A confession

[psychoslice]

Just be yourself, or find yourself, you don't need any ideologies, they only rub you from your true being, they are like a parasite sucking your life from you.

 

[Curious George]

The social isolation has become a major problem as there isn't somewhere I can go to let off steam about all the moral, social and psychological negatives (except RF) nor anyone I can turn to inorder to ask questions, get some sort of guidance or reassurance. Without a party to join it feels very futile like a drop in an ocean.

The thought of going "more extreme" just hurts because I'd be pushing people away. I'm not sure how many people realise how difficult it is to pursue "dangerous" ideas in free societies because whilst the government may offically only watch, you are still living with the consequences in every other way with the unhealthy mix of paranoia, anxiety and everything else. So its complicated' messy and unpleasant- particularly when no-one expect you to succeed in the first place.

The best analogy is the sort of mad scientist trying to develop a flying machine in the middle ages. As much as you keep trying, sometimes you just want to destroy the dam thing for all it costs you. You can't be sure it works until you've actually done it but until then you're left with the agony of people watching you drive it over the cliff and falling into the ocean with a big splash. Trying to put a brave face on it only gets you so far before the frustration and anger takes over.

I recently have been watching this guy on youtube for inspiration and just to laugh at myself. I know this feeling well.

The verbage matters.

Trying to devise a system based on purely on first principles or from intelligent design is like creationism. It means substituting yourself for god when human beings don't possess either the omnipotence or omniscience to actually make their ideas work. So You can't will something into existence, it has to be already growing and developing.

If you are trying to build a flying machine from scratch, you look at it scientifically (or methodically by trial and error if you prefer). Rather than build on first principles that something that is "beautiful" or "divine" is practical based on the wisdom of the ancients, you study natural occurences of flight such as in birds. Using that then gives you an understanding of areodynamics from the shape of a birds wing to achieve enough lift and you can work from there. You've shown that these first principles may actually bear some relationship to reality rather than wholly on philosophical speculation or guess work.

Marxism is heavily into social evolution (and is arguably derivative of a form of social darwinism), so litterally the communist system "evolves" from what already exists. Its assumes that within capitalism there exists the proletariat as the class that will "grow" inti the revolutionary class that establishes socialism as a sort of organic process that occurs irrespective of individuals. The problem for me is that the only large scale working examples of communism which to draw inspiration from are exceedingly repulsive and disturbing.

Ideas go through a process of natural selection in society and so no single individual can concieve or build a system at once. Marx built on classical economics, french socialism and aspects of Hegel's thinking in german philosophy as pre-existing ideas. Ideas are like tools to describe and explain how things work. If the society hasn't developed the right "tool kit" for someone to come along and build an idea, it won't happen. Whilst Leonardo da vinci had sketches for a flying machine, he didn't necessarily have either the scientific understanding or technological means or economic conditions to build it as the "tools" were not avaliable at the time.

This is why the same idea can be developed by different people at the same time as the oppurtunity and necessity exist for developing them. So Marx and Engels came up with historical materialism simultaneously (along with the lesser known Joseph Dietzgen in the USA), like Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace both came up with evolution by natural selection independently.

The difficulty for me, is that I lack the intellectual "tools" to find a satisfactory solution. there are huge gaps in my understanding that act as a limit to what I'd like to do so I keep going round in circles. Basically I haven't got to the stage where the idea will "take off" yet.

Then take from the ancients and nature and answer my question: on what principles ought the best system or organization be built?

 

[Laika]

Then take from the ancients and nature and answer my question: on what principles ought the best system or organization be built?

What "works". If you want principles: it has to be practical, efficient, equipped with advanced theoretical understanding of how society works and by methodical/scientific in trial and error as one giant social experiment which can learn from its mistakes.

North Korea and the Stalinist model developed in the USSR and eastern europe or Maoist China as the only large scale working prototype of a communist society. Thats what it would have to be based on and its potentially one soulless giant prison camp.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Curious George]

What "works". If you want principles: it has to be practical, efficient, equipped with advanced theoretical understanding of how society works and by methodical/scientific in trial and error as one giant social experiment which can learn from its mistakes.

North Korea and the Stalinist model developed in the USSR and eastern europe or Maoist China as the only large scale working prototype of a communist society. Thats what it would have to be based on and its potentially one soulless giant prison camp.

Does that answer your question?

No that doesn't answer my question because you are speaking about communism specifically, but have posted earlier that you disagree or at least do not like with communism because of principles, yet I do not see those principles listed.

"What works" is an interesting principle, how do you define whether or not a system works?

 

[Laika]

No that doesn't answer my question because you are speaking about communism specifically, but have posted earlier that you disagree or at least do not like with communism because of principles, yet I do not see those principles listed.

"What works" is an interesting principle, how do you define whether or not a system works?

The reason I've come both sceptical and hostile to communism (still within it for now) is that this extreme pragmatism means that the planning system takes precedence over all other concerns.

If you have a principle that conflicts with the plan, your opposed to it. The only acceptable principles are the only that promote and enable the planning process to take place. The planning system not only plans the economy but people's ideas by social engineering and only those ideas that serve the interests of the planning structure are permitted. This is a massive intrusion into free thought as a source for all other freedoms. Moreover, there is a strong indication that the value of ideas under such a system is only in conforming to them as having convictions can lead to opposition even from within the communist ideology itself.

I have serious ethical concerns about how that kind of state decides life and death questions such as dealing with opponents under a "dictatorship of the proletariat". These have never gone away and have been consistent for many years. The tendency is to deny that there is an issue at all and I have found no satisfactory answer.

This is where the problem starts as the most efficient way of dealing with opposition is to kill them. It takes too much time and resources to convince them otherwise. That sort of "calculation" sets me on edge to say the least. When you have an ethical system driven almost solely by expediency the results won't be good as violence becomes a tool to control people and is no longer a last resort. This is the point where my understanding has reached.

 

[Curious George]

The reason I've come both sceptical and hostile to communism (still within it for now) is that this extreme pragmatism means that the planning system takes precedence over all other concerns.

If you have a principle that conflicts with the plan, your opposed to it. The only acceptable principles are the only that promote and enable the planning process to take place. The planning system not only plans the economy but people's ideas by social engineering and only those ideas that serve the interests of the planning structure are permitted. This is a massive intrusion into free thought as a source for all other freedoms. Moreover, there is a strong indication that the value of ideas under such a system is only in conforming to them as having convictions can lead to opposition even from within the communist ideology itself.

I have serious ethical concerns about how that kind of state decides life and death questions such as dealing with opponents under a "dictatorship of the proletariat". These have never gone away and have been consistent for many years. The tendency is to deny that there is an issue at all and I have found no satisfactory answer.

This is where the problem starts as the most efficient way of dealing with opposition is to kill them. It takes too much time and resources to convince them otherwise. That sort of "calculation" sets me on edge to say the least. When you have an ethical system driven almost solely by expediency the results won't be good as violence becomes a tool to control people and is no longer a last resort. This is the point where my understanding has reached.

Still feel like we are not connecting here. Let's start basic. Define how we evaluate "what works," ""efficient" and "pragmatic." A system that serves only itself does not seem like a beneficial system.

 

[Laika]

Still feel like we are not connecting here. Let's start basic. Define how we evaluate "what works," ""efficient" and "pragmatic." A system that serves only itself does not seem like a beneficial system.

Agreed. (I realise my thinking style is increasingly alien due to marxist influence so my apologies).

"What works": an idea that produces its indended consequences. This is the marxist measure for truth. I.e. If you implement an idea and it produces the intended outcome it is considered "true" enough.

"Efficient": the way of achieving a goal with minimum effort, time and resources.

"Pragmatic": I'm using pragmatic as a substitute for practical. So like "what works" what is pragmatic is to find an idea that produces an intended outcome.

I.e. It is more efficient to kill the opposition (bullets are cheap).
I.e. It is more pragmatic to kill the opposition (as it is lower risk than trusting or tolerating them).

A system that serves itself is self-perpetuating. You have to believe the system is benifitial apriori before you support it. If I don't accept the premise that socialism is benifital in the long term (sort of like investing in the future anticipated returns of a system) I'm not prepared to accept the costs.

 

[Curious George]

Agreed. (I realise my thinking style is increasingly alien due to marxist influence so my apologies).

"What works": an idea that produces its indended consequences. This is the marxist measure for truth. I.e. If you implement an idea and it produces the intended outcome it is considered "true" enough.

"Efficient": the way of achieving a goal with minimum effort, time and resources.

"Pragmatic": I'm using pragmatic as a substitute for practical. So like "what works" what is pragmatic is to find an idea that produces an intended outcome.

I.e. It is more efficient to kill the opposition (bullets are cheap).
I.e. It is more pragmatic to kill the opposition (as it is lower risk than trusting or tolerating them).

A system that serves itself is self-perpetuating. You have to believe the system is benifitial apriori before you support it. If I don't accept the premise that socialism is benifital in the long term (sort of like investing in the future anticipated returns of a system) I'm not prepared to accept the costs.

But again why is it beneficial, to whom is it beneficial, how is it beneficial. You must have some guage of what it means to benefit in order to judge something as beneficial. This is what I am asking. What makes any system or organization beneficial. And I swear if you say that it is beneficial if it benefits the system I will sh*t.

 

[Curious George]

Agreed. (I realise my thinking style is increasingly alien due to marxist influence so my apologies).

"What works": an idea that produces its indended consequences. This is the marxist measure for truth. I.e. If you implement an idea and it produces the intended outcome it is considered "true" enough.

And what are the intended consequences of the best system or organization?

 

[Laika]

But again why is it beneficial, to whom is it beneficial, how is it beneficial. You must have some guage of what it means to benefit in order to judge something as beneficial. This is what I am asking. What makes any system or organization beneficial. And I swear if you say that it is beneficial if it benefits the system I will sh*t.

For the "why" is it benifital, It is implied that very existence of socialism/communism will eliminate exploitation (as the workers will control all of the products of their labour collectively rather than it being "stolen" as profit by capitalists), it will end oppression by an exploiting class by instituting new forms of direct democracy and ultimately create a stateless society and it would end the alienation of the workers from their capacity to work (i.e. Its under their own control rather than sold/controlled by a capitalist). These are considered preconditions to a more humane society.

To whom is it benifital depends on whether communism abolishes class, or instead creates a new exploiting class system ruled by a bureaucracy. If it abolishes class, it eliminates the necessity of the state to regulate social conflict, establishes a stateless anarchist society that ends systems of law and replaces it with forms of rehabilitation based on educating people to behave morally. If its a class society- its the most powerful state ever concieved and realised in human history with no limits to its authority and no guarentees of human rights.

How it is benifital is that the planning system brings the entirity of nature and society under conscious human control. What this means is you could prevent wars, recessions, financial panics, etc because the "anarchy" of market competition has been replaced by rational control by the state.

And what are the intended consequences of the best system or organization?

A massive growth in the power to do things ("freedom" in a sense) using science and technology, mass production and planned economic growth. At the more utopian end of the spectrum is the belief that planning combined with advanced technology will allow us to master nature. One example would be using climate engineering technologies to respond to climate change, or restore lost biodiversity through genetic engineering. Think Jurrassic Park- without the ending.

Communists had many ideas that are current in trans-humanism by using science and technology to achieve" human enhancement" of our physical and mental capabilities, life extension or immortality, etc. Communists were always very into science fiction many science fiction writers were left wing (e.g. H.G.Wells who wrote the war of the worlds, the time machine, etc).

Another possibility is that the economic system will create such an abundence of goods that it will eliminate poverty, hunger, prevent disease, universal free health care, education, childcare, etc.

Based on establishing a world government and ending competition for markets it could eliminate war, lead to disarmameng of conventional weapons and of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Some would abolish the family, marriage and inheritence, institute free love (though this was less common).

Religion, as an "irrational" superstition would be replaced by a scientific morality and atheism would liberate man from organised religion, myths of the afterlife to value our physical existence, eliminate religion as a source of conflict, authoritarianism, persecution, etc.

Space exploration and colonisation along with automation, robotics and the elimination of socially necessary work are also common goals for the long-run.

Is that a bit clearer?

 

[Curious George]

For the "why" is it benifital, It is implied that very existence of socialism/communism will eliminate exploitation (as the workers will control all of the products of their labour collectively rather than it being "stolen" as profit by capitalists), it will end oppression by an exploiting class by instituting new forms of direct democracy and ultimately create a stateless society and it would end the alienation of the workers from their capacity to work (i.e. Its under their own control rather than sold/controlled by a capitalist). These are considered preconditions to a more humane society.

To whom is it benifital depends on whether communism abolishes class, or instead creates a new exploiting class system ruled by a bureaucracy. If it abolishes class, it eliminates the necessity of the state to regulate social conflict, establishes a stateless anarchist society that ends systems of law and replaces it with forms of rehabilitation based on educating people to behave morally. If its a class society- its the most powerful state ever concieved and realised in human history with no limits to its authority and no guarentees of human rights.

How it is benifital is that the planning system brings the entirity of nature and society under conscious human control. What this means is you could prevent wars, recessions, financial panics, etc because the "anarchy" of market competition has been replaced by rational control by the state.



A massive growth in the power to do things ("freedom" in a sense) using science and technology, mass production and planned economic growth. At the more utopian end of the spectrum is the belief that planning combined with advanced technology will allow us to master nature. One example would be using climate engineering technologies to respond to climate change, or restore lost biodiversity through genetic engineering. Think Jurrassic Park- without the ending.

Communists had many ideas that are current in trans-humanism by using science and technology to achieve" human enhancement" of our physical and mental capabilities, life extension or immortality, etc. Communists were always very into science fiction many science fiction writers were left wing (e.g. H.G.Wells who wrote the war of the worlds, the time machine, etc).

Another possibility is that the economic system will create such an abundence of goods that it will eliminate poverty, hunger, prevent disease, universal free health care, education, childcare, etc.

Based on establishing a world government and ending competition for markets it could eliminate war, lead to disarmameng of conventional weapons and of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Some would abolish the family, marriage and inheritence, institute free love (though this was less common).

Religion, as an "irrational" superstition would be replaced by a scientific morality and atheism would liberate man from organised religion, myths of the afterlife to value our physical existence, eliminate religion as a source of conflict, authoritarianism, persecution, etc.

Space exploration and colonisation along with automation, robotics and the elimination of socially necessary work are also common goals for the long-run.

Is that a bit clearer?

A bit. I feel it is still a bit hazy though. You seem to be suggesting that compassion, humanitarianism, and technological advancement are the values. Are these the only ones? Would any system that optimizes these be the best system?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Some ideologies are meant to be grown out of - communism, objectivism, satanism, to name a few. It's only worrisome when someone doesn't grow out adolescent ideologies at an appropriate time.

 

[Laika]

A bit. I feel it is still a bit hazy though. You seem to be suggesting that compassion, humanitarianism, and technological advancement are the values. Are these the only ones? Would any system that optimizes these be the best system?

I think so. I mean if we can cure disease and give people longer and more fulfulling life, it makes sense to say we should. If we could get rid of all the worlds worst preventable evils using science and technology, shouldn't we?

The dillemma is that our creative power can also be used for destructive ends. A state powerful enough to feed a whole country is also powerful enough to starve it. Many would cliam (with reasonable justification) that communists did precisely that in Ukraine. The dark side is whats really difficult to deal with.

Holodomor - Wikipedia