Basic questions regarding Socialism
- This topic has 32 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello,
I have a couple of questions that I don't think are usually discussed by socialists / progressive liberals… but should be (imho).
Centering mainly around the topics of ethics and values.
Conservative and religious groups have them covered. But their claims are empty and not even consistent. Referring to holy books, prophets and other kinds of authorities without actually deriving your own answers via a logical process is equally pointless when applied to scientific questions as it is to ethical ones.
That being said, NOT considering ethical questions at all seems to be just as bad.
To whoever considers him- or herself a socialist (which I assume should be quite a few around here), I would like to discuss these questions and ideally arrive at some kind of model that can be used as a method to help us in telling what we should and shouldn't do. It should be possible to apply it to social problems and arrive at answers that are rooted in socialism (since that's the point).
I'm honestly not sure if Socialism claims to have something like that. I often get the sense that socialists tend to see ethics as something that is not yet clearly understood and may be answered through (neuro-) science in the future. At other times I feel like socialists see ethics as essentially deprecated and irrelevant.
But that seems contradictoray, as Socialism frequently uses moral terms that contain value-judgements like "slavery" or "inequality" and what is the "right" thing to do for the common "good".
What I'm basically interested in is how socialists know that something like slavery or inequality is bad or immoral. Is it related to whether it is "efficient" or makes people "happy"?
What is (common-) good and how do you derive it?
Can you formulate a method to apply to common social problems like theft, abortion, pollution, wars, etc. to get a clear answer on whether they are moral (as in: desirable or necessary) or not? (both generally and specifically)
Let's try to restrict the discussion to these questions for now. Thanks to everyone interested in participating and I hope you find it stimulating!
Very interesting topic and I think you may have prodded a hornet’s nest, Lol. I am not a member but I will offer my opinion.Some of its members will disagree but I don’t think that the SPGB holds an ethical position; the drive for socialism is the expression of class interests. Socialism is needed to solve the problems of the working class; poverty, hunger, homelessness, war etc. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant.I don’t think that becoming a socialist is an ethical process, though it may be for a few. I would think most socialists believe that ‘ethics’ like religion has and is being used to justify capitalism and the profit system. Some socialist will argue that we need ‘socialist ethics’. I would be interested to know what they look like! (The ethics not the socialists)What is thought ‘ethical’ in one era can become ‘wrong’ in another. Take your example of slavery. At one time it was argued that slavery was the natural way of things and therefore ‘right’. Why is it now ethically wrong when once it was ethically right?The capitalist argues that theft is wrong. Well he/she would, they own the planet. Socialists argue that in socialism. Theft will be meaningless.Ethics and values change and it is very difficult to pin down a 'universal ethical system' There is plenty of good reading on the site. For example:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1989/no-1014-february-1989/human-nature-and-morality
TheOldGreyWhistle, thanks for the reply!Your observation is actually quite similar to mine, haha.I think it's very evident that the ethical views of people do constantly change with the times, but does that make them irrelevant?I don't think so – after all, any action a person or group takes has at some level to be a consequence of a (subjective) value or preference.For example, if I want to replace capitalism with socialism, it means that I value something about socialism (in other words I find it to be moral or worth doing), while I do not value capitalism (I find it immoral or not preferable).Values guide our actions.By knowing what – in this case – a socialist values, I can infer the stance they might hold in regard to a particular political or philosophical position, or what actions they may take if x or y happens.It works a lot like a scientific theory, in that it helps to understand and predict certain things. Now, that doesn't mean that the ethical model has to be "absolute" and unchangeable in order to be valid. We wouldn't ask that of a scientific theory, either. But let me get a little more concrete. A very simplistic ethical framework that I could devise for socialism (I don't necessarily believe that any socialist actually accepts it) would be something like this:- the greatest value is economical equality. Thus, any action that furthers this ideal is moral- the least valuable thing is economical inequality. Any action that leads to more inequality is immoral From this alone, it's possible to know how people who accept this model would act most of the time. I really think it's somewhat important. Or rather, not having an ethical framework for a political ideology to me is like having biology without the theory of evolution. There's nothing to connect all the fossils, dna findings or physical traits of different living organisms. No big picture, no real understanding. P.S.: The article you linked to very correctly observes that historically, morality has almost always been used for the interests of a particular group (or class). But like I previously explained, it doesn't follow that we therefore should strive towards a valueless society. Such a proposal would be rather hypocritical, given that socialists also have interests.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:. A very simplistic ethical framework that I could devise for socialism (I don't necessarily believe that any socialist actually accepts it) would be something like this:- the greatest value is economical equality. Thus, any action that furthers this ideal is moral- the least valuable thing is economical inequality. Any action that leads to more inequality is immoralI realise that this is only an example and you do say that you didn't think that any socialist would necessarily accept it. You are right there. We wouldn't because it implicitly accepts that people should continue to have a monetary income while they won't in socialism. In any event, under capitalism anybody trying to act on this would be fighting a losing battle as this article explains. So, it would be irrelevant in socialism and trying to run up a downward-moving escalator under capitalism.Something like this would better describe our approach today under capitalism::- the greatest value is the interest of the class of wage and salary workers.This is what is behind our principles and actions today as a political party within capitalism. Of course it's very abstract and we'd have deduce from the facts of the present situation that the interest of the working class (as defined above) is to free itself from capitalist exploitation and that this can only be done through socialism (as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of the whole community).What your "supreme value" would be once socialism has been achieved would be a different matter, but it would have to be something like- the greatest value is equality of decision-making power.or- the greatest value is the sharing of the benefits of social co-operation in accordance with the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.It's all a bit philosophical.
No, I think that's really great for a start, ALB :)Imho it's very important to be "philosophical" (in the sense of critically examining the basic underpinnings of a concept) when it comes to political ideologies. After all, there are millions of people who are seemingly convinced of precisely the opposite of what the particular group here puts forward.It won't get us anywhere to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong", like so many people do. By examining values rather than specific propositions it is much easier to understand and compare different ideologies. I don't believe that anyone has everything right, but many are on to something
That being said, I would really like to review the values of socialism as you summarized them. I hope that you can tell me afterwards if I got it right or what I got wrong.What makes things slightly more difficult of course is the fact that there are essentially two types of socialism; the theoretical ideal socialism and our actual current mixed system (I'm hesitant to call it capitalism, as there is no such thing as a "pure" system in practice).As you explained, it has different priorities in our current system than it would otherwise have.But I think it's only fair to look at it in its proper, ideal environment and reduce the "background noise" to a minimum, just like you would in any good science experiment. That's why I would like to ignore the first value you brought up (interests of the working class). So the value I'm interested in now is the equality of decision-making power.I take it literal in the sense that every person should have the power to make all the decisions in regard to their own life, as well as their society, as far as that is possible.I say that because it obviously is very difficult to make decisions that affect a whole group of people when each and every one has equal decision-making power. Because as soon as one person disagrees, it becomes impossible to turn that decision into reality without implicitly stating that the decision-making power of the minority is less valuable than that of everyone else, thus undermining the whole value system.Moreover, government becomes impossible in the face of true equality of decision-making power.After all, a government is based on the premise that a few especially qualified individuals have certain decision-making rights that the vast majority of other people don't have.So having a government would be akin to using windows when you claim to really, really value macintosh…For all intents and purposes, a truly consistent application of this value would be limited to individuals and the decisions they make for themself.This means that most laws would also not be sensible. For instance, it wouldn't be possible to make laws against drinking and driving, since nobody can claim that you don't have the power to decide to do so.However, some laws would be possible – for those actions that attempt to take away other peoples decision-making power.In essence, forcing others to do anything that they decide against would be immoral and/or criminal; things like assault, rape, fraud, murder, etc. The last value you stated can be described as a partial negation of the concept of property rights that we have at the moment – i.e. it's good not to own things (unless you really need them).The wonderful thing about this value is that it would make theft for the most part obsolete, as there's no point in stealing something when you can just take it if you need it.However, it is necessary to limit this value to only certain, "non-personal" items, since taking someone else's computer with their personal data or other personal belongings would still be theft (as it would interfere with their decision-making power).I think it's also clear that this isn't a value that can be supported by any kind of law. For example, if you need a house, you won't be able to just go to someone and demand the keys. You either have to hope that someone has built a house and is willing to give it to you or build your own. So that's the way I would understand the values you proposed. I'm very curious to find out where my deductions are off !Actually, they were both just "values" I thought off the top of my head as I was typing, so I'm sure they can be philosophically deconstructed.But the first one (about "equality of decision-making power") is not specifically socialist. It's more a basic democratic principle, which does concern socialism of course in the sense that socialism will be a democratic society. And it doesn't imply that everybody has to have a say in every decision but only that in any particular decision-making everybody involved in making it should have an equal say. If you are interested in exploring the philosophical basis of democracy, have a read of this 1986 book by a Socialist Party member who was a professional philosopher, The Battle of Democracy: Conflict, Consensus and the Individual.On the second possible "greatest value" in socialism (the sharing of the benefits of social co-operation in accordance with the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") of course it doesn't mean that anyone can have access to what someone else has decided to take from the common store for their personal use or to the housing accommodation that they have been allocated to them to use. That's an old, silly (or silly old) objection that's often be raised against socialism. Actually, I think that the concept of property (basically a legal concept) will be replaced in socialism by that of use, ie someone will have the more or less exclusive "right" to use certain things. The means for producing things (farms, factories, etc) will be commonly owned, which is another way of saying they won't be owned by anybody.
Do you think these values have any use or 'value' within a capitalist economic framework: Minority ownership and control of the means of production and distribution and production of wealth for sale at a profit? Or are you saying the realisation and satisfaction of these values requires a social revolution?
ALB, thanks for the clarifications!I see now that what you meant with the equality of decision-making power was the common democratic idea of every person having an equal part of decision-making power in the context of a democratic process (as the full decision-making power is divided between all individuals that are concerned by the specific issue).It may be small but it's a rather important distinction :)As this value is not exclusive to socialism, I think we can skip it then. As for the other value, I am a bit confused… Let's say I have a means of production, i.e. a printing press (let's assume I built it or got it in some other legitimate way).Can somebody else "claim" a right for the use of this machine? Does it depend on my will, as the "owner" of that good? Or does it depend on the will of say, the community in which I live or is it perhaps even a legal question that's for a court to decide?I'm not sure how it should be worked out who has the right to use what. Could you elaborate or lead me to an article where that is explained in detail? TheOldGreyWhistle: Like I attempted to explain before, I think a value is something that guides your actions. Ideally, it should do so independently of the society you live in.I don't think the things you mentioned are values; they are concepts that follow from certain values. More precisely, they follow from the value of property rights.If you can claim to possess legitimate ownership over a means of production, then it logically follows that you can distribute and trade its products for whatever you personally think they're worth (it doesn't follow that it has to be money or that the deal has to be profitable).From a purely logical viewpoint, I don't see any flaws or problems in that value, but I would be happy to discuss it, too.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:I see now that what you meant with the equality of decision-making power was the common democratic idea of every person having an equal part of decision-making power in the context of a democratic process (as the full decision-making power is divided between all individuals that are concerned by the specific issue).Thanks for the precision. I can go along with that but am not entirely sure it can be skipped in any discussion about the "values" of socialist society as a democratic decision-making structure will be an essential part of it.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:As for the other value, I am a bit confused… Let's say I have a means of production, i.e. a printing press (let's assume I built it or got it in some other legitimate way). Can somebody else "claim" a right for the use of this machine? Does it depend on my will, as the "owner" of that good? Or does it depend on the will of say, the community in which I live or is it perhaps even a legal question that's for a court to decide?I thought that you wanted a high-level philosophical discussion but this is the sort of question our speakers used to get in Hyde Park!Technically, a printing press is a "means of production" even if a miniscule one. So is a garden spade. But we're talking about farms, factories, plant, machinery, railways, ships, and other socially-operated workplaces. These are too big to be "possessed" by an individual in the same way as your printing machine or my spade.So, the sort of answer we would have given at Hyde Park would be this. In socialism nothing would prevent someone constructing their own printing machine, car or boat. They would even have free access to the materials and tools they needed to carry on this hobby. Maybe too they could use their printing machine to print things for friends and neighbours who might prefer this to going to some communly-owned print shop which might not be conveniently placed for them. Who knows? One thing is clear though. There would be no point in the print-machine maker trying to charge for the use of his machine since he wouldn't have any customers as they'd be able to get any printing done free at the communally-owned print shop. The most that might happen is that I might give him some of the vegetables I have grown in exchange for him printing some new year cards for me. Trivial really and hardly a philosophical objection to socialism
Alexander Reiswich wrote:I'm not sure how it should be worked out who has the right to use what. Could you elaborate or lead me to an article where that is explained in detail?Basically, everyone would have the right to use what they had taken from the common stores for their personal consumption and anything they might have made or grown for their own consumption or pleasure. So, you will be pleased to know, you will be able to keep and have exclusive use of or control of who uses any printing machine you might makeAs for more heavy, theoretical stuff, have a read of this ,especially the opening sections which discuss the concept of property and why "trade" will disappear in a socialist society. This other article deals with the origin of the concept of "property rights" which you've mentioned more than once:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1988/no-1007-july-1988/1688-and-all
Alexander Reiswich wrote:“For example, if I want to replace capitalism with socialism, it means that I value something about socialism (in other words I find it to be moral or worth doing), while I do not value capitalism (I find it immoral or not preferable).”Capitalism did not come about because of a universal value that can be applied to any period in history. Capitalists did not decide that Feudalism was "immoral or not preferable.” Capitalists pursued their economic interests and formed ‘values’ to justify their dominance in future society. Socialism does not require universally applied values or morality. I want common ownership so that I can feed, clothe and house myself and grandchildren and ensure their future safety and I will construct a value system around the 'common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution' by and in the interests of us all.As Marx wrote more than 100 years ago: “The philosophers have interpreted the world the point however is to change it.”Let’s get on with it!
ALB, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to talk about the concept of democracy, which clearly seems to be essential for the type of socialism you advocate. But I believe that this, too, is not really the greatest value, but rather a consequence of more basic values.For example, let's imagine there are five people in a hospital. Four of them have a damaged organ which needs to be replaced lest they have no chance of survival. The fifth person only has a flesh wound. So among them, they democratically decide to kill the fifth in order to take his organs.Clearly, from a purely pragmatic point of view this would make sense. Four people live and one dies rather than four dying and one surviving.However, I don't think you would say that this is really a good thing to do.That's because in reality, you probably hold other, much deeper values than merely that every person should have an equal part of decision-making power. With that said, let me propose the greatest value that I think you hold, whether you know it or not:"The greatest value is to respect the autonomy of other people's bodies, thoughts and actions."In other words, whatever you do that increases another person's ability to freely control their bodies, thoughts and actions is moral.While everything that hinders them is immoral. You can apply this to almost any moral problem and get a satisfying result that corresponds to the intuitive moral understanding of most mentally healthy people.If you don't mind, I would like to discuss the implications of this value in relation to socialism. I was pleased to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem in the property rights aspects. It seems that you do not really want to abolish ownership, but rather require that it is derived from usage.So for instance, it's impossible for one person to claim ownership over a large piece of land, when he or she cannot possibly use all of it in any meaningful way.Same with a factory; even if there is a founder or leader, it still is true that he or she didn't build and maintain the factory alone, hence everyone has a right to decide if the factory for instance should be closed or sold.I assume that's correct? However, there are many other parts where I'm not sure if the value I proposed would be respected.So I hope you can help me in figuring out if that is so and if yes, what other greater value could possibly override that one? First of all, since there will be no money, I assume that there will also be no taxation. Is that correct? Secondly, I assume that socialism promotes a centralized governing body with a monopoly on the use of force. Would you enforce non-violent offenses (i.e. drug-use or whatever other action that has been deemed illegal) through the police?Additionally, what if I was not in agreement with how, say, the police or justice department handles their jobs. Would it be possible for me to go ahead and create my own court or police force? Thanks, I'll be awaiting your reply! TheOldGreyWhistle: I disagree, although it may be more of an issue of definitions. Like I said, you must have a value in order to prefer a certain action or outcome. Most people are not consciously aware of the values they hold, but they still hold them within their behavior.For example, you probably value internal consistency in logical arguments. You don't need to say it though – it can be inferred from the way you construct your arguments.That's the great thing about values – they don't depend on what someone claims, but rather on how someone acts. If a politician says that he values traditional marriage, but is found out to have slept with a gay hooker, then we know that he most certainly does not really value traditional marriage.So with that in mind, capitalists wouldn't need to consciously decide anything; their actions reflect their values. That being said, I think it's preferable to be aware of the values one holds, because it is easy to switch between differing and mutually-exclusive values when it is advantegeous to do so, without noticing that one did so.Not trying to be overly provocative, but maybe if Marx concentrated more on values rather than socio-political change, then perhaps guys like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the like wouldn't have misunderstood him so?
Alexander Reiswich wrote:I was pleased to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem in the property rights aspects. It seems that you do not really want to abolish ownership, but rather require that it is derived from usage.So for instance, it's impossible for one person to claim ownership over a large piece of land, when he or she cannot possibly use all of it in any meaningful way.Same with a factory; even if there is a founder or leader, it still is true that he or she didn't build and maintain the factory alone, hence everyone has a right to decide if the factory for instance should be closed or sold.I assume that's correct?Not quite. Since we are talking about a socialist society where nothing will be bought and sold the question of selling a factory just won't arise (though closing it might). Basically, in a socialist society, no individual or group of individuals (including the state which is also a group of individuals) will exercise "ownership" rights over factories, etc. These will in fact belong to nobody; which is the same as saying that they will belong to everybody. In short, the concept of ownership (which is a legal concept) in relation to them disappears. They are simply there to be used in accordance with procedures for their use that socialist society will have decided, democratically.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:First of all, since there will be no money, I assume that there will also be no taxation. Is that correct?Yes, that's right. And no banks, no wages, no profits.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:Secondly, I assume that socialism promotes a centralized governing body with a monopoly on the use of force. Would you enforce non-violent offenses (i.e. drug-use or whatever other action that has been deemed illegal) through the police?Wrong. While there will be a central administration under democratic control (as well as regional and local administrations) it will be unarmed and so won't be in a position to use force against people. In other words, it won't be a "state" which is a central administration "with a monopoly on the use of force" within a given territory. Here's how we described how we envisage the position the last time we discussed this in detail (at our Conference in 1991:
Quote:That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.Alexander Reiswich wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle: Like I attempted to explain before, I think a value is something that guides your actions. Ideally, it should do so independently of the society you live in.IMy values include free access to the world's resources and democratic control over their use by all. What if my values cannot be realised because of the economic base of society that leaves me propertyless and powerless?
ALB, thanks for the clarifications.I'm slightly suprised that you seem to be in full agreement with the principle of non-aggression. I'm sorry to say that this is usually not obvious when I read socialist writing. I can make the friendly recommendation to put more emphasis on it. It makes everything so much simpler :)I have no more questions if you agree with the consequences of the value I suggested, other than perhaps: do you personally feel that you represent the mainstream of the socialist party, or are you in the minority in that respect? TheOldGreyWhistle: I can only repeat that we have to be more precise and rigorous with the concept of values.I find it helpful to view values as a hierarchical cascade that flows from the external world to the internal self.For example, if I value, say, expensive cars, what is the deeper value that leads me to do so? Perhaps it's because I value high-quality design. In other words, the underlying value that I really hold is that material goods which are made to be as appealling, timeless, ergonomic, durable, etc. as possible are good, while sloppily designed products that break after a year are bad. This internal value guides all my decision-making processes.My point is this: when you say that you value free access to world's resources, etc., I believe that there is a deeper underlying value, as for instance: it's good to share material goods with people who need them.I know it may sound simplistic, but I think it's really what the values you stated are based upon.I don't think that you are advocating for a system where goods should be allocated to everyone without the consent of the individuals. So if it's voluntary, then "sharing" seems like the proper term.Let me know if I'm completely wrong with this assumption. But if I'm right, then it's easy to answer your question: If you value sharing with people who need some things more than you, then just do so :)You are not constricted by your environment so long as you formulate your values properly.The reason I say that is because the whole point of values is that they are subjective. So if they are not internal, they're not really values at all, but mere desires.
Guide needing GuidanceA guide has descended upon the forum to set the Party straight. He imagines we must be ignorant of his capitalist modes of thought and practice — as if any sentient human being can avoid the commonplaces he takes to be his own intellectual productions even as they succeed in confusing him.He comes to commandeer our help in settling his confusions for authoritatively supplanting “false” anti-capitalist modes of thought and practice with “correct” bourgeois ones. So he must manipulate the forum by taking charge of its thought and practice.His enterprise is born ad hominem and must die ad hominem — in personal superiority or in wounded pride. Socialism is mere collateral damage to his motivating arrogance. I therefore address him as "you".Social ReproductionThe scientific understanding of ethics and so-called human values is based upon the materialist conception of history.The materialist conception of history expresses the necessity for social reproduction to proceed. Society must produce and distribute wealth in order to consume it.
Quote:social-reproduction ≡ production → distribution → consumption ↻ (1)This recurrent process [↻] is humanity’s indispensable necessity. As such it is the only rock-solid foundation we have for constructing a science of society.Importantly for a deterministic science — one that explains by prediction — is the recognition that cycle (1) is the fount of social determinism. Without it, society collapses. With it, society exists; society persists. That’s some determinism.Since you assume that socialists act unconsciously of Kant’s ethical categorical imperative [the sermon on the mount, etc.] and are unconsciously motivated by deep internal personal values, let us turn the tables upon you. Aren’t you always and everywhere acting ineluctably, but unconsciously of, the concrete determinism of cycle (1)? Or have you mentally — i.e. bourgeois philosophically — managed to free yourself of it?If you agree that none of us can escape cycle (1) then you are inexorably forced to comprehend its deterministic implication: that all social determinisms — including your bourgeois-modified social ethics and values — are ultimately subservient to this one, simply because they can never violate it without triggering a social collapse.That is a powerful observation on how cycle (1) must condition our social behaviour and so our consciousness.Class Distortion of Cycle (1)A second social law — something perhaps astonishing to you — is that cycle (1) is itself a process. Its form changes. It develops.An obvious analogy is with Marx’s commodity which he takes as the economic “cell form” of capitalistic reproduction. But here we’ll delve into Marx’s deeper social thoughts. Borrowing his cell analogy, we take cycle (1) as the “[omni-potent] stem-cell form” of social reproduction.Every form of society is potentially present in cycle (1), but it requires the right conditions to generate a specific form. Those are conditions of ownership and control of the means whereby cycle (1) must operate. The determinism of all social formations arises inexorably out of ownership and control of the means of life — the substance of cycle (1).Take our Party Object and Declaration of Principles, both of which may puzzle you:The Party’s Object expresses the conviction that common ownership and democratic control of the means of social reproduction by the whole community is the foundation of a society that does reproduce itself directly according to reproductive cycle (1). That society is socialism.The Party’s Declaration of Principles expresses the conviction that [legal] ownership and [political] control of the means of social reproduction by a class of the whole community — the capitalist class — is the foundation for a society in which a part of that society has gained power over the rest of that society to distort reproductive cycle (1) in its own interest. The wealth-conservative nature of cycle (1) deterministically ensures that any distortion is necessarily performed in opposition to the distribution of wealth to the whole community. Capitalism is such a society.[We could stop here and agree that such a social formation should be immediately replaced by socialism whose conditions of ownership and control deterministically generate cycle (1). However, we continue.]Capital reproduction, the subject of Marx’s Capital, is the form taken by cycle (1) under capitalism — when the conditions of cycle (1) are owned and controlled by the capitalist class, and not by society.Our reproductive cycle is no longer the circulation of goods for social consumption but the circulation of capital for personal enrichment.Control of the substance of cycle (1) has permitted the capitalist class to impose a parasitic process upon cycle (1) — a parasitic process that is entirely dependent on cycle (1). Contrary to deceptive appearance, mighty capital is meekly subservient to the mightier social process it grossly distorts:
Quote:capital-reproduction ≡ production → distribution ➚ profit ⇥ exchange [= market] ➘ consumption ↻ (2)The capitalist market, or the exchange phase of social reproduction, stands as a barrier between social distribution and social consumption, and will only let capital reproduction proceed if the social consumer is able to realize the capitalist’s capital for him. Otherwise there’s no social consumption. That’s a pretty nasty determinism, but it recurs everywhere daily world wide.Cycle (2) is a flagrant violation of our sociability. The capitalist market is a superimposed process for syphoning off wealth from cycle (1) for the capitalist class at the expense of society. What are we to make of the ethics and values adequate to maintaining this bourgeois class’s dominance?Your bourgeois-imbibed ethics and values are deterministically tainted. They must conform to the social parasitism expressed in cycle (2), which is the capitalist-modified form of the fundamental cycle (1), or else they wreck capitalist society. That’s some moral and intellectual determinism operating recurrently on you — as on us all.And you arrogantly seek to impose your bourgeois modes of thought and practice upon our socialist ones!Everything you’ve confidently come to lecture us on is morally and intellectually parasitic upon genuine social ethics and values. It is the reverse of what you take it to be because capital reproduction is a process of class robbery, the reverse of what you take our current social reproduction process to be.A clear example of parasitic social ethics and values are those formulated in religion and arrogated to the church from society. Church ethics and values are now exposed to general scrutiny because the needs of cycle (2) stand in opposition to those of the historical church. And they must succumb, along with the church’s practice, to the actual dominance of cycle (2).Social RelationsThe most human of social laws is Marx’s observation that “Social being determines consciousness”. If you reflect that cycles (1) and (2) can only become autonomous if humans make them so, it becomes clear that our social relations — our jobs — are unconsciously carrying out cycle (2). To actuate these relations we must think them through — consciously or unconsciously. That’s how we generate our consciousness.Following Marx, we socialists strive to implement an alternative society where humanity consciously thinks through its social relations. That can only occur deterministically in a truly social society in which we all own and democratically control the substance of cycle (1). That society is socialism.The ethics and values that arise in such a society no longer assume the perverted forms they necessarily take under capitalism. They are directly social.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.