Evil
- This topic has 93 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin,I'm well aware that you do not think it is acceptable for children to starve in our world of plenty, while a tiny minority live in absolute luxury. I tried hard to avoid using emotive words and phrases, but even the word "acceptable" is loaded.Come the revolution, if a minority tried to use violence against the majority to take us back to capitalism I would expect the majority to wipe that vile minority off the face of this planet, and I would say it would be moraly justifiable.Why? Because if a minority then tried to enforce todays vileness back on to a majority who'd made a collective democratic decision to end the inhumanity of capitalism, that majority would be understandably pissed off and need to defend itself. As I've said before morality is a fluid concept.I know there has been a previous thread discussing this subject so I did a bit of searching and found Robbo had posted a couple of good quotes, one from Engels. I normally don't like to quote the usual suspects but seeing as they seem to have some weight with many socialists, I thought why not.
Quote:We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressedWe have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life(Anti-Dühring).Some words used by Marx himself in describing capitalism seem to point to him having a very moral based dislike of the system he spent most of his life fighting against.
Quote:Hence all the passages in Capital about ‘naked self-interest and callous cash payment’, ‘oppression’, ‘degradation of personal dignity’, ‘accumulation of misery’, ‘physical and mental degradation’, ‘shameless, direct and brutal exploitation’, the ‘modern slavery of capital’, ‘subjugation’, the ‘horrors’… and ‘torture’ and ‘brutality’ of overwork, the ‘murderous’ search for economy in the production process, capital ‘laying waste and squandering’ of labour power and ‘altogether too prodigal with its human material’ and exacting ‘ceaseless human sacrifices.’ (Lukes S Marxism and Morality, 1985 Oxford Clarendon Press p1).Perhaps I need to point out that he never stated that capitalism was morally wrong, but I guess he had his reasons. One reason, I suspect, was linked to the early utopian socialists who pushed a moral argument, appealing to the capitalists and politicians to do the right thing. Unsurprisingly that went nowhere.
SocialistPunk wrote:Come the revolution, if a minority tried to use violence against the majority to take us back to capitalism I would expect the majority to wipe that vile minority off the face of this planet, and I would say it would be moraly justifiable.Hence the problem with 'morality'. Socialists oppose capitalist war on moral grounds, then when in power socialist. support war on moral groundsI prefer "socialists oppose war in capitalism because it is not in working class interests to fight for our exploiters" No moral hypocricy.I found a couple of canny quoutes from the thread tooI wrote:Both Marx and Engels rejected the idea of eternal truths such as morality and justice: ideas held by idealists of their day.Marx in the Communist Manifesto wrote:“Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality…. It therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience”And Engels argued in Anti-Duhring that, if the overthrow of capitalism depended on the assumption that it was ‘unjust’ and that communism was ‘just’ “we should be in a pretty bad way, and we might have a long time to wait” This was the party’s position too: “The socialist case holds no reference to justice or the rights of man. its foundation, like that of capitalism, is in material interests.”“That society will be a thousand times better and more satisfying in every way is true – but the drive to it is not a moral one” “The mistake is in the assumption that there is a true justice which is simply being with-held or misapplied…. ““But the argument and struggle had better be for concrete purposes, not for the phantom of moral truth.” ‘Down With Justice’ June 1972 Socialist Standard
Vin,Once again you put it as an "either or" issue. It was obvious from the quote I reused from Engels that he was referring to what Robbo and myself call, socialist morality, or from Engels himself, "A really human morality..".What's with the obsession of presenting it as a case of one or the other?I have always said that morality is a fluid concept, with no eternal moral truths. A socialist society would have rules of acceptable conduct that may change over time. In fact one of the big issues in a socialist society would be ethics, how we interact with one another as a social species. Children aren't born with a set of rules of social conduct hardwired into them and something tells me that would still continue within a socialist society.
SocialistPunk wrote:A socialist society would have rules of acceptable conduct that may change over time. In fact one of the big issues in a socialist society would be ethics, how we interact with one another as a social species. Children aren't born with a set of rules of social conduct hardwired into them and something tells me that would still continue within a socialist society.Well of courseWhat has that to do with morality. Many animals develope rules. I don't understand the need to apply the word 'morality'You define morality as – a set of social rules? I just call it a set of social rules. A Social Contract would be a better conceptChristianity and Nationalism and I would include 'Morality' hijacked and adapted what it is to be basically 'human' and turned it into an ideological weaponWe just need to be human and socialism will allow us to be, Concepts like 'morality' will become reduntant in such a society We are never going to agree
Vin,Robbo already suggested that pre-property society would have had rules of conduct, that were adapted for use by the ruling class when propertied society came into existence. I take it your Social Contract or social rules would encourage or discourage certain behaviour. In other words what would be deemed anti-social?It seems you object to the word, which I find a little amusing. You seem to be fetishising a word.What about the word "ethics"? Is that an word objectionable?
You keep referring to Robbo as some sort of authority. Is that a fetish? As I exlpained the research he refers to is flawed,I'm afraid Robbo was not around when propertied society came into existence, so he carries no more authority than the rest of us.Any examination of prepropertied society starts from the viewpoint of the only morality we have ever known.I don't know if you are aware of your implied insults but I will not respond to themNo hard feelings cde but this discussion is going nowhere fast.
Vin,Sorry for any offence caused, it wasn't intentional.I only mention Robbo because, although we have no direct evidence, he presented a solid argument. I thought that's what is done in the absence of direct evidence.I still find it bizarre that this word is so problematic for some socialists. I don't see any similar objections to the word democracy. Afterall our socialist concept of democracy would seem pretty odd to the ancient Greeks. Yet we don't recoil from the word democracy in horror, because it was the ideology of a ruling elite over two thousand years ago.But I agree we're getting nowhere.
'How Morals Influence If You're Liberal or Conservative' (U.S. video)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxoKi1zOns0
Quote:Are your political views based on facts or your morals? What makes a libertarian tick? Peter Ditto explains how morals shape our worldview.UC Irvine Professor Peter Ditto studies human judgment and decision-making. Ditto is fascinated by biases and "motivated reasoning," where people's beliefs and morals influence their interpretation of facts.Ditto started in health psychology but soon found an even richer trove of human biases: American politics, where liberals and conservatives seem to operate on completely different sets of facts.Ditto's research finds that liberals and conservatives are easy to characterize based on their moral beliefs, but where do libertarians fit in?Learn more about Peter Ditto's work on morals and politics:- When it comes to politics, you're not as rational as you think: http://bit.ly/1QWLOSe- How do your morals compare with others? Find out at http://www.yourmorals.org/I've just noticed that two of Vin's posts #65 and #67 have been flagged.Who on earth has flagged those, there's not a single thing problematic with them!!!? This flagging shit is fucking ridiculous!
SocialistPunk wrote:I've just noticed that two of Vin's posts #65 and #67 have been flagged.Who on earth has flagged those, there's not a single thing problematic with them!!!? This flagging shit is fucking ridiculous!Thank you SP I hadn't noticed. Whoever it was may have the courage to give an explanation
I doubt we'll get that, Vin.I was under the impression the flag function was for serious problems, such as reporting abuse and serious breaches of "off topic"?It seems someone has taken offence.Perhaps you offended someones moral sensibilities, lol.
SocialistPunk wrote:It seems someone has taken offence.Perhaps you offended someones moral sensibilities, lol.Lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8
Hi Vin Pouring oil on troubled waters here, but I think that the problem here is one of interpretation of a word, rather than a real political difference. I think I see morality as much more a fluid concept than you. I don't tend to think in absolute terms but I can think of things that are what I would define as immoral. Without going into details too much on this site, but there were actions by a member of our branch recently that came to light that I would say were immoral, I don't say that they effected any economic interest of mine or even the working class, I just think they were plain wrong, and strangely I think they were more wrong because he claimed to be a socialist.ps I also think flagging any post of yours is also immoral
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think that the problem here is one of interpretation of a word, rather than a real political difference.TrueAnd I think whoever it is abusing the flag function is deliberately attempting to destroy this forum and the party!I paraphrase another member
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.