The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think I've done humanity a great service by presenting it with the humble piece of work by me,
The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING . I wish humanity would reciprocate it duly. And by my view of a communist, a communist must be endowed with the backbone and calibre they need have in order to stand up straight with their head held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and make it their life principle. Would my socialist friends oblige me by letting me know whether they accept this view of mine or NOT ?
Most of what you list is ok. But I don't see why a person who wants a classless, stateless, moneyless, communist (socialist) society has to forego smoking and alcohol:
Quote:The PHML requires you to lead a healthy, both physically and mentally, and meaningful life. In order to remain healthy and strong, you have to avoid all unwholesome food and stuff like alcohol, tobacco products, narcotics and all such things that lead to addiction or morbidityThat strikes me as a personal choice which a political party can't require of its members (we have vegetarian members but that's up to them. The rest of us eat meat). Same goes for "matrimony". Of course it's a private property institution but should members be expelled if they get married? Should we refuse to admit new members who are married? I don't think so.
Moral issues of the Churches and priests of the left. That isn't new
Quote:Socialism and ethics are two separate things. This fact must be kept in mind.Whoever conceives of socialism in the sense of a sentimental philanthropic striving after human equality, with no idea of the existence of capitalist society, is no socialist in the sense of the class struggle, without which modern socialism is unthinkable. To be sure Bernstein is nominally for the class struggle – in the same manner as the Hessian peasant is for “the Republic and the Grand Duke.” Whoever has come to a full consciousness of the nature of capitalist society and the foundation of modern socialism, knows also that a socialist movement that leaves the basis of the class struggle may be anything else, but it is not socialism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1899/nocomp/nocomp2.htm
jondwhite wrote:Quote:Socialism and ethics are two separate things. This fact must be kept in mind.Whoever conceives of socialism in the sense of a sentimental philanthropic striving after human equality, with no idea of the existence of capitalist society, is no socialist in the sense of the class struggle, without which modern socialism is unthinkable. To be sure Bernstein is nominally for the class struggle – in the same manner as the Hessian peasant is for “the Republic and the Grand Duke.” Whoever has come to a full consciousness of the nature of capitalist society and the foundation of modern socialism, knows also that a socialist movement that leaves the basis of the class struggle may be anything else, but it is not socialism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1899/nocomp/nocomp2.htm
That is an old issue that we had within the Socialist Party if socialism is moral and ethical
mcolome1 wrote:Moral issues of the Churches and priests of the left. That isn't newActually, it's quite good on religion, giving them all any equal kicking:
Quote:The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML.The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction.And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to obey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.And as I view it, Hindutva (Hinduism of today) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts (e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.Like palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them.Good stuff. I like it.
ALB wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Moral issues of the Churches and priests of the left. That isn't newActually, it's quite good on religion, giving them all any equal kicking:
Quote:The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML.The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction.And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to obey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.And as I view it, Hindutva (Hinduism of today) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts (e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.Like palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them.Good stuff. I like it.
I am not talking about religion, the way most of these organization act is religious. Some of them force members to get marry, and they get involve in the personal life of their member, like the churches do. It is up to an individual to smoke or not smoke, or to drink or not to drink is up to the individual also. Many leftist groups wil not accept as member a person who has been incarcelated. The Marxist Leninists they also reject god and all kind of religion, but in many way the follow they bourgoise morality, some do not accept homosexual as part of their membership, or women because they are prostitute. The Stalinists used to say that homosexuality was a petty bourgeois mental disorder and they rejected religion
I think the case for minimising meat consumption has been effectively made if we are to have a sustainable food production.As for tobacco, any argument against self-harm is appropriate and criticism of the diversion of agricultural resources in food-insecure countries into this cash-crop seems legitimate. Prohibition may well be unachievable but the promotion of alcohol for escapism and the profit of corporations may well not exist in a socialist society, where craft-beers and micro-breweries might well prevail.And i recall one critique of Libertarian Communism…"Not libertarian but libertine"Should we emphasise principles of hedonism. Or should we make socialism ascetic and abstemious.Sylvia Pankhurst"We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity…We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial."She never said it but Emma Goldman gets the credit…"If i can't dance, i don't want a part of your revolution)
Most Americans do not know that Emma Goldman was a political exile. They do not know that there are political prisoners in the USA, and most of them are members of some Native tribes or nationProbably Lolita Lebron was more dangerous to the state than Goldmanhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103400.htmlGoldman said. There is not any relationship between marriage and love, and there is not relationship between love and marriagehttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1914/marriage-love.htmMarriage in Family Law is part of the concept of Property
Emma Goldman was an individualist anarchist who held, as they do, that the majority was always wrong and that all progress comes from the action of "intelligent minorities" (like her). Not one of us.
First off, I must thank you for your response to my post. Then, I'd seek your permission to ask you: Are you a communist ? If you say yes, I'd like you to clarify why you claim to be a communist. I believe I'm a communist because I'm all for communism. And I'm all for communism because I'm persuaded that It's communism, and communism alone, that can create a social environment that harmonises with the Principle of and is conducive to healthy and meaningful living, and because I want to lead a healthy and meaningful existence. I believe communism that's aimed at ' a classless, stateless, moneyless, communist (socialist) society ' is also for the Principle of healthy and meaningful living. If you're for leading an unhealthy and meaningless existence, you should find nothing wrong with squandering your money and time on silly and useless things like smoking, drinking, gambling, drugs, and the luxury of family life, none of which has got anything meaningful to give in return to all those addicted to these things. Then, what good reason justifies your objection to classes, private property, exploitation, deprivation, corruption, the commodity economy, the concentration of huge wealth at one pole leading to the creation of swarms of the poor and the penniless at the other, the greatest and gravest social injustice, namely the disgusting fact that the fact that in an unequal, class-ridden society, millions come into the world as poor and penniless to work hard and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich few that lead a sumptuous lifestyle before the silly eyes of the former that in reality sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich are born rich and super-rich is NOT attributable to any creditable acts or achievements of theirs, et cetera, et cetera ? Do you think you're truly opposed to the exploitation of man by man ? And are you aware of why you should be against the exploitation of man by man or the concentration of wealth in a few hands ? According to Marx's analysis, the capitalist, the owner of capital, who buys labour-power, a special commodity owned by the labourer, happens to be the legitimate owner of all the products of labour ( the use-value of labour-power ). ( chapter VII, section 2, Capital Volume I, P 188 ) Therefore, you cannot say that the capitalist mode of production is wrong, or that the labouring people are legitimate owners of wealth they produce in the capitalist mode of production. Nor can you claim that the concentration of wealth at one pole leading to the impoverishment of millions at the other, which reflects the very fundamental law of the commodity economy, is unjust. Further, the welfare capitalism ( i.e. democratic socialism ) has proved successful in preventing starvation deaths, and the working people in the developed First World enjoy far better standard of living than their counterparts in the backward Third World. So, what's wrong with welfare capitalism or democratic socialism ? You seem to have bracketed smoking, drinking, narcotics, etc, together with matrimony. But I view matrimony as far more obnoxious than drinking, gambling, etc, for the simple reason that supposing you're single,it's only you that suffers all consequences of your addiction to drinking, etc, but in matrimony, it's an innocent lot ( the wife and children of a married guy ) that suffer for NO faults or failings of theirs but for all faults and failings of someone else ( the guy that indulges in the luxury of matrimony or a travesty in its name ), RIGHT ? I do not know how much money you earn. But, I'd like to know whether you've ever thought over the fact that globally, well over 95 per cent of wage slaves do NOT earn so much money as to claim that they deserve the luxury of squandering their hard-earned money on drinking, gambling, matrimony, and similar other stuff. You must be aware that by the Oxfam's wealth data, there exist as few as 80 guys called the SUPER-RICH that possess as much wealth as 3.5 billion-strong crowd of the poor together do or that according to the Oxfam's study, we're NOT far off the day when 1 per cent of the total global population will own more wealth than the remaining 99 per cent will own together. Do you really think a true communist party ought to view drinking, gambling, etc as ' a personal choice ' and approve of spending money like water on such silly things by some members of the party in a world where millions, as you all know, are born poor to toil like beasts of burden and lead a hard and humble existence, an existence full of poverty, privation, and deprivation ? And what about giving and taking bribes and abusing power ? Should the SPGB view such acts as ' a personal choice ' too ? The point is COMMUNISM is FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to matrimony. For this reason, your indulgence in the luxury of matrimony is as much unethical as your indulgence in drinking, gambling, giving and taking bribes, et cetera is. Therefore, as I see it, there's really NO good reason for the disapproval of silly things like squandering money on drinking and gambling, receiving bribes, etc, if you approve of things as obnoxious and silly as matrimony, RIGHT ? A vegetarian or non-vegetarian dish does NOT belong, just because it happens to be food, i.e. something indispensable for life, to the same category as gambling, drinking, drugs, or matrimony ( none of which are needed in life ) do. A true communist party is NOT just any political party. and I feel I should bring it to your notice that there exists a basic distinction between a communist party and any other political party as well as between a communist and a non-communist. Could you tell me what you believe they are ? I'd also like to know why someone addicted to drinking, gambling, or matrimony should fancy themselves communist, and why the communist party should oblige them.
Drinking, smoking, gambling and being married are not the same as being "addicted" to them. In fact I'm not sure what an "addition to matrimony" might be.
ALB wrote:Drinking, smoking, gambling and being married are not the same as being "addicted" to them. In fact I'm not sure what an "addition to matrimony" might be.Smoking, drinking, gambling AND being married, is an oxymoron, surely?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.