When studying Marx and Marxist authors in isolation, there seems to be so many ideological struggles that one may take independently without critique from others. So, if socialism/communism is not completely inevitable, how do I form appropriate arguments for the use of Marxism to advance the cause of the proletariat against that of the ruling bourgeosie without falling to arguments about inevitability, “the greater good”, the capitalists being “evil”, et cetera? Are there any more advanced comrades here with experience showing the ideologically backwards, or even intermediate, the way of proper Marxist analysis?
I feel that evil is self-explanatory. But a very broad definition I would use in most contexts is committing unnecessarily inhumane, despicable actions against other living things for no justifiable reason, purely out of the selfish and completely negative kind of sadism and self-interest against the basic decency and needs of a society by hurting others or damaging the public good.
Spousal abusers, rapists, unprovoked murderers, those who abuse animals or kill them wantonly without need for food or to the need to keep their population numbers down, or for selling/privatizing economic enterprises when not necessary for personal financial kickback.
I think that prison abolition is a very noble goal, for example. But in the meantime, socialists will unfortunately have to plan ahead at least decades into the future for the construction of prisons to house people like rapists, murderers, human and endangered species traffickers, bourgeoisie, etc.
by that definition, yes, it exists; my point was that there’s no inherent “evil” in people that can be detached from their past and present material conditions
I’m kind of stunned that you’re saying that. I’m not overly pissed, but I’m not more than confused. I guess I’m “whelmed”, or like someone asked me to “review” a porcupine with a trout shoved up it’s ass while riding a unicycle. I don’t know where to start.