Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?
- This topic has 359 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:I'm not sure about morality only coming about as property owning society came into existence. Morality simply concerns itself with acceptable behaviour within any given society. So obviously a minority controlled society will invent morality that reinforces its position. I imagine our early ancestors would have had rules of conduct.
Yeah, I'm surprised at how the 'materialists' on the thread seem to equate 'morality' with 'religious morality'. Class societies produce a form of morality that benefits the ruling class.Morality is simply about issues of 'right' and 'wrong'. All societies have ideas about right and wrong, and pre-private property societies were no different, and neither will be Communist society.As the proletariat develops a Communist consciousness, it will contain specific 'moral' components, like Marx's concept of 'exploitation'. It will be 'shocking' to attempt to employ someone, which will be seen as anti-social as hitting an old lady who is struggling on a zimmer frame. Entrepreneurs will be regarded with the distaste at present reserved for paedophiles. Money will have the taint of 'shit'. Our revolutionary consciousness will have a very strong 'moral' component. That's how humans work.I suppose the answer why our 'materialist' comrades don't see the need to address our future 'morality', is that, clearly, rocks do not have any morality, and since they are supposed to be the active, conscious, creative and critical component in the development of workers' future consciousness, then we don't need to worry about 'morality', in Rock-Communism!
Vin, the economic interests of our class is the hub of socialism, after that, everything else simply falls into place But if the case for socialism is not one of selfishness, that of capitalism certainly is.So how do we present the case for socialism to those workers who are, "doing all right?"
Vin Maratty wrote (#43)
have to say that I am somewhat bemused that the SPGB has avoided 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? As a non-member, I am surprised that no member here has so far referred to the fact that the very question raised by Vin was put at the 2010 annual conference of the SPGB and I understand a ballot of the members was taken on the proposition that "socialism is both scientific and ethical". I may be wrong, but I think that this proposition was carried (63 for and 53 against). But as I understand it, another ballot later overturned that vote with the result that the members now hold that "socialism is scientific" (but not ethical). Is this the "official view" of the SPGB? I may have some of the details wrong here, but I mention the case only because the issue was discussed at great length on the old WSM Forum, in which I and several others participated, with strong views expressed for and against. northern light wrote:…the economic interests of our class is the hub of socialism, after that, everything else simply falls into placeThis is shockingly naive, nl.Who determines ''the economic"? Who determines "interests"?I'd argue that 'our class' should determine what 'economic' means and what its own 'interests' are.This requires democracy to determine these questions. Nothing will 'simply fall into place', never mind 'everything else'. The argument for democracy in the economy will require, amongst other things, that moral arguments are also presented to workers by Communists. Proletarian revolutionary class consciousness will have a moral dimension.Unless, that is, you're a supporter of twc's 19th century-style campaign to passively listen to the 'material conditions' (otherwise known as 'rocks')?
pgb wrote:As a non-member, I am surprised that no member here has so far referred to the fact that the very question raised by Vin was put at the 2010 annual conference of the SPGB and I understand a ballot of the members was taken on the proposition that "socialism is both scientific and ethical". I may be wrong, but I think that this proposition was carried (63 for and 53 against). But as I understand it, another ballot later overturned that vote with the result that the members now hold that "socialism is scientific" (but not ethical).[my bold]pgb, the very idea that 'science' is outside of 'ethics' is 19th century positivism.There is no such thing as 'scientific socialism', outside of the control of the proletariat (as we build the Communist movement) or the whole of society (after Communism is built).Haven't the supporters of 'non-ethical science' (sic) ever heard of Mengele? Or the Eugenic Movement? Or Oppenheimer's statement that 'Physicists have known sin'?Those who opt for 'science' ahead of 'democracy' are to be feared. The lesson of the 20th century.
Lol. I think the moral indignation and intolerance shown towards the materialists speaks volumes .
pgb wrote:As a non-member, I am surprised that no member here has so far referred to the fact that the very question raised by Vin was put at the 2010 annual conference of the SPGB and I understand a ballot of the members was taken on the proposition that "socialism is both scientific and ethical". I may be wrong, but I think that this proposition was carried (63 for and 53 against). But as I understand it, another ballot later overturned that vote with the result that the members now hold that "socialism is scientific" (but not ethical). Is this the "official view" of the SPGB? I may have some of the details wrong here, but I mention the case only because the issue was discussed at great length on the old WSM Forum, in which I and several others participated, with strong views expressed for and against.I seem to recall this being mentioned on another thread some time ago, can't recall the thread unfortunately. I think it took a similar turn to this one though. Maybe that explains why no party members have bothered with this thread.Am I correct in thinking the discussion is polarized among us non members, with some thinking morality has no place in socialist theory and others, like myself, who contend that the two are inseparable?
twc wrote:Robbo. While I await LBird to substantiate his accusations that #48 and #51 are 19th century materialist…Just reread what you wrote, stripping away the verbiage — the working class’s view is pro-capitalist because it supports capitalism. As explanation that is priceless!Didn't quite see how you figured that out. What I actually said wasThe moral outlook of the working class today is indeed virtually indistinguishable from that of the capitalist class and for the good reason that the former fundamentally at present supports a social system that operates in the interests of the latter.That is saying something rather different from what you say I said, when you think about it a little more carefully….
twc wrote:You fully agree with Engels’s view, which is ultimately a direct implication of the materialist conception of history, though you dressed it up in Hegelian jargon.You've lost me there. What Hegelian jargon?The view expressed by Engels that I agree with is the one I quoted earlier (there are other views expressed by Engels that i dont necessarily agree with but thats another matter) . NamelyAnd 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 oppressed
twc wrote:As to moral indignation. There are more morally indignant know-alls out there than you can poke a stick at, and none of them is socialist. Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion. Socialism is not going to be achieved through hysteria, but chaos can.This is a bit silly isnt it? Who said anything about hysteria? Whats hysteria got to do with moral indignation? Engels curiously uses the self same word – "indignation". Indignation of the oppresed class against the domination of the ruling class. Certainly, a lot of people get morally indignent about all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with socialism but that doesnt mean socialists cannot also be morally indignant . They are just morally indignant about something different to what a non socialist may get morally indignant aboutOh and talking about "priceless" – how priceless is this "Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion". Anyone who has read his Marx will readily appreciate just how much of what he wrote was positively seething with emotion, just how often he vented his spleen against this or that outrage commited by capitalism. And good on him for that , I say! I would far sooner have that then some lifeless bloodless dry -as-dust academnic treatise
twc wrote:Socialism doesn’t rely on indignation. Indignation, like all emotion is impermanent. It must be feigned to be kept alive, and then it becomes a mere self-serving pose. Our opponents are expert poseurs at this. We despise their subterfuge.If you had said socialism doesnt rely entirely on indignation I might have understood and agreed. But no, it seems you want to strip socialism of all indignation , all emotion. This is the socialism of robots, not flesh and bloodhuman beings. Actually if anything becomes a self serving pose it is the claim that we can somehow dispense with emotion. Indignation does not have to be feigned to be kept alive, Thats an outrageous thing to say. It is capitalism that keeps our indigination alive by perpetuating whjat gave rise to that indignation in the first place It is gut feeling ( of course combined with clear thinking) that motivates individuals to become socialist. Why criticise capitalism for being an exploitiative society. otherwise? The very concept of exploitation is value laden. Sure it has a precise technical meaning but we are mean to be revolutionary socialists nor academics in this context. Philosophers have have only interpreted the world in various ways , the point is to change it. Now, who was it who said that?
“Explanation”. Robbo, your “explanation” boils down to: The working-class’s moral outlook is capitalist because it supports a system that works against its own class interest. That doesn’t explain why it does either thing.“Hegelian Jargon”. “In itself” and “for itself”.“Hysteria”. If you choose to play the voluntarist demagogue, what else can whipped-up indignation incite the mob to apart from hysteria or violence?Engels. I thought we had agreed that “his equation of working-class indignation with working-class morality holds precisely for us socialists [and is not universally applicable at all at present]. And that, I take it, is the moralist case being supported in this thread.”“Priceless”. I stand by “Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion”. On one desperate occasion, Marx was throwing in the towel to save his family from abject degradation. But he couldn’t forgive himself for leaving the working class in the lurch, and persisted in holding family, health and happiness tenuously together, while continuing to create an objective science for the emancipation of the working class. It brought on his untimely death. Yes, priceless, beyond measure.“Indignation”. Marx’s science survives precisely because it is objective and is not indignation. Indignation emerges naturally enough from it as a consequence.“Bloodless and Dry-as-Dust”. The whole of Marx’s scientific study of the circulation of capital [Capital Vol. 2] strikes David Harvey as “boring (and that may be an understatement)” precisely because it is, for him, bloodless and dry-as-dust.Harvey sympathizes with the Penguin-edition translator, David Fernbach, who seeks to distance his own literary efforts from those foisted upon his luckless self by Marx’s Volume 2 style: “The subject matter is to a far greater extent technical [than the technical parts of Volume 1], even dry … renowned for the arid deserts between the oases … it has caused many a non-specialist [= non-science] reader to turn back in defeat.”For others, Marx’s Volume 2 is the reverse of boring. It is pregnant with new science [e.g., Rosa Luxemburg’s Accumulation of Capital.] Had Volume 2 been overtly based on indignation, it would have been intellectually suspect, bereft of moral integrity, and scientifically sterile.“Revolutionary Socialists, not Academics”. That is a nonsense charge in the context of a discussion forum. Revolutionary socialists adhere to our DOP and Obj, which always strike our opponents as “bloodless and dry-as-dust”. You aren’t proposing to make them less bloodless, less dry-as-dust, less academic and more morally indignant for “revolutionary socialists”?
I think you are being a bit melodramatic and over the top, twc. "Hysteria" is precisely not the word that is applicable here and I am certainly not proposing to "play the voluntarist demagogue" egging on the masses to the point of such hysteria (if you knew me well enough i think you would find the prospect faintly amusing, as do I). Ive made my position pretty clear , I think. Im for a union of head and heart. One without the other is pretty useless from the standpoint of working towards attaining a socialist society. I seriously question your claim: "Marx’s science survives precisely because it is objective and is not indignation. Indignation emerges naturally enough from it as a consequence.I think youve got it precisely the wrong way round. Most people dont become socialists through an academic contemplation of the nuances of labour theory of value and then become indignant when they learn from the theory that they have been exploited by their capitalist employer all along. On the contrary, it is their own experience of exploitation expressed in a myriad of ways that gives rise to a feeling, however inchoate, that they are being exploited. That becomes the spur to acquiring greater understanding. In short , indignation generally precedes knowlege rather than follows knowlege though of coure it can be reinforced by the latter. I dont agree either with your observations about "Marx's science". You earlier made the comment that "Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion". True, some of his writings – particularly Capital – comes across in part, as you say, as dry as dust. But the suggestion that he somehow dispensed with indignation and expressions of emotion is absurd. Marx displayed a profusion of moral judgements interspersed throughout – even in Das Kapital. Capitalism is condemned in no uncertain terms. Stephen Lukes identifies some of these judgements and argues that they only make sense against Marx's own moral ideal of the good life: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). And I know this is opening up another can of worms but I dont agree with your fetishisation of "objectivism". I fully concur with L Bird in his criticism of your position and your insistence on asserting some kind of fact -value distinction which, ironically, Marx himself opposed, regarding it as yet another form of "estrangement". Your position does seem to be to akin to a kind of 19th century positivism (cue for comrade Bird to enter the fray, guns blazing). The problem with "scientific socialism" – I would personally banish that expression forthwith from the lexicon of revolutionary socialism if I had my way – with its pretensions to "objectivity" is precisely the problem of "reflexivity" in the social sciences. – particularly, in the social sciences though not exclusively in them as L Bird has pointed out. I am referring to the literal impossibility of stepping outside of one's own subjectivity, or consciousness, when making observations about society and the interrelationships that make up society. We are part of the very things we are supposed to be observing. That includes our moral values, our emotions, our irrationalities and everything else that goes to make us as flesh-and-blood mortals rather than intelligent robots
robbo203 wrote:Your position does seem to be to akin to a kind of 19th century positivism (cue for comrade Bird to enter the fray, guns blazing).I'm afraid to report that my brace of tiny intellectual .177 pellet guns are having no effect whatsoever upon the walls of the massive fortress of belief that is 19th century 'science'.In effect, it's a modern religious belief.If Einstein's criticisms, followed by those of some of the best 'philosophy of science' thinkers during the 20th century, are not causing the proponents of 'objective science' to pause for thought, what chance do I have in persuading the comrades to ask questions? Even quotes provided by other SPGB members (like those taken from Carr's What is History? ) have made no impression. Most frustrating of all, one comrade provided a video which made exactly the point we are making (that, as Einstein said, 'theory determines what we observe', and that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us), but can't seem to see this point that the video is making.What's worse, is that it's a religious belief that's been rumbled by other religions with more coherent philosophical groundings. Whilst the thinking of many Muslims and Christians remains ahead of the backward-looking views of those transfixed by parts of Engels' confused works, we Communists will remain an outdated sect, and rightly so.Perhaps I've been fried by the fray.
LBird wrote:as Einstein said, 'theory determines what we observe', and that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us), but can't seem to see this point that the video is making.Whilst it is ture that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us I'm not sure that Einstein actually said that, in any case it's an over- simplification and false.See the muller-lyer illusion. Both lines are the same length yet, despite how strongly we know that, they still appear different lengths.The video is called "the invisible gorilla" BTWSee also "Colour-phi phenomenon"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_phi_phenomenon
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:as Einstein said, 'theory determines what we observe', and that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us), but can't seem to see this point that the video is making.Whilst it is ture that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us I'm not sure that Einstein actually said that, in any case it's an over- simplifiication and false.
I agree, it is an absurd proposition.If Einstein said such a thing, then it has been taken out of context
DJP wrote:Whilst it is ture that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us I'm not sure that Einstein actually said that, in any case it's an over- simplifiication and false.Ironically, DJP, you're doing just what Engels does continuously through his texts. He writes contradictory statements.One can't say "facts don't impose themselves on us" and then say "it's an oversimplification and false" when someone else says "facts don't impose themselves on us". There are consequences from the belief that "facts don't impose themselves on us", and unless we discuss the meaning of the statement and its consequences for human knowledge, it remains a confusing belief.
DJP wrote:The video is called "the invisible gorilla" BTWYeah, I was trying not to use the 'G' word, just in case any other comrades wished to watch it! It's very effective!
Vin Maratty wrote:I agree, it is an absurd proposition.It might be 'absurd' to you, Vin, but it's the basis of modern philosophy of science.Oh yeah, and of Marx's view of science, too. He was far in advance of the bourgeoisie, which is one of the reasons we still read him in a way we don't read many positivist scientists from the 19th century.Rather than just dismissing 20th century philosophy of science, from Popper, through Kuhn and Feyerabend, to Lakatos, you should read some. I'm sure you'll find it very illuminating, comrade!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.