3 ms·

Is it really hubris to propose a radical change in social organisation? Were the abolitionists acting out of hubris?

• vonmoltke 9y ago
  To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot". Also, opposition to slavery great organically over centuries, not from the proposals of one person. Also, by the time abolitionists were most active slavery had already been removed from large portions of world society. What the radicals of the 19th Century proposed was completely unprecendneted and untested.
  • ue_ 9y ago
    >Also, opposition to slavery great organically over centuries, not from the proposals of one person. Why would that matter? And even if it did, is it true? Opposition to worker exploitation has been happening for centuries too, and in the larger sense, the tradition which the Communists continue, the opposition to the class system, fits in with opposition to slavery. >To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot" A radical change in social organisation is a societal reboot by any definition of reboot. It is to change the very nature of how people are able to live, how they can obtain sustenance and how they can enjoy themselves. I would very much describe the transition from pre-capitalist society to capiatalism a radical change in social organisation, yet it is every bit a reboot. Granted, Communism goes further not only by abolishing one class system and replacing it with the next, but rather to abolish the class system in general. "The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." — Freidrich Engels And the idea that a movement needs to have made headway to be considered worthy or lacking in hubris, is as I'm sure you'll agree contradictory. The radicals of the 19th century were writing in direct opposition to this relatively new mode of organisation and indeed its strengthening in the Industrial Revolution. In fact, Marx himself dedicates a few chapters in Capital to detailing exactly how capitalism originated, with what laws passed in England and how this helped secure the position of the bourgeoisie.
    • chongli 9y ago
      After the tens of millions dead in the twentieth century, it is hubris of the highest order to even hint at another communist revolution. Our economies are so unbelievably complicated. Like our bodies, they have evolved as a result of billions of interactions between individuals and the environment. To suggest we can sweep them all aside and replace them with a designed system is not even wrong, it's completely in the realm of fantasy at this point. Yet people continue to clamour for it. They fly the hammer and sickle. It's just so stupid and incredibly dangerous. Like I said before, it's fine to criticize society. Wealth inequality is a big problem, for one. I don't think the Soviets solved it though, do you?
      • ionised 9y ago
        > After the tens of millions dead in the twentieth century, it is hubris of the highest order to even hint at another communist revolution. My only issue with this is that people tend to ignore the very same history of fascism and right-wing extremism (and that there are far more examples of than communism today), even as their country slides into an authoritarian police state with healthcare and social safety nets dismantled in the name of avoiding what they perceive to be 'socialism'.