11-05-2013, 07:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2013, 08:56 AM by FireIceTalon.)
I'm not going to respond to the whole post because its late, I am tired and don't have the energy to address everything you said right now.
But as far as free will goes, I don't think we agree here either, comrade. In the Marxist framework, the concept of free will is generally rejected, although there are some disagreements among Marxists as well regarding this. From this perspective, choices are and can only be made within the context of the mode of production in which we live, they are constrained by material forces and our social organization. Our choices are made a priori, subconsciously, before we actually "make" them. For the most part, I agree with this view, although there are times, in particular revolutionary circumstances, when humans can fundamentally change things beyond their normal capacity to do so though even here there are still material constraints in revolutionary situations. Generally speaking though, free will does not exist from the viewpoint of most Marxists from what I can tell. I'm not a Leninist, but he sort of summed up free will, or the lack thereof when he stated "Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as the creators of a new social order".
At the same time however, the other end of the spectrum, determinism, is a load of crap as well. The free will vs. determinism dichotomy is unscientific anyways, and probably why most Marxists reject both. Neither one really provides us with a realistic, ontological understanding of how the world works.
And yes, we have a very fundamental disagreement on our view of human nature. Human nature for me, while having some biological aspects, is largely social. The reason I used history in my post, is because our nature and state of being, has changed greatly throughout every epic of history - from HG societies to capitalism. My point was to prove that human nature is not some fixed, innate biological concept as most people think it is. We not only disagree about what human nature is, but also what its role is: for you, it is a cause of material circumstances. For me, it is an effect, or result, of them - although it is probably more accurate to say that material conditions and human nature likely have a sort of reciprocal relationship to some extent. But still, material conditions predominate this relationship, for the simple fact that matter must exist before consciousness or behavior can.
You are still thinking that I think humans should be altruistic, which is not what I am saying at all. You are looking at things from a philosophical view of human nature, but I am looking at them from objective, material class interests - these are two very different things. Pursuing ones own class interests isn't altruistic in the least - communism would be something that is built around the larger, objective and material interests of the proletariat(which actually would cease to exist as a class under communism, as would the bourgeois), and not around some altruistic notion of human consciousness.
But as far as free will goes, I don't think we agree here either, comrade. In the Marxist framework, the concept of free will is generally rejected, although there are some disagreements among Marxists as well regarding this. From this perspective, choices are and can only be made within the context of the mode of production in which we live, they are constrained by material forces and our social organization. Our choices are made a priori, subconsciously, before we actually "make" them. For the most part, I agree with this view, although there are times, in particular revolutionary circumstances, when humans can fundamentally change things beyond their normal capacity to do so though even here there are still material constraints in revolutionary situations. Generally speaking though, free will does not exist from the viewpoint of most Marxists from what I can tell. I'm not a Leninist, but he sort of summed up free will, or the lack thereof when he stated "Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as the creators of a new social order".
At the same time however, the other end of the spectrum, determinism, is a load of crap as well. The free will vs. determinism dichotomy is unscientific anyways, and probably why most Marxists reject both. Neither one really provides us with a realistic, ontological understanding of how the world works.
And yes, we have a very fundamental disagreement on our view of human nature. Human nature for me, while having some biological aspects, is largely social. The reason I used history in my post, is because our nature and state of being, has changed greatly throughout every epic of history - from HG societies to capitalism. My point was to prove that human nature is not some fixed, innate biological concept as most people think it is. We not only disagree about what human nature is, but also what its role is: for you, it is a cause of material circumstances. For me, it is an effect, or result, of them - although it is probably more accurate to say that material conditions and human nature likely have a sort of reciprocal relationship to some extent. But still, material conditions predominate this relationship, for the simple fact that matter must exist before consciousness or behavior can.
You are still thinking that I think humans should be altruistic, which is not what I am saying at all. You are looking at things from a philosophical view of human nature, but I am looking at them from objective, material class interests - these are two very different things. Pursuing ones own class interests isn't altruistic in the least - communism would be something that is built around the larger, objective and material interests of the proletariat(which actually would cease to exist as a class under communism, as would the bourgeois), and not around some altruistic notion of human consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (on capitalist laws and institutions)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (on capitalist laws and institutions)