Diary of a Dirty Commie

[Curious George]

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.

Several things I need help understanding.

First: how is math, something which exists, composed of matter? How is space, something that exists, composed of matter?

Why do you think any science has suggested that natural laws ( I am assuming you mean fundamental forces) don't exist?

How exactly has the big bang for instance undermined natural law?

 

[Laika]

Several things I need help understanding. First: how is math, something which exists, composed of matter? How is space, something that exists, composed of matter?

Math, in so far as it is a product of consciousness, is a product of matter. There are two parts to this; firstly, the brain is a material process, and assuming that all consciousness develops from natural causes, consciousness, thought and ideas are a product of the brain. So ideas about mathamatics are products of the brain.

the second bit, is that these mathamatical ideas were not simply invented by the brain on it's own, but were developed to try to quantify and measure natural pheneomena. very basic things like "how many sheep do I have?" if you're a shepard, to "what is the circumference of the earth?" are trying to develop ideas that correspond to thinga that exist. In that sense math is a product of matter. the ideas themselves are not material.

Space is an intresting one, so I'll have quote from one of my books on this.

"Matter can move only in space and time. All bodies, including man himself, and all material processes taking place in the objectively existing world, occupy a definete place in space. They are located near or far from one another; seperated by distance; a moving body proceeds along a definete path. All this expresses the property of material things and processes known as extension.

Space is a universal mode of the existence of matter. There is not and cannot be matter without spce, just ad there cannot be space without matter. The difference between extension of an individual body and that of the whole material world is that the former is limited, finite, that is, has a beginning and an end, whereas the material world is limitless and infinite."

Marxism also uses an unusual definition of matter to get round an early scientific controversy in physics; in the early 20th century scientists realised that atoms could be broken down into energy. For a long time "matter" had been defined as being atomic in that atoms were "indivisable" and the basic component of that substance. So if atoms could be broken down further it blurred the distinction between something and nothing, leading to arguments about the "disappearance of matter". (e.g. if the majority of what makes up atoms is nothing but empty space, does that mean we are made up of nothing?) Lenin changed the definition of matter:

matter is used in its broadest sense- to denote everything that exists objectively, that is, independent of our mind and reflected in our sensations. "Matter," Lenin wrote, "is objective reality given to us in sensation."

Why do you think any science has suggested that natural laws ( I am assuming you mean fundamental forces) don't exist?

18th and 19th century science were based on the Physics of Newton. Newtionian mechanics was supposed to be how the world worked based on predictable laws on nature, on cause and effect, that could be stated precisely in mathamatics. Our understanding of physics affects other disciplines like Chemistry and Biology as it defines the physical laws of what is possible.

Marxism shares this view that laws of nature can be used to understand everything, but says that these laws are dialectical (based on internal contradiction or change) rather than mechanical (the collision of external forces). Newtonian mechanics was still based on the view that the world was made up of permanant parts that had to be set in motion; only a 'prime mover' could create those parts and put them into motion. So it was argued that God was like a watch-maker. Marxism said, that if the universe changes itself, it does not need a designer but simply 'evolves' by wholly natural processes.

At the start of the 20th Century, Einstein came along and through a spanner in the works because he challanged the Newtionian view of physics as governed by predictable natural laws. instead we have 'indeterminist' theories such as quantum mechanics, choas theory, etc. all these undermine the notion that universe is governed by laws of cause and effect. From the marxist perspective, the breakdown in cause and effect gives room for god or some form of consciousness to create and set in motion the universe.

How exactly has the big bang for instance undermined natural law?

It has more undermined the coherence of a materialist argument for natural laws, as it roughly fits a description that something can arise from nothing, and that there are effects whih have no discernable cause. In terms of logical consistency, that leads to a cosmological argument for God as a prime mover, even if their may not be evidence to support that view.

 

[Curious George]

Math, in so far as it is a product of consciousness, is a product of matter. There are two parts to this; firstly, the brain is a material process, and assuming that all consciousness develops from natural causes, consciousness, thought and ideas are a product of the brain. So ideas about mathamatics are products of the brain.

the second bit, is that these mathamatical ideas were not simply invented by the brain on it's own, but were developed to try to quantify and measure natural pheneomena. very basic things like "how many sheep do I have?" if you're a shepard, to "what is the circumference of the earth?" are trying to develop ideas that correspond to thinga that exist. In that sense math is a product of matter. the ideas themselves are not material.

Space is an intresting one, so I'll have quote from one of my books on this.

"Matter can move only in space and time. All bodies, including man himself, and all material processes taking place in the objectively existing world, occupy a definete place in space. They are located near or far from one another; seperated by distance; a moving body proceeds along a definete path. All this expresses the property of material things and processes known as extension.

Space is a universal mode of the existence of matter. There is not and cannot be matter without spce, just ad there cannot be space without matter. The difference between extension of an individual body and that of the whole material world is that the former is limited, finite, that is, has a beginning and an end, whereas the material world is limitless and infinite."

Marxism also uses an unusual definition of matter to get round an early scientific controversy in physics; in the early 20th century scientists realised that atoms could be broken down into energy. For a long time "matter" had been defined as being atomic in that atoms were "indivisable" and the basic component of that substance. So if atoms could be broken down further it blurred the distinction between something and nothing, leading to arguments about the "disappearance of matter". (e.g. if the majority of what makes up atoms is nothing but empty space, does that mean we are made up of nothing?) Lenin changed the definition of matter:

matter is used in its broadest sense- to denote everything that exists objectively, that is, independent of our mind and reflected in our sensations. "Matter," Lenin wrote, "is objective reality given to us in sensation."



18th and 19th century science were based on the Physics of Newton. Newtionian mechanics was supposed to be how the world worked based on predictable laws on nature, on cause and effect, that could be stated precisely in mathamatics. Our understanding of physics affects other disciplines like Chemistry and Biology as it defines the physical laws of what is possible.

Marxism shares this view that laws of nature can be used to understand everything, but says that these laws are dialectical (based on internal contradiction or change) rather than mechanical (the collision of external forces). Newtonian mechanics was still based on the view that the world was made up of permanant parts that had to be set in motion; only a 'prime mover' could create those parts and put them into motion. So it was argued that God was like a watch-maker. Marxism said, that if the universe changes itself, it does not need a designer but simply 'evolves' by wholly natural processes.

At the start of the 20th Century, Einstein came along and through a spanner in the works because he challanged the Newtionian view of physics as governed by predictable natural laws. instead we have 'indeterminist' theories such as quantum mechanics, choas theory, etc. all these undermine the notion that universe is governed by laws of cause and effect. From the marxist perspective, the breakdown in cause and effect gives room for god or some form of consciousness to create and set in motion the universe.



It has more undermined the coherence of a materialist argument for natural laws, as it roughly fits a description that something can arise from nothing, and that there are effects whih have no discernable cause. In terms of logical consistency, that leads to a cosmological argument for God as a prime mover, even if their may not be evidence to support that view.

More on this post later but I do not see how this leads to a cosmological argument. I think supposing it does is mistaken.

 

[Curious George]

Math, in so far as it is a product of consciousness, is a product of matter. There are two parts to this; firstly, the brain is a material process, and assuming that all consciousness develops from natural causes, consciousness, thought and ideas are a product of the brain. So ideas about mathamatics are products of the brain.

the second bit, is that these mathamatical ideas were not simply invented by the brain on it's own, but were developed to try to quantify and measure natural pheneomena. very basic things like "how many sheep do I have?" if you're a shepard, to "what is the circumference of the earth?" are trying to develop ideas that correspond to thinga that exist. In that sense math is a product of matter. the ideas themselves are not material.

Space is an intresting one, so I'll have quote from one of my books on this.

"Matter can move only in space and time. All bodies, including man himself, and all material processes taking place in the objectively existing world, occupy a definete place in space. They are located near or far from one another; seperated by distance; a moving body proceeds along a definete path. All this expresses the property of material things and processes known as extension.

Space is a universal mode of the existence of matter. There is not and cannot be matter without spce, just ad there cannot be space without matter. The difference between extension of an individual body and that of the whole material world is that the former is limited, finite, that is, has a beginning and an end, whereas the material world is limitless and infinite."

Marxism also uses an unusual definition of matter to get round an early scientific controversy in physics; in the early 20th century scientists realised that atoms could be broken down into energy. For a long time "matter" had been defined as being atomic in that atoms were "indivisable" and the basic component of that substance. So if atoms could be broken down further it blurred the distinction between something and nothing, leading to arguments about the "disappearance of matter". (e.g. if the majority of what makes up atoms is nothing but empty space, does that mean we are made up of nothing?) Lenin changed the definition of matter:

matter is used in its broadest sense- to denote everything that exists objectively, that is, independent of our mind and reflected in our sensations. "Matter," Lenin wrote, "is objective reality given to us in sensation."



18th and 19th century science were based on the Physics of Newton. Newtionian mechanics was supposed to be how the world worked based on predictable laws on nature, on cause and effect, that could be stated precisely in mathamatics. Our understanding of physics affects other disciplines like Chemistry and Biology as it defines the physical laws of what is possible.

Marxism shares this view that laws of nature can be used to understand everything, but says that these laws are dialectical (based on internal contradiction or change) rather than mechanical (the collision of external forces). Newtonian mechanics was still based on the view that the world was made up of permanant parts that had to be set in motion; only a 'prime mover' could create those parts and put them into motion. So it was argued that God was like a watch-maker. Marxism said, that if the universe changes itself, it does not need a designer but simply 'evolves' by wholly natural processes.

At the start of the 20th Century, Einstein came along and through a spanner in the works because he challanged the Newtionian view of physics as governed by predictable natural laws. instead we have 'indeterminist' theories such as quantum mechanics, choas theory, etc. all these undermine the notion that universe is governed by laws of cause and effect. From the marxist perspective, the breakdown in cause and effect gives room for god or some form of consciousness to create and set in motion the universe.



It has more undermined the coherence of a materialist argument for natural laws, as it roughly fits a description that something can arise from nothing, and that there are effects whih have no discernable cause. In terms of logical consistency, that leads to a cosmological argument for God as a prime mover, even if their may not be evidence to support that view.

I can accept that a materialist will say that everything that exists must exist materially or as a by product of material. But to say that everything that exists is matter seems both scientifically and intuitively wrong. I think you are oversimplifying this and consequently losing much in translation. If Marxism really provides for a unified worldview, perhaps you had better give me reading material instead of trying to explain.

That said if a view has a couple things wrong the entirety of the view may collapse, but that does not mean no parts are salvageable.

If you are concerned with the scientific and social discrepancies, perhaps creating a social view from your core beliefs would do you well. I imagine it is hard to reinvent the wheel, but taking it bit by bit with us challenging you on the way may prove productive.

 

[Laika]

I can accept that a materialist will say that everything that exists must exist materially or as a by product of material. But to say that everything that exists is matter seems both scientifically and intuitively wrong. I think you are oversimplifying this and consequently losing much in translation. If Marxism really provides for a unified worldview, perhaps you had better give me reading material instead of trying to explain.

That's more than fair. I am oversimplfying it as the dialectics still makes my head spin. If you are really interested there are a few second hand books I could reccommend that you can find on Ebay, but the link below is the 'summary' of the whole ideology. Stalin wrote it in the 1930's as they were trying to consolodate Marxism into a single philosophy so everyone had to work from it. The books I have basically re-state the position and somewhat expand on it.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

If you don't get it, don't worry. But I suspect you mind find some of the ideas and claims are intriguing. Stalin is also one of the most readable Marxist authors as he intentionally wrote for a non-marxist audience. The 'heavy' stuff to do with physics comes from Lenin's book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" (1908), but Lenin had an abrasive and propagandaistic style of hating pretty much everyone (as a way to stir up the reader) so I try to avoid reading him if possible.

That said if a view has a couple things wrong the entirety of the view may collapse, but that does not mean no parts are salvageable.

If you are concerned with the scientific and social discrepancies, perhaps creating a social view from your core beliefs would do you well. I imagine it is hard to reinvent the wheel, but taking it bit by bit with us challenging you on the way may prove productive.

yeah. that sums up where I think I'm heading. there has been nothing so far to say Marxism is absolutely false, but certianly there need to be revisions made to it. "re-inventing the wheel" is a good way of putting it. lol.

 

[Laika]

I actually have a better source (and your welcome to ignore Lenin and Stalin if you want). This is currently the only source I've got which sets out the scientific contrversies in physics in any deatil and it summaries a few other texts by western researches on Soviet physics.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.1625.pdf

 

[Laika]

A missing link: Marxism is a product of the same intellectual climate that fostered Social Darwinism in the late 19th century. Whilst it's not based on a "competitive" individualist and racist view of social darwinism, it does owe alot to a viewing society as based on co-operation within the struggle for survival against nature. what they both share in common is a view of man as essentially an animal rather than defining our "humanity" as based on possessing a soul.

 

[Laika]

That moment you realise Ayn Rand was one of the first women educated at a Soviet University in the wake of the October Revolution....

 

[Laika]

it's been a little bit over a month since I left the Communist Party. learning to think is like learning to walk. what is surprising, is that what you thought you knew, you didn't and you have to learn it all over again.

I continue to feel conflicted, but really it comes down to the self-accusation of cowardice. Would I be a coward for failing to become a liberal after realising my mistake, or would that make me a coward for looking away at the evil men do to restore some false pride in natural justice?

I think about how people approach the subject, and it is almost unieqivocally, that people hate communists inspite of having little or no understanding of how they were, what they did and why they did it. there is a natural desire to want to defend them, as in a way I defend my past. My understanding of history has changed forever and has been turned on its head. gone are the old certianties. Even after all this time, I still find something "new". Only yesterday I saw a wikipedia article on the relationship between the CPUSA and the early civil rights movement. it simply had not occured to me that they could be connected, particuarly if you think of communism as identified with russia, something foreign and alien that happened "over there".

There is some part of me that expects me to denounce the whole experience. That I was somehow delluded, or mis-led, that my mental problems made me vunerable to soviet propaganda, or that I was immature- or in some way at fault. I wasn't. I just didn't see the whole picture. And I wasn't ready to face just how small I am in relation to it.

What annoys me most, is how the far-right simply re-write the history to fit their preconceptions. how the truth is irrelevant because they have already made up their mind that "this" conflicts with the natural order of things. it's unnatural and therefore evil. it is true, the Soviets did it too. But they are gone, whilst the lies of the far right are almost everywhere. And somehow, this is what we end up making our decisions on.

Stalin was a monster, but he was also a member of the human race. In our history, we see part of ourselves. We shouldn't ignore and deny that which we wish wasn't true. But I am yet to be sure which side of the Berlin Wall that puts me on. The truth should win, because it tells us who we are. That is something we seem to have lost, assuming we ever had it at all. the truth is a solid foundation on which to build our lives and I worry, that inspite of it's evils, the sheer magnitude of the propaganda that passes for truth and debate in the west reveals just how fragile our system has become. I'm a conservative at heart. I don't like violence. I don't like the irrationality of fanatics, or the pathologies of change. But that is not the same as being afriad of it. Fear still keeps me prisoner, but it is still hard to tell what it means to be free.

 

[MARCELLO]

Dear Laika, when will we start to talk about real socialism? Stalin does not mean anything for about half a billion of people that it is Africa,just an ideology of a white man where it snows....

Or in other words,how can socialism prevent corruption? Corruption works for the privileges of selective ones.

 

[MARCELLO]

Even the nations in Africa under sheria law,they embrace a sort of socialism but just on paper. A socialism without socializing means,errrrr,what?

 

[Laika]

Dear Laika, when will we start to talk about real socialism? Stalin does not mean anything for about half a billion of people that it is Africa,just an ideology of a white man where it snows....

Or in other words,how can socialism prevent corruption? Corruption works for the privileges of selective ones.

it depends both on how living under a system with common property affects our consciousness of our own interests. corruption is ultimately always a minority pursuit, and nowdays the media sensationalise the hell out of it and make the whole system look like its corrupt. However, what I think you are getting at is moral corruption. The reason communism was so successful and both so destructive was that it was able to inspire many decent people to do things that they would not have otherwise done by accepting an ethic of expidency "for the good of the revolution". Corruption means something a little bit different in this context, but the Soviets referred to "careerism" which meant the someone entered the party without any or a superfical ideological commitment because of the "perks". being accused of being a careerist was liable to get you purged.

Stalin was not specifically a "russian" phenemonon, as it was during his time (and by some of his works directly) that marxism was standardised into an orthodoxy. Through the "Third International" organisation of Communist Parties, Stalin's interpretation become the global 'standard' for what communism was, until 1956 when he was denounced by Khruschev. It was then that things started to unravel as his legacy polarised between those who wanted to move away from it, (such as Khruschev) and those who tried to keep it going or re-invented it (like Mao). This ultimately led to the Sino-Soviet split as an indeological rift developed between Russia and China in the late 50's/early 60's. virtually every other country in the communist bloc had to pick sides (e.g. Albania sided with China, and Vietnam with Russia I think).

Stalin therefore continues to be relevant because, as the personification of the soviet state, virtually all the other communist movements that followed are ideological descendants of him (except Trotskyism and Left Communism which started in the 1920's). As much as I'd like to try to by-pass Stalin and the darkness of that period, it would be deeply unrealistic because of the lessons that can be learned from how they actually got such a system to "work".

Even the nations in Africa under sheria law,they embrace a sort of socialism but just on paper. A socialism without socializing means,errrrr,what?

You've sort of lost me on the last part, but Islam contains elements as a religion which are compatable with 'socialism', much like Christianity. One of the influences behind Islamic Fundmentalism is a 'Islamic Marxism' which developed in central asia in the 1920's and 30's (i.e. in the USSR before Stalin) and drew inspiration from Lenin's model of how to make a revolutionary state.

 

[Laika]

Much to my surprise, the Soviets did infact land on the moon. it just wasn't a manned mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

 

[Laika]

I'm going to say this and break a taboo.

I am in an abusive relationship with my parents.

I am "supposed" to defend my parents. I am "supposed" to be grateful. But I really don't feel it. The idea of "loving" them is totally mixed up with a distorted sense of obligation, whilst I suffer their neglect. all that is left is the fear of telling them just how much damage they have done and losing it with them. I need to seperate the sense that I have problems from believing after being told a hundred times in subtle ways, that I am the problem. I have a right to be angry. I have a right to be upset. I have a right to be emotional and doing so is a healthy response to the situation; being forced to bury who I am and what I feel is not healthy. I don't want to be patronised so they can then turn the tables and make it "my" fault for being upset, that there is something "wrong" with me for reacting to their abuse, for treating them as the hostile, provocative people they are. I need to recognise that the fear of some hidden force, judging me, watching me, is just the memory of their bad parenting. there is no-one there standing behind my back. pretending otherwise, doesn't make me happy and feeling like a prisoner in my own head, quietly screaming, is not the future I want.

I have to believe it is possible to say "no", to stop humouring my dad with his endless lecturing, and the constant "negiatioation" as if there is a bomb about to go off- namely him. And no. it isn't his pills, or his blood pressure. it isn't something he can't change and that I have to be resigned to accept. you are terrified of being poor whilst having more money than sense. money is not the issue; the fact you use money to control everyone else is, then expect them to be "grateful" for your benevolence in bestwoing it upon them. Nor does my mum stuffing me with food constitute a "loving" relationship. it just covers up the cold, hard, silence. I am not a child anymore. I want to be treated like an adult. And adults don't find these conversations threatening. they respect each others pain because they respect themselves.

There. I said it. it doesn't change anything, except how I feel and giving me a little bit more control over the small corner that is my life. When I'm ready, I'll start to unload, but now just giving it a name and calling it "abuse" will have to do.

 

[Laika]

The first to solving any problems is admitting there is one. I am an internet addict and am online most hours that I am awake. it's not "all the time", but it might as well be.

As I have depression this isn't entirely unexpected or even that "new", but recently my parents have signed a new internet contract which limits their usage to 8GB. by installing an internet blocker and cutting out Youtube, Amazon, etc, I've cut it down my internet usage to about 150MB a day. (it would be significantly lower if I didn't use google and google images). I'm sort of proud of that but I'm still online, mainly RF and wikipedia, for "too many hours" in the day. the most obvious side effect is that I am now overweight and have been for many years. I'd like to lose some weight, (4 stone is a rough guess) but I can only do that if I cut down on the time I'm on the internet to something more managable.

it doesn't help that "life sucks" and that just re-inforces the depression. no freinds. no social life. no money. no job (and its hard to frame the idea of getting a job as a "positive"). Nor do I really have many hobbies or interests that can be satisifed by being offline. So there aren't many factors making me want to jump around and do exercise other than my own "will power". I figure that the problem is that there just isn't enough stuff for me to do offline so I stay on my laptop as its sort of "mobile entertainment centre" given the lack of everything else.

So, I'm going to try and cut down my time on the internet and RF to only a few hours a day (3 to 4 hours max would be a rough guess). embarrasingly, that probably still sounds like alot- but it isn't. Whilst I've had constant low-level improvement over the years in battling depression, this is probably one of the last mountains I have to climb beside getting my first job. I'm trying to do this whilst not also being too hard of myself (as thats the depression, not willpower). the secret is finding strong positives that re-inforce "good" behaviours because they actually feel "good".

Anyway, just wanted to let people reading this know what's going on as, again, I don't have anyone to share my life with offline.

 

[Laika]

I've been trying to find out some of the most obscure things about Communism through wikipedia, a sort of "off the beaten track" exercise. This jumped out at me, and I thought was worth sharing.

There was a country named the Tuvan People's Republic, formerly independent from 1921 to 1944. It was a Satilite State of the USSR, and was located between the only two countries to recognise it's existence, the USSR and the People's Republic of Mongolia (also Communist since 1924).

The "intresting" part, is that Tuva's First Prime Minister, Donduk Kuular, made Buddhism the state religion of a nominally communist state in 1926, in opposition of the state atheism of the USSR. He was overthrown in a coup de'tat in 1929. [Sadly, if predictably] The new pro-stalinist government then proceeded to all but eradicate buddhism within the country from 1929 to 1931.

The government issued postage stamps between 1926 and 1936. Due to the obscurity of the nation itself, these were "popular with young stamp collecters in the Western World in the mid-twenieth century". This one, issued in 1926, includes the Buddhist Wheel of life.

The same symbol was used on the national flag from 1921 to 1926.

http://flaglog.com/post/33357272666/tannu-tuva-1921-1926-on-11-october-1944-the

A Buddhist-Communist state. I would not have thought that was possible, but there it is.

 

[Laika]

I am trying (yet again) to walk away from communism. its been a week. last weekend I was reading a book on religious beliefs, flicking through chapters on Islam and Confusianism. I was quite genuinely trying to look for something "new". I even planned to finish this journal and start a new one, part of my way of "moving on". I had this idea that I could start 2016 a fresh and just try out different ideas.

But, as I said, it's been a week. And the love-hate relationship I have with communism is back at work again. One thing I have learned in the past week, is that I could learn how to meditate. that would help my head, calm it down at least and let go. But the "civil war" thats been raging in my head for so many years over whether or not to be a communist, and whether to reject Christian and Liberal beliefs has flared back up again.

My understanding of communism has been, from the beginining, mistaken. I thought of it as a logical extension of ideas of christian love, kindness and a liberal belief in humanity and human rights. But that has stopped. (Marxian) Communism is a deep rejection of those values. Philosophical Materialism is like acid; it corrodes everything it touches. It is no wonder it is associated with nihilism, but that oversimplifies the relationship. Materialism reveals not only the illusionary nature of beliefs, but also their true source: man.

I either have to draw a line under communism and become a fervent anti-communist, or else return "back to the fold". The exposure to these beliefs has however done damage to the notion of universal sense of right and wrong by which to judge communism itself. I did an Anti-Liberalism thread which said what I "felt" rather than what I "thought". I feel uneasy every step I take away from mainstream ideas and views. people say non-conformity is a celebration of individuality, but not in my case. the extent to which I have rejected individualism disturbs me. like looking over the edge of a cliff, into the abyss, everything I know, that makes me feel "safe" behind me. Of course I want to run. find some religion that will make me feel better, get to fit in and be like everyone else. isn't that what everyone wants? the herd is a place of safety, safety in numbers. But not if it is going the wrong way.

I can't describe how much I don't want to be a commie. it's the fear of admitting that I've strayed so far from the path that everyone's "humanity" is a coded reference to their bourgeois-capitalist ideology. it is the end of the universal sense of belonging and the awareness of how alone and at the mercy of the forces of nature we are. you are not one of them and yet you still love them as you love yourself. it is both very beautifiul but fervently anti-liberal, because the needs of the group and justice come before the worth of the individual, and of the self. love of mankind is a curse, because no matter how much you love someone, you cannot change them, you cannot help them, you cannot save them. They have to help themselves. you believe in a just world and yet a prisoner of your physical limitatons. God is dead and I miss my illusions.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Have you considered another socialist or communist tendency? I think looking into libertarian socialist ideas would help you a lot. If you haven't read it, I would strongly recommend you read Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man under Socialism"; it presents an individualistic approach to communism. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

 

[Laika]

Have you considered another socialist or communist tendency? I think looking into libertarian socialist ideas would help you a lot. If you haven't read it, I would strongly recommend you read Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man under Socialism"; it presents an individualistic approach to communism. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

At the moment, I still think that "Marxism-Leninism" (i.e. Stalin's version) is easily the most logially coherent and self-consistent. thats a good indicator that it's the "correct" one, though it still has its issues [in terms of logical consistency- I'l get to the ethics later]. even when its wrong, it still very convincing, because the combination of logic and evidence builds up. its more like mathamatics in that it is a carefully balanced equation. "reality" is messy and so the theory is always incomplete leaving room for development. its a very "machine" like way of thinking because of the amount of logic it uses. get one variable a little bit wrong and thats the difference between utopia and hell.

The big division in Marxism thought is between Soviet versions and their descendants (e.g. Maoism) which treat Marxism as a world-view which include the natural sciences, philosophy, religion, etc, literally everything, and the Western versions, which focus on the philosophy of history (e.g. the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, etc). When Marxism is treated as a worldview rather than a philosophy of history, it virtually rules out individual liberty as an illusion because to be logically consistent with materialism, you can't have free will. Western versions of Marxism can argue for liberty- but once you put them through the "dialectic" they end up being self-contradictory.

What's interesting is that I've found some areas of agreement between Marxism and anarcho-capitalism. the idea of "self-ownership" in anarcho-capitalism means treating oneself as private property, and consequently "owning" your self and your rights. the reverse is that the Soviet model denies self-ownership as society/the state takes precedent over an individual as a collectivistic i.e. Communism means that the state or society effectively owns a person. Anarcho-Capitalists would say that is "slavery" (and in the worst possible cases that is true) but there are 'softer' versions where a person could be considered a form of "personal proeprty" whilst still being dependent and subordinate to common property. I'm working out the "nuts and bolts" of an anarcho-capitalist society and trying to see how it compares. If I'm wrong and there is a "solution" to the problem, it will be a "tiny" change and still solidly in stalinist territory. If I've got it right and the solution is impossible or simply unacceptable, I might turn into Ayn Rand.

Either way, the problem is a very simple one. There does not appear to be a way to protect the "right to life" of an individual subordinated by the state. As a person is property owned by the state, the state gets to decide who lives and who dies. Stalin's terror was therefore taking the idea of common ownership to its logical and absurd extreme. it's possible there could be a way round that, but I'd be a hairs breadth away from being a Nazi. it involve some form of social darwinism in which individuals do not have "rights" based on intrinsic value- but that rights are dependent on having the means (or power) to exercise them. its a "might makes right" situation. there is no god or higher power to protect us from the state or its abuses. communism fails because it doesn't have a way to cope with recognising the value of an individual and the inevitability of their demise. The state can argue that it's just "speeding up a natural process" by killing large groups of people who were going to die anyway or represent a "dying class". the "missing link" for all these years has been a form of social darwinism. Whilst its uses in Communism is very different from Nazism, the way it values human life is about the same.

I think this might be a good time to think about that quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". enjoy the moment before I either walk away from communism or ask questions I'd rather not have the answer to. Of course, if is there is no god, no soul, no afterlife and no higher power to tell the state it's wrong, they could still be "right". I'm not convinced thats enough of a reason to side with them at the moment. the truth needs to be a little more human.

 

[Laika]

Its been less than a month and I know that I have already lost the battle to give up communism. trying to be authentic and find peace with myself means I eventually gravitate back towards what I know. Because Communism is a "worldview", it isn't as simple as giving up the politics, but also giving up a series of philosophical and scientific views too. it makes it hard to walk away, as you have to consciously become anti-communist (of which I am not).

I don't think I will identify as such for a while as I obviously need to find some way to handle the "stalin-mao connection". given that the philosophy and the politics are intimately interconnected, its seem very likely that I will have to re-fight some of the same battles that have been going through my head over the past few months and years. being at war with yourself is an unpleasant thing, but I am nearer "peace" than I have been for many years (as well as recovery from depression).

If I can spell out the problem, it is that- as a communist- that collective identity means sharing the guilt and responsibility for the atrocities that communists committed. It's hard to explain how it feels to belong to a genocidial cult, at once with a deep love of mankind and yet very aware of evil that "love" can rationalise. I think the "solution", if indeed you want to call it that, is to recognise that you cannot stop these things from happening, as much as you'd want to. the alarm bell rings that this is the sort of "victim mentality" which tyrants thrive on, but the reverse may also be true. we can make ourselves victims by thinking "it can't happen to us". But in the end, our ideas do not change the world- they merely change who we are. men are not gods, and they cannot create utopia nor destroy socieites at will. what I got wrong was because I didn't want to see how easily people could get hurt- a very human failing only with an unforgivingly cruel ideology. we are afterall, only flesh and bone. there is no soul, no will, no god that can save us from our fragile humanity. we have to chose whether that makes us victims or whether it makes us worth fighting for.

a healthy dose of selfishness and self-preservation wouldn't be a bad thing though. power doesn't corrupt- it just reveals the hypocrisy of self-sacrifice as a value held above and against life itself. that much thinking about objectiviism and anarcho-capitalism can teach you.