True Communism is Not Evil

The first questions that come to mind are the terms 'True' and 'Evil'. The Hegelian materialist view adopted and politicised by Marx maintains that these terms like all others are shifting concepts moved by the onward flow of history. Truth and Falsity along with all things that are true and false are in flux. Marx argued that there were two stages to pass through in preparation for an end to history. Firstly a Socialist revolutionary stage where and finally a communist where full ownership of the forces of production becomes shared under International communism. Truth under such a view is itself no longer an absolute measure, it is a transient concept. Ideas, propositions concepts are themselves of little moment, it is their function within society that is to be judged. The actions they invoke being the ultimately the measure of their validity. This applies as much to scientific concepts as it does the aesthetic and philosophical ones. Sentimental Bourgoise notions of moral evil have no place. Giving to 'charity' for example would be considered wrong if it helped sure up the Bourgeois hold on society. Scientific theories too must be evaluated in terms of their political effects. For example, it is not desirable for there to be a hierarchy of sciences. Physical sciences, social sciences, medical science, historical science ought not to be viewed in a hierarchical way. In my previous post, I stated that within Hegelian materialism, moral wrong is ultimately a non-notion. There being only one possible candidate notion that of obstructing the march of history. In reality however if history flows inevitably a person cannot obstruct it being itself a part of the flow. Within Marxism morality as a personal attribute or stance is not only not categorical, it is to be impugned, morality is sentiment,it is indulgent, mere emotion. History is the arbiter of right, of the correctness or otherwise of an act but correctness can only be known by posterity. What can be known or discovered is whose side a person is on. A person who is otherwise likable altruistic, artistic, devoted is not thereby commendable. It is their allegiance and effectiveness that matter. 'True communism is not Evil' is simply not something that a communist can say. Not because communism is evil but because the statement is meaningless, without content and in itself a descent into bourgeois notions. The Marxist does not say things like 'True communist' except in poor rhetoric, it is not we who decide who is a communist this is a function of the context of action within History. Truth adds nothing here there is no independent notion of Truth lies in social and revolutionary utility. When the revolution is won there will not be a re institution of traditional morality as though the revolution were some form of state of emergency ,the moral landscape itself will be transformed. Morality itself may or may not play a role it may be replaced by something very different. All that needs to be maintained is the correct relation of humanity and the forces of production. Pro, points out that there is a sense of uneasiness, a moral outrage at the way society is headed, the pre-dominance of evil within our economic system that needs to be opposed. It is according to the standards of most 20th Century moral theorists, immoral to fail to oppose economic evil, formal or informal slavery, exploitation and inequality. These things are seen as restraining free-trade and distorting world trade harming their victims together with the world market system as a whole. A concept akin to communism may yet emerge, or may have been preserved in European socialism, the Labor movement the developing nations or within global society generally. The Zeitgeist of 19th-century communism may yet play a major role in the shaping of society. It is possible that a 'true communism' may yet be formulated that represents the spirit this for the 21st century. It should, however, be clear that when a person is talking of 'True Communism' and thereby mean a call for the abandonment of the capitalism, they are really only using a moniker. You might as well say that 'True Tooth Fairyism' is the way forward. Ultimately it is for Pro to show that there is such a thing as true communism, and to provide a notion of evil under which communism may be said to either fall or not fall under. I wonder whether Pro is not falling into the American error of assuming that any opposition to capitalism at a political level is communism. If he is making this equation I would suggest he read more extensively. I would personally vote yes for a debate on entitled 'Political Opposition to Capitalism is a good'. That does not make me a communist. Capitalism needs to be under the control of the state and not the other way round.