Paleosocialism.

[Ixtab]

Modern Socialists seek to destroy the family, while the original Socialists fought against the very economic causes which were then (and are still) destroying the family. Modern Socialists seek to abolish motherhood (in the traditional sense), while the original Socialists sought to preserve and confirm it, for they considered that it was being threatened by the profiteering system (plenty of early socialistic writings condemn capitalism because it puts children and women into the work force and thereby destroys women's traditional role in the family; it pays more to be a prostitiute than a mother in a social system based on cash payments). Many modern Socialists seek to abolish competition, whilst the original Socialists sought to abolish only one type of condition, that of private property, while giving full play to competition in the spheres of fame, service, salaries, authority, leisure, honour, and so on. Modern Socialists despise hierarchy and authority in all its manifold forms, while the original Socialists considered it necessary for any kind of combined action. The original Socialists were also very often anti-Semitic and rarely ever exhibited any sympathies for multiracialism. There are many other distinctions that can be drawn between modern and pre-modern varieties of Socialism.

(I have therefore coined a new term, paleosocialism, to describe my personal ideology. The new variety of Socialists may be called neoSocialists.)

[Anarch]

Modern Socialists seek to destroy the family, while the original Socialists fought against the very economic causes which were then (and are still) destroying the family. Modern Socialists seek to abolish motherhood (in the traditional sense), while the original Socialists sought to preserve and confirm it, for they considered that it was being threatened by the profiteering system (plenty of early socialistic writings condemn capitalism because it puts children and women into the work force and thereby destroys women's traditional role in the family; it pays more to be a prostitiute than a mother in a social system based on cash payments). Many modern Socialists seek to abolish competition, whilst the original Socialists sought to abolish only one type of condition, that of private property, while giving full play to competition in the spheres of fame, service, salaries, authority, leisure, honour, and so on. Modern Socialists despise hierarchy and authority in all its manifold forms, while the original Socialists considered it necessary for any kind of combined action. The original Socialists were also very often anti-Semitic and rarely ever exhibited any sympathies for multiracialism. There are many other distinctions that can be drawn between modern and pre-modern varieties of Socialism.

(I have therefore coined a new term, paleosocialism, to describe my personal ideology. The new variety of Socialists may be called neoSocialists.)
Good post. I agree with almost all of it.

[Ixtab]

Thank you. I had a debate on this very subject at another forum I post at. I will imitate Fade habit and post what I wrote,


I was under the impression that writers like Bebel, Rousseau and Engels sought to 'destroy the family' in the sense it is understood currently.Evidence for what? Take Thomas Hughes for instance,

"We must not shut our eyes to the facts, dream . . . of a beautiful world of homes, ordlerly, virtuous, each a little human fastness, each with its porch and creeper, each with its books and harmonium, its hymn-singing on Sunday night, its dear mother who makes such wonderful cakes, its strong and happy father -- and then say, 'These wicked Socialists want to destroy all this.' In the first place such homes are being destroyed and made impossible under the present system, and only very few homes are at all like this ideal. . . . Does the Socialist want to destroy the family? Rather, I hold he wants to save it from a destruction that is going on now, to raise it to the level of its better realizations of happiness and security. And it is not only I say this but all my fellow-Socialists say it, too."

H. G. Wells writing in 1909,

"Woman's personality will make the home atmosphere; that is the woman's gift and privilege. I suppose for the husband's cost in the household the present custom of cultivated people of independent means will continue, and he will pay over to his wife the household expenses."

[Ixtab]

It isn't 'necessarily' pejorative, but it generally is. As for why people will 'declare' themselves as such ...Give me examples of 'paleo' being used pejoratively. It is simply the antipode of the prefix 'neo' and is value-neutral.

This seems misleading when it is clear to us that there have always been radical Socialists...Even the more radical socialists at the time were 'paleo'. Name the prominent 19th century socialist who believed in mass racial homogenisation, in the inexistence of racial distinctions, in the evilness of identifying with one's culture and people, in the desirability of a worldwide federal governent, in philosemitism, political correctness, homosexual marriages, national fornication, and the entire gamut of liberal canards that have acquired a position of ascendancy in modern socialist ideology. Bebel? No - he was most definitely paleo; even his 'feminism' differs from the modern. And even if not, such cases do not refute the overall pattern, often cumulative in nature, evident to everyone with the slightest knowledge of Socialist history.

... and always been those which sympathise more with social norms as they stand.But these paleos did not sympathise with the social norms as they stood; they considered that the family, for example, was being destroyed by the profiteering system.

"We must not shut our eyes to the facts, dream . . . of a beautiful world of homes, ordlerly, virtuous, each a little human fastness, each with its porch and creeper, each with its books and harmonium, its hymn-singing on Sunday night, its dear mother who makes such wonderful cakes, its strong and happy father -- and then say, 'These wicked Socialists want to destroy all this.' In the first place such homes are being destroyed and made impossible under the present system, and only very few homes are at all like this ideal. . . . Does the Socialist want to destroy the family? Rather, I hold he wants to save it from a destruction that is going on now, to raise it to the level of its better realizations of happiness and security. And it is not only I say this but all my fellow-Socialists say it, too."

That was the typical view.

YOU are given the same term denoting 'original Socialists' (paleosocialists) while Engels or Babel are in fact 'Modern Socialists' by comparison.Engels fits most of the criteria of paleosocialism -- supported authority and hierarchy, was intensely nationalistic by modern standards, exhibited no sympathy for multiculturalism or mass immigration, loved European civilisation, believed that inborn racial differences can have an effect on historical development, rejected egalitarianism, and supported a kind of proto-eugenics. He was a Socialist of the old type -- nowhere do we find him praising the wonders of Multiculturalism, instilling guilt in Europeans because of their heritage, proclaiming that race is a 'social construct,' denying that any gender differences can be identified between men and women, upholding the causes of non-Europeans immigrants over and above those of the indigenous working class population, praising homosexual unions, and so on. Nowhere do we find any of this in the writings of Engels. These are relatively recent tendencies amongst socialists.

[Ixtab]

The very concept of something being 'old/ancient' is quite negative.Evidence?
And again, can you give me an example of the 'paleo' prefix being used with a word in a pejorative manner?
I don't particularly care anyway. I reject the ideas of modernity, linear progress, and developmentalism; so it doesn't bother me one jot if 'old' is equated with things bad or outmoded.

"The term was coined in the late 20th century and derives from the Greek root palaeo- meaning "ancient" or "old". The term was not invented by the group themselves and is not used by them, being somewhat pejorative."I should like to see evidence of its being pejorative. This is not evidence; this is simply Wikipedia making the same unsupported assertion you have made.

But we've just been considering that he saw the family as a bourgeois construct ...No he didn't. And the differences between paleo- and neosocialism are cumulative and do not lend themselves to fragmentary examinations of the intellectual structure of the two ideologies. One can see definite patterns of ideas emerging within modern socialism on the one hand and paleosocialism on the other if one stand back a bit and look at the broader picture. And the distinctess is self-obvious, a perfectly natural and expected distinctness as well given the parallel changes in other political ideologies, conservatism included.

... that would be 'done away with' in a Socialist state ...Only the insecurity and precariousness of the family in the modern form.

"We must not shut our eyes to the facts, dream . . . of a beautiful world of homes, ordlerly, virtuous, each a little human fastness, each with its porch and creeper, each with its books and harmonium, its hymn-singing on Sunday night, its dear mother who makes such wonderful cakes, its strong and happy father -- and then say, 'These wicked Socialists want to destroy all this.' In the first place such homes are being destroyed and made impossible under the present system, and only very few homes are at all like this ideal. . . . Does the Socialist want to destroy the family? Rather, I hold he wants to save it from a destruction that is going on now, to raise it to the level of its better realizations of happiness and security. And it is not only I say this but all my fellow-Socialists say it, too."

Again - Engels in terms of family has Modern Socialist tendencies ...Not at all. His position is simply a mark of his consistency; it shows that he was against the insecurity and lack of accountability inherent in private ownership in general -- the family included. In modern Socialism this feeling is subordinated to a metaphysical 'egalitarianism' and an ill-disguised hatred of fatherhood and masculinity; a malicious envy rather. Nowhere, either, does Engels declare that femininity is a social construct.

Also, it is essential that you tell me where Engels praises the wonders of Multiculturalism, instills guilt in Europeans because of their heritage, proclaims that race is a 'social construct,' denies that any gender differences can be identified between men and women, upholds the causes of non-Europeans immigrants over and above those of the indigenous working class populations, praises homosexual unions, espouses philosemitism, and so on. For each of these, please, show me an excract from any of Engels' voluminous writings.

Perhaps if there is a clearly identifiable trend ...There is no such thing as a clear-cut 'trend'. A thing ceases to be a 'trend' or a 'tendency' if it be thus defined. 'Trends', moreover, as a matter of definition, cannot be examined in a completely fragmentary fashion as you have thought fit so to do.

... you might consider alternatives like 'traditional'/'modern'.Mere synonyms for 'paleo' and 'neo'.
If Rex have a prejudice against the term 'paleo', he should name a suffix exactly opposite in meaning to 'neo'. Then what he would seem to be arguing against is not so much Bregowald's ideas but his choice of an affix, even although Bregowald would be using it in exactly the same sense w/o any change in Meaning.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ix,

It might be a good idea to stick with 'socialist'. The 'modern socialists' you describe are really just liberals. There are plenty of liberals who seek to enlist the state in the fight to advance liberal ideals. The destruction of the family is a liberal objective, as the family is a collective institution that is often hostile to individual freedom and self-expression. Liberals are anti-racist for similiar reasons.

[Ixtab]

I agree with you, essentially, but Socialism means whatever people think it means. Nowadays it means a kind of liberalism. Whether Socialists are 'really' something other than liberals is not always relevant.

[Faustian Dreams]

Socialism, just like any other political term, is subject to the shifting of paradigms. I am not very familiar with the specific nature of any political schema because I despise their idealistic (and usually anthropocentric) nature. When socialism began, I do not think that there was any concern greater than one's nation. As the "global community" reaches its realization, there are many socialists who believe that their political theory can be used to span the world and unite people from every corner of the earth.

I recently engaged in a debate with a self-proclaimed Trotskyist socialist who favored the dissolution of race through widescale miscegenation, and believed that humanity's imperative for justice supersedes concern for preservation of environment and resources. He also stated that since we are above nature, essentially we do not need to worry about this, because we will "colonize space" before we destroy ourselves.

Socialism is too broad of a concept to be effective in uniting advocates of its various subgroups, and seemingly contradictory from what Bregowald has mentioned.

This wasn't much of a post; although I have a question I would like answered:

What are the main differences between Trotsky's, Lenin's and Stalin's forms of communism/socialism? Thanks in advance!

[Faustian Dreams]

This is why socialism, as well as all other forms of current political theories, fails: it is materialistic and presupposes that certain liberties must be granted in order to ensure the happiness of the people it wishes to provide for. Contrast this with Hinduism, where duty was for duty's sake, and happiness was deemed to be the realization of Self, achieved through many possible philosophical pathways.

[raven]

I know a lot of people here favour Paleosocialism to neosocialism (basically the liberals or the "new" reds like the ARA and those dickheads) but I see flaws in both systems. Ok I'll name some attributes

Totalitarianism: They are both IMO totalitarian however I believe the Paleosocialists were worse for this. Let's compare. Under Stalin, if you had an unpopular opinion, you were executed. In modern-day Canada, if you state a certain unpopular opinion (like a "racist" or "anti-semitic" remark) you get locked up for "hate speech" and often get sentences worse than criminals who commit actual violence. So in this regard I would say the neosocialists are better because well it's better to be locked up than to be executed for your beliefs right? But then the radical "new" commies do go beyond a government like Canada's liberals... fruit loops like Multimoot, Yama and the ARA guy IMO are like the multikult Stalinists.

Economics : I'm not a fan of both. I probably would consider myself more left than right economically but both groups are way too leftist for me.

The Pansy Factor : The "old" commies weren't pansies but the "new" reds definately are. Obviously the "old" commies fair much better in this.

In the end I can't really say which is better. I dislike both the old and the new communist systems. So basically I believe old Communism is too hardcore and new Communism is anti-European though less totalitarian (unless an extremist "new" red gets into power then we are totally fucked.)

[jcs]

This is probably the only area in which I disagree with the socialism described in the original post:
the original Socialists sought to abolish only one type of condition, that of private property
Why?

Totalitarianism
Not a fan of this, either. Would a socialist mind explaining the value of totalitarianism?

[Berianidze]

Totalitarianism: They are both IMO totalitarian however I believe the Paleosocialists were worse for this. Let's compare. Under Stalin, if you had an unpopular opinion, you were executed. In modern-day Canada, if you state a certain unpopular opinion (like a "racist" or "anti-semitic" remark) you get locked up for "hate speech" and often get sentences worse than criminals who commit actual violence. So in this regard I would say the neosocialists are better because well it's better to be locked up than to be executed for your beliefs right? But then the radical "new" commies do go beyond a government like Canada's liberals... fruit loops like Multimoot, Yama and the ARA guy IMO are like the multikult Stalinists.

Such actions (on behalf of the paleosocialists) which, when in fact such actions are proved to have historically happened in certain circumstances, and receive innumerous amounts of criticism from the neosocialists, are in fact justifiably legitimate under Soviet criminal law and were necessary actions in the preservation of socialism, not because the ideas were inherently disagreeing with Stalin or those of the Bolshevik leadership, but rather because they posed a threat to the survival of the people. For instance, in the trials of Kamenev, Zinovieve, etc. the point wasn't to supress an unpopular opinion, but rather preventing support for a subversive internal movement that was inherently destructive to society. Stalin spoke on numerous occasions as to how the ultra-leftist views of the left deviation would alienate the peasantry and create permanent rifts between proletarian and peasant forces, which was already strained from Kulak acts of sabotage and anti-soviet propaganda, so in a sense, actions taken by the soviet government towards subversive ideas were conducted out of necessity, and in complete complianec with the criminal code of the RSFSR (as of 1934); actions of shooting individuals for counter-revolutionary activities and propagating of such ideas was seen as a measure of social defense, rather than perpetrating the total authority of Stalin and his personal beliefs.

[Ixtab]

This is why socialism, as well as all other forms of current political theories, fails: it is materialisticHow is it materialistic?

... and presupposes that certain liberties must be granted in order to ensure the happiness of the people it wishes to provide for.Which liberties?

[Ixtab]

This is probably the only area in which I disagree with the socialism described in the original postAnd it also happens to be the defining feature of Socialism.

Why?Why are Socialists against private property? That is the same as asking why are Socialists socialists. Privately enterprise is wasteful and inefficient, necessarily it seeks profit, necessarily it tries to cut expenses to its own advantage, necessarily it makes money the criterion of intercourse, necessarily it subordinates the spirit of service to the spirit of gain and accumulation, and necessarily it is anti-social. I would even argue that that the profiteering system is opposed to human nature.

Also, in case you haven't realised, Socialists use the term 'private property' in a limited sense. Socialists do not seek to abolish 'private property' in things strictly individual, or things that are natural extensions of one's individuality. They seek to abolish private ownership in the means of production and communication, and other things in the public interest, while considering private ownership in use and consumption to be as necessary as eating. There are also certain proprietary feelings which Socialists seek not to abolish nor to diminish, but in fact to strengthen and confirm: the position one has achieved in one's occupation, one's sense of authority and responsibility. In the present social system, these sensations are disregarded to an unjustified extent, in my view. Many people who have created value are needlessly tossed aside.

[Leif]

This post somehow became far larger than I originally intended, and the time being 1:07AM, there may be a few typos and errors...

Firstly, I would like to say that Ixabert has very well articulated what a number of socialists have been thinking; "neo-socialists" are concerned with issues that can not be resolved without changing our entire economic system. "Paleosocialists," while sometimes sympathetic to oppressed ethnicities and peoples, although often not, focused the largest amount of their efforts at changing the capitalist-industrial system, rather than the effects of this system such as oppressed immigrant workers, today addressed [poorly] by anti-racists, and the lack of legal rights for women, now addressed [poorly] by feminists. Today's "neosocialists" are merely splinter groups concentrating their efforts against effects and not causes of social ill, and in doing so misunderstanding the true problems of society. The oppression and racial discrimination against foreign workers, exploited both in imperialist countries and the "third-world," will not end by moralizing to the imperialist investors. The only way this 'racism' will end is by the change of society so as to exclude such individuals from retaining private power over these very much public matters of commerce. Only after the revolutionary change of society will these social ills fall away.

In the United States there are often announcements by anti-racist buffoons that there is a lack of "racial minorities" in certain occupations, as if merely adding more racial minorities into these positions eliminates inequality and social injustice throughout society. They are taking a metaphysical approach to social problems by detaching effects from their causes, and in doing so, failing to see that these 'problems' are only such in relation to the system as a whole. Instead of thinking, "It is bad that there is so much wealth in the hands of so few, with remarkably little among racial minorities," they are blindsighted into thinking that redistributing wealth to the minorities should be the goal of society, when doing so would merely exchange one group of have-nots for another, without eliminating the category itself.

I agree with FadeTheButcher that many of today's "socialists" and "cultural marxists" are nothing more than liberal shills of bourgeois capitalism. Unfortunately, many once-genuine socialist movements have now joined the middle-class liberals by focusing entirely on secondary issues. Ixabert once articulated this by saying that the priorities of modern socialists are "race > sex > class." A prime example is The Communist Party of the United States of America. They supported John Kerry in the last presidential election and did not bother running a candidate. Supposedly, they supported Kerry in an attempt to remove G.W. Bush from office. I and a few other local socialists I met with were fairly disgusted by this reformism. The fate of society does not depend upon one politician, especially when that politician [Kerry] was spouting as much if not more hawkish war-mongering in his speeches calling for improved national defense and pointing fingers at South America. Senator Kerry, lest we forget, voted for the current Iraqi war, his only excuse being, "Had I known the way it is being conducted, I would have voted against it." This is an utterly worthless statement. From a military standpoint, the war in Iraq was a spectacular success for the imperialists. From all other aspects, the war was a complete failure, fueling more resentment against the West, destabilizing a generally unstable region, and killing thousands of innocents (although we may thank the Clinton administration for far more deaths caused by economic sanctions.) What, however, did Kerry expect from this? Were the Iraqis to cheer the imperialists for occupying their country and plundering their resources? Were the Iraqi people supposed to merely progress forward to the bourgeois utopia of free-trade and political emancipation? Kerry is another puppet of the capitalists and the CPUSA is either headed by fools or running-dogs of imperialism to believe otherwise. The CPUSA focused on the secondary issue of removing a war-monger from power, when in fact this would achieve nothing when the entire system is built upon economic conquest.

[quote]Also, in case you haven't realised, Socialists use the term 'private property' in a limited sense. Socialists do not seek to abolish 'private property' in things strictly individual, or things that are natural extensions of one's individuality. They seek to abolish private ownership in the means of production and communication, and other things in the public interest, while considering private ownership in use and consumption to be as necessary as eating. There are also certain proprietary feelings which Socialists seek not to abolish nor to diminish, but in fact to strengthen and confirm: the position one has achieved in one's occupation, one's sense of authority and responsibility. In the present social system, these sensations are disregarded to an unjustified extent, in my view. Many people who have created value are needlessly tossed aside.[/quote]

I agree with the above wholeheartedly.

Here is a useful excerpt from Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" which covers the failure of capitalism.

[quote]At this juncture, there came forward as a reformer a manufacturer 29-years-old – a man of almost sublime, childlike simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of the materialistic philosophers: that man’s character is the product, on the one hand, of heredity; on the other, of the environment of the individual during his lifetime, and especially during his period of development. In the industrial revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of putting into practice his favorite theory, and so of bringing order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory. From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success that made him a European reputation. A population, originally consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very demoralized elements, a population that gradually grew to 2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. At the age of two, the children came to school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could scarely be got home again. Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10 and a half hours. When a crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers received their full wages all the time. And with all this the business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded large profits to its proprietors.

In spite of all this, Owen was not content. The existence which he secured for his workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human beings. "The people were slaves at my mercy." The relatively favorable conditions in which he had placed them were still far from allowing a rational development of the character and of the intellect in all directions, much less of the free exercise of all their faculties.

[I]“And yet, the working part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century before, it would have required the working part of a population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?” [3] [/I]

The answer was clear. It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5 per cent on the capital they had laid out, in addition to over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark held to a still greater extent for all the factories in England.

[I]“If this new wealth had not been created by machinery, imperfectly as it has been applied, the wars of Europe, in opposition to Napoleon, and to support the aristocratic principles of society, could not have been maintained. And yet this new power was the creation of the working-classes.”

Note, l. c., p.22. [/I]

To them, therefore, the fruits of this new power belonged. The newly-created gigantic productive forces, hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction of society; they were destined, as the common property of all, to be worked for the common good of all.[/quote]

Robert Owen's socialist experiments in England outproduced their other counterparts because he rewarded his workers with far more than the subsistence minimum of wages, increasing their productivity and physical health by better working conditions, and mental capacity through better education. That is the flaw of private enterprise, the profits of a few are sometimes counter-productive to society as a whole. Socialism, contrary to libertarian thought, is not theft but the negation of theft by private enterprises. When private profit, speculation, and swindling is replaced with cooperation and mutual aid, society will prosper.

As Engels said, Owen's first experiments in socialism were not as effectual as they could have been because the newly harnessed power of production was mostly being funneled into a small number of investors. When one removes this private ownership from society one opens up a previously unused reservoir of wealth, being able to invest it directly into the productive sectors of society instead of the idle classes. The aristocracy and the priesthood of Europe was once the dominant idle class, but today another has emerged from the once-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Instead of noblemen who leech their wealth off the labor of peasants and merchants, we have investors and hoarders of capital sitting on their wealth and allowing others to struggle when there is every means available of giving the productive classes a more-than-comfortable living.

[Faustian Dreams]

"This is why socialism, as well as all other forms of current political theories, fails: it is materialistic..."

How is it materialistic?

"... and presupposes that certain liberties must be granted in order to ensure the happiness of the people it wishes to provide for."

Which liberties?

A few questions that will lead us on the way to concluding whether or not it is materalistic, in the classical sense that only matter exists:

First, weren't Marx and Engels the developers of historical materialism, whereby the changes of society and civilization were attributed to material or economic changes?

See, for example:
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange." (from "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Marx and Engels)

This seems, to me at least, like materialism in its purest essence.

If this is not convincing enough--and note that I am not attacking socialism exclusively--then I would simply like to ask: what is the goal of economics, its ultimate end? Isn't it to povide the best means to business, which is intended to provide humanity with a source of happiness? Doesn't socialism mean to remove private ownership to lift the burden of some politically underrepresented population (the proles, the working class, the bourgeois) and allow them access to the fruits of their own labor, theoretically due to this removal of obstruction manifest in private ownership?

That is the liberty I speak of, replacing private with public access to economy, because in my view liberty cannot be expanded or contracted, only shifted within a society (that is free to debate among any of you; I have not experienced otherwise--mind you, this is only from a materialist perspective. When we involve the question of spirit, it becomes an entirely different issue).

[Ixtab]

Isn't it to povide the best means to business, which is intended to provide humanity with a source of happiness? Doesn't socialism mean to remove private ownership to lift the burden of some politically underrepresented population (the proles, the working class, the bourgeois) and allow them access to the fruits of their own labor, theoretically due to this removal of obstruction manifest in private ownership?I don't see how this is materialistic -- any more than healing the sick out of pity is only about mere physical well-being.

[Faustian Dreams]

I don't see how this is materialistic -- any more than healing the sick out of pity is only about mere physical well-being.

I do not think this analogy is isomorphically sound, and your refutation suffers from it being so brief.

Means and intentions are two entirely different entities. When am extensive, multifarious philosophical doctrine is created, its foundation consists of core ideologies which must be elaborated upon and made coherent with respect to the whole. Just as in ancient civilizations, politics were reflective of the culture's cosmology and all of metaphysics, ethical theories, etc., so one can still find that today's philosopher lend themselves and the body of their experiences to their work. It is simple human nature. Regarding my belief that "Western" politics are all based on a materialistic worldview, regardless of how they are satisfying this claim (the "means"), they wish to provide for the happiness of others through manipulation of the external (the "intentions"). There is no concern for anything beyond this, because it does not find the answers that were once provided in religion and metaphysics to be valid.

Manifestation of one's vision, as well as their presupposition about both what the desired end shall be and how this sufficiently concludes the process of intention (conception, implementation, end result, review), are what connect means and intention, and they reflect one another, but bidirectionally. While you did not claim that it is the pity which heals the sick, the English language is awkward in structure like this, you fail to make the qualification of what the phenomenal process actually is and in doing so create a sentence which relegates some questions for emotional appeal: what is this individual's life philosophy? Why do they hold it imperative to heal the sick? What would Jesus do in this circumstance? What would He say? It can become absurd, of course, but it must all be kept in mind--we do it implicitly at all times. Likewise, if you do not, you are a behaviorist...which is a form of materialism!

I maintain: socialism, like all other forms of modern government, is an external manipulation for the same vague ideal: an opportunity for all to be happy. All forms of modern government fail terribly when taken from paper and applied to real circumstances. No current form of government can take into consideration human nature and provide for its less-than-shining moments without contradicting its own tenets.

That is why they are called social revolutions and not spiritual revolutions--because they are only able to manipulate the external. Even if one wishes that an alternative form of government will yield something more, purer sentiment, more peace or what-have-you, than what government one currently is a part of, one simply cannot be anything but a materialist, since the spirit of it is lost in translation and simply will not follow.

Thus, no matter how you look at it, political and economic theories are inherently materialistic because they do not provide one with a complete scope or lens through which to view the world. It is simply one facet, so it is painfully vulnerable human short-sightedness.

By the way:
Do you not concede my previous point, on Marx and Engels historical materialism? You made no mention of it in your rebuttal.

And what is your aversion to materialism anyway? :222:

[Ixtab]

I maintain: socialism, like all other forms of modern government, is an external manipulation for the same vague ideal: an opportunity for all to be happy.Evidence? And Socialism isn't a form of government; it is a mode of economic production.

All forms of modern government fail terribly when taken from paper and applied to real circumstances.It is you who have imagined a Socialist "ideal" - but for the purpose of declaring that Socialism falls short of that ideal. It is of your own imagination -- modern Socialism aspires to no ideal. It does not seek perfection or Utopia.

That is why they are called social revolutions and not spiritual revolutions--because they are only able to manipulate the external.Spiritual 'revolutions', whether within one's mind or in society at large, necessarily have a physical correlate.

Even if one wishes that an alternative form of government will yield something more, purer sentiment, more peace or what-have-you, than what government one currently is a part of, one simply cannot be anything but a materialist, since the spirit of it is lost in translation and simply will not follow.Define 'materialist'.

Thus, no matter how you look at it, political and economic theories are inherently materialistic because they do not provide one with a complete scope or lens through which to view the world. It is simply one facet, so it is painfully vulnerable human short-sightedness.That might be a reasonable argument if Socialism tried to function as a 'complete' lens through which to view the world. "Meteorology is inherently materialistic because it does not provide one with a complete scope or lens through which to view the world. It is simply one facet, so it is vulnerable to human short-sightedness."

What do you expect? Socialism to have a complete theory on politics, economics, sociology, religion, spirituality, cosmology, psychology, and a theory for every other sphere of intellectual activity?

Do you not concede my previous point, on Marx and Engels historical materialism?Why would I deny that Marx and Engels were historical materialists?

And what is your aversion to materialism anyway? :222:I never claimed to be adverse to materialism.

[Faustian Dreams]

Evidence? And Socialism isn't a form of government; it is a mode of economic production.

I understand that error. However, socialism had historically been intended as a gateway into communism...What evidence should I provide, for the rest of the statement? I understand that this is bad form in logical argumentation, but can you provide me with an appeal for any contrary (i.e. not external manipulation, not the ideal for happiness of all or merely more), in sentential logic, this statement becomes invalid if you can disprove either (it is a conjunction).

It is you who have imagined a Socialist "ideal" - but for the purpose of declaring that Socialism falls short of that ideal. It is of your own imagination -- modern Socialism aspires to no ideal. It does not seek perfection or Utopia.

Okay, you've got to be a bit clearer here, although I admit must do the same. I am not criticizing "modern" Socialism, but "modern" systems government (including economic affairs), which include both your two new terms, paleosocialism and neosocialism. Now, if you are saying modern Socialism as in neosocialism does not aspire to an ideal, then you are perhaps correctly, relatively speaking. Paleosocialism is laudable in this sense. But both have ideals, strictly speaking, in that they have an ultimatum.

Spiritual 'revolutions', whether within one's mind or in society at large, necessarily have a physical correlate.

Explain. Provide an example.

Define 'materialist'.

I already have in my previous post. Philosophy has too many definitions for many terms, but I clearly made mention: "materialism, in the classical sense that only matter exists." Economic policy, as I've also made mention before, cannot and does not intend to function on any other level. You allude to this yourself, so I don't see how you can raise dissension to my statement "Socialism...is materialistic."

That might be a reasonable argument if Socialism tried to function as a 'complete' lens through which to view the world. "Meteorology is inherently materialistic because it does not provide one with a complete scope or lens through which to view the world. It is simply one facet, so it is vulnerable to human short-sightedness."

I doesn't have to try. Meteorology is also materialistic. So long as either of these, as well as many more examples, acknowledge only what they intend to, the phenomal, the material, then that is simply what they are. I don't see how this is an inaccurate judgment. I simply have meant to say that materialistic implements will never succeed in bringing about change for the better. Hasn't history shown us enough examples of this?

What do you expect? Socialism to have a complete theory on politics, economics, sociology, religion, spirituality, cosmology, psychology, and a theory for every other sphere of intellectual activity?

Not in the slightest. But it should very well be coupled with a few of these facets of life. To declare oneself a socialist means very little unless it can be viewed in context with their entire personhood, and more broadly, what view for the world it exclaims. Nothing--no theory, no entity--exists in a vacuum. What socialism implies, therefore, ought to be expressed. As I've mentioned before, it is a part of one's worldview, but I don't think it is the foundation of their worldview; instead it emerges from some universal truth (or fallacy) professed by oneself. Economic theory is at the outer limits of pragmatic philosophy (or any form of philosophy for that matter).

Why would I deny that Marx and Engels were historical materialists?

My thoughts exactly on your dissension to my claim. Or can one be materialistic in one sense and not another? No correlation whatsoever?

I never claimed to be adverse to materialism.

Then I hope you at least enjoyed this debate! :) I sure have!

[Fade the Butcher]

The only way this 'racism' will end is by the change of society so as to exclude such individuals from retaining private power over these very much public matters of commerce. Only after the revolutionary change of society will these social ills fall away.Ymir,

I would add to this that the fundamental reason 'anti-racism' triumphed in our society in the first place is because it suited the needs of the ruling class. If your goal is to maximize the extraction of profit from your workers, then racial considerations are not going to be of much importance to you. Bill Gates doesn't care what color his workers are. He doesn't care about their ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, or personal creed either. He wants mass immigration from abroad in order to drive down wages and cut expenses. Racism (like all other forms of collective association) is a barrier that impedes the expansion of the capitalist system. That is why 'white supremacy' was done away with. It was no longer useful. Most potential 'consumers' and 'workers' in this world are nonwhite. Virtually all major multinational corporations either support multiculturalism and anti-racist agitation or fund anti-racist organizations outright because of this. They downplay and relativize cultural themes like Christmas for this reason as well.

You are right that modern socialists (and leftists too) are misdirecting their fire at these secondary issues instead of the capitalist system itself. Conservatives in the United States have long used race as a wrecking ball to destroy working class solidarity. The Nixon administration promoted affirmative action to drive working class whites away from the Democratic Party. Mass immigration is supported because it drives down wages, undermines the unions, and keeps whites away from the Democratic Party. This is why the Republican leadership makes constant use of anti-affirmative action, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rhetoric but never does anything about these issues once in power. They want to discuss cultural and racial issues instead in order to gain popular support to win elections. They don't want to discuss class issues because their real agenda is class agenda (i.e., amnesty for illegals, CAFTA and FTAA, tax cuts for the ultra rich, privatization of social security, bankruptcy reform and so on). The Republican leadership would never go to the bat for a marriage amendment like they would for CAFTA. Socialists and leftists alike play right into this shell game by taking up all these stupid causes and making them integral to their agenda. The easiest way to defeat an enemy is to let him defeat himself.

The goal of the capitalist ruling class in America is the same today as it was in the Open Door notes of John Hay: an open society organized entirely in terms of economic function in which collective distinctions (i.e., race, class, nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture etc) are rendered meaningless. Such distinctions have to be rendered meaningless because collective distinctions can act as organizing principles around which resistance might arise. The enemies of the USA all have this in common: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Ba'athists in Iraq, Shi'ite mullahs in Iran, nationalists in Cuba, North Korea, Serbia, Vietnam, China and Nicaragua. The enemy is always the closed system, independent action in whatever form, denial of economic access to penetration and exploitation. Anything that gets in the way of this is bad. Anything that promotes this is good.

[Ixtab]

Ymir,

I would add to this that the fundamental reason 'anti-racism' triumphed in our society in the first place is because it suited the needs of the ruling class. If your goal is to maximize the extraction of profit from your workers, then racial considerations are not going to be of much importance to you. Bill Gates doesn't care what color his workers are. He doesn't care about their ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, or personal creed either. He wants mass immigration from abroad in order to drive down wages and cut expenses. Racism (like all other forms of collective association) is a barrier that impedes the expansion of the capitalist system. That is why 'white supremacy' was done away with. It was no longer useful. Most potential 'consumers' and 'workers' in this world are nonwhite. Virtually all major multinational corporations either support multiculturalism and anti-racist agitation or fund anti-racist organizations outright because of this. They downplay and relativize cultural themes like Christmas for this reason as well.

You are right that modern socialists (and leftists too) are misdirecting their fire at these secondary issues instead of the capitalist system itself. Conservatives in the United States have long used race as a wrecking ball to destroy working class solidarity. The Nixon administration promoted affirmative action to drive working class whites away from the Democratic Party. Mass immigration is supported because it drives down wages, undermines the unions, and keeps whites away from the Democratic Party. This is why the Republican leadership makes constant use of anti-affirmative action, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rhetoric but never does anything about these issues once in power. They want to discuss cultural and racial issues instead in order to gain popular support to win elections. They don't want to discuss class issues because their real agenda is class agenda (i.e., amnesty for illegals, CAFTA and FTAA, tax cuts for the ultra rich, privatization of social security, bankruptcy reform and so on). The Republican leadership would never go to the bat for a marriage amendment like they would for CAFTA. Socialists and leftists alike play right into this shell game by taking up all these stupid causes and making them integral to their agenda. The easiest way to defeat an enemy is to let him defeat himself.

The goal of the capitalist ruling class in America is the same today as it was in the Open Door notes of John Hay: an open society organized entirely in terms of economic function in which collective distinctions (i.e., race, class, nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture etc) are rendered meaningless. Such distinctions have to be rendered meaningless because collective distinctions can act as organizing principles around which resistance might arise. The enemies of the USA all have this in common: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Ba'athists in Iraq, Shi'ite mullahs in Iran, nationalists in Cuba, North Korea, Serbia, Vietnam, China and Nicaragua. The enemy is always the closed system, independent action in whatever form, denial of economic access to penetration and exploitation. Anything that gets in the way of this is bad. Anything that promotes this is good.Finally! Someone has clearly articulated what I have been thinking for a long time now.

[Fade the Butcher]

I agree. That is why I'm fairly apathetic to race and gender issues, I see these things as symptoms of a larger 'ill.' I would say that racial and gender differences are interesting and significant in their own right and thus warrant some attention. They should not distract us, however, from overthrowing the destructive capitalist economic system and replacing it with a sounder form of economic organization.My view on race and gender is this: everyone should be given an equal oppertunity (which includes economic means of striving towards oppertunity, i.e. socialism) and if they fail at achieving their desired occupation or status, so be it. I have a different point of view. Justice doesn't require of us that we treat others as our equals. It demands that each man should know his place and act accordingly. The unjust man is he who demands more than his station warrants. The criminal, for example, is unjust because he takes the law into his own hands. He does not possess such authority.Likewise, I do not care if most criminals are disproportionately black, white or Mexican. This is of concern to me. A collective should strive to achieve perfection and harmony. It makes sense to systematically eliminate the most disruptive and inferior elements while cultivating the best.If there was a rational system of justice in society, the offenders would be incapacitated regardless of race or creed, and society would think nothing of it. A rationalized system of justice would aim at some end, as rational activity is teleological. In my system, this end is happiness. It makes little sense to ignore relevant distinctions such as race and age in the criminal justice system. This isn't to say that white criminals shouldn't also be punished for their crimes. I am only saying that differential crime rates is useful knowledge to the social planner; to the police in particular.If this means that certain ethnic groups are nearly completely removed from society, then it will be purely justice. Justice isn't blindness to the facts of reality. On the contrary, such distinctions are integral to justice. The common man isn't justified in practicing medicine. He isn't a doctor. The common man possesses no such expert knowledge as a layman. He should recognize his place and act accordingly. This is justice. Ignorance is a characteristic of injustice. I believe that many [most?] from every ethnic or racial group are capable of holding some productive function in society given a fair chance, but if Negroes remain disproportionately at-odds with civil society under a system of equal oppertunity, the offenders will be removed as any other criminal would be. I would object to multiracialism on the same grounds that I object to crime and individualism: it is the introduction of disorder into an ordered system. A collective must attach the utmost importance to order if it is to achieve its end. Disorder is always the cause of the degeneration and subsequent collapse of states. Disorder is brought about by the toleration of injustice and the collapse of moral standards; which is turn stems from irrationality. There are few greater disorders in society that can be more easily avoided than racial division.(There is the argument that they recieve more than equal oppertunity today, but one must add that race-specific oppertunities of any kind are not truly equal oppertunity for all, which is necessary to maintain a system of justice)Treating unequals as equals results in the inequity we see today. It sows chaos and confusion within the collective as reverence and temperance are set aside.Top sum up the rant: I don't care if negroes or other minorities are prosecuted so long as they recieve a fair trial and dealt with like any other criminal should be. Justice isn't equal treatment. It makes little sense to treat friends as if they were enemies, the wise as if they were fools, the expert as the layman, citizens as foreigners. The state itself arises from the friend/foe distinction.However, anyone that fights for justice only for women or minorities or Whites isn't fighting for justice at all.See above.

[Leif]

I have a different point of view. Justice doesn't require of us that we treat others as our equals.

In regards to the legal system, yes it does. A legal system with differing penalties based upon differing individuals is irrationality and anarchy. That's not to say that repeat-offenders and such shouldn't be taken into considering how to deal with a criminal, but that these considerations are universal for all citizens. Senator's sons shouldn't be exempt from the draft because they happened to be born to wealthy politicians.

The criminal, for example, is unjust because he takes the law into his own hands. He does not possess such authority.

Err...if by "taking the law into his own hands" you mean "breaking the law," then I would say that no-one [should] have that authority. If you literally meant vigilante-ism, then I would say that justice is no less just when applied by someone without a policeman's uniform... What gives a man the authority to dispense justice, or any public service, other than his capacity and desire to do so?

This is of concern to me. A collective should strive to achieve perfection and harmony. It makes sense to systematically eliminate the most disruptive and inferior elements while cultivating the best.

My point was that they'd be eliminated under a color-blind approach, if the government actually wanted to eliminate criminality. It doesn't matter why these 'disruptive and inferior elements' are disruptive and inferior...only that they are removed from society.

A rationalized system of justice would aim at some end, as rational activity is teleological. In my system, this end is happiness. It makes little sense to ignore relevant distinctions such as race and age in the criminal justice system. This isn't to say that white criminals shouldn't also be punished for their crimes. I am only saying that differential crime rates is useful knowledge to the social planner; to the police in particular.

What would the police do? Target only minorities? Would the government sterilize all minorities because there was a statistical probablity of their tendency to commit crime? If one followed the execution of the law, one would deal with these people regardless of their ethnicity or racial category.

The common man isn't justified in practicing medicine. He isn't a doctor. The common man possesses no such expert knowledge as a layman. He should recognize his place and act accordingly. This is justice.

Any man that practices medicine without certification is a criminal, that is equality under the law. That is why they are called "laws." Gravity is a physical law, everything is subject to its force. It doesn't matter whether this matter is animal, mineral, or vegetable. Similarly, it doesn't matter if a criminal is black, white, or yellow, they are still a criminal because the "metaphysical" existence of legal codes apply to everyone.

I would object to multiracialism on the same grounds that I object to crime and individualism: it is the introduction of disorder into an ordered system.

What is inherently disorderly about multiracialism?

There are few greater disorders in society that can be more easily avoided than racial division.

How would racial division be "easily avoided" in the United States?

Justice isn't equal treatment. It makes little sense to treat friends as if they were enemies, the wise as if they were fools, the expert as the layman, citizens as foreigners. The state itself arises from the friend/foe distinction.

We treat citizens differently than foreigners because [supposedly] they are familiar with society enough to interact with it. Foreigners obviously won't be familiar with the legal and social system, so they would be likely criminals on that basis alone. If one took a blind approach to criminals, the legal system would naturally deal with enemies, foreigners, mental retards, etc. That's if one enforced the laws, however, which is not a common practice in the U.S.

[Fade the Butcher]

In regards to the legal system, yes it does. That is the liberal account of justice which prevails today in our legal system, yes. The existence of private property and the regime of sacrosanct individual rights are two other examples.A legal system with differing penalties based upon differing individuals is irrationality and anarchy.A rational legal system is one that aims at some end. If this end is seen as making progress towards collective perfection, then such a system of differential penalties would make perfect sense. It would be entirely rational. How is excellence compatible with equality?That's not to say that repeat-offenders and such shouldn't be taken into considering how to deal with a criminal, but that these considerations are universal for all citizens. It is wise to punish repeat-offenders more than others. This is because repeat-offenders create more disorder. Disorder inhibits society from progressing towards its end, happiness.Senator's sons shouldn't be exempt from the draft because they happened to be born to wealthy politicians.I would oppose the existence of a military drawn from mixed classes. It is the role of the soldier to fight, not the worker or the artist.Err...if by "taking the law into his own hands" you mean "breaking the law," then I would say that no-one [should] have that authority. You are missing the point of my example. Why is the criminal unjust for breaking the law. This is because justice is knowing one's place and acting accordingly. The injustice in the criminal act stems from the ambition of the criminal to be more than what he is.If you literally meant vigilante-ism, then I would say that justice is no less just when applied by someone without a policeman's uniform... The policeman can legitimately exercise justice because that is his place. He is justified in exercising the law because this is an activity proper to his station. The policeman isn't justified in making the law. That is not his role. What gives a man the authority to dispense justice, or any public service, other than his capacity and desire to do so?The authority to dispense justice by a policeman is derived from his place in the social hierarchy. The criminal is unjust in exercising justice because that is not his station.My point was that they'd be eliminated under a color-blind approach, if the government actually wanted to eliminate criminality. They would not be eliminated under a colorblind approach. Habitual criminals would merely be incarcerated and remain a burden to society. Many would be released and would spawn more of their kind. Disorder would not be eliminated. It would merely be contained. The millions of blacks occupying our prisons today are a huge burden upon taxpayers. This is a tremendous misallocation of resources. It doesn't matter why these 'disruptive and inferior elements' are disruptive and inferior...only that they are removed from society.It does matter. Taking a criminal off the streets and putting him in prison doesn't eliminate criminality. It only contains it. If we are to fight criminality, then it is essential that we understand its causes.What would the police do?The police would exercise the law. It is up to the lawmaker to determine the substance of the law.Target only minorities? It would be wise for the police to target minorities (if they had to in the first place), as minorities are disproportionately violent criminals. This would simply be making efficient and rational use of limited police resources through the use of valuable social knowledge.Would the government sterilize all minorities because there was a statistical probablity of their tendency to commit crime? The government would sterilize racial minorities in order to eliminate disorder. This isn't to say that sterilization would be limited to nonwhites. Crime is only one of the most flagrant example of disorder. If one followed the execution of the law, one would deal with these people regardless of their ethnicity or racial category.These categories are not irrelevant, as criminal activity is strongly associated with them. Does anyone doubt that America would be a substantially less violent place without its black population?Any man that practices medicine without certification is a criminal, that is equality under the law. How so? The law recognizes that an important distinction exists between the doctor and the common man. The expertise of the doctor warrants his exclusive right to practice medicine. The ignorance of the layman warrants his exclusion from this practice. Justice requires that the layman acknowledge his place.That is why they are called "laws." Gravity is a physical law, everything is subject to its force. It doesn't matter whether this matter is animal, mineral, or vegetable. Similarly, it doesn't matter if a criminal is black, white, or yellow, they are still a criminal because the "metaphysical" existence of legal codes apply to everyone.This doesn't follow. Laws are not always universally applicable. The laws of one nation (or state) do not apply to the citizens of another. You are missing the concept of jurisdiction.What is inherently disorderly about multiracialism? Multiracialism creates a huge social cleavage in polities that renders them dysfunctional in multiple ways. Dysfunctional polities have more difficulty achieving their ends.How would racial division be "easily avoided" in the United States?It can't be easily avoided in America. It could have been avoided in numerous other European countries that are now saddled with all of its burdens.We treat citizens differently than foreigners because [supposedly] they are familiar with society enough to interact with it. Foreigners obviously won't be familiar with the legal and social system, so they would be likely criminals on that basis alone. We treat citizens differently from foreigners because they do not occupy the same place in our society. It makes sense to treat our enemies differently than our friends for the same reason. If one took a blind approach to criminals, the legal system would naturally deal with enemies, foreigners, mental retards, etc. How so?That's if one enforced the laws, however, which is not a common practice in the U.S.The laws we have in place today are not adequate.

Note: This has been an interesting discussion; lots of good quality posts. I hope we can have more like it. :)

[Fade the Butcher]

Query: If injustice is merely violating the law, then how can any law be unjust?

[Berianidze]

In a socialist legal system, the criminality of actions should be of two natures: political considerations should be of primary concern of the state, followed by traditional acts of criminal behavior. The state will always have an enemy, and it is the purpose of exercising procurator powers over the individual that will secure and legitimize the state. The state must represent an organ of oppression and security. Trials should almost never be fair, but the determining factor should be based more upon how the turnout shall benefit the state; and with such a system, the state should remain in a perpetual battle with subversion, enemies (both domestic and abroad), and using all necessary resources to execute the laws.

"Criminal law is a tool of the class struggle." Andrei Vyshinsky,

the priority of the socialist criminal justice system should be of course preservation of the state/socialism. This means the capture and liquidation of the bourgeoisie, tratoirs, those committed to acts of sabotage, etc. You can make trials appear fair all you want, but it's a lot to ask for the procurator to prove actus reus, mensa rea, AND attendent circumstances. Justice should only appear to be blind, while no efficient judicial system can remain so.

However, back to my original point, it's ultimately class and political positions that will determine the guilt and or innocence of a criminal. Criminal procedures have to be of the retributive nature, particular when in close proximity to the revolution, as opposed to correctional justice.

While Krylenko's ideas were solid, and for the most part quite rational, there were exceptions in which he theorized that under socialist law, the defintion of crime (which Krylenko noted as unnecessary) are countrproductive to the state, and will only result in legal instability.

[Leif]

That is the liberal account of justice which prevails today in our legal system, yes. The existence of private property and the regime of sacrosanct individual rights are two other examples.

Bourgeois justice is only equal in theory. Politics can never be equal until every citizen has equal oppertunity, which does not exist in a society where some indivduals possess vastly more resources than others.

A rational legal system is one that aims at some end. If this end is seen as making progress towards collective perfection, then such a system of differential penalties would make perfect sense. It would be entirely rational.

Explain, please.

How is excellence compatible with equality?

Equality transcends excellence.

It is wise to punish repeat-offenders more than others. This is because repeat-offenders create more disorder. Disorder inhibits society from progressing towards its end, happiness.

I agree.

I would oppose the existence of a military drawn from mixed classes. It is the role of the soldier to fight, not the worker or the artist.

I somewhat agree in that specific individuals have specific duties and are most efficient when doing those duties, but my point of was of the injustice of allowed some to escape a mandatory requirement directed at everyone.

You are missing the point of my example. Why is the criminal unjust for breaking the law. This is because justice is knowing one's place and acting accordingly. The injustice in the criminal act stems from the ambition of the criminal to be more than what he is.

Why is going beyond oneself a bad thing...?

The policeman can legitimately exercise justice because that is his place. He is justified in exercising the law because this is an activity proper to his station. The policeman isn't justified in making the law. That is not his role.

The authority to dispense justice by a policeman is derived from his place in the social hierarchy. The criminal is unjust in exercising justice because that is not his station.

...

The police would exercise the law. It is up to the lawmaker to determine the substance of the law.


The ideal citizen would be vigilant and pro-active. They should give themselves initiative to fight enemies and increase their contributions to society. Lack of vigilance is a common problem in the United States... everyone assumes "someone else" will do whatever needs doing, whether it be fighting criminal trends (most choose to move away from criminally tainted areas instead of holding their ground, but that can be blamed on the lack of community in today's society and irrational justice system), engaging in politics, or contributing in general to the overall good of society.

They would not be eliminated under a colorblind approach. Habitual criminals would merely be incarcerated and remain a burden to society. Many would be released and would spawn more of their kind. Disorder would not be eliminated. It would merely be contained. The millions of blacks occupying our prisons today are a huge burden upon taxpayers. This is a tremendous misallocation of resources.

Repeat-offenders, would, of course, be executed as mentally incapable of functioning in society. You are making a mistake in identifying "colorblind" application of justice with injust practices, i.e. allowing criminals to leech from the productive parts of society.

It would be wise for the police to target minorities (if they had to in the first place), as minorities are disproportionately violent criminals.

The government would sterilize racial minorities in order to eliminate disorder. This isn't to say that sterilization would be limited to nonwhites. Crime is only one of the most flagrant example of disorder


These people would still be dealt with even without looking at their race or social position, justice would exist to eliminate rather than avenge crimes, like modern systems.

How so? The law recognizes that an important distinction exists between the doctor and the common man. The expertise of the doctor warrants his exclusive right to practice medicine. The ignorance of the layman warrants his exclusion from this practice. Justice requires that the layman acknowledge his place.

The law doesn't need to distinguish between types of frauds, only to establish that such an individual is a fraud. I think you are putting 'hierarchy' into a mistaken conflict with equality social equality. A division of labor creates a hierarchy, but it does not contradict the social equality between members of a hierarchy.

Laws are not always universally applicable. The laws of one nation (or state) do not apply to the citizens of another.

As long as they are backed up with force they can apply anywhere.

It can't be easily avoided in America. It could have been avoided in numerous other European countries that are now saddled with all of its burdens.

Agreed.

Multiracialism creates a huge social cleavage in polities that renders them dysfunctional in multiple ways. Dysfunctional polities have more difficulty achieving their ends.

It would seem that the existence of multiple races alone causes social division, not equal treatment of these races.

How so?

Basically, if a given society had laws designed to prevent/fight crime and adequate enforcement of those laws within a given territory, they would, generally, "weed out" anyone not mentally capable or socially conditioned to live in such a society. But this does go on the assumption that we have a more rational system of laws and enforcement currently existing in the West.

The laws we have in place today are not adequate.

Can't disagree with that. When they do seem to be legislated adequately, they are not enforced. (I'm fairly sure there is a law the Federal government has a duty to protect the borders of the U.S., but they definitely aren't doing it...)

Note: This has been an interesting discussion; lots of good quality posts. I hope we can have more like it.

Indeed. I hope there will be more concrete discussions of "justice" and legal systems in the future, especially in regards to the U.S.

[Roland]

Ymir,

I would add to this that the fundamental reason 'anti-racism' triumphed in our society in the first place is because it suited the needs of the ruling class. If your goal is to maximize the extraction of profit from your workers, then racial considerations are not going to be of much importance to you. Bill Gates doesn't care what color his workers are. He doesn't care about their ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, or personal creed either. He wants mass immigration from abroad in order to drive down wages and cut expenses. Racism (like all other forms of collective association) is a barrier that impedes the expansion of the capitalist system. That is why 'white supremacy' was done away with. It was no longer useful. Most potential 'consumers' and 'workers' in this world are nonwhite. Virtually all major multinational corporations either support multiculturalism and anti-racist agitation or fund anti-racist organizations outright because of this. They downplay and relativize cultural themes like Christmas for this reason as well.

You are right that modern socialists (and leftists too) are misdirecting their fire at these secondary issues instead of the capitalist system itself. Conservatives in the United States have long used race as a wrecking ball to destroy working class solidarity. The Nixon administration promoted affirmative action to drive working class whites away from the Democratic Party. Mass immigration is supported because it drives down wages, undermines the unions, and keeps whites away from the Democratic Party. This is why the Republican leadership makes constant use of anti-affirmative action, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rhetoric but never does anything about these issues once in power. They want to discuss cultural and racial issues instead in order to gain popular support to win elections. They don't want to discuss class issues because their real agenda is class agenda (i.e., amnesty for illegals, CAFTA and FTAA, tax cuts for the ultra rich, privatization of social security, bankruptcy reform and so on). The Republican leadership would never go to the bat for a marriage amendment like they would for CAFTA. Socialists and leftists alike play right into this shell game by taking up all these stupid causes and making them integral to their agenda. The easiest way to defeat an enemy is to let him defeat himself.

The goal of the capitalist ruling class in America is the same today as it was in the Open Door notes of John Hay: an open society organized entirely in terms of economic function in which collective distinctions (i.e., race, class, nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture etc) are rendered meaningless. Such distinctions have to be rendered meaningless because collective distinctions can act as organizing principles around which resistance might arise. The enemies of the USA all have this in common: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Ba'athists in Iraq, Shi'ite mullahs in Iran, nationalists in Cuba, North Korea, Serbia, Vietnam, China and Nicaragua. The enemy is always the closed system, independent action in whatever form, denial of economic access to penetration and exploitation. Anything that gets in the way of this is bad. Anything that promotes this is good.

As a student of socialist thought I would like to point out just a few issues with this theory.

Socialists, since the 1920s have made sweeping attempts to integrate their ranks insofar as this integration strengthened the political position of the working class. The deep south was, of course, economically useless. But the deep south also contained a massive working-class population. Institutional segregation and racism was prevalent in this area, and was used as a tool by the bourgeois to politically weaken the position of the working class. Blacks were excluded from the unions due to the popularity of racism and due to the appearance that blacks were taking white jobs. As the unions became radically left, they demanded higher wages. Industry, in turn, hired more blacks as scabs at lower wages. At this point, the unions realized they would need the power of black labor in order to oppose the bourgeois economic imperative. In response, the industries made the move to isolate their black labor populations from the white populations; they even paid blacks more to create animosity between work forces and therefore strengthen the segregation of the union.

Thus, the capitalist in the deep south did not have a coherent world-view and historical perspective that desired an optimal consumer-laborer, neo-liberal environment. Rather, their acts of segregation were motivated by immediate profit logic. This illustrates that Bill Gates does not, in fact, desire mass immigration and integration, rather, he desires whatever immediately increases profit and bolsters his industry. Capitalists want cheap labor pools, and fostering divisions, specifically racial divisions, amongst workers, is an excellent tactic for keeping wages low. According to Marxists, the levels of integration that exist now are as a result of the triumphs of the Communist working class attempting to unite as the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. However, they were not attempting to unite in terms of liberal morality and the assumed "equality of all races." For Marxists, the phenomenon of racism is only central insofar as it divides the working class:

"The first Communist efforts at organization in the Deep South in 1930 were... not, as some simplistically assume, on "orders from Moscow," or out of a self-serving desire to enhance the prestige of the Party merely by making a gesture in the direction of impressing Black Americans."
- James S. Allen

[Fade the Butcher]

I moved the justice discussion to Philosophy.