Their Morals and Ours

[turnoviseous]

This is a good Trotsky´s work on the subject of morals. How violence can be justified, etc. Good read:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936/1936-mor.htm

[Paul R]

It's a brilliant book, t, and one that every socialist should read.

The question of morality is often raised in relation to death and violence in war and on picket lines and without Trotskys analysis we are left with ... bourgeois morality, which amounts to "We (the ruling class) can do anything we like including murder, to defend our interests, whilst you (the working class) must obey the laws of God (and any other laws we invent).

The morality of the class struggle is the only morality.

[mir]

I don't believe that the "Ends justifies the means" in all situation.  I make no mistakes in believing that the revolution will be bloody, but we should make it as quick and least bloody as possible.  From reading this piece, I was aghast at the utterly stalinist and un-humanitarian stance of Trotsky.  I agree that bourgeois morals are designed to specifically keep the workers down, but reading this, I felt that the Marxist "amorals" weren't much different if not worse.  You might say that committing horrible acts now justifies the reward later on, however, it seems strange that the very thing the Marxists are argued for now, they accuse the church leaders of expounding: the belief that if you suffer in this life, you will be repaid in heaven, the only difference now is that heaven is replaced with the future.  I want change NOW, I don't want to suffer here and let my children live a good life later!  Marxists should live the way they believe they should and be free from the prejudice of the capitalist and his collaborators, but what gives them the right to tell other people how to live?  It's true that we Marxists still have alot of influence from the bourgeois world within us, I'll freely admit I have some.  Marxists as a whole are good family people and very educated.  And when the revolution comes, should we just throw these attitudes away to achieve our preferred system of politics?  This attitude is as hypocritical as the attitude of the church which tells you to love your fellow man and not to kill them, and when war comes, well we know what happens then.

This is a very cold-hearted (for lack of a better word) and if I haven't read anything else be Trotsky, I would have got the impression that he is a heartless fanatic dedicated to imposing his ideas on humanity.  I don't think that this work is worth reading by anybody, period.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by mir
I don't believe that the "Ends justifies the means" in all situation.  I make no mistakes in believing that the revolution will be bloody, but we should make it as quick and least bloody as possible.  From reading this piece, I was aghast at the utterly stalinist and un-humanitarian stance of Trotsky.  I agree that bourgeois morals are designed to specifically keep the workers down, but reading this, I felt that the Marxist "amorals" weren't much different if not worse.  You might say that committing horrible acts now justifies the reward later on, however, it seems strange that the very thing the Marxists are argued for now, they accuse the church leaders of expounding: the belief that if you suffer in this life, you will be repaid in heaven, the only difference now is that heaven is replaced with the future.  I want change NOW, I don't want to suffer here and let my children live a good life later!  Marxists should live the way they believe they should and be free from the prejudice of the capitalist and his collaborators, but what gives them the right to tell other people how to live?  It's true that we Marxists still have alot of influence from the bourgeois world within us, I'll freely admit I have some.  Marxists as a whole are good family people and very educated.  And when the revolution comes, should we just throw these attitudes away to achieve our preferred system of politics?  This attitude is as hypocritical as the attitude of the church which tells you to love your fellow man and not to kill them, and when war comes, well we know what happens then.

This is a very cold-hearted (for lack of a better word) and if I haven't read anything else be Trotsky, I would have got the impression that he is a heartless fanatic dedicated to imposing his ideas on humanity.  I don't think that this work is worth reading by anybody, period.

Hey mir,

You are totally missing the point. It could be said that never can socialist revolution triumph without violence, at least little. And what kind of violence that will be? Class violence, workers against sections of petty bourgeoisie and buurgeoisie. In other words, violence against those who wont allow a new better social order to come into being.

In same thinking you could argue from your stance that violence of Vietnam people against USA marines was not justified. So this cant be correct (or you are totally blind because of so called "humanitarian principles")

[mir]

Hello Turnoviseous,
I have said that I believe violence will be necessary but there's a certain point that violence is no longer justifiable.  An example, would be putting 12- and 13- year olds into your army and making them fight your cause.  Would you support child soldiers if the need arose?  I know there are times when it is absolutely necessary to fight, you brought up Vietnam.  My whole point is that the slogan that the "ends justify the means" is not always a good one.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by mir
Hello Turnoviseous,
I have said that I believe violence will be necessary but there's a certain point that violence is no longer justifiable.  An example, would be putting 12- and 13- year olds into your army and making them fight your cause.  Would you support child soldiers if the need arose?  I know there are times when it is absolutely necessary to fight, you brought up Vietnam.  My whole point is that the slogan that the "ends justify the means" is not always a good one.

Of course the slogan "the end justifies the means" is not always a good one. Trotsky said that its not so. If bourgeois class is reressing workers then its not so.

Also, I would never put 12-13 years old boys to the army, but if they wanted to go and fight themselves, then its another matter.

[mir]

Okay then, I think I know what you are trying to say, and I think I agree somewhat on it.  There are times when it is a correct slogan and there are times when it's not, it all depends on the question.  And just because it's a different situation, doesn't mean that people should lose all respect for humanity.  An example being war.  There are many, in fact, all aspects of war that are bad, but killing and abusing civilians should be bad no matter what the situation.  I think we can all agree on this.

[kinetikos]

it all depends on the question

Which is exactly the point of the whole piece.

I'm really surprised that you had a problem with "Their Morals and Ours", Mir.

“We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?’ sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by mir
There are many, in fact, all aspects of war that are bad, but killing and abusing civilians should be bad no matter what the situation.  I think we can all agree on this.

You should not look on the whole thing from the view of formal logic. Look at it from dialectical view. If a certain degree of bad can and will lead to general better and destroy the general bad in status quo, then the certain degree of bad is justified.

[mir]

turnoviseous,
I said that war was bad, I didn't say that is was wrong.  Dialectically, a war with as little atrocities will overthrow the capitalist exploiters from their positions of power relatively quickly and soon, the road to communism will be set.  But a war that is dragged out, with massacres on both sides, and other such crimes cannot lead to anything but more and more crime and violence and the road to communism will be slowed, if not halted.  Please don't try to paint me as some sort of pacifist, I believe in violence to achieve a better world.  But I don't believe in violence for violence's sake.  Certainly, no sane person wants to live in a constant state of war.  The sooner the violence of the revolution is over, the quicker the march to communism.  I believe that many of you are misunderstanding my posts.  To clarify it all, violence creates more violence, therefore, the quicker that violence is ended, the quicker people can live in peace.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by mir
turnoviseous,
Please don't try to paint me as some sort of pacifist, I believe in violence to achieve a better world.  But I don't believe in violence for violence's sake.

Surely noone here was saying that, I believe.

To clarify it all, violence creates more violence, therefore, the quicker that violence is ended, the quicker people can live in peace.

Capitalism and exploatation is constant never ending violence. On the other hand you cant fight a revolutionary war without workers who are for it. No offence, but I am getting your possition as if our main task was to make revolution with mere administrative means, imposing the revolutionary war on workers´ shoulders against their will.

[mir]

No offence, but I am getting your possition as if our main task was to make revolution with mere administrative means, imposing the revolutionary war on workers´ shoulders against their will.

I'm sorry you think this is my position so I must tell you what is is immediately.  It's very simple.

My position is that workers, with Marxist knowledge, should lead a revolution to disposses the capitalists.  The revolution, should be as quick and bloodless so as to save as many lives as possible not just so they can enjoy socialism, but because if they were killed, someone undoubtedly would try to avenge them.  Is this thought that hard to understand!? :confused:  This is specifically aimed at attacking fanatics within the movement that want to kill every capitalist and their families on the face of the earth (I am not calling any of you or Trotsky such fanatics, by the way).  So, I am for saving lifes, and I didn't know it was going to create such confusion, but hopefully you can agree on this.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by mir
I'm sorry you think this is my position so I must tell you what is is immediately.  It's very simple.

My position is that workers, with Marxist knowledge, should lead a revolution to disposses the capitalists.  The revolution, should be as quick and bloodless so as to save as many lives as possible not just so they can enjoy socialism, but because if they were killed, someone undoubtedly would try to avenge them.  Is this thought that hard to understand!? :confused:  This is specifically aimed at attacking fanatics within the movement that want to kill every capitalist and their families on the face of the earth (I am not calling any of you or Trotsky such fanatics, by the way).  So, I am for saving lifes, and I didn't know it was going to create such confusion, but hopefully you can agree on this.

I get your position. but still, you sound like making a mathematical equation, like we are making objective conditions, etc.

[mir]

get your position. but still, you sound like making a mathematical equation, like we are making objective conditions, etc.

Can you please explain in what ways?

[turnoviseous]

You just cant predict all the things that will come after the revolution. Remember that October revolution was practically bloodless, the terror came later because of imperialist intervention and civil war.