given time; our society and economy are based on them, after all. It's not indoctrination to teach the basis of our system. But the kids definitely do get to discuss and think for themselves. I haven't encountered a whole lot of conservative, capitalist teachers in the dozen places we've lived. Socialist thought is well presented.

[limey]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.....

Originally Posted by orthodoc

This is such an old and nonsensical argument.

How so? As I understand it, the Soviet Union never achieved communism as expressed in Dana's definition of morality, although that was its original aim. The early intentions of the mensheviks, and then Lenin and the bolsheviks was to work towards a withering away of the state, and then it all went awry in the hands of subsequent politicians/power-mongers.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.
...
Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?

In my view communism has never been successfully tried, probably because of the flaw in human nature which Wolf has cited, and to which you also refer. Doesn't mean to say that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is not a nice ideal to strive to attain.
"If each man gives up a thread, you'll get a new shirt for someone who hasn't one".

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

This is such an old and nonsensical argument. If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.

Or, it could mean that Stalin wasn't shooting for a communist state...

Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?

If the idea of communism can work, it will not work in or even close to the first try. You can not expect a theory that needs a different personal philosophy to succeed in the first try, and communism isn't the only leftist socio-economic theory, there are many different variations. To say they will all fail because a variation that wasn't even close to it did is pretty flawed logic.

Personally, I do not think true communist like state can exist from a revolution since the way of living is directly contradicting the nature of how we were raised. A version of social democracy is needed to make a smooth conversion and that might not even be enough. To be successful in a leftist economy, you need to be raised in a leftist philosophy or it will fail.

I disagree with your comment about no free thinking being involved. My (four) kids have had an enormous amount of opportunity and time to discuss and argue in class, and many teachers and students are very pro-socialist. The theories may not be developed at an advanced level (although they will be in whatever colleges the kids attend) but they are well covered. And I think it appropriate that capitalism and democracy are given time; our society and economy are based on them, after all. It's not indoctrination to teach the basis of our system. But the kids definitely do get to discuss and think for themselves. I haven't encountered a whole lot of conservative, capitalist teachers in the dozen places we've lived. Socialist thought is well presented.

What do you consider socialist? My teachers would have been on the same page as the democrats, which isn't really socialism. And just because there is discussion, it doesn't mean they are thinking about it. Most arguments in high school about politics are regurgitated opinions with little meaning to them.

My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

Everyone raised in the same society will share the same moral base. If you take away that base, then your argument is fine but that is unrealistic because every society has a moral base that is roughly the same and you will not have an ethical system if you are not raised in a society. I made the assumption that everyone still had that basic moral base given by our society, then we do have a place to start when it comes to morals. If you use this moral base, not to hurt other people, 90% of moral decisions can be made that way.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You can not expect a theory that needs a different personal philosophy to succeed in the first try, and communism isn't the only leftist socio-economic theory, there are many different variations.

Good point, eh? How long did simple democracy take? The magna carta is heralded as the first democratic contract (even if it was mostly lords getting more power for themselves), but what about the greek cities? How about Rome's attempts? It's been several hundred years by some guages, a couple thousand by others, and I would still argue that we haven't gotten simple democracy right. So the 2 or 3 major countries that tried communism didn't last really means nothing about it's 'plausibility.'

Ask a nobleman a few hundred years ago if the populace was up to ruling themselves, I bet he would have said something like "Oh, they can't be trusted to rule them selves, they can't ignore their simple nature." Socialism is just one more step in human evolution, if you ask me.

Also, ask yourself how much of the distaste you have for communism comes from it being the west's 'enemy' for so long...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Communism? American Indians.

[Undertoad]

Approximately 160,000,000 people were murdered by Communist governments in the 20th century.

That's a lot of distaste. And a lot of people to overlook in a thread about the definition of morality.

[DanaC]

Approximately 160,000,000 people were murdered by Communist governments in the 20th century

I would contend that they were not communist governments. There are plenty of pseudo-democracies in this world. I would suggest that thus far, we have only really had pseudo-communism.

[Undertoad]

How many did the pseudo-democracies kill?

[queequeger]

Wanna go back through all time? Didn't a government calling itself democratic kill, um, Jesus? You can't say that because pseudo-communist countries killed more people, it's somehow more evil. It's not about the system of government they're mimicing, it's about how heinous the bastards in charge are.

...also, the pseudo-communist countries, two of them had quite a hell of a lot of people to work with, so it's a little easier to kill that many.

...also, this is all assuming that communism isn't democratic. In it's inteded form, it's pretty damned democratic.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by queequeger

You can't say that because pseudo-communist countries killed more people, it's somehow more evil.

Say again? Do we have the same understanding of the meaning of the word 'evil'? Evidently not. And enough already with the 'pseudo-communism' labels. Soviet Russia, China, and Cambodia all explicitly declared themselves communist. Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.

Of course, it's the easy but intellectually dishonest thing to say, once your pet project has failed miserably, that it wasn't an example of your pet project at all. How many millions more have to be slaughtered in additional 'tries' to get it right? No more of my family, thanks. Try it on yourself.

...also, the pseudo-communist countries, two of them had quite a hell of a lot of people to work with, so it's a little easier to kill that many.

Sure, what's a few million here or there if you've got extra? Say again???

...also, this is all assuming that communism isn't democratic. In it's inteded form, it's pretty damned democratic.

Nothing democratic about it. Or maybe the Nazis were the real communists. They were the National Socialist Party, after all.

[Undertoad]

It's about how much power the heinous bastards are allotted, and how they can maintain it.

It's about what is fair to human beings and what rights are maintained by the people.

You want to make some sort of Democratic government that is capable of central planning and total redistribution of wealth AND where the power remains in the hands of the people?

Well good luck with that.

[Terminator_484]

I would say, quite simply, that might makes right.

"If each man gives up a thread, you'll get a new shirt for someone who hasn't one".

If he does not give it, do you take it from him?