Seems like bashing on Stalin really dismantles whatever the Soviet Union was or became after him. — Shawn

What Russia became after Stalin was the devolution of the Stalin era. The satellite states more or less broke away but inherited the basic structure of government and its agencies. He had set up the apparatus, which is still working for Putin. In between, a few dozen capitalists, abetted by local sharks, amassed fortunes and a swarm of opportunistic religious zealots wrought havoc with people's stupefied minds. Still not a whole lot to do with communism.

Your point seems to be that the Soviets were actually just a bunch of pretty chill dudes who wanted everyone to get along but made some silly mistakes along the way : - )
That could literally not be more opposite to the truth.

What are your thoughts on the matter? — Shawn

Stalinism & Maoism, like Nazism/Fascism, were totalitarian theocratic-gangster systems wherein dehumanizing means undermined, or eliminated, humanizing ends. Nothing to do with indigenous communisms (or libertarian socialism).

What is the individual to the collective? If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone? — Shawn

The individual is a member (or outcast) given obligations and rights. The individual can both be obliged to maintain collective happiness and have the right to maintain individual happiness. I suppose that problematic cases, were an obligation is incompatible with a right, can be solved pragmatically depending on context.

- VOLUME I. A RETROSPECT. Chapter XI. RACE AND PEOPLE — Tarskian

This is a racial theory of his, he doesn't spell out any policy there.

Why he was going to go to war with Russia: — Tarskian

War with Russia was only decided well over a decade after Mein Kampf was published. The book doesn't include any call to war against Russia either, it simply explains why a military alliance with it (or Turkey) is not advantageous for Germany.

Nothing there that "spelled it out very clearly [...] what he would do" as you say. You are free to quote excerpts however.

Edit 6 days later: no excerpts. Curious. I guess the BSer BSed again.

If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone? — Shawn

This is such an odd formulation.

Let us try the experiment. Let us collectively agree to aim for happiness. I think the first thing we need is a constitution that expresses our agreement and constitutes the formal foundation of the collective. Are we all happy to do that? All those in favour say "aye "and call yourselves "founding Fathers (and Mothers)".


It's a bit of a fairytale, but do notice that it is a Good Old American Fairytale, not Mr Nasty's Fairytale.

This is such an odd formulation.

Let us try the experiment. Let us collectively agree to aim for happiness. I think the first thing we need is a constitution that expresses our agreement and constitutes the formal foundation of the collective. Are we all happy to do that? All those in favour say "aye "and call yourselves "founding Fathers (and Mothers)".


It's a bit of a fairytale, but do notice that it is a Good Old American Fairytale, not Mr Nasty's Fairytale. — unenlightened

I think you got it figured out. My own concern is with pursuing a goal with a shoddy methodology or what can be called a 'socio-economic' system. My hope is that by realizing that the ends don't justify the means, or what have you, then we can come to agreement for a better system. What say you?

If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone?
— Shawn

This is such an odd formulation. — unenlightened

The rather tired old ideological dispute rehearsed above for a page and a half is precisely the one you set up in this sentence, between the happiness of the collective and of the individual. It is this shoddy distinction that seems to oppose the individualist to the collectivist that is the source of the trouble.

Psychologically, it equates to the conflict generated by the fact that humans, like any social animals, have both individual and social needs. But it reaches crisis point in humans because they are the top predator, and are therefore their own only enemy.

The pursuit of happiness, conceived as an individual right, immediately invites the individual to calculate and measure himself and his own happiness in relation to the rest of society. Thus the pursuit becomes a 'beggar your neighbour' affair, and life a competition. Every day one is reminded "there can only be one winner", One does not seem to register that every winner is dependent on a slew of losers.

Yet the celebration of the winner is necessarily a social event. Being the best, the fastest, the cleverest, the richest, the happiest, has no meaning without the envious adulation of the collective. And this demonstrates that the very act of comparing that enables one to consider one's own happiness so as to pursue it necessitates a miserable society.

But it also demonstrates that individual happiness depends mainly on the regard of others and the place one has in the collective, whether that is the workplace the classroom the playing field or the government.

The happy man is the one who has the stable positive regard of his neighbours. If one really understands this, one understands that there is no conflict, because the happiness of the individual is only to be found in the happiness of the collective. Life becomes much simpler and happier.

The happy man is the one who has the stable positive regard of his neighbours. If one really understands this, one understands that there is no conflict, because the happiness of the individual is only to be found in the happiness of the collective. Life becomes much simpler and happier. — unenlightened

Yet, the reality of the situation is that the good Samaritan suffers because of the atomization of society, and hence hell is other people, the game becomes more refined and there is no room for compassion or sympathy. The paranoia is real.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder how things became this way. What do you make of such a weary and sad predicament?

The pursuit of happiness, conceived as an individual right, immediately invites the individual to calculate and measure himself and his own happiness in relation to the rest of society. Thus the pursuit becomes a 'beggar your neighbour' affair, and life a competition. Every day one is reminded "there can only be one winner", One does not seem to register that every winner is dependent on a slew of losers. — unenlightened

Just picking up on this. Again, I take this as a sign of the honesty and sincerity of communists to promote the welfare of the individual amongst so many winners. Equal outcomes is what they call it nowadays. I have high regards to egalitarianism, which is a good way of promoting the interests of the many in an unequal game.

Yet, the reality of the situation is that the good Samaritan suffers because of the atomization of society, and hence hell is other people, the game becomes more refined and there is no room for compassion or sympathy. — Shawn

The good Samaritan in the parable did not suffer. He did not put himself above the others who did nothing, he helped a stranger and made nothing of it. It was the teller of that story who was crucified as a dangerous revolutionary.

Hell is other people, and so is heaven. Because the individual cannot survive alone - it takes two at the very least. If one is striving for independence all the time, other people are hell because one seeks to reject what one cannot do without. But the good Samaritan depends on the thieves and robbers to give him the opportunity to practice his virtue. No one would be reading about Jesus today or retelling the Samaritan story if he had not been crucified by the local religious cheeses.

Our exchange today, is dependent on a story told 2000 years ago, and relayed by nameless scribes through the years. We are temporary nodes in a web of life, and the judgement we each make is mainly about what is and is not worth relating to another.

To overvalue oneself is to live in fear; to undervalue oneself is to overvalue oneself. Therefore, relax, judge not that ye be not judged. Retire when the work is done.

Being and nonbeing produce each other.
The difficult is born in the easy.
Long is defined by short, the high by the low.
Before and after go along with each other.

So the sage lives openly with apparent duality
and paradoxical unity.
The sage can act without effort
and teach without words.
Nurturing things without possessing them,
he works, but not for rewards;
he competes, but not for results.

When the work is done, it is forgotten.
That is why it lasts forever. — Tao Te Ching:2

What is the individual to the collective? If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone?

Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself? I find it hard to interpret this ad hoc argument any differently, than to say that communism failed due to pursuing happiness and collectivism too stringently, while forgetting how such an aim could be attained methodologically.

What are your thoughts on the matter? — Shawn

Regarding communism: The ideology of communism writ large is pivoted around egalitarianism. The reality of any Stalinist communism that has ever occurred has been totalitarianism justified via gross perversions, rhetorical or otherwise, of egalitarian ideology. George Orwell’s satires – Animal Farm and 1984 – illustrate this state of affairs quite nicely: as can for example be found in the “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” motif. One cannot hold a gun to another’s head with the ultimatum of either being one’s “comrade” or else dying and expect to thereby gain a newfound genuine friendship in the other – much less impose via violence and coercion a society of fraternal love among all of the society’s individuals, such that all members of the society become bona fide comrades (with bona fide comradery shared by all). Yet this is precisely what all (in one way or another, Stalinist) communist states have attempted to do, historically speaking. To claim these totalitarian systems to have been, or else be, egalitarian on account of the ideologies which they claimed to sponsor (metaphorically stated, as in that of “all animals being equal”) would be a profound error.

Regarding happiness: the “pursuit of happiness” is grossly nonspecific in its as-is laconic expression. A mass-murdering rapist’s happiness is in murdering and raping as many as possible. With suffering ensuing when he is obstructed from so doing. Yet the happiness of such a mass-murderer in character is no less real (as either actuality or potential) as is the happiness of a humanitarian philanthropist who succeeds in his/her pursuits. The book/movie A Clockwork Orange speaks nicely to this multifaceted issue of “pursuit of happiness”.

Regarding individual vs. collective happiness: This dichotomy can only occur when the happiness addressed is zero-sum, i.e. the others must lose so that one might win/gain/succeed. This, however, stands in stark contrast to symbiotic, or else reciprocal, forms of happiness: happiness which can only occur when all members concerned succeed in that which they individually desire, and this as a cohort. As just three examples of the latter, neither the happiness of living in a healthy community (be this a neighborhood, a town, or a nation, etc.), nor the happiness of having genuine friendships, nor the happiness of being in a loving romantic relationship will pin one’s individual happiness against the collective happiness of all those concerned. Instead, the two types of happiness – that of individual and collective - in these three cases are co-dependent: neither individual nor collective happiness can occur in the absence of the other.

One can of course declare that symbiotic forms of happiness – wherein mutual benefit occurs - is false, illusory, wrong, unrealistic, weak, etc., and thereby declare that so too must then by entailment be the ideal of a symbiotic happiness shared by all humans. This, though, would however then champion the ideal of zero-sum forms of happiness maintained by all – maybe needless to add, thereby however inadvertently sponsoring the mass-murder’s happiness (which is zero-sum in relation to those murdered and raped) as something just as worthy of pursuit as would be all other zero-sum forms of happiness (for the only thing standing in the way of this latter happiness is the desire to preserve the symbiotic happiness of the community in which the mass-murder also happens to live).

To this I'll add that egalitarian ideals (be they communistic, anarchistic, or democratic) entwine the ideal of symbiotic happiness among all, whereas totalitarian ideals can only be about zero-sum happiness by necessity of what totalitarianism prescribes.

To this I'll add that egalitarian ideals (be they communistic, anarchistic, or democratic) entwine the ideal of symbiotic happiness among all, whereas totalitarian ideals can only be about zero-sum happiness by necessity of what totalitarianism prescribes. — javra

Yes, you seem to be on point with this finishing thought. Aristotle really set in motion the telos of human aspirations, which is quite a sad state of affairs. Human collective goals shouldn't be defined by what standardized method or aims people have for themselves. If it really has to be Marx, then to each his/her own, right? Of course this is the end goal of communism, but is 'to each their own' too idealistic?

What do you think about this whole history of eudaimonia and the pursuit of happiness?

Aristotle really set in motion the telos of human aspirations, which is quite a sad state of affairs. — Shawn

I'm not sure in what sense to best interpret this. Is it Aristotle's notions on happiness or the current state of affairs regarding it that is to be taken as sad?

Human collective goals shouldn't be defined by what standardized method or aims people have for themselves. If it really has to be Marx, then to each his/her own, right? Of course this is the end goal of communism, but is 'to each their own' too idealistic? — Shawn

Never been attracted to Marx. I personally find "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to be an at best nearsighted slogan. For example, the so called cheater (can be found in ethological studies of other species just as much as in studies of humanity) will after all have their own abilities of cheating the community and its systems, in other words they are good at personal gains at the expense of others in their society by profiting from others' efforts without investing any effort themselves. This being detrimental to the community they partake of, parasitically so. Or for another, the stronger and yet more sensitive and compassionate heart might not have a so called need for social approval, warmth, love, etc. for their preservation of being whereas many a silly person will have a need for such conditions with the slightest incursion upon their ego; should we then punish people who are strong and compassionate by withholding our affection, gratitude, and warmth so as to reward those who throw temper tantrums on a dime with the same? I find so doing both unjust and also a means of degenerating the society one lives in. I don't want to turn this into a debate on core Marxist stances, but, in short, despite the many instances where Marxism can have its import, I still find there is a crucially important place for merit and just deserves which Marxism, from all I so far know of it, does not address as pivotal to well-being.

What do you think about this whole history of eudaimonia and the pursuit of happiness? — Shawn

Man, that's a big topic. I so far interpret Aristotelian / Ancient Greek eudemonia to be something akin to actualizing to the fullest the most positive potentials of being one is endowed with; i.e., with success in terms of actualized virtues rather than in terms of material possessions, the latter taking second place and being indifferent to the first. While the English term and concept of "happiness" can significantly overlap with eudemonia, it to me is primarily far more brute in nature: here basically specifying having the good fortune, luck, good happenstance in actualizing that which one intends to actualize, irrespective of what that might be. It's opposite, suffering (to me etymologically connoting carrying an (unwanted) weight or burden), is then the obstruction to actualizing that which one intends to actualize. Thereby making it different in many respects from physical pain. While deep-seated happiness might be one and the same with eudemonia in most cases, happiness tout court is not. Here we get the happiness of the mass-murder who succeeds in mass-murdering. Or, more tritely, the happiness of blowing one's nose upon so intending. Compare with the suffering of discovering one's arm paralyzed upon intending to blow one's nose so that one is incapable of doing what one actively intends to do (or of the mass-murder imprisoned - by societal pressures if not by a prison cell - and thereby obstructed from actualizing what they yearn to actualize).

So, to me, in short, eudemonia is all well and good - but it stands out among all other forms of happiness as something that is far more stable and enduring in its nature, such that the greater the eudemonia accomplished the greater the hardships which can be endured without falling into disarray. Whereas happiness - or rather the desire for it - as it was just specified in its most general sense is a brute fact of all sentience, human or otherwise, and is almost tautologically so: it would be logically contradictory that one at the same time and in the same respect both a) intends the actualization of X and b) intends that X not be actualized. Whatever one's intent, when and if it becomes actualized, then happiness in this generalized sense is obtained.

Given all this, I find the affirmation of "(a right to) the freedom to pursue eudemonia however one deems its obtainment best actualized" to be far more apt then the nonspecific saying of "the freedom to pursue happiness". The latter can, again, apply to a mass-murderer's freedom to mass-murder, whereas the former will not.

That's the basic overview of my perspectives on the matter.

Bringing this back to the OP, having a ubiquitous happiness in the general sense for all humans all the time is rather impossible: human interaction will guarantee the occurrence of some suffering in some humans some of the time. But having a far greater eudemonia for all humans worldwide - though contingent on many a variable and by far easier said than done - is not something that is beyond the range of what is possible. But - as previously said, because one cannot impose comradery and succeed at having genuine comradeship, this as communism has so far attempted to do, without it backfiring - I don't find communism to be a good approach toward such ideal/goal of a greater eudemonia for all humans world over. (If there's to be any hope for such, I so far think functional and genuine democracies are the way to go - this in contrast to banana republics, kleptocracies, and the like, i.e. in contrast to perversions of what democracies are meant to be where the democracy in name only is both corrupt and dysfunctional.)

Thanks for the response. I conclude the topic about communism, collectivism and the good, and even the guise of happiness on a mass scale.

I don't have anything to add apart from the possible subject matter of whether those ancient guys like Aristotle or even more intelligently, Plato, got it right in envisioning the aims or goals of humanity to be in correspondence with the telos of pursuing (rather sadly, not attaining) the good, being, happiness.

And, of course, I detected the antithesis being secular philosophies like Buddhism, which simply seek tranquility and the reduction of suffering.

And, of course, I detected the antithesis being secular philosophies like Buddhism, which simply seek tranquility and a reduction of suffering. — Shawn

Isn't the Buddhist notion of Nirvana supposed to be literal bliss? For example:

In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Buddha speak of four attributes which make up nirvana. Writing on this Mahayana understanding of nirvana, William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous state:

'The Nirvana Sutra claims for nirvana the ancient ideas of permanence, bliss, personality, purity in the transcendental realm. Mahayana declares that Hinayana, by denying personality in the transcendental realm, denies the existence of the Buddha. In Mahayana, final nirvana is both mundane and transcendental, and is also used as a term for the Absolute.[221] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)#Mah%C4%81parinirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a_S%C5%ABtra

If so, it's still the pursuit of eudemonia by other names and frameworks. Not so different in this regard. Just saying.

I don't know how to think about "The Happiness of All Mankind", all 8 billion individuals -- one by one or collectively.

Only individuals can experience happiness, and it's a subjective experience. Even commies can only pursue happiness one prole at a time. The way I read it, Jefferson's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (whatever he was thinking of at the time) is a one-by-one project. MAYBE one can organize a society so that it is easier to have life, liberty, and happiness, but it will still be the individual's initiative that gets the job done.

Universal happiness, universal peace, universal fairness, etc. sound nice until one begins thinking about the absurd amount of social engineering it would take to achieve a fair, just peace that would satisfy every one of the 8 billion beneficiaries.

Too pessimistic? BC is short for Bitter Crank, after all. People who live in a society which has a certain amount of "fluidity" -- where people can fairly easily select circumstances that contribute to their happiness -- have a better chance of happiness than people can achieve in a rigid, dogmatic society like Taliban-plagued Afghanistan.

If so, it's still the pursuit of eudemonia by other names and frameworks. Not so different in this regard. Just saying. — javra

Yes, however attaining Nirvana is premised on the extinguishing of desire, which is manifested in the pursuance of the reduction of duhkha. So, if happiness is a telos or aim in eudemonistic logic or whatever you want to call it, then the two don't seem coherent when compared.

I don't know how to think about "The Happiness of All Mankind", all 8 billion individuals -- one by one or collectively. — BC

The title of the thread is actually a slogan from the Soviet Union.

I suppose a union is a union as long as some fabric or unifying feature stands for it.

That and he killed 40 million people.
— Hanover
That is indeed a potential failure. The goal is to subdue. — Tarskian

"Potential failure"? Being charitable, I will suppose you think and express yourself a lot more precisely in your native language, and give you credit for your efforts in English. As it sits, however, yours a disgusting absurdity. Or maybe you're fourteen years old and going through a phase of adolescent power worship. Being likely the third greatest murderer in history, behind God and Mao and ahead of Hitler, he was either on his own terms a spectacular success or a complete failure - nothing potential or half-way about it. 40 million killed is 1,000 per day, every single day, for 110 years.

Under what system of justice could he or his like ever repay what is owed - unless there's a Hell and he's in a very special corner of it..

The title of the thread is actually a slogan from the Soviet Union. — Shawn

Proof of the difficulty of talking about the happiness of the masses.

Certainly the USSR had a properly functioning social fabric. They wouldn't have been able to survive Stalin's and Hitler's pathological programs if they hadn't had a tough social fabric. Social fabric, however, isn't the same as happiness.

I'm not suggesting that nobody in the USSR was happy, or that unhappiness was the daily lot of soviet citizens. It just seems like that the USSR presented significant barriers to individual happiness, and the collective joy and happiness of the people was more a Potemkin village than a reality.

I'm not suggesting that everybody in the USA is happy, or that unhappiness is a rarity here. Here (USA) barriers to individual happiness are erected by private agencies rather than public ones: employers, retail companies, advertising companies (looking at you, Edward Bernays), political parties, churches (you're going to hell IF...). real estate developers, banks, and so on.

In the US, the collective joy and happiness of the people is a Disneyland rather than a Potemkin village.

I don't think it is difficult for the basic human to feel contented and happy. It seems to be the case that people living in small, pre-industrial, at least somewhat isolated cultures achieve contentment and happiness with much less effort than we do in big, industrial, integrated, striving, rat race cultures.

Dropping out (as in "“Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out,” encapsulated the spirit of a generation seeking enlightenment, freedom, and a break from societal norms. The phrase was first uttered by Leary during the Human Be-in on January 14, 1967, a pivotal moment at the peak of the Summer of Love) is one way of attempting happiness and contentment in this society.

I didn't turn on with LSD, but I did tune in and drop out intermittently, between jobs to maintain a viable if minimal budget. (Homeless encampments are nobody's idea of happiness.) This strategy worked pretty well because I was readily employable and had lots of interests to pursue when I wasn't wage slaving.

I could have done better (been happier more often) had I planned this out more carefully. I wasted a lot of time working out this strategy, and maintaining delusions of professional social service occupations.

Shawn: Are you happy and contented?

Shawn: Are you happy and contented? — BC

Same to you?

My take? Yes, although I don't ask the question as much as others to be frank. To this day I don't understand the obsession with this whole rat race which has been a source of dissatisfaction for the past decade. If people were happy, then not much would get done. I doubt Americans are disenfranchised, as some workers would have testified towards Marx. I see the US as a very dissatisfied place, where there's always a concern with how well the Jones' are doing or whether my AstroTurf is green enough, hell some people might even water their AstroTurf. Grass that is green and plastic doesn't need to be greener, right?

Jokes aside, I view the current situation of my life as past a huge hump, and my wellbeing is improving. I only buy things for myself on my birthday. Sometimes I'll look at a new scanner and printer; but, I have spent my 20's looking at life as something that ought to be respected. I'm not kidding, I have been through a lot.

So, how are you doing Bitter Crank? I am saddened that we might not be able to talk as much, given your age and dread your departure. I hope you already did everything you wanted to do in your life up until now. Death isn't an event in life; but, it is to others you may know...

I didn't turn on with LSD, but I did tune in and drop out intermittently, between jobs to maintain a viable if minimal budget. — BC

Yeah, something on the bucket-list to-do(?) :cool:

Per my favorite New York Jew, Woody Allen: "I'm not afraid of dying; I just don't want to be there when it happens."

I'm 78; I scheduled hip replacement surgery (3 months hence), and I hope to get at least five years of use out of it. My siblings are all in the 80s and are mostly doing well, except a brother who has metastatic prostate cancer and likely won't be with us much longer. I had a cancer removed from my throat almost 5 years ago and there is no sign of recurrence. My skin seems cancer prone. Sunbathing on gay nude beaches can lead to AIDS; that could have been me. It could still lead to melanoma. I take a statin, a BP med, an antidepressant, and drops for glaucoma.

There are a lot of problems I don't have, and I feel physically healthy, apart from joint pain.

I've been happy and content, more or less, since 2012, I have gotten better at avoiding sturm and drang. I can certainly get torqued out, but that doesn't happen so often now. I don't get around much any more, so run into few high drama situations with other people. A lot of crap has been flushed down the river that runs through it.

I have not done everything I want to do. I have not seen Paris, Berlin, or Rome. But then, I haven't seen Omaha, Cleveland, or Detroit either. On the other hand, I've seen London, Amsterdam, Nairobi, Kampala, Duluth, Des Moines, and Denver. There are many unknown topics I want to learn about, at least to some extent. I'll stumble onto those in due time. I wanted to be suave, sophisticated, and multilingual. That boat left the dock in so many ways so long ago.

I never ran a marathon, but I did do 2 century rides on my bike (100 miles per day). I never got over my fear of heights (no rock climbing, ferris wheel rides, or roller coaster nightmares, thank you). Spiders and centipedes bother me much less than they used to. I haven't seen a snake in a long time, so don't know how I feel about them.

I came out and dove into gay life at about the right time. That was a good thing. I probably drank too much and smoked too many cigarettes, but it was all worth while. I found a lot of great sex and long-lasting love. I had a long fling with socialism, which is over. The group I belonged to died a merciful death. I planted some successful gardens, and several that were failures. The raspberry patch has turned malevolent and threatens to engulf the back yard.

No LSD in my bucket.

Ha. Well, in honesty, I can’t help but smirk at such interpretations of Buddhism. So the original Buddha, who reputedly actualized an awareness of Nirvana while sitting underneath a tree, this prior to doing his best at spreading his insights to others, intended nothing, pursued nothing, wanted nothing, and hence desired nothing, etc. – in other words, held no teloi which he pursued - after his actualization of Nirvana, this when he started teaching others about Nirvana / Buddhism? It’s not something I find rationally cogent. I mean it’s as nonsensical to me as is the affirmation of a triangular square. So I end up guessing that there's something lost in translation when it comes to “the absence of desires”. But, as you say, to each their own – here, specifically, in regard to their own interpretations. I say all this in partial jest and in partial sobriety.