Is Socialism a Moral as well as a Class or Scientific Issue?

[ALB]

We are always criticising capitalism for being "irrational", "insane", "crazy", "anti-working class", "anti-human", "anti-social", etc. (just read any issue of the Socialist Standard). What benefit would we get if we started saying that it was "immoral", "unjust", "unfair", etc?No doubt a professor of Moral Philosophy would say that both sets of criticisms are "moral judgements", but this is to ignore the different connotations of the two sets of phrases. The second suggests mere namby-pamby whingers. The first science-based class warriors. There is a difference and we need to make it clear which we are.

[Anonymous]

 'Self interest'  does not mean 'total selfishness' and the rejection of 'morality' doesn't mean we don't care. Christians claim that it is through God we become humans. Marx and Engles argued  the end of class struggle   will create the first real human society. People have cared throughout history but we still have the most divisive and inhumane society that history has to offer. So morality and caring will not – did not – solve our problems.I always feel that the MCH can be put into context by looking at your own position in history and society.As a member of the working class I and my fellow workers (including those who are hungry) need our material interests satisfied. We will not get there with appeals to ‘justice’ and ‘morality’ because such appeals will not dispossess the capitalist class and remove the profit motive. It is the class struggle and the material interests of the working class  that makes socialism scientific and achievable The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle not the struggle for 'justice' or improved 'morality', whatever they may mean

[ALB]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle not the struggle for 'justice' or improved 'morality', whatever they may mean

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Sidelining morality is looked upon by many with mistrust, (not just the religious) a lot of angry frustrated people see the horrors of capitalism and judge them to be ethically and morally wrong. Who are we to say otherwise? Yes, it very often leads them into single issue politics.But has anyone considered the party scientific stance on morality just might be a turn off for many? The clever use of such a powerful motivator, could find new allies.

Exactly.

Quote:

But who knows and who cares?

The party should if it's going to have any credibility.

[Hud955]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Sidelining morality is looked upon by many with mistrust, (not just the religious) a lot of angry frustrated people see the horrors of capitalism and judge them to be ethically and morally wrong. Who are we to say otherwise? Yes, it very often leads them into single issue politics.But has anyone considered the party scientific stance on morality just might be a turn off for many? The clever use of such a powerful motivator, could find new allies.

Exactly.

Quote:

But who knows and who cares?

The party should if it's going to have any credibility.

The scientific stance is the only thing that can create a conscious movement for socialism and keep us on course; ethics cannot distinguish between socialism and reformism, and tends to lead to the latter because it overwhelmingly focuses on single issues. And that does matter.  Encouraging a moralistic approach to understanding society would be dangerous for us.  As several have pointed out, though, we can still turn capitalist morality against the system that creates it.  That's not a judgement but a demonstration.I'd also challenge the idea that the party's scientific approach is a turn-off for many.  It's more likely that the harsh, aggressive or didactic way we present it is the turnoff – but that's a different matter.  Taking a scientific approach doesn't prevent us from being passionate about what we believe. Too often though what we get passionate about is being right or defeating others in argument.  And we tend to get either defensive or agressive (same thing) when challenged.  That's just self-destructive.  We might as well hit ourselves over the head and be done with it.  You don't need to use the moral language of capitalism to convey enthusiasm or to raise the level of emotional commitment. 

[stevead1966]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1895/xx/idealism.htm Paul Lafargue: Idealism and Materialism in the Conception of History 1895

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

The scientific stance is the only thing that can create a conscious movement for socialism and keep us on course; ethics cannot distinguish between socialism and reformism, and tends to lead to the latter because it overwhelmingly focuses on single issues.

Hud955 wrote:

I think we can certainly use capitalist morality against capitalism itself, but it is a dangerous weapon and needs to be used carefully, because on its own it leads directly to reformist solutions not to socialist ones.

I think we should be careful not to overdo this line of argument. For two reasons.First, because it is possible to imagine a "moral" argument against capitalism which would not lead either to reformism or to single-issueism. Only some moral arguments lead to this, i.e those that criticise capitalism from its own standpoint (for not being "fair" to all workers), because capitalism can, has and is putting this right: minority groups don't have to be discriminated against.Second, even an argument based on class analysis can lead to reformism. After all, the classic Social Democratic and Old Labour case was that their parties were defending the interests of the working class within capitalism.The case against basing the case for socialism on some abstract morality is that this is not what motivates social change. It's classes acting in their own class interest. That's how it's been in the past and how it is likely to be in the future change from capitalism to socialism, especially as this change will be one brought out by the majority class acting consciously, which will involve an understanding of what it is doing, i.e acting in its own class interest.

[Anonymous]

stevead1966 wrote:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1895/xx/idealism.htm Paul Lafargue: Idealism and Materialism in the Conception of History 1895

Thanks for that one! A good read

[SocialistPunk]

Listen up!I will repeat, once only, that I do not nor have I ever advocated that socialism or the case for socialism be based solely on a moralistic appeal.In my opinion, based on experience and observation, "scientifically" sidelining such here and now human concerns, such trivialities as morality, right and wrong, is a mistake.And just because the socialist prophet Marx is invoked, does not make the concept of morality irrelevant to most people living and experiencing moral dilemmas and such like on a daily basis.Now can anyone explain how the harsh, "scientific", obsessive mindset in the SPGB is going to tune in to people from the Occupy movement etc, and cleanse their "unscientific" moral outrage? 

stevecolborn wrote:

Can you imagine, Socialism and MORALITY, in one package? Can you not imagine the impact? If it were done in, OUR WAY?

 The key to greater success lies (unfortunately) in the packaging today. If we can tap into what Steve said above, who knows what we could achieve.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Listen up!I will repeat, once only, that I do not nor have I ever advocated that socialism or the case for socialism be based solely on a moralistic appeal.

Noted, but keep your hair on. Nobody here has suggested that you do or ever did. The argument here is, as in so many cases, about definitions and language. All socialists are outraged at what capitalism does to people (that's no doubt why we became socialists), but the question is whether or not we think it would help the socialist case to add "immoral", "unjust", "unfair", "wrong",  "bad" to the adjectives we throw at capitalism. Most Party members think not and prefer to stick to "can't work in the interest of the working class", "irrational",  "anti-social", etc.Supposing we did adopt these terms, people would turn round and say "why is capitalism immoral, unjust, bad, etc?" and we'd have to answer "because it can't work in th interest of the working class", "because it doesn't advance human welfare", even "because it degrades humans into things".  As I said, some Professors of Moral Philosophy would regard these as "moral judgements". Maybe they are, but they are not appeals to some vague, abstract eternal principles of Morality and Justice.

SocialistPunk wrote:

In my opinion, based on experience and observation, "scientifically" sidelining such here and now human concerns, such trivialities as morality, right and wrong, is a mistake.

Who is sidelining people's protest or outrage at what capitalism does to them and to other people? It's basically a question of what language is used to express this.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Now can anyone explain how the harsh, "scientific", obsessive mindset in the SPGB is going to tune in to people from the Occupy movement etc, and cleanse their "unscientific" moral outrage?

I can't see what's "harsh" or "obsessive" about having a scientific mindset. Presumably in view of your opening statement above you too think that the case for socialism is based on a scientific examination of the facts. I imagine many in Occupy do too. But where have we ever said that Occupy were wrong to be outraged at capitalism and its effects? In any event, a scientific mindset will go down a bomb with Zeitgeist (they even argue that what's right and what's wrong can be discovered scientifically).

[SocialistPunk]

Sorry ALB and everyone else, but I based my statement on this, it gave me the impression I advocated basing socialism only on a moral basis:

ALB wrote:

The case against basing the case for socialism on some abstract morality is that this is not what motivates social change.

My apologies if I got it wrong, and apologies even if I didn't.As for keeping my hair on, well unfortunately I have male pattern baldness, so as much as I would love to keep my hair on I cant., lol.I did not mention TZM as I am aware they see their case based on science. I agree with most of what they say, they are in essence the same as us socialists. They just don't use the S word.What is harsh about a scientific mindset is it so often fails to treat people as people. I have seen and felt this first hand from the medical profession. Objectivity vs Subjectivity. In science objectivity wins. Subjectivity is about human feelings, emotions and judgments that are seen as unreliable.I have often used a moral question when discussing with people who reject aspects of the scientific socialist case, who distrust "isms" and class based analysis. When confronted by the moral question of whether it is right or wrong for people to starve in a world of plenty, they admit it is wrong. I get further using a human approach than banging away with a socialist lecture on class divisions in society etc. I have made further inroads with a person I know, using a "moral" approach. I am sure many SPGB members use similar approaches, whatever gets people thinking.So in effect morality is already invoked. I don't see a problem. The problem only arises when some argue it is not needed.The issue with the likes of Occupy, is they distrust political parties etc. They use moral judgments to point the blame, to raise awareness, to get people to ask questions. If we wade in, all objective, science guns blazing the likelihood is we will not connect. Fail to gain trust and understanding. That is all well and good if you are happy to be a political debating society, but if you want to turn peoples anger, frustration and energy into an organized, directed force then we gotta get creative, appeal to people on a human level.Unfortunately I don't have the answers, I wish I did, but I don't think anyone here does either. I think it is why we sometimes get stuck in these discussions, someone says something that appears to be having a go, we feel a need to retaliate and so on and so on.So on that note I am going to concede.

[Hud955]

Hi Adam, very much in agreement that this is about language.  As I see it, the fundamental language of morality is the language of obligation and desert.  Morality is designed to influence behavour in the interests of the ruling class.  It does that through the very specific language of obligation and entitlement: ought, should, right, etc.If an action is unjust then it follows according to the logic of capitalist morality that those responsible for it have an obligation to stop doing it. Those suffering from that 'injustice' have a 'right' to demand that it be stopped.  And the moment you say, for example,  that exploitation is wrong and that capitalism is morally bad this places on the working class a moral obligation to overturn it.  As socialists though, we don't rely on the capitalist class fulfilling their moral obligation to us, and I'd be rather reluctant to tell members of the working class that they were failing in their moral duty by not being socialists.  Even a quick glance makes it clear that there is something wrong here – the language doesn't fit.  It doesn't fit because it is inappropriate to socialist objectives. Finding a 'just' settlement in the moral language of capitalism, for example, requires interests to be weighed against one another.  Such a balancing can only make sense if you accept both the terms of the moral system and the economic system that has given rise to it.  If your aim is to overturn capitalism then you'll also be aiming to overturn the the whole basis of capitalist morality, not trying to find a justification for your actions within it.Morality claims to be an independent system of judgement, one based on some notion of social equivalence. As socialists and materialists, we say, no, it isn't.  And once you take this view –  that it is only a cloak for material class interest – then the system and its justification comes tumbling down to the ground.  The materialist conception of history unmasks capitalist morality, and so it becomes a very dubious process, in my view,  to start appealing to the working class from behind the same mask that you are simultaneously trying to demolish. 

[Hud955]

Hi Socialist PunkI'm not really interested in the idea that socialism could be based entirely on a moralistic appeal. It's the nature of moral argument that it has to be supported by social facts, and they can only come, in this instance, from our understanding of historical materialism.  It's a clear  non-starter, and I don't think I've ever heard a case made for it, either here or elsewhere, by you or by anyone else.I'm much more concerned about the claim that we should make moral judgements about capitalism or socialism to further the socialist case as it currently exists. I think there are a number of problems with this, both theoretical and practical.  I've rehearsed a couple of these with Adam.  But the larger issue is that I don't see that it is necessary.Capitalist morality already gives us a huge arsenal of ideological weapons to use against it.  We can turn its moral judgements back on itself in all kinds of ways and show it up for what it is.  We can express how capitalism fails to meet our class interest by showing our anger and indignation  without ever having to resort to moral posturing.  We can use irony and sarcasm too. Everyone understands interests: capitalism rubs our noses in them.  Like you I've had long experience of putting the socialist case and find that the case from class interest is perfectly intelligible to most people.  And there's also the fact that before you can start talking about the injustice of the capitalist system, you have to explain why it is unjust – in other words you have to explain about class interests and exploitation etc.  So why then bother to top it off with an ideological language that historical materialism argues is just a means of disguising naked class interest in the first place?

[Hud955]

ALB wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

The scientific stance is the only thing that can create a conscious movement for socialism and keep us on course; ethics cannot distinguish between socialism and reformism, and tends to lead to the latter because it overwhelmingly focuses on single issues.

Hud955 wrote:

I think we can certainly use capitalist morality against capitalism itself, but it is a dangerous weapon and needs to be used carefully, because on its own it leads directly to reformist solutions not to socialist ones.

I think we should be careful not to overdo this line of argument. For two reasons.First, because it is possible to imagine a "moral" argument against capitalism which would not lead either to reformism or to single-issueism. Only some moral arguments lead to this, i.e those that criticise capitalism from its own standpoint (for not being "fair" to all workers), because capitalism can, has and is putting this right: minority groups don't have to be discriminated against.Second, even an argument based on class analysis can lead to reformism. After all, the classic Social Democratic and Old Labour case was that their parties were defending the interests of the working class within capitalism.The case against basing the case for socialism on some abstract morality is that this is not what motivates social change. It's classes acting in their own class interest. That's how it's been in the past and how it is likely to be in the future change from capitalism to socialism, especially as this change will be one brought out by the majority class acting consciously, which will involve an understanding of what it is doing, i.e acting in its own class interest.

I don't disagree Adam, but I think what you say needs to be hemmed in with quite a lot of qualification.  From a materialist perspective we see that revolutionary social change is motivated by class interest, but class interest (and principally ruling class interest) can and often is expressed in ethical or other ideological language.  The capitalist class did not come to power because they thought capitalism was 'a good thing', but they and their apologists did justify their taking of power in precisely those terms.  And it was an effective weapon in their arsenal.   Many may even have come to believe in the objectivity of their own moral arguments.  I'm sure many still do.  So there is an argument that socialists should use moral language too, not because ethical pronouncements drive social change but because it is a powerful ideological tool through which to express their material class interests.  Many working class movements do use such language and it is very effective in motivating their members and promoting solidarity – towards reformist ends.  And that bothers me.I'm not suggesting that moral arguments always lead to reformist actions or mindsets.  That is obviously untrue. But they do have a strong tendency to move in that direction. Nor am I suggesting that class analysis necessarily leads to socialism, but our class analysis does, and I think that's the point at issue.   What concerns me about using ethcial language to make our case, is that it will confuse listeners and dilute our materialist arguments for socialism.  Any moral argument we adopt will have to piggy back on a materialist one if we are to make the case. This leads to theoretical contradictions as you have already hinted.  But for me the main issue is that reformists use this language all the time and if we were to start using it we would end up blurring the boundaries even more strongly between them and us. Of course there is an argument that if we used the same language they would understand us better.  I'm willing to be persuaded, but I don't see this. Reformism, with its immediate demands and its social actions, remains far more seductive  to the working class than socialism, and any blurring of boundaries would favour them and not us.   And if we regularly made ethical arguments ourselves as socialists, then I'm pretty sure we would also tend to lose direction.  The party needs to keep a firm grip on its materialist roots, or it might as well not exist.And then there is the problem of moral challenge.  Moral language and moral argument are highly fluid and hard to pin down – pick up on any ethical debate.  Would we really want to get dragged into debates with capitalist apologists about the meaning of 'justice' and 'human rights'.  The only way we could counter them was, once again,  to fall right back into making materialist arguments and take a stand on class interest and we are back where we started.   

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

  And the moment you say, for example,  that exploitation is wrong and that capitalism is morally bad this places on the working class a moral obligation to overturn it.  As socialists though, we don't rely on the capitalist class fulfilling their moral obligation to us, and I'd be rather reluctant to tell members of the working class that they were failing in their moral duty by not being socialists.

Interesting counter-argument (the killer one?) against using the language of morality. Much better (warning: joke) to talk of the working class having a "historic mission" to overthrow capitalism.

[Author]

Posts