Diary of a Dirty Commie

[Laika]

Well, I've begun to figure out why I got Marxism "wrong". It's to do with the concept of 'ideology'. Marxism says that even 'science' itself is a form of ideology, but I have still been thinking in terms of "scientific realism". To be more specific, there is a debate in the philosophy of science between realism and idealism. Realism holds that the physical world exists independently of human thought and perception. Idealism cliams that the physical world is in some way dependent on the conscious activity of humans.

This is a little confusing as Marxists despise 'idealism' as "materialists", but basically Hegel was an "idealist" and when Marx used Hegel's conception of the dialectic, he also used the same idea that our understanding of the physical world is in some way dependent on our conscious activity. This became the "class" nature of ideology and that members of a certain class defined the physical world in a way which was dependent on their social position. Marxists therefore fall on the idealist or anti-realist side of the debate in the philosophy of science.

To take a very simple example; in the feudal system, nature was seen in a hierarchial sense with God at the top of the pyramid as the creator. This was a reflection of the hierarchial nature of society with the kind at the top and the serfs at the bottom. "Capitalist" ideology is more difficult because we are so used to it and take it for granted; we believe that capitalism represents the "natural" order of society and that this form of social organisation is a "realistic" assessment of innate selfishness of "human nature".

Of course, a marxist would reply that "human nature" is not an eternal or universal constant (as that assumes we have a soul existing independently of our physical being) but changes over the course of human history with our technological ability to change our environment and the ability of social organisation to change ourselves. Communism therefore represents the point where humans have become masters of the forces of nature, including their own psychology and social organisation and are therefore "free" to change it by a social revolution.

This affected the Marxist conception of science which as an ideology representing a given social class, somewhat "assumed" that materialism was valid and that there was no god. its debatable because this is a question about the nature of what can and cannot be known rather than a knowledge cliam subject to the scientific method. In Marxism, ideology therefore takes precedence over science and, most importantly, ethics. Marxism therefore bears some resemblence to Nihilism in being "idealist" or "anti-realist".

What I got wrong was I mixed up Marxist ("idealist") and liberal ("realist") ideas and they eventually conflicted causing a cognitive dissonence and emotional turmoil. I was using two conflicting ideologies at once and getting my head scrambled. In theory, this means I could therefore now start Marxism from scratch as I know what I got wrong and why I was unable to argue Marxist ideas beyond certian "realistic" limitations. But I could do with probably a bit more "time off" to say the least.

 

[Laika]

I've decided to experiment with Nihilism for a bit. This makes a certian amount of sense as I need to deconstruct and re-examine my beliefs in a rational way. Given that communism hasn't stood up very well to scruitiny, I need to put it through a period of further "stress testing" and to see what stands up to scruitiny. Because Communism is a "worldview" which is all-embracing, either way, I'm going to have to go through a period of destroying many of my own beliefs, whether they are liberal or communist. that might therefore settle some intellectual disputes to a point where I can begin to look at things afresh.

I'm not expecting a blank slate or "passive nihilism", as that is probably too destructive, but I would certianly benifit from a much deeper re-examination of my ideas. I keep bumping into this idea or that idea that I've taken for granted and didn't realise still have an influence of my thinking. I'm still ultimately a product of judeao-christian and liberal thinking and have to lose the baggage to go onto to communism, assuming of course it is a worthwhile to even try again. that deserves some examination too.

 

[Laika]

I've been in a fowl mood for the past two days (depression again, with some existential agnst and anti-commie self-loathing on the side). So to cheer myself up and to lighten up this thread, here is a puppy and a kitten.

its hard to be pissed at something so cute.

 

[Laika]

I was going to post this on my facebook, but decided its better to post it here instead. I prefer the benifit of anonymity and think RF is probably a more hospitable environment for it.

[Insert name] left the Communist Party at the start of September as I realised with great unease, it is still an organisation that is a prisoner of its history. its been hard to find words to describe how I feel after practicing radical honesty on my own beliefs and the history of the far left and falling into a selective denial from time to time. There have been some hard lessons and I hope you don't mind if I share a few. it's admittedly weird timing as Jeremy Corbyn takes over the role of leader of the Labour Party, but I cannot help but feel a comparision can be drawn between the europhoria over Obama and Syriza that didn't deliver as much change as people expected. There is a danger that in a consumer society we have exchanged the substance of radicalism, with all its risks that both inspired and necessitated dedication and commitment to a cause with the knowledge it could fail and come at tremendous costs, with a consumer politics where we think an election of a cult figure is "change" in itself. We Buy and Sell the image of change rather than make it ourselves. we wait to be saved rather than save ourselves. it has admmittedly become hard to tell the difference. The 1945 Labour government was the product of over a century of concerted struggle to improve the lot of working people, combined with the psychological and social effects of two world wars and the great depression. As damaing as years of austerity and recession have been, Corbynmania is still largely a continuation of the libertarian anti-capitalism and anti-politics in which the individual is king, only that it is not a cult of selfishness, but a cult of public dissent, of vocal opposition to the status quo, of raising awareness and shifting debate in the bubble of social media, of speakings truths to the man with the private knowledge of the security of our own marginalisation and the freedoms to speak our mind. changing your vote does not change the world. Even as the tide of right-wing and left-wing populism rises on both sides of the Atlantic, its because we are still at the stage of believing change is possible after years of "there is no alternative". suddenly, they are all coming out at once as the people start going off script in stage managed democracies. There remains a vacuum in the heart of the far left (and perhaps politics in general) that has not been filled in the past three months; a culture of working class solidarity and pragmatism through poverty and hardship that made change possible in the 19th and 20th centuries has been erased in decades of status competition and conspicious consumption arising from the material abundance and psychological poverty of neoliberalism. I know now that I never really understood communism because I was a product of the comforts of my time and not those which people had to fight for in a hand to mouth existence. communism is from a distance a tragi-comedy and yet is monsterous in how unforgivingly people pursued change at any cost. they were that desperate to see it happen and there desperation is what made them dangerous. Corbyn won a leadership contest. that is not the same as winning a general election and implementing changes over a five year parliament with or without a Labour majority. For everyone who supports Corbyn, I get it and I wish you well, but I wouldn't be a good freind or radical if I didn't say be careful what you wish for. we're waking up from past certianties and still not conscious enough to know if we are seeing a sunrise or a sunset. we just see the light on the horizon.

 

[Laika]

my brief bout of nihilism is slowly drawing to an end. it hasn't gone with a bang this time, more like a dripping tap. at first you try to laugh at the absurdity of meaninglessness, but then its just not enough. its partly been down to depression and the confusing mixture of emotions in response to leaving the communist party. it feels like an age ago but is just over two weeks. Really, I'm trying to find my feet. I have a host of personal problems that are feeding into my own intellectual confusion.

the best thing to do is to do what I can to focus on dealing with them and lift the depression. adherence to large and rigid intellectual systems doesn't suit me and they clash with my own feelings and intuition. Marxism has never truly been "mine" because I've don't really know who I am. I have tried to be the good son and freind but that isn't enough. beneath the surface stirrs a host of passions that need to be free. I need to learn to let go of the facade, the mask of sanity. that is a liberation by nihilism. I have a false consciousness not only of the world, but also of myself. I've kept so much too myself that I have not really developed a healthy sense of who I am or a respect for my own boundaries. over-coming that offers the hope of curing depression, but it feels a long way off. it depends how far changing my ideas changes my own inner space and my emotions. metaphorically, I'm beginning to get my first intuition of the vastness of the horizion in front of me. The world feels bigger and little by little, I feel stronger but it is very hesitant.

I need a miracle. something to pick me up and to keep me going. it's possible, but right now, I still feel exhausted. my motivation is inconsistent to say the least. but really, this is the point when I can start to turn things round if I can convince myself that it is possible. All I need is to be inspired.

 

[Laika]

Communism is now "somewhat" behind me. However, my reason for leaving it is actually quite weak. ultimately, its to do with the belief that certain ideas are simply too dangerous to entertain. The problem obviously is that there is a good deal which supports a Marxist philosophy, if a person is willing to accept that knowledge is relative and uncertain. I decided to change my avatar from a picture of Laika (Soviet Space Dog), to a man walking towards a horizion. It is that sense of open space for the first time in my life- an awareness of the infinite and just how much is unknown. it's somewhere between being terrifying and liberating. I think it sums up my mood nicely.

If I were to use an anonology, it is like I have been religious and believed in god, have blamed that god for the evil in the world and then come to realise that that god simply does not exist and cannot be blamed. a dialectic in which my beliefs have negated themselves and left an open space. At first, I mistook this for the 'nothingness' of nihilism, but in order to be aware of nothing, that nothing must necessarily still be 'something'. My understanding of communism is not one which developed in isolation, but was the direct product of many preconceptions. I grossly under-estimated just how revolutionary these ideas were and how profoundly they changed my sense of place in the world. That, at least, explains the nihilism (and perhaps a large part of the depression). I am aware of the dying of old certianities, instead giving a way to new and empty space waiting to be explored. What Marxism got right, was that it revealed just how many things I took for granted as true and as real, based on how little I know. the collision between old certainties and awareness of my own ignorance, whether it is of religious traditions, of history, of scientific theory, or more generally aspects of human society such as art and culture, has given way. The dam has burst and the flood has washed away the old world based upon my illusions. it has been painful, but perhaps necessary if it helps me recover from depression.

I've looked up some stuff on Transhumanism and Anarcho-Capitalism on Youtube. Transhumanism related to the Communist gola of the 'new man', whilst anarcho-capitalism agrees with the 'withering away of the state' and shares a somewhat Marxist view of the law, politics and the state as economic entities. I've been measuring 'free thought' by my willingness to entertain ideas that other people think are heretical, when in fact I need sometime to consider ideas that I would consider to be heretical. What has struck me, is that my approach to Marxism is similar to that of very early science which combined both philosophy with science and has given me a certian flexability in understanding what is real and what can be thought of as real. I've had to look at some of the 'holes' in my understanding of Marxism as a worldview, such as Pavlovian Theories of Consciousness and whether the Big Band and Quantum Mechanics are compatable with materialism. I have become aware of my ignorance and the challange now is not to be afriad of it. To be ignorant is not the same as being powerless, since we can learn and can gain knowledge. it is only an agnostic view, not simply of god but of knowledge in general, which means the knowledge is unobtainable- as is the case with nihilism. To some extent, nihilism retains an authoritarian view that certain forms of knowledge are forbidden hidden behind the mask of scepticism. It is one thing to be sceptical based on my own ignorance; it is quite another to be sceptical because of a compulsion to be wilfully ignorant and afriad of the truth.

 

[Laika]

Why do I write this journal? That perhaps says more about me than I give myself credit for. I get this strange sense that perhaps someone will read it and understand, that there may be that sense of connection which I am missing. I have occassional moments when I long to be a communist again. there is something much deeper than ideology at work here and it is dishonest of me to pretend that I have not repressed something. I still feel something deeply negative about capitalism, but it goes beyond rational objections. When it comes down to it, the notion of individuality has been one where I have felt stigmatised.

For wanting to be different, I have felt as an outsider to my peers. This is supposed to be the crowning achievement of individualism, but it has never felt this way. Whilst I am free to be different, I am still a social animal with a longing to belonging and to be part of the herd. Whether it has been the fact that I read books, loved history, walked alone round the playground during break-times, there is still a part of me that is a child feeling rejected by his peers, that when people laughed it was at me. In the status competition, where people evaluated each other based on what music they liked, what they'd watched on tele, I just read books and I wanted to learn about the world. it was who my parents brought me up to be, but that doesn't interest most people. it was a clash of values of my older left-leaning parents in a "post-deological" neoliberal world of consumer-citizens. that was who I was, and I could not have been expected to realise the sheer gulf that existed between me and my peers for adhering to ways of thinking that died out in the 80's as we reached "the end of history", where there are no socialists or commnunists anymore. And so it happened that my interest in history eventually led me to read a few second hand books that had Marxist theory. it found fertile intellectual soil and grew from there, only for me to realise it's fruits were bitter.

So the notion of walking away from Marxism is deeper than just an "idea". it feels like an intellectual home and a place of relative safety compared to feeling of rootless individualism and the agnsty sense of existential vulnerability and insignifance at the mercy of impersonal "market forces". The desire for belonging to something comes and goes, like getting glimpses of a moon in a night sky hidden behind the clouds. That is a true sense of self. the stigma of being an individual or a communist is an illusion, as somehow, I have accepted a morality hostile to my own true sense of self. From that, comes the illusionary sense of rejection and isolation.

 

[Laika]

"On the Juche Idea": A few Thoughts on North Korean Socialism​

I decided to look into North Korea a little bit. Its not something I know alot about, but has certainly given me pause for thought. The offical ruling ideology of North Korea (or Democratic People's Republic of Korea/DPRK) is known as "Juche" or 'self-reliance'. This self-reliance refers not to the individual, but to the nation. From the DPRK's point of view, it's isolation and backwardness as virtues of winning independence rather than being subservient to either Western Imperialism or Soviet and Chinese Communism.

So I've been reading some of the literature, and it is fascinating. It is simultaneously very familar and very very alien. It contains elements which are clearly Marxist, especially of Stalin's era: the idea of a harminious working people constructing socialism within a single nation, whilst simultaneously waging ruthless class struggle against its enemies, both foreign and domestic, rings a bell. (Intrestingly, there remains reference to a 'world revolution', as there was in Stalin's case, but its debatable how seriously it should be taken.) However, this is clearly not the logically self-consistent philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism with which I am familiar, particularly the emphasis on the role of the 'leader' and of the goal of national soverignty and independence.

There is a complex relationship between the internationalism of class and of the nationalism of a nation-state in Marxist ideologies (after Lenin) reflecting the realities of 'real politik' in a world of national borders and conflict. In the Soviet case, foreign policy was seen as an extension of internal politics; the class struggle was waged not only within the country but in the international arena. The world was divided into two armed camps; the socialist camp and the capitalist camp. So people like Stalin, Mao and Che Guervara, all agreed that a world war with the "capitalist" nations was (to a greater or lesser extent) inevitable in accordance with laws of history (with all it's nuclear fallout ). This changed with Khruschev who, following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, established the idea of 'peaceul co-existence' and that the primary means for competition between socialist and capitalist systems would be economic, rather than military. This was one of the reasons for the 'Sino-Soviet split' between the USSR and China (along with Khruschev's secret speech denoucing Stalin and taking the road of limited De-Stalinization), as Mao still held to the old idea that war was inevitable and accused the Russians of 'revisionism'/watering down marxist theory, whilst the Russians in turn accused the Chinese of dogmatism/theorising in isolation from practice.

This represented a 'schism' in the Communist bloc between "Marxist-Leninist" and "Maoist" schools, both attributing authority to the 'genius' of Lenin whilst then arguing over interpretation of Stalin's legacy. Most Eastern European countries sided with Russia (except Albania, which took the Chinese side). I'm some what unclear about whether Vietnam was on China's side as there were later clashes between them over the Khmur Rouge (China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979 and China lost). North Korea played the USSR and China off each other, gaining favours whilst remaining nominally independent outside the sphere of influence. Juche Ideology reflects this, with a curious blend of both Stalin era and Maoist ideology, as well as a few of its own inventions.

The text itself (of Kim Jong il's "On the Juche Idea") in terms of style, it sterotypically propagandistic, with exhuastive repetition of key phrases, such as the "independence, creativity and consciousness of the working people", etc. In that sense, it borrows stylisticaly from Stalin whose works are very clear explanations of the orthodoxy he's trying to establish.It is, thankfully, no where near as beliigerent as Lenin's style which became 'standardised' in the USSR so everyone hates the class enemy- there are still traces of it though when it refers to 'reactionary, exploiting classes'. For this reason, Stalin is probably one of the 'best' writers in terms of communicating Marxist thought as he is writing for a general reader without assuming a background knowledge of Marxism. most Marxist works are based on inter-party disputes and agonising over doctorine and so are incomprehensible and read like some strange form of vodoo where just because it's published in English, doesn't mean you understand it. Themes of nationalism, the people's struggle for independence, soverignty, national-liberation, as well as assumptions of harmony amongst the people are shared between Stalin and Kim Jong Il's interpretation of Marxism. Intrestingly, "On the Juche Idea" is Kim Jong il's codification of his fathers ideas (Kim il Sung), thereby establishing him as the 'offical' interpreter of the state's ideology, which is exactly what Stalin did following the death of Lenin in writing "The Foundations of Leninism", so there is a parallel in the struggle for power as well.

However, in Kim Jong il's case, there are noticable Maoist influnces. I'm not 100% sure, but Mao clearly placed great emphasis on the role of ideology in society, even more than the Soviets did. This can be seen in Mao's work "Combat Liberalism" which more or less insists that hostility to any idea deviating from Marxism is proportional to commitment to Marxism. 'ideas' start to take on a very strong active role in social development, independently of their economic role. This is also present in the works of Stalin, but is even more acute. This would explain why China went through the Upheaval of the Cultural Revolution to assert (very aggressively) the 'correct' ideas. There is a section dealing with defence which argues that it is not superior weaponry that wins a war, but 'revolutionary consciousness of the masses' (i.e. sheer blind fanaticism). it's no wonder no-one wants to invade them as they've mobilised and indoctorinated the whole population with a war mentality from day one they are born on this earth. It is this emphasis on ideas which comes through in Kim Jong il's words, as it is clear that the role of the 'leader' as the disseminator of the "absolutely correct Juche idea" takes on a meaning independent of both class, party and socio-economic system. It is a logical extension of the Cult of Lenin, Stalin and Mao that a '"great leader" is responsible for endowing the masses with class consciousness as the 'vangaurd of the proletariat', only taken to the point where the "Dear Leader" is by some inherent qualitity, always correct. based on what I've read so far this qualitiy does not appear to be defined or limited in scope. As Orwell would put it, it's literally, "Comrade Napoleon is always right."

Korean Communism is a product of both Koreans living in China during it's Civil War and Russia, as well as the Independence movement against Japan, perhaps explaining this rather excentric combination of ideological influences. its somewhat instructive in how Marxist thought does not exist in isolation as a 'pure' doctorine, but develops in relation to circumstances and cultural influences. (That said, Chinese and Soviet sympathisers in the Korean workers party were purged in the 1950's as Kim Il Sung consolodated his power in the country). it is this argument for "national soverignty" and "independence" which still makes Juche distinct as a primarily (but not exclusively) nationalistic interpretation of Marxism. This is in keeping with Stalin's notion of "Socialism in one country", but nationalism was still subordinate to social class, to a materialist conception of history as governed by objective laws and to the socio-economic system. Juche, puts nationalism first so that "man is the master of everything and decides everything" embodied in the state. Whilst it is debatable, how far the active role of ideas and institutions can be taken in consolodating the economic basis in socialist society, Juche goes one step further and treats the nation in abstraction from the socio-economic system. This is probably why, even though it uses the language of socialism and marxism, it was later decided that it goes beyond Marxism and represents something "new". This is why "Juche" replaced Marxism-Leninism as the offical ideology in the DPRK's constituin in 1972: Marxism and Communism is no longer mentioned in the DPRK's constitution as of revisions in 1992 and 1998.

 

[Curious George]

Why do I write this journal? That perhaps says more about me than I give myself credit for. I get this strange sense that perhaps someone will read it and understand, that there may be that sense of connection which I am missing. I have occassional moments when I long to be a communist again. there is something much deeper than ideology at work here and it is dishonest of me to pretend that I have not repressed something. I still feel something deeply negative about capitalism, but it goes beyond rational objections. When it comes down to it, the notion of individuality has been one where I have felt stigmatised.

For wanting to be different, I have felt as an outsider to my peers. This is supposed to be the crowning achievement of individualism, but it has never felt this way. Whilst I am free to be different, I am still a social animal with a longing to belonging and to be part of the herd. Whether it has been the fact that I read books, loved history, walked alone round the playground during break-times, there is still a part of me that is a child feeling rejected by his peers, that when people laughed it was at me. In the status competition, where people evaluated each other based on what music they liked, what they'd watched on tele, I just read books and I wanted to learn about the world. it was who my parents brought me up to be, but that doesn't interest most people. it was a clash of values of my older left-leaning parents in a "post-deological" neoliberal world of consumer-citizens. that was who I was, and I could not have been expected to realise the sheer gulf that existed between me and my peers for adhering to ways of thinking that died out in the 80's as we reached "the end of history", where there are no socialists or commnunists anymore. And so it happened that my interest in history eventually led me to read a few second hand books that had Marxist theory. it found fertile intellectual soil and grew from there, only for me to realise it's fruits were bitter.

So the notion of walking away from Marxism is deeper than just an "idea". it feels like an intellectual home and a place of relative safety compared to feeling of rootless individualism and the agnsty sense of existential vulnerability and insignifance at the mercy of impersonal "market forces". The desire for belonging to something comes and goes, like getting glimpses of a moon in a night sky hidden behind the clouds. That is a true sense of self. the stigma of being an individual or a communist is an illusion, as somehow, I have accepted a morality hostile to my own true sense of self. From that, comes the illusionary sense of rejection and isolation.

F****** beautiful.

 

[Laika]

I'm weighing up whether to revert back to Communism of somekind. At the moment I'm trying out Deism, but mainly as a way to exhaust all other possible options. Yesterday, I thought about some of the Scientific objections to Dialectical Materialism; i.e. that it clashes with scientific ideas such as the Big Bang, the indeterminism of quantum mechanics, etc. I've decided that these objections are most likely down to my own ignorance of these subjects rather than anything deeper and more profound. The nature of reality probably does conform to Dialectical Materialism, and if it doesn't it remains flexible enough to adapt to it.

The "ethical" objections to Communism remain of course, as well as the toxic association with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. it will take sometime to think those through and I continue to get the uncomfortable sense that I might as well be as Nazi, or indeed just 'convert' to North Korea's "Juche". The truth is, is that many of the ethical objections about communism are overly simplistic and too absolute to ever be useful. They have 'weight' for me because I've been exposed to some very strong anti-communist propaganda as well as living in a society where there is a knee-jerk response to these things.They remain common-sense and have the power of peer pressure behind them, even if they may not be the whole truth. There is still a sense of guilt and shame on that.

Realistically, without dropping Marxist philosophy, I will continue to revert back to Communism. it is only by rejecting Communism as a worldview that I could ever finally break away from it. that it more complicated than changing one idea or another, but involves re-thinking seven years of experiences. It's not impossible, but a major under-taking to say the least. It's crossed my mind that Communism could well be described as a "Cult" and that the psychology of the process of letting go is more complex, as it clearly did have some positive psychological effects, in addition to having negative ones. its a strange learning curve to say the least.

Probably the most worthwhile thing I could do is 'binge' on reading up on Scientific topics and add more information to complete the picture. The thought of exploring a number of different faiths and borrowing ideas that 'work' as psychologically fulfilling could help too. There has to come a point of 'acceptence' either way, and that is still hard to find. I am coming to despise reason, for the sado-masochist way in which it deconstructs meaning. In that sense, I am beginning to understand 'faith' as a rational response to uncertianty. we simply cannot know everything. The irony of course, is that grasping at the meaning of these ideas as illusions may well be liberating. it is the belief that there is only 'one' view that can be taken on communism which is tyrannical. Yet, it is a strange thing to use the capacity for free thought to renounce ones own freedom as an illusion. And yet, if I were truly free, I would not have depression.

 

[MARCELLO]

I have a dilemma such that although I believe socialism is for the betterment of entire societies,I cannot break the barriers of classism and my passion for deluxe consumerism,though I spend a lot of money for charities that 's always less money than I spend on my shoes . Red necks and new rich people is something I cannot stand.

I know I have mixed up everything but that's my thoughts.
Help me to get a political view.

Or better to say, I fully understand socialism of well off people who advocates for underpaid ones but I have difficulty to comprehend socialism of the poor ones,because whenever they find a way to be rich they change!

 

[Laika]

I have a dilemma such that although I believe socialism is for the betterment of entire societies,I cannot break the barriers of classism and my passion for deluxe consumerism,though I spend a lot of money for charities that 's always less money than I spend on my shoes . Red necks and new rich people is something I cannot stand.

I know I have mixed up everything but that's my thoughts.
Help me to get a political view.

Or better to say, I fully understand socialism of well off people who advocates for underpaid ones but I have difficulty to comprehend socialism of the poor ones,because whenever they find a way to be rich they change!

I'll have a go and your welcome to discuss what you think in this thread if you want. I think your right to say that money changes people, as there is a thing known as 'sudden wealth syndrome', where people who win the lottery simply can't handle it and it pretty much ruins them. They end up getting too much freedom at once rather than having to grow and develop over time. There is the same problem with inherited wealth that kids of rich families didn't associate their new wealth with a work ethic. What it comes down to is that poor people really do need basic amenities to live, and the way the system works is that they are unable to get it if they are trapped in low-paying jobs or very insecure casual work. Everyone needs a basic 'minimum' standard, whether that is provided by social security or a 'living wage'.

If you find it difficult not to discriminate on the basis of class, that may well edge you on to the far left. Recognising that classes do exist, and that they can be a barrier to social change as certain groups have an interest to keep things the way they are, would definetely put you in far-left territory. The "super-rich" live lives very different from the rest of us, and ironically still feel that they aren't rich enough, as beyond the point when it can satisfy our needs, the accumulation of personal wealth is about status competition. IWhether it is underserved or not, "rich" people do work hard for it and face a different kind of servitude to the rest of us; the poor worry about keeping food on hte table, whilst the rich worry there assets might be wiped out on the stock market, or there companies go bankcrupt. Consumerism fits in here, as we are all conditioned to aspire to be like the super-rich because having lots of money is what we are told to think of as 'freedom' and what it means to be 'human' (given that we think 'human nature' entails egotism and selfishness).

Generally, it is only religious varients of socialism that place a heavy emphasis on 'simple living', and whilst so degree of anti-consumerism is good for our mental and physical health, there is nothing to say you can't have fun or should be puritanical about it. (Though there is a well-founded sterotype of Far-Left Militants as being very puritanical, and perhaps part of the culture of self-sacrifice and self-denial). rich does not necessarily mean bad or evil, but selling the other people's products of their labour as your own and pocketing part of it as profit is defined as 'exploitation', whether it is on a small or large scale.

 

[MARCELLO]

Lets talk about me, this is my life...I am sure there are plenty of people who are in my position.

I am from a socialist ''well educated'' family who think that homosexuality is just a product of capitalism and I am gay. Mom,father,grandparents are all atheists and sunday service is unknown to us,assumed very backward on this age. On the other hand I was always told not to make friends with refugees or gypsies,whenever there is a subject on the table the answer is always the same'' we don't want you to be hurt,we love you dear'' How can this be ? If I were to be knifed by a white, it would be an ordinary crime,if I were to be strapped from a non white it would be hilarious,how come?
Although they were socialist I cannot recall a scene that our help or driver enjoyed a dinner with us,it was always served on the table in the kitchen.

I have my all hesitations to trust a socialist.

 

[Laika]

Lets talk about me, this is my life...I am sure there are plenty of people who are in my position.

I am from a socialist ''well educated'' family who think that homosexuality is just a product of capitalism and I am gay. Mom,father,grandparents are all atheists and sunday service is unknown to us,assumed very backward on this age. On the other hand I was always told not to make friends with refugees or gypsies,whenever there is a subject on the table the answer is always the same'' we don't want you to be hurt,we love you dear'' How can this be ? If I were to be knifed by a white, it would be an ordinary crime,if I were to be strapped from a non white it would be hilarious,how come?
Although they were socialist I cannot recall a scene that our help or driver enjoyed a dinner with us,it was always served on the table in the kitchen.

I have my all hesitations to trust a socialist.

If you are hesitant to trust a socialist based on past experience of hypocrisy, I would think that is very wise. it is not easy to live up to a set of moral standards so it is fair to treat it with caution.

I cannot speak with any experience, but the idea that you shouldn't be around refugees or gypsies would seem to be based on negative racial sterotypes, as is racial bias in treating crimes. it assumes that these people are criminal or deviant by nature, but that is often a reflection of the fact that racial minorities have been criminalised for not complying with mainstream (*cough* 'white,christian,european') behaviour.

Your parents probably aren't bad people, but they will have been brought up with negative sterotypes at a time when they were considered normal, or even true. This is the same regardless as to whether people are well educated or not- it's just the world they grew up in. For that reason, simply being an atheist does not mean you are isolated from the cultural influence of religion in society. very few atheists would consciously seek to reject religious doctorine about morality for example, even if they don't believe in god. If I read your post right, I'm sorry to hear that you and your family (may) have trouble over your homosexuaility. I'm bi and can promise you, you have nothing to be ashamed of. The idea that homosexuality is a product of capitalism, is one I've heard before. After legalising homosexuality in the 20's, it was banned in the USSR from the 1930's onward because it was thought to be a product of capitalism/"bourgeois decadance" and was associated with fascism as many members of the SA in Nazi Germany were gay (or suspected of being so). This is of course, is wrong as sexual orientation goes much deeper than social class, into our animal biology. I tend to take a view that homosexuality is the product of environment, but it's not really a strong conviction and you can't change it anyway. trying to do so if very damaging because of how deep into the psyche these things originate from.

 

[Curious George]

I'm weighing up whether to revert back to Communism of somekind. At the moment I'm trying out Deism, but mainly as a way to exhaust all other possible options. Yesterday, I thought about some of the Scientific objections to Dialectical Materialism; i.e. that it clashes with scientific ideas such as the Big Bang, the indeterminism of quantum mechanics, etc. I've decided that these objections are most likely down to my own ignorance of these subjects rather than anything deeper and more profound. The nature of reality probably does conform to Dialectical Materialism, and if it doesn't it remains flexible enough to adapt to it.

The "ethical" objections to Communism remain of course, as well as the toxic association with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. it will take sometime to think those through and I continue to get the uncomfortable sense that I might as well be as Nazi, or indeed just 'convert' to North Korea's "Juche". The truth is, is that many of the ethical objections about communism are overly simplistic and too absolute to ever be useful. They have 'weight' for me because I've been exposed to some very strong anti-communist propaganda as well as living in a society where there is a knee-jerk response to these things.They remain common-sense and have the power of peer pressure behind them, even if they may not be the whole truth. There is still a sense of guilt and shame on that.

Realistically, without dropping Marxist philosophy, I will continue to revert back to Communism. it is only by rejecting Communism as a worldview that I could ever finally break away from it. that it more complicated than changing one idea or another, but involves re-thinking seven years of experiences. It's not impossible, but a major under-taking to say the least. It's crossed my mind that Communism could well be described as a "Cult" and that the psychology of the process of letting go is more complex, as it clearly did have some positive psychological effects, in addition to having negative ones. its a strange learning curve to say the least.

Probably the most worthwhile thing I could do is 'binge' on reading up on Scientific topics and add more information to complete the picture. The thought of exploring a number of different faiths and borrowing ideas that 'work' as psychologically fulfilling could help too. There has to come a point of 'acceptence' either way, and that is still hard to find. I am coming to despise reason, for the sado-masochist way in which it deconstructs meaning. In that sense, I am beginning to understand 'faith' as a rational response to uncertianty. we simply cannot know everything. The irony of course, is that grasping at the meaning of these ideas as illusions may well be liberating. it is the belief that there is only 'one' view that can be taken on communism which is tyrannical. Yet, it is a strange thing to use the capacity for free thought to renounce ones own freedom as an illusion. And yet, if I were truly free, I would not have depression.

Perhaps you could make a list of the internal inconsistencies you have found.

 

[Laika]

Perhaps you could make a list of the internal inconsistencies you have found.

There were a number of controversies in Soviet Science (and possibly Chinese science as well) as Scientific thinking conflicted with Party Ideology. Marxism, as a philosophy of nature, dogmatically insisted the universe worked one way and not another, so when Scientists were forced to interpret the evidence in accordance with the offical ideology. There was room for discussion, but until about the 1960's and 70's party ideology won over scientific expertise.

1. The Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang.

In the 1930's, Einstein's theory of relativity was considered "bourgeois science" because it said that Time and Space did not exist objectively of the observer, but changed with space-time. This had a series of implications as it means that, you forced to ask the question "if time and space are relative, relative to what exactly?" This means that time and space, and therefore the known universe must have a beginning. Marxism, as a 19th century philosophy, was on stronger ground with a "steady-state universe", but as they accepted the universe can change or evolve, there was room for interpretation on this.

2. Quantum Mechanics

If everything in existence is material, it therefore obeys material laws of cause and effect. Another problem therefore was with physics was with the indeterministic interpretation of atomic and subatomic particles. To Soviet ears, this was eqivilent to saying that subatomic particles had free will. As the mind is a product of matter, it is determined by it. So any indeterministic interpretation of nature clashes with Marxist ideology. In the West, this same idea lead to "Quantum Mysticism" in which the indetermistic behaviour of particles was interpreted as having not only free will, but consciousness.

3. Lysenkoism/Neo-Lemarckian Theory of Inheritence of Aquried Characteritics

The biggest c**k-up in Soviet Science was when the Communist Party ruled in favour of Lysenko's theory's, and banned Genetics. This was in the 1930's and genetics therefore had a very strong association with Eugenics and was therefore considered "Fascist". The fact that Mandellian theories of inheritence of genetic traits was used in Nazi literature on scientific racism probably didn't help either. (The Soviets breifly had a Eugenics movement in the 1920's but that didn't stop them from banning it).

What Lysenko did was basically re-iterate a 19th century theory that traits that we aquire in our lifetime can be inherited in the next generation, known as neo-lemarckianism. This had massive propaganda value, as it meant that you could simply breed more and more productive strains of wheat, etc. I believe there were some experiments on this and they didn't work. Both Marx and Engels used neo-lemarckian theories of inheritence to explian how humans developed traits like the faculty of speech in their work based on a socio-economic interpreation of the evolution of ape to man. it was supposed to be by 'labour' that man evolved. This actually was in-tune with Darwin's theory's who did also employ neo-lemarckian theories of inheritence too (but I'm not 100% sure of the extent).

The basic problem is, if traits are inherited- how do you explian how they change and evolve down through the generations? I'm still not clear on this, but it would seem genetic theory of inheritence won out. The Soviets backed the wrong side of a major historical debate and therefore pushed ideas, which whilst fitting into their ideology, did so at the expense of the evidence.

There will be others, but these are the big ones. It is really a collision between a 19th century philosophy of nature and 20th century scientific evidence. they stuck too rigidly to the latter and weren't able to entertain heretical ideas.

 

[Curious George]

There were a number of controversies in Soviet Science (and possibly Chinese science as well) as Scientific thinking conflicted with Party Ideology. Marxism, as a philosophy of nature, dogmatically insisted the universe worked one way and not another, so when Scientists were forced to interpret the evidence in accordance with the offical ideology. There was room for discussion, but until about the 1960's and 70's party ideology won over scientific expertise.

1. The Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang.

In the 1930's, Einstein's theory of relativity was considered "bourgeois science" because it said that Time and Space did not exist objectively of the observer, but changed with space-time. This had a series of implications as it means that, you forced to ask the question "if time and space are relative, relative to what exactly?" This means that time and space, and therefore the known universe must have a beginning. Marxism, as a 19th century philosophy, was on stronger ground with a "steady-state universe", but as they accepted the universe can change or evolve, there was room for interpretation on this.

2. Quantum Mechanics

If everything in existence is material, it therefore obeys material laws of cause and effect. Another problem therefore was with physics was with the indeterministic interpretation of atomic and subatomic particles. To Soviet ears, this was eqivilent to saying that subatomic particles had free will. As the mind is a product of matter, it is determined by it. So any indeterministic interpretation of nature clashes with Marxist ideology. In the West, this same idea lead to "Quantum Mysticism" in which the indetermistic behaviour of particles was interpreted as having not only free will, but consciousness.

3. Lysenkoism/Neo-Lemarckian Theory of Inheritence of Aquried Characteritics

The biggest c**k-up in Soviet Science was when the Communist Party ruled in favour of Lysenko's theory's, and banned Genetics. This was in the 1930's and genetics therefore had a very strong association with Eugenics and was therefore considered "Fascist". The fact that Mandellian theories of inheritence of genetic traits was used in Nazi literature on scientific racism probably didn't help either. (The Soviets breifly had a Eugenics movement in the 1920's but that didn't stop them from banning it).

What Lysenko did was basically re-iterate a 19th century theory that traits that we aquire in our lifetime can be inherited in the next generation, known as neo-lemarckianism. This had massive propaganda value, as it meant that you could simply breed more and more productive strains of wheat, etc. I believe there were some experiments on this and they didn't work. Both Marx and Engels used neo-lemarckian theories of inheritence to explian how humans developed traits like the faculty of speech in their work based on a socio-economic interpreation of the evolution of ape to man. it was supposed to be by 'labour' that man evolved. This actually was in-tune with Darwin's theory's who did also employ neo-lemarckian theories of inheritence too (but I'm not 100% sure of the extent).

The basic problem is, if traits are inherited- how do you explian how they change and evolve down through the generations? I'm still not clear on this, but it would seem genetic theory of inheritence won out. The Soviets backed the wrong side of a major historical debate and therefore pushed ideas, which whilst fitting into their ideology, did so at the expense of the evidence.

There will be others, but these are the big ones. It is really a collision between a 19th century philosophy of nature and 20th century scientific evidence. they stuck too rigidly to the latter and weren't able to entertain heretical ideas.

I fail to see how these present any internal inconsistencies. It seems more likely what you are describing as inconsistencies are not necessary factors to a political ideology.

 

[Laika]

I fail to see how these present any internal inconsistencies. It seems more likely what you are describing as inconsistencies are not necessary factors to a political ideology.

Marxism wasn't simply a political ideology, but covered everything including scientific topics. It asserts that the world works in a particular way in accordance with the philosophy of dialectical materialism, that this philosophy was true and was scientific by definition. It's a 19th century thing, but they did not believe there was any distinction between natural science and social science. So if dialectical materialism didn't work on natural science like physics, it raised serious questions as to whether it was viable as a scientific view of society.

Basically everything is material (and consciousness is the product of matter) and by a process of internal contradiction, the universe changes itself. The importance of the latter, is that if the universe changes itself, it does not require a 'prime mover' or 'first cause' in a god. So there is no creation and no big bang. if the universe does not cause itself, it requires someone or something to set it in motion.

When this philosophy is applied to society, the 'internal contradictions' are represented as the struggle between clases, and these contradictions are resolved in a stateless, classless society; Communism. Communism was considered to be a scientific prediction of the future. if it turned out that the principles on which it was based were not science, the political legitimacy of communism (as a predicted higher stage in human society) collapses.

 

[Curious George]

Marxism wasn't simply a political ideology, but covered everything including scientific topics. It asserts that the world works in a particular way in accordance with the philosophy of dialectical materialism, that this philosophy was true and was scientific by definition. It's a 19th century thing, but they did not believe there was any distinction between natural science and social science. So if dialectical materialism didn't work on natural science like physics, it raised serious questions as to whether it was viable as a scientific view of society.

Basically everything is material (and consciousness is the product of matter) and by a process of internal contradiction, the universe changes itself. The importance of the latter, is that if the universe changes itself, it does not require a 'prime mover' or 'first cause' in a god. So there is no creation and no big bang. if the universe does not cause itself, it requires someone or something to set it in motion.

When this philosophy is applied to society, the 'internal contradictions' are represented as the struggle between clases, and these contradictions are resolved in a stateless, classless society; Communism. Communism was considered to be a scientific prediction of the future. if it turned out that the principles on which it was based were not science, the political legitimacy of communism (as a predicted higher stage in human society) collapses.

You have drawn an analogy to scientific thought not shown a connection.

 

[Laika]

You have drawn an analogy to scientific thought not shown a connection.

Materialism is a form of Monism. it argues that the Universe is a single entity, and that everything that is exists is made of a single substance, "matter". everything would therefore follow the same natural laws. The conception of those natural laws therefore works as philosophical system which can be applied to anything. Consequently, there is no distinction between natural and social science in such a philosophy. if the natural laws break down in physics, it poses a problem for all aspects of the theory because it means the natural laws either don't exist, or don't exist in the way they are currently concieved of.