thoreau wrote:
Correct. There are people who actually think war is good, fascism is good etc.
HJ is a prime example

I've yet to hear a convincing argument that killing people is ever 'good'.

batou wrote: There we go, we don't know we just say they're bad, that's been the response for many a century and many undesirables like the Marquis De Sade have been locked away, still the crimes continue and nobody knows why, they're just bad.

andyh wrote:
I'm not saying what he (the person you mention) did was right though, or what anyone like that does is right. Good and bad doesn't exist, they just are. But right and wrong exist IMO. There is personal responsibility and taking charge of our own lives and actions, doing the "right" thing, but that doesn't mean good or bad, pure or evil.

thoreau wrote: That is bourgeois reformism in a nutshell

Yeah this is a good point, I doubt that with Stalin though, I've read his work on Dialectical Materialism and it's quite disingenuous to say the least, his interpretation of Marx led him to the conclusion he could apply the end result Marx envisioned for 3-400 years of Industrial socialized production In Europe, to a predominantly illiterate, agricultural peasant population in the Post Civil War Soviet Union, he went to great theoretical lengths to justify this in his interpretation of DM and some of the tricks he used are obvious to somebody in 21st century UK when they wouldn't have been to a Russian Kulak circa 1940, his opposition and anger towards Trotsky is also evidence his intentions weren't in line with the collective well being of his own party let alone population.

Stalin and Hitler were idealists.

If we are using 'good' and 'bad' to describe human traits then surely it is with the aim of establishing a general code of what is 'good' and 'bad' for the human race. Murder therefore is 'bad' because if all humans were murdered this would be 'bad' for the human race.

oioioi wrote:
Me either - but a lot of people will argue that killing another is for the 'greater good' - the death penalty, war, abortion, self defense etc etc are all things many many people think are 'good' for society or justifiable - even if the act of killing is not a 'good' act in and of itself.

I am sure that many people thought that killing osama or saddam or gaddaffi was a 'good' thing to do - just as I have heard people calling for the deaths of the super rich and powerful - calling for anyones death is disgusting to me no matter who or what they are. I have read people wanting to dig up saville to 'kill' him again - or that lovely person who decided on hearing that adele had given birth to comment 'kill it already' about her baby.

le sigh

death is part of life. i dont think its such a big deal to put an end to someone. sometimes its the best option, not for them obviously. but if they were sitting around drinking tea and reading to blind people instead of cutting old ladies faces off and wearing them to masturbate in, they wouldn't be in the situation would they? we can have laws and rules all we like and try to rise above our animal nature, but people break rules, things that shouldn't happen. im not t alking stealing candy bars here.

we seem to be discussing the concept of good and bad. all good but not really for this thread.
so for the purpose of the thread, i'll define good as being an event, idea, group or woteva that leads towards a more equitable, just and sustainable way of doing things as a species.

so pedos in power = bad
thieves in control of finance = bad.

that sort of thing.

I’m far less optimistic than most. I see no force for good at play only different shades of ‘bad‘ fighting eachother to be on top.
The only force for good I see is that within [some] individuals hearts, it manifests as; cooperation, nurturing, respect, sympathy, empathy, collective good and so on. Now, is there a group harnessing these good qualities, putting them into action and trying to develop a more egalitarian society for the benefit of all? No.

so what do you think lies behind all the exposes we are witnessing ajfa?

dubmeup wrote:
Feces flinging within fractions; ‘you expose me... I have plenty of dirt on you and I’ll go public with it’.
That’s basically it.
Example: Saville’s dirt comes out (now, after the f*cker is dead mind you, and even though a lot of people knew about it for years), BBC gets implicated. Shortly after BBC comes out with pedo shenanigans going on in Parliament incriminating politicians and Nr 10 ‘aids’ (or whatever).
They’re all as bad as eachother.
The message is; make this go away or if we go down we take you down with us as well.

That’s how these things get buried and forgotten over time, even short periods of time. Look a libor. What happened to that? Goddamned olympics came by that’s what happened, and swept everything neatly under the carpet.

I still think there have to be some decent people in power - and have been throughout history, or otherwise, kids would still be sweeping chimneys and so on.

Every now and then, something comes to light, like a judge defying precedent to make a sensible ruling, and it restores a bit of faith.

And I also agree with what Bats said about vicious, evil people who devote their lives to spreading horror, death and violence for their own personal titillation. I wouldn't shed any tears over their demise.

Yes I believe that there's not only a force of good, but a very powerful sleeping lion, that is in every person who intrinsically cares about other human beings or any other beings on our planet. They cry for other people's plights and want to start campaigns to help. They will stand up for the beaten down person or underdog and intrinsically know that that person is a victim..........and so on.

Yes, I believe in good over evil and that good is still the mass majority in this world. Hence why TPTB have resorted to such intricate, devious and complicated plans to deceive us ...........all for power and greed.

StarsChildren wrote:
So now theres a good and a right and a wrong and a bad, lol.

Gilly wrote:
So what we have more so than good vs bad in politics is what the masses want weighed against the interests of capital, you don't have political representation for the masses really in the West, just for the interests of Capital, hence the one sided nature of life and wealth here, but this is a dangerous game Capitalists real talent is in assuaging the demands of the masses through reform, averting radical change or civil disobedience while extracting as much wealth as possible.
"Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.

The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.

And conversely, workers who have assimilated Marx’s theory, i.e., realised the inevitability of wage-slavery so long as capitalist rule remains, will not be fooled by any bourgeois reforms. Understanding that where capitalism continued to exist reforms cannot be either enduring or far-reaching, the workers fight for better conditions and use them to intensify the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle.

The stronger reformist influence is among the workers the weaker they are, the greater their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the easier it is for the bourgeoisie to nullify reforms by various subterfuges. The more independent the working-class movement, the deeper and broader its aims, and the freer it is from reformist narrowness the easier it is for the workers to retain and utilise improvements.

There are reformists in all countries, for everywhere the bourgeoisie seek, in one way or another, to corrupt the workers and turn them into contented slaves who have given up all thought of doing away with slavery."
V.I Lenin
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm

And that's a good thing because....?

Try reading the whole document
No? ok then, reformism can be a positive thing because Rupert Murdoch continuing to monopolize the media would be a bore, because politicians using their expenses to make huge profits by renting out 2nd homes was unsustainable and slightly cheeky, banks selling 100% financed mortgages was unsustainable, that's not to say all reforms are good, Thatcher's government made some powerful reforms but in the interests of capital, reforms in the interest's of the common people the masses of us, are obviously helpful, countries that come out of Fascism reform their state to be democratic etc, there is disagreement about reform between Liberals and Tories over the House of Lords and especially between the Tory right and the Liberals over the question of the EU, within the EU there is the question of Reforming the democratic accountability of the bureaucracy at it's heart etc, reform is everywhere, people reform their behaviour all the time, ie after a heavy night drinking, you don't stop poisoning your body entirely, or for too long but you will stop for a while, maybe "detox", maybe even say you've stopped drinking forever then a week later back to the same old thing.

Lenin was talking about reforms in the benefit of the Working class and being able to use them in the struggle:

and the class struggle has broadened considerably, there are a whole lot of things we perceive as being under threat from capitalism and the status quo, what's going on now and in the last 10 years with the popularization of resistance is quite encouraging.

Take this forum or it's parent forum the DIF as an example of how broad the class struggle has become, there are people of all kinds who see the illusion of gradual reform in the interests of Capital, they come under all banners from all countries with specific causes that most if not all of us agree with, many think there is some secret group fucking up the world, i'm more inclined to believe this is an effect of the interests of Capital running the Industrialized nations for centuries, but either knowingly or unknowingly we are all involved in the class struggle against the interests of Money imo, that's why we all disagree with such obvious examples of false consciousness, ie Racism, anti-semitism, Christian moralistic explanation, nationalism etc.

Guevarista wrote:
The trouble with it, is that its a pile of long winded cognitive dissonance.
You either want freedom or you don't basically.

andyh wrote: What is long winded cognitive dissonance?