I worry I'm not a good Marxist. Good, you say. Maybe I'm talking to the wrong people. Will it make sense to you if I say that I worry I'm not good?
I want to be uninhibited.
I got drunk the other night, God knows how much vodka and a couple of trusted friends. It made me think of you, brown eyes, brown hair flipping about, silly and serious and sad--I remember. Let's not speak of anger here.
I cried, not for you, not about you, wept for older deeper losses.
I made them worry, but I cried
felt lighter
clean
it isn't gone, but somehow safer someone knows.
I will tell them thank you, but not sorry
thank you
I deserve to live.
Alcohol as medication, true.
11 comments:
That's interesting. I have an old psychoanalytic therapy book, and it did say that alcohol can be therapeutic by relieving inhibitions.
That being said, should you be a good Marxist or a good... um... whatever it is that you consider good. A good GOOD thing? I can't imagine that anyone can make an ideology equal to good without being an ideologue and I can't imagine a person to consider being an ideologue to represent what is good.
That being said, the real issue with freedom is other people. They're rarely explicitly evil, but many times they are just as good as if they were.
Deserving to live though? You think. People who actually think deserve to live above most others because they actually make their lives their own. I know this can seem elitist, but it has a grain of truth... maybe...
Um... that being said, I present xkcd!
http://xkcd.com/610/
Honestly, the whole idea of deserving is a bit nonsensical anyway. And I'm always in favor if quoting xkcd. :)
If I'm a consequentialist, and I think being a good Marxist will lead to the best outcomes, bad Marxist=unethical. I'm not exactly a consequentialist, but the argument definitely has some pull on me.
I love xkcd. I also liked that bit in that comic about the "Ayn Rand convention".
Hmm... I can see consequentialism, but I would not be a full-on consequentialist on ethics, or even close.
I also kind of doubt that being a good Marxist is the only thing that could lead to good outcomes. In fact, if society is this massively complex thing, then who knows what consequences anything about you could have??
1) I didn't say that Marxism was the only thing that could lead to good outcomes; I posed a hypothetical where I think it leads to the Best outcomes.
2) No matter how complex society is, policy has to be made somehow or other, so we have to try.
3) I also didn't say I'm a consequentialist; I said the argument has some pull. Not sure precisely where to categorize myself, ethics wise. . . need to study it more.
1) Fine, I accept that, but rigid philosophical assumptions never match reality.(btw, this is a rigid philosophical assumption)
2) I am not denying pragmatism, only that the rigid philosophical assumption is silly.
3) I think I am an evolutionary subjectivist. Ethics exists because of evolutionary pressures towards its existence, and current ethical norms are themselves to some extent evolved. However, how this is expressed among members of a populace is influenced by perspective, experiences, teaching, genetics, etc. Because of the evolutionary elements though, there is little to no hope for analytical ethics. (You're still influenced by Beauvoir's writing The Ethics of Ambiguity, right?)
1) *rolls eyes*
2) *rolls eyes*
3) Yes, I am--though I haven't read it for a long time. That sounds interesting.
Btw, have you read Socialism After Hayek by Ted Burczak?
It is an interesting book. I'd recommend it.
Just to inform you more, the book is arguing for a post-Hayekian vision of socialism. I am trying to work it out to see what I'd think of it. I think there are some issues I have with it, as authors when espousing a vision often don't articulate some of the things you are more concerned about. The stock market issue was interesting.
I have not. Hmn. . .
Right, the sad thing about Burczak is that I don't think he is anarchist, but rather just far-left socialist. However, despite that, he still is very interesting. He basically wants to set up a system with worker-owned industries, a large cash payment at the age of adulthood, and still a market-ish system, with capital markets only having preferred stock.
Given that his book is "socialism after Hayek", his focus is on dealing with Friedrich Hayek's criticisms, but he also brings in some Marxian thought and some of the ethical ideas of Amartya Sen.(whom I haven't read)
Post a Comment