Ham and Ian. and everybody, this about Marxism and freedom and stuff
[Ham]
... and the most ludicrous of all:
[Chris]
abolishing the capitalist system so that social values such as
profit isn't allowed to subjugate humanity's strive towards knowledge.
[Ham]
For the life of me, I can't fathom how the rewards of research,
production,
and marketing
in the capitalist system subjugate humanity's quest for knowledge. Aside
from the fact that this is a disingenuous assertion, how would
Marxism--even
ideally implemented--increase man's acquisition of knowledge??
Just as Marx did, I am the first to recognize the great, great services the
capitalistic system has done for the development of mankind. However,
looking at it all as logically as possible - and from a MOQ perspective at
that - I can only conclude that the way we should develop is towards a a
state where the intellectual level (The Quest for knowledge) is not directed
by, and led in directions of what has high social value - I.e. what one can
make money of.
The idea, the basic idea is to work towards this, to create a society where
the central aspect isn't that of acquiring social value (money) so that one
can gain biological, social and perhaps intellectual benefits accordingly -
no, in a communist society the social structures will have been moulded into
serving the intellectual level, and not the other way around. No one will be
a slave under the need to gain funds to survive, because it will not be an
adversarial based system. Instead everybody will have the possibilities to
expand their knowledge and understanding, in whatever direction the
intellectual level takes them - not that everybody will of course, even if
the Quest for Knowledge for Knowledge's sake Alone is made to be the highest
Social Value (Social values can be changed remember?) not everybody will
choose to do so. But more will.
So in short, a Marxist system is one where the intellectual level is allowed
to be in charge at all times. Now that's evolutionarily moral.
---
[Ian] wrote:
I'm catching-up / summarizing first. As MoQists we hold Individual
(Freedoms) in some sense above Social / Collective / Cosmic (Duties /
Responsibilities), and we hold Intellectual (PoV's) in some sense
above Social (PoV's). But ... exactly how ...
(This thread embodies the recurring difficulty with defining
Intellectual as against Individual and defining Social/Collective
against Individual, hence even the Social / Intellectual distinction
still has some fuzziness. I have always preferred a view that treats
the social and intellectual as one level - and acknowledges a spectrum
of individual and collective patterns of value within it .... but
that's just me .... avoiding conflict - I like fuzzy.)
We all value "freedom" - the liberals by defintion, and for the
conservatives it's a mantra to beat liberals with - and let the
partizan rhetorical battles commence - but not here please. What we
argue about is, that whilst intellectual patterns / individual freedom
are "higher" than collective / social patterns, we cannot agree any
valid limitations on freedoms by those collective aspects - markets or
social duties, whatever. "Governance" is my word for this problematic
issue - of limits to indivdual freedom - any or none.
[Chris]
Can we please stop putting a = sign between the intellectual level and
individual freedom. Freedom is a VERRY complicated word. Are we talking
about positive or negative freedoms? And really - Freedom the way it is
used most of the time is a Social Level Weapon.
And I'm not saying the social level is evil! We have been though that
discussion a hundred times already (notably with Platt) It's just that since
the intellectual level is too fuzzy, people tend to place social values as
intellectual - just because now, in our time, the moral code is that freedom
is a Good thing, that doesn't make freedom as such the intellectual level,
but only a concept that is now a social Value (perhaps originated in the
intellectual level, but that's beside the point).
But, let me comment on your last paragraph here: The intellectual Level IS
limited by the social level. Today as always before. There must be a solid
social base on which the intellectual level can operate, but I simply say:
Let's make the social structures serve the intellectual level as much as
possible! Many of you talk about the dangers of limiting "personal
reedom" - well, not considering that that is a very fuzzy concept, it
still smells social level supremacy from afar. To best serve the supremacy
of the intellectual level, and thus the evolution and humanity in general,
we may have to take away "freedoms" such as the freedom to freely compete on
a capitalistic market. We may have to take away many things which many today
consider "freedoms" - but these things will all be social values, and at
that values that is tied to the social value pattern called the "free
market".
As long as people have the best opportunities to follow their innate
instinct of understanding things (The Intellectual Level) then morality is
served. Evolution is served.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
