Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?

[robbo203]

northern light wrote:

The case for socialism is based upon the economic interests of the working class Vin, would you say that case for Socialism as presented by the S.P.G.B. is based on selfishness, as in:  What is in it for me, my genes, my family.This is not a trick question, Vin.

 Broadly speaking, what is called a "moral perspective" implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  Morality has to do with our attitude towards others; it is "other-oriented". It means treating others not as a means to your own private ends – instrumentalism –   but as having value in themselves. I have never understood this absurd idea held by some members of the SPGB  that the case for socialism has nothing to do with morality.  That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality, or a moral perspective, is about If the case for socialism is based on the economic interests of the working class then by definition it is, at least in part, a moral case and not simply a prudential case.   We are identifying with the interests of others who we call "fellow workers" whose welfare and wellbeing has become our concern, and not just our own welfare and welbeing.  The later is called "selfishnesss", the sole preoccupation with our own private interests as individuals.  If we claim not to be motivated by purely selfish ends then ipso facto that makes our position a moral one.. Paradoxically, to argue against the moral aspect of the case for socialism is to reject the class struggle. Or. at any rate, it makes it well nigh impossible to think in terms of class struggle if we regard our fellow workers in purely instrumentalist terms – in terms of what benefits us as individuals alone.  You might just as well strive to become a capitalist as unite with your fellow workers in that case. Finally, it is not particularly relevant to the argument that what people regard as "moral" is historically variable.  Sure, slavery was regarded as morally acceptable in past ages.  But it is illogical to infer from this that rejecting slavery today entails a rejection  of morality.  What has happened is simply that the object of our moral concern  has changed.  Society, as Durkheim rightly pointed out , is fundamentally a moral order.  A basic concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others at some level  is what knits people together in this thing we call "society" – even if this concern takes a form that we, as revolutionary socialists, might regard as repugnant – like nationalism and the moral identification of others of the same purported "nation" as against outsiders or "foreigners". If society is essentially a moral order then it follows that any social movement that seeks to modify the nature of society must similarly evince a moral outlook.  That applies to the revolutionary socialist movement as well, needless to say…. 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

 Broadly speaking, what is called a "moral perspective" implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  Morality has to do with our attitude towards others; it is "other-oriented". It means treating others not as a means to your own private ends – instrumentalism –   but as having value in themselves 

 Therin lies the problem I would have defined 'morality' as a selfish concern for one's own ethical position, a left over from religion. Self-righteousness etc.Concern and welfare of othere exist in the animal kingdom; not just in humans.The subject of the thread askes if the case for socialism is based upon morality  not if there is a moral element within it.Are you suggesting that the case for socialism is based upon concern for others? If so, then a "you will be waiting a very long"      

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Broadly speaking, what is called a "moral perspective" implies a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  Morality has to do with our attitude towards others; it is "other-oriented". It means treating others not as a means to your own private ends – instrumentalism –   but as having value in themselves 

 Therin lies the problem I would have defined 'morality' as a selfish concern for one's own ethical position, a left over from religion. Self-righteousness etc.Concern and welfare of othere exist in the animal kingdom; not just in humans.The subject of the thread askes if the case for socialism is based upon morality  not if there is a moral element within it.Are you suggesting that the case for socialism is based upon concern for others? If so, then a "you will be waiting a very long" 

Hi Vin,No, I dont think morality is a selfish concern for anything at all. In fact it precludes by definition the very idea of selfishness; it is, as I  said, something that is inherently other-oriented rather than self oriented.  I don t  know where you get your definition of morality  from but that is not how I would define it, nor  how moral philosophers in general would define it with the exception perhaps  of that rare breed called "ethical egoists" and followers of that wacky sect of objectivism cum Ayn Rand Morality is closely related to the notion of altruism although it is not the same as altruism.  As you point out, concern for the welfare of others exists also in the animal kingdom.  That is altruistic concern but not moral concern.  Morality is more than just altruisn but entails altruism.  There is some evidence to suggest that empathy or the capacity for empathy which is the basis of a moral outlook may be hardwired into us in the form of "mirror neurons" which were discovered by Rizzi in the 1990s. Also, I dont accept your argument that  morality is some kind of  leftover of religion. Morality is essentially “autonomous” with respect to religion; it does not depend upon the latter though some religious people would argue otherwise .  They would  claim that morality  is either “heteronomous”  – where moral rules presuppose, or arise directly from, a given set of religious beliefs and values – or, alternatively, “theonomous” – where both morality and religion are said to derive from a common source of knowledge and inspiration in the form of God.  I think any kind human society presupposes a moral code and society is, as Durkheim said, fundamentally a moral order .  Because we are social animals we are moral animals and vice versa. Socialists, above all, should appreciate this.Finally  I dont claim the case for socialism is based solely on a concern for others (i.e. fellow workers), it is also based on our perceived self interests as individuals. In other words there are 2 complementary grounds on which the case for socialism is based- namely, moral grounds and prudential grounds.  To suggest that it just one of these but not the other on which socialism is based is absurd ,in my view

[stuartw2112]

Going to have to leave this forum for a bit due to pressure of other work. Just quick reply to Alan: I'm not saying capitalism isn't a disaster for the environment – of course it is. Just that we should be careful when claiming the only options are socialism or death – it's probably not true, and most people seem to choose death! By the way, I agree with you that spiritual transformation is a necessary part of the struggle for socialism. TTFN

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Finally  I dont claim the case for socialism is based solely on a concern for others (i.e. fellow workers), it is also based on our perceived self interests as individuals. In other words there are 2 complementary grounds on which the case for socialism is based- namely, moral grounds and prudential grounds.  To suggest that it just one of these but not the other on which socialism is based is absurd ,in my view

 As I have said, morality has been around for centuries. It may seem absurd to you but it is my opinion that the material conditions of capitalism and the class struggle  forms the basic  argument for the socialist case. 'Morality'  – since the beginning of mankind. Material conditions for socialism  – 100? 200 years?  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

The 'material' does not 'throw up' or 'bring forward' a correct moral position to passive humans.

Depends upon how you define 'material' . The MCH tells us that ideas are part of our material conditions. Humans enter into relationships to produce wealth –  these relationships  have – so far in history – been independent of our will. These 'relations' are ideas and these ideas influence and determine the way we think.about everything else –  there is nothing outside of these materiaal conditions.It is the idealist's lack of understanding about ideas that makes them view the material conditions of our existence as something  passive or as 'rocks' 

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Depends upon how you define 'material' . The MCH tells us that ideas are part of our material conditions.

I couldn't agree more with you, Vin.My problem is who'd have a reason for calling these, as you rightly stress, 'ideas' material.?Why not openly state that, like Marx (and even Engels in his clearer moments!), we are 'idealist-materialists'?The word 'material' has been stressed by the inheritors and misreaders of Engels (like Lenin) to convince us workers (as a class) that the 'real world' of 'material' conditions tells us, without conscious human intervention (ie. by the active use of our 'ideas'), 'what it is', and that the Party has access to a neutral method which tells them 'what the rocks say'. Thus, they, and only they, can tell workers what to think.I put class before party, comrade, as I'm sure you do, too (I don't think SPGB members are Leninists (well, most aren't, anyway!)), which is why I think that what I'm arguing fits better philosophically with the SPGB's political strategy of propaganda and education to develop the whole class prior to a revolution.This is in contrast to the Leninist strategy of a minority with a special consciousness making the revolution prior to the workers themselves en masse.The stress on 'material conditions' and their openness to understanding by those with the correct method is a minority strategy.

Vin Maratty wrote:

…there is nothing outside of these material conditions

But you've just agreed that 'ideas' are 'material', so you must logically agree that it's our understanding of these conditions that is the point of the debate.Human understanding, of the same 'material', changes with the society they live in. That is, the 'material conditions' to a party can be different to those same 'material conditions' to a class.The 'material conditions' don't tell us what they are. That's why Marx stressed the need for science. And our science must be mass science, because we must control production as a class.We must decide collectively what the world is telling us. That requires, as for every act by humans in a Communist society, a democratic method.Those who tell us that they know the 'Truth' of 'material conditions' are lying to us.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 and that the Party has access to a neutral method which tells them 'what the rocks say'. 

 I think you have misunderstoodd my point.  –  because you are an idealistMaterial conditions – ideas – can in no way be described as 'rocks'Material conditions refers to our human existence.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I think you have misunderstoodd my point.  –  because you are an idealistMaterial conditions – ideas – can in no way be described as 'rocks'Material conditions refers to our human existence.

Yeah, and 'human existence' includes our ideas about that 'existence'!Our consciousness and understanding of rocks can be described as 'idealist-materialist', simply because both 'ideas' and 'material' are required.Which leads me to return game, set and match point: "I think you have misunderstood my point – because you are a materialist"I, like Marx, am an 'idealist-materialist', because no-one, not even 'materialists' like you, can stick to 'materialism'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I, like Marx, am an 'idealist-materialist', because no-one, not even 'materialists' like you, can stick to 'materialism'.

 Marx could have described himself as an idealist-materialist and could have used  the Idealist-Matarialist Conception of History (IMCH) but he didn't. 

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Marx could have described himself as an idealist-materialist and could have used the Idealist-Matarialist Conception of History (IMCH) but he didn't.

Yes, Vin, but the key problem is WHY 'he didn't'.The twin context of the successes of 19th century positivist, natural, material, science, together with their wish to break down the 'Great Man' elite and idealist theory of history (with its ignoring of the production of society by the masses, and its focus on kings, generals, diplomats and god), allows us to sympathetically understand 'why' Marx and Engels used the term 'materialist conception of history' during most of Marx's life.And it also allows us to account for why they belatedly realised the damage the use of this term was doing to revolutionary politics. Marx supposedly said "All I know is that I'm not a Marxist!" when confronted by the 'results' of his 'ideas' when employed by French 'materialist' historians, and Engels wrote a series of letters after Marx's death, constantly trying to backtrack on the 'materialist' or 'economic' or 'base' ("in the final analysis", etc.), as he became more aware of the move away from mass class-based political organisation towards elite party-based hierarchies.I've argued that the Leninist conception of consciousness and party organisation relies on this form of 'materialism',  that pretends that the 'material' can be accessed by an elite with a special method (mirroring elite science), and so doesn't require mass participation, neither in science nor politics. And to justify this, the Leninists use the injudicious words of Engels, when he stupidly argued that all philosophy was either 'materialism' or 'idealism', and so if one isn't a 'materialist' one must be an 'idealist'! Marx would have wept at this, as any reading of the Theses on Feuerbach shows that Marx thought he had gone beyond such a simple dichotomy, with his method of 'theory and practice', which necessarily requires both the 'material' and the 'ideal', that is, a real nature and human consciousness which creatively works upon that nature.Since Einstein, it has become increasingly clear that we can't take human understanding (ie. 'ideas') out of the equation, and that our view of history is really an 'idealist-materialist conception of history'. Bourgeois philosphers have also come to this conclusion, 150 years after Marx.Whilst we keep using the term 'materialist', we keep the focus upon 19th century, outdated, philosophy, which is of no use to workers, and actively undermines the potential of workers to develop, whilst they are in thrall to a 'materialism' which purports to tell them the Truth. It's been disastrous throughout the 20th century, and has been the basis of Leninist/Maoist thought. Let's not add the 21st century to its anti-working class sway.Finally, Vin, even you in practice recognise the need for 'ideas', so why keep using 'material', which so obviously denigrates 'ideas'?

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Finally  I dont claim the case for socialism is based solely on a concern for others (i.e. fellow workers), it is also based on our perceived self interests as individuals. In other words there are 2 complementary grounds on which the case for socialism is based- namely, moral grounds and prudential grounds.  To suggest that it just one of these but not the other on which socialism is based is absurd ,in my view

 As I have said, morality has been around for centuries. It may seem absurd to you but it is my opinion that the material conditions of capitalism and the class struggle  forms the basic  argument for the socialist case. 'Morality'  – since the beginning of mankind. Material conditions for socialism  – 100? 200 years?

No one is disputing that the "material conditions for socialism" have only been around for a short while and that morality has been around since the dawn of humanity.  But how does this affect the proposition under discussion which is Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?It seems to me that you are confusing two different things, Vin.  The conditions for socialism may be recent  but that does not mean that the case of socialism cannot be partly a moral one.  In fact I would argue it cannot but be partly a moral one  because if you were not concerned with the wellbeing of individuals other than yourself  – the basis of all morality  – you would be driven, not towards socialism, but some  kind of extreme amoral individualism in which only your interests mattered in your view – the so called "ethical egoist" position a la Ayn Rand and co  (which I think is fundamentally contradictory and absurd).   If you seriously were to reject a moral perspective then logically that would commit you to a kind of extreme free market capitalism captured by Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market" in which each narrowly pursued their own private interests without reference to the interests of others.  Even Smith did not believe in this knd of society as a practical proposition (as well as being an economist he had a background in moral philosophy).  What he was intent upon doing was sketching out in abstract  idealised terms the economic mechanism summarised by the expression "the invisible hand of the market".  He was not seriously proposing  the abdication of moral thinking in human affairs Moral thinking has always been around, as you say  but that does not mean it has no relevance to the establishment of socialism just becuase the "material conditions for socialism" are of recent origin.  The conditions for socialism are not the same thing as the motives for socialism. If they were then why are 99% plus of the working class not yet socialists – even the great majority of those who encounter the case for socialism?  Partly I would suggest it is because they have had instilled in them the values of capitalism.  They consider the system to be morally acceptable by and large.  It is through the growing counterweight of socialist values that the grip of capitalist ideology will be loosened on the minds of fellow workers and that is a very strong reason for emphasising the moral aspect of the case for socialism. If moral thinking has always been around then that actually is quite a telling argument for NOT  abandoning moral thinking in establishing socialism.  The point is that what is moral at one point  may not be at another.  The FORM of morality , the specifics of a moral code may change from time to time but not the fact that people think in moral terms.  What changes is not the fact of moral thinking but the object of their moral concern For us as revolutionary socialists the object of our moral concern is first and foremost our fellow members of the working class. This is what the material conditions of socialism have resulted in; it has enabled us, or spurred us on,  to redefine the object of our moral concern as our fellow workers   If we were not concerned with the wellbeing of our fellow workers as well as our own then we would never have become revolutionary socialists in the first place!

[Anonymous]

I have to say that I am somewhat bemused that the SPGB has avoideded answering such an important question. We have heard mainly from non members but what is the SPGB's position?What is the WSM's case based upon? Morality? The class struggle? Save the planet? 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I have to say that I am somewhat bemused that the SPGB has avoideded answering such an important question. We have heard mainly from non members but what is the SPGB's position?What is the WSM's case based upon? Morality? The class struggle? Save the planet? 

 Why cannot it be all 3 , Vin? Why this monodimensional  obsession for one single explanation that accounts for everything? Morality does not preclude the class struggle anymore than class struggle precludes morality…

[northern light]

Had to check the O.P. Thought for a minute, I had logged onto the wrong topic, and this was, "The Long Awaited Materialism Thread." Vin, sorry for not replying sooner, but for the last few days, here in sunny Seaham, the temperature has been a heady 9c. andthe garden beckoned. You said that slavery was "logical" and "morally right," in it's day.   Well, perhaps not from the side the slaves looked from! I see no problem in accepting all three ( morality, cold logic and survival of our species)I started out on the road to Socialism, by being appalled at the dire need of many fellow humans. The S.P.G.B. taught (and stillteaches) the cold logic and I am well awair of the climatic threat to our very existence I have no need to see Marx's face in the tea-leaves at the bottom of a cup, or the moss growing on a wall, to think of myself as a socialist. p.s  thanks for the link, will read it tonight while enjoying a bells (no single malt for me)

[Author]

Posts