Evil
- This topic has 93 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does evil exist?
There is a member on twitter referring to capitaism as 'evil' . Is this the party position?
I dont need to ask because i know it is bollocks
so what's the crack?
OK I will give my opinion. Capitalism is not 'evil' because 'evil' doesn't exist simples
Evil as a metaphysical construction or force at large in the world out there doesnt exist. Thats true enough. To say capitalism is evil is an anthropomorphism and capitalism is not a person or even a thing. Nevertheless, saying "capitalism is evil " properly understood – is a metaphor or shorthand way of saying that the effects of capitalism are morally repulsive. And since we wouldnt be socialists if we did not think that these effects of capitalism are indeed morally repulsive – not simply that capitalism is not in our "self interest" – then seen in this light, I think it OK to talk about capitalism being evil so long as we are not being literal about it. If you are going to argue that socialism is purely a matter of our own "self interests".then this leads to directly into the kind of thinking that lay behind Adam Smith's model of the invisible hand of the market. You might as well give up propagatng socialism and focus on becoming a rich capitalist. Socialists care about the wellbeing of our fellow workers and it is for this reason that the very concept of class solidarity is by definition at least in part a moral construction. The case for socialism is thus both a moral one and a matter of interests. You cannot separate one from the other without turning the whole case into an incoherent shambles
No it is not a moral case (or both) and capitalism is not evil. It is just there are more working class than ruling class and a higher standard of living can be achieved.
Lets keep some perspective on words. When we say capitalism is evil it is simply saying it is a nasty system that is cruel and heartless, but we don't mean it is a living being with these emotions, do we… When we say the devil is in the detail…we don't mean there is a devil…As two members who has often pointed out how we alienate possible potential supporters/sympathisers by our sometimes rigid attitudes, i'm surprised you both think we should avoid every-day language that everybody understands. Socialism is a case for empathy and altruism – human solidarity
jondwhite wrote:No it is not a moral case (or both) and capitalism is not evil. It is just there are more working class than ruling class and a higher standard of living can be achieved.I disagree. It is both a moral case and a matter of self interests. These two things complement each other and are both vital to the case for socialism. If moral identification with fellow workers was irrelevant – that is, if you did not think the interests of other workers had value in itself and that you had no intrinsic reason to be concerned with their welfrare and wellbeiing (which is what morality is about) – then how could you possibly develop a sense of class solidarity with them? You express class solidarity with them because you empathise with their condition even to the extent of expressing the desire to altruistically sacrifice your own interests for the furtherance of your class interest (as Marx himself had specifically noted). This is the "proletarian morality" Engels was on about – not the timeless morality of the Christians – and he was right to emphasise it.If you dispense with the moral dimension all that awaits is you is abyss of the Smithian free market dogma of purely self interested motivation. As I said, you might just as well strive to become a capitalst in that case rather than propagate socialism. It utterly destroys and subverts any conception of a genuine collective class solidarity with its totally instrumentalist view of other workers as merely a means to serve your own private ends
Well the ruling class don't regard welfare of the working class as crucial, are all the ruling class immoral? Why are working class largely not socialist, are they immoral too? What workers need is economic identification and economic solidarity with their class not pious sacrificing your own interests, individual workers should strive for the best deal under capitalism AND to propagate socialism in their own self interest! Mixing in morality leads to "hard work" under capitalism prevailing as the highest or only moral dimension.
I can't remember starting this thread. Has anyone else ever drank whiskey while on prozac? Not recommended
jondwhite wrote:Well the ruling class don't regard welfare of the working class as crucial, are all the ruling class immoral? Why are working class largely not socialist, are they immoral too? What workers need is economic identification and economic solidarity with their class not pious sacrificing your own interests, individual workers should strive for the best deal under capitalism AND to propagate socialism in their own self interest! Mixing in morality leads to "hard work" under capitalism prevailing as the highest or only moral dimension.Non sequiturs JBond… Even if the ruling class does not regard the welfare of workers as crucial, that does not mean we workers should take our cue from them. Revolutionary socialists are meant to break with the idea sof the ruling class, not reinforce them. Also you still dont get the point. Forging soldiarity with our fellow workers is necessarily and implictly, in part, a moral endeavour. You talk about the "pious "sacrificing of one's interest but imagine if workers literally took what you said at face value. The idea of collectively uniting to mount a strike for example would simply be rendered impossible because, after all, a strike involves a temporary sacrifice in the form of a loss of earnings , The whole appeal to strike action is based on the premiss that all the workers involved would hopefully benefit in the long run. Logically, you are saying that the interests of other workers matters as well as your own and this is precisely what I am saying a moral outlook consists in. A purely instumentalist approach to other workers which is what you seem to be advicating may be amoral but its is incapable on its own of rousing anyone to effectively participate in any kind of collective action in my view let alone forge any kind of sense of collective solidarity. How could it when you are effectively saying to fellow workers I am only using you to further my own ends.? That sounds just like the capitalists you rightly criticise. And the capitalists can also use that very same argument to dissuade the individuals workers from participating in a strike. Loyal workers wil be rewarded, they could say, by keeping their jobs or even securing promotion after the strike. You will not be able to mount any counter argument to what these capitalists are saying becuase basically you will be thinking along the same instrumentalist lines as them
For those who think socialism has nothing whatsoever to to do with morality.Would a global socialist society have any rules or guidelines as to what are considered unacceptable ways to treat one another?If so, what would be the basis for such rules?
I suspect we might agree to disagree on this one.If you think a partly moral case for socialism is effective, then why are the working-class largely non-socialist? Or why are they largely supporters of political parties claiming to represent the self-interested?To paraphrase;The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles and the morals of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling morals, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.It is in each workers individual self-interest to threaten industrial action, strikes, work-to-rule or negotiation to get the best settlement. As is welfare.The Hayekian Free market morality is you work hard and you succeed. You see it used against strikes and is the major political parties mantra – 'hard-working families'. At best using morality is what Marx dismissed the utopian socialists for.As for rules in a socialist society the basis would be what is democratically decided.
Hi JDW,This has been discussed before and Robbo and myself pointed out that the morality we speak of is not capitalist morality, more a socialist morality based to some extent on altruism.I don't think the partly moral case for socialism is likely to be any more or less effective. I just think that denying it simply on the grounds of some ideological basis, is a bit pointless, when all morality refers to is a set of ethical communal rules to hold anti-social tendencies to account. The moral bullshit spouted today by all manner of leaders, is broken on a minute by minute basis. It's meaningless. So given that capitalist morality is pure hypocrisy, it's another area socialists can take full advantage of. I would like to think I wouldn't use the word "evil" to describe capitalism myself, but understand instantly what it conveys, cruelty, misery, suffering, corruption etc. Come to think ot it, perhaps it isn't such a bad word to use as it conveys so much meaning.I still expect a socialist society to have problems. We won't all just love one another when capitalism gets the chop. There will be relationship breakdowns, personal disagreements that might spill over into violence etc.Of course any social rules would be decided upon democraticaly, but what would be their basis and why? Is it wrong to make another person feel inferior? Is it ok to inflict physical pain upon another person? Is it fine to torture animals before they're slaughtered for food? Is it ok to slaughter animals for food? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive the utopian socialists were using morality to appeal to the ruling class to be the agents of change and not the workers, hoping it would encourage the formation of a society based on their early versions of socialism?To think socialism would be a moral free zone, is itself utopian.
Robbo 203 wrote
“If you are going to argue that socialism is purely a matter of our own “self interests”.then this leads to directly into the kind of thinking that lay behind Adam Smith’s model of the invisible hand of the market. You might as well give up propagatng socialism and focus on becoming a rich capitalist.”The point is that if we ALL could become rich capitalists, then this would be the best route forward. The propaganda of capitalism puts forward the view that if we all tried hard enough we could ALL be Bill Gates. However we cannot just choose to become rich capitalists, to propose this is as ridiculous as suggesting that we choose to be member of the working class. The point is being born between the right pair of thighs is not a matter of choice.
The cold facts are that socialism is in the self interest of the majority, because the majority, no matter how hard we try cannot all be Bill Gates.
Also Vin, I think Prozac and Whiskey make the perfect combination, it’s the only way to survive 40 years of disappointment at Joker Park/Stade de Merde or Sid James Park
Another argument defending capitalism from its critics as 'evil' is that capitalism delivers growth and development (or even raises living standards). 'Ferraris for All' is a particularly memorable title of a recent book along these lines. We as socialists shouldn't fall prey to this argument from economic development and should do so by avoiding framing our argument in moral terms and make that point that if we can, then we will deliver 'Ferraris for all'.
Tell that to the people of Flint.http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.