Communist morality

kowalskil

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
79
Location
New Jersey, USA
Browsing the Internet I found a website with a one-year-old thread entitled “Ethical Stalinism.” The person who started the thread wrote:

Marx predicted a future revolution in which the working class would own the means of production. Lenin realized it would take too long and advocated a militant vanguard that would expedite the revolution and operate the means of production owned by the workers.

www.newyouth.com/archives/marxisttheory.asp

Stalin promoted a rapid and pugnacious transfer to a communist economy regardless of the collateral damage. Setting aside Stalin's paranoia, personal failings, unconscious motives and ruthless behavior, I want to focus on the ethics of his program of rapid rural collectivization and urban industrialization. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Is it ever ethical to harm a few in order to benefit a majority in the future? For example, is it ever ethical to allow a few to starve to death in order to divert food so a larger number will remain alive even at a subsistent level? Is it ever ethical to sacrifice the living in order to benefit a larger unborn future generation? Is it ever ethical to abolish resisters in the road to achieving your goal of a œUtopian? society in the future? Is it ever ethical to usurp the slow progress of democracy if it results in a better society in a shorter timespan?

One person responded: “I would say violence is most necessary for a revolution, and insofar as it for this cause, its ok.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Responding to the above I wrote: “You asked if it is ethical to sacrifice the living in order to benefit a larger unborn future generation? Please answer the following four questions:

a) Who benefitted from killing Bukharin, Trotsky and a large number of other old bolsheviks?

How did killing of Tukchachevsky, and a large number of generals (in late 1930s) help the country to defend itself in 1941?

c) How did forced collectivization (and liquidation of New Economic Policy established by Lenin) help the country to feed itself?

d) How did the deportation of all Chechens (and other national minorities from Georgia, after WWII) to Kazakhstan helped the USSR to consolidate its brotherhood of nations? “

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

My questions were not unanswered. Any comments? BY THE WAY,

The book "Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime," at


http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/father2/introduction.html

describes horrors with which most of you are probably familiar. But Section 3.7, entitled "Communist Morality," is probably worth reading and discussing on this forum (and possible on History forum). Two more things worth reading are Chapter 7 and Section 4.5

Chapter 7 is a discussion of Stalinism (by professors at Montclair State University). Section 4.5 provides numerical data on how little American students (also at Montclair State University) know about Stalin. This short and easy-to-read book was written for students like them. Please share the link with history teachers you know; perhaps some of them will assign this FREE ON-LINE book to students. It can also be a base for discussing idea of proletarian dictatorship, which unites all Marxists.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.
.
 
Werbung:
It is disgusting that many Americans and Westerners actually believe that communism and Stalinism are a good system of government. These people ignore or forgive the many atrocities committed under Communism. And, they actually believe that America's history is just as brutal and intolerant as the USSR.

We even have a regular poster here at the HOP going by the name of Stalin.

Sad. Very sad.
 
It is disgusting that many Americans and Westerners actually believe that communism and Stalinism are a good system of government. These people ignore or forgive the many atrocities committed under Communism. And, they actually believe that America's history is just as brutal and intolerant as the USSR.

We even have a regular poster here at the HOP going by the name of Stalin.

Sad. Very sad.


Well Lincoln was responsible for half a million needless deaths and other needless violence but that still pales in comparison to the various commie governments.
 
Sometimes it appears that the ends justify the means and sometimes it appears that the means justify the ends.

Which is true? Is it both or neither?

Maybe it is more complicated than that. Maybe when it appears that the ends justify the means really it is something else that justifies a situation.

Sometimes the deaths of a few now that would result in many more living in the future would be ethical. But perhaps it is not because the ends justified those means. Maybe it just appears to fit that paradigm when a new and improved paradigm is needed.

Consider this:

Would the death of a few guilty persons, who deserved death anyway, be justified to save more future innocents?

How about the death of a few innocents to save more future guilty persons?
 
Sometimes it appears that the ends justify the means and sometimes it appears that the means justify the ends.

Which is true? Is it both or neither?

Maybe it is more complicated than that. Maybe when it appears that the ends justify the means really it is something else that justifies a situation.

Sometimes the deaths of a few now that would result in many more living in the future would be ethical. But perhaps it is not because the ends justified those means. Maybe it just appears to fit that paradigm when a new and improved paradigm is needed.

Consider this:

Would the death of a few guilty persons, who deserved death anyway, be justified to save more future innocents?

How about the death of a few innocents to save more future guilty persons?


Can't come up with a hypothetical to match this criteria. So teh answer is dunno.

wait maybe one, kill The Messiah so that all who believe in Him can have everlasting life. That I can buy but that wa an act of chosen sacrifice so I'm not sure it fits exactly.
 
Werbung:
Can't come up with a hypothetical to match this criteria. So teh answer is dunno.

wait maybe one, kill The Messiah so that all who believe in Him can have everlasting life. That I can buy but that wa an act of chosen sacrifice so I'm not sure it fits exactly.

As creator of the universe God has the authority to kill anyone He wants for any reason. In just about all examples in the Bible those who die are guilty. I would hope no one would question a God who punishes the guilty.

Care to name a few examples in which they killed are innocent? And did their deaths serve a higher purpose? Most of the disciples died martyrs deaths but again we can question if they volunteered. Can you think of any in which the innocent did not volunteer? Does it matter if their legal guardians volunteered them? Can God exercise judgment upon a society instead of just upon individuals? What if those in that society were guilty? What if not all were guilty like when Lot fled Sodom? What about children? Did the children in Sodom have any chance at all of not following in their parents footsteps and becoming guilty? When God punished the guilty they died, though their souls went for judgment. Except the children who still died but their souls did not experience a harsh judgment. Presumably the children were called to heaven which would have been a reward rather than a punishment.
 
Back
Top