The Religion word

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Fabian wrote:

Yes, I’m a deonotologist, not a consequentialist.

Is that the same as a “deontologist”?

Typo.

Quote:

I think we may be pragmatists.

Pragmatic ethics are pretty much just an is-ought naturalistic fallacy.

gnome wrote:

Wow, a deontologist, eh; well that don’t impress me much.  Would you be a devotee of Kunt, oops, sorry, I mean Kant?

Cute. As I said, I concentrate on discurse/argumentation ethics, that was talked about by Habermas, Apel and Hoppe, that is about a priori norms of discussions

Quote:

So, you never lie, cheat, are dishonest, and, if you’re an employee, are never late for work. You really are too good to be true.  Presumably you’re a pacifist and a vegan as well.

First a priori norm of ethics could be called non-attack principle (similar to the non-aggression principle espoused by “libertarians”), second is what anarchist call individual autonomy (Habermas called it “power neutrality”) also another principle can be added to those two- labor theory of property; that consitutes what could be called existential (public) ethics (as opposed to essential/ personal ethics), and means basically not to cause offensive harm to sentient beings, not to boss aroung rational beings, and don’t steal legitimate property.I never lie to, cheat or am dishonest to people who are not liers, cheaters or dishonest; I sabotage firms whenever I can when I’m an employee; I use physical force only against attackers, and I’m a vegan because there are no hare krishna or similar dairy or egg farms near me.

Quote:

Interestingly, you have unwittingly provided another sound reason why those with a religious conviction, which in most cases will be those who hold a moral absolutist position, should not be admitted to membership of the party.

What is that concrete reason?

Quote:

Certainly not for the capitalist class.

And for you it isn’t? Why?

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

What is morality after all? At bottom it has to do with a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  It is based on the assumption that others have value in themselves and not simply as a means to your own ends – what is called , “instrumentalism”

Morality is the expression of ruling class interests. Anything can and has been be justified morally, murder, rape, slavery, genocide anything you like. It is then used as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life. On an individual level morality is very rarely the same as anyone else and thus can not be measured in any objective way. It’s also mostly bullshit anyway, what people will say that they find morally acceptable they’ll happily break without batting an eyelid. And that is the real point socialists who think they are acting on moral grounds can quite easily change their mind when they find something morally wrong.Like the issue of violence in a revolution. To reject violence because it’s morally wrong is idealist claptrap. But to say it’s the most conducive way to set up a society based on “….from each according their needs” then it’s correct.

robbo203 wrote:

How many times have I heard socialists come out with the assertion: “I want socialism because it is in my material self interests.”  It makes me cringe every time I hear this because it is so misleading. Actually,  if it really was the case that what drives you to want socialism is self interest and nothing else then you would be better advised to cease forthwith your dilettantish dabbling in a revolutionary socialist political movement and focus your energies on becoming a capitalist instead –  or at least stabbing your fellow workers in the back on your way up the career ladder or whatever Yes, of course “self interest” is involved to an extent but other things matter too and this is the  point . I find it extraordinary that the above post can even invoke the idea of “material class interests” without seeing that in alluding to the interests of others in the working class you are actually and unavoidably adopting a moral perspective!  Morality, like I said is other oriented.  So the “case for socialism” must  by definition to an extent be grounded in morality if it involves workers coming to identify with each other on a class basis.

I want socilaism because it’s in my self interest. But I recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class. You sound like that Gina Rinehart. “It’s easy to become a millionaire like me you just have to work harder”. It’s complete bollocks. There are only rare instances where people can catapult themselves into the bourgeois class from starting out with nothing. And even then they’re usually supported through higher education and receive some start up capital. Most of the world don’t have that luxury and never will. You might as well say “why don’t you buy a lotterry ticket it’s in your best interest” despite the fact that your chances of winning are 116,531,800/1 (euro millions). Funnily enough those are probably about the same odds of becoming part of the bourgeois proper. Although if I had the chance to run a business I’d have no moral qualms about exploiting surplus value from others labour. Of course revolution would then not be in my self interest and I would be a socialist on purely scientific grounds.

robbo203 wrote:

Oddly enough Engels hinted at the kind of position I’m advocating here in his Anti Duhring

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 oppressed” (F Engels Anti-Dühring, Moscow 1947, p117).I think this supports my position much more than yours

[SocialistPunk]

  

robbo203 wrote:

Another classical example of the kind of conceptual muddle that seems to underlie much  SPGB thinking The case for socialism, it is claimed,  is not grounded in morality  but in ” material class interests”.  Why is it not possible to be grounded in both these things? Why should it be seen as one or the other?  Socialists are said to be  “indignant” about the effects of capitalism but how is that indignation not a sense of moral repulsion at what capitalism does?   How can one even begin to talk about the working class being “exploited” without this entailing a sense of moral outrage? The very term exploitation is a morally loaded one.  So why not just call a spade a spade?

I couldn’t have put it better if I tried.As far as I can see there are two ways to look at this problem.Logic. If Spock visited earth tomorrow and saw how capitalism organizes the worlds resources, with the majority of people producing the wealth in society and allowing a tiny minority to own and control that wealth, I am sure he would say in his famous way it is illogical.He would be right. But it is how the illogical organization of wealth ownership in capitalism affects people that is at the core of why we wish to bring about socialism.Practical. If by some, presumably mystical, means, capitalism could function without, poverty, homelessness, rationing health care (ex. NHS), non existent healthcare, injustice, corruption, starvation, and war to name a few. If that were possible we would probably overlook the poor logic of it. If capitalism met every bodies needs but allowed a measure of privilege, I would not be too bothered.It is how it effects me, my family, my friends neighbours and fellow human beings, that I have a problem with. That to me makes it a morale issue.It is wrong! I am not concerned with the philosophy of why it is wrong. I will leave that to intellectuals to waste time on.The logic is not that important, it is the physical consequences that arise form capitalism that are the issue.Before anyone starts, I am not advocating reformism! I am not delusional, I know capitalism can not be tamed.

[Ed]

I actually think that an underlying moralism is what’s wrong with the working class movement in general. It certainly is the motivation of most communist parties and the rest of the left wing.This should come as no surprise though as we are not in a situation where material conditions have declined enough to inspire enough people to take up their own self interests/class interests

[SocialistPunk]

I think a good few billion people on this planet have what I would consider abysmal material conditions.

[Ed]

very true that’s why the decline is the important part. abysmal conditions alone are not enough. If you’ve never smoked a cigarette then you won’t miss it. But try to take my fags away and I’ll kill you.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Ed,I don’t want to sound picky but I don’t quite get what you mean?Material conditions for many in the world couldn’t get lower, so are you referring mainly to us in the so called developed world.Also, if poor material conditions are not enough to make people want to change their situation, then what is? I thought the various working class movements and attempted revolutions were as a result of people being unsatisfied with their conditions? They fail only because the approach is reformist, the desire is real?    

[Ed]

I’m saying people are more angry by what they’ve lost than what they’ve never had. It’s always been the case that higher material conditions resulting from the most industrialized societies are more likely to produce class conscious workers.Past movements have failed mainly due to lacking a class conscious majority and were led by a minority of class conscious people. So they didn’t know what they were fighting for. But there’s no one reason for me there’s loads of reasons reformism being one. But if there had been a class conscious majority reformism would have been unnecessary. (after the means of production had reached a level which could sustain socialism)

[SocialistPunk]

I get you now. Makes sense.But I can see a problem, for us.If large sections of the working class live in impoverished nations, that have never had decent conditions, how are we going to bring them around to wanting socialism? Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the SPGB and socialist movement  as a whole think that world socialism must come about at the same time?

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What is morality after all? At bottom it has to do with a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  It is based on the assumption that others have value in themselves and not simply as a means to your own ends – what is called , “instrumentalism”

Morality is the expression of ruling class interests. Anything can and has been be justified morally, murder, rape, slavery, genocide anything you like. It is then used as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life. On an individual level morality is very rarely the same as anyone else and thus can not be measured in any objective way. It’s also mostly bullshit anyway, what people will say that they find morally acceptable they’ll happily break without batting an eyelid. And that is the real point socialists who think they are acting on moral grounds can quite easily change their mind when they find something morally wrong.

 You are completely and utterly missing the point.  Everyone has a moral point of view – you wouldn’t be human otherwise.  Its not peculiar to the ruling class alone.  That just ridiculous. Oddly enough having started out claiming that morality is the expression of ruling class interest you then end up saying it varies from one person to another.  You cant have it both ways, you know,. If morality is so variable as you say then to put it down to being the mere expression of ruling class interests is a tad misleading, don’t you think? This naff reductionist argument crops up in the Communist Manifesto, too  “Law, morality, religion are…so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. The basic  argument seems to be that ruling ideas of society are those of the ruling class So if people tend to talk  in moral terms this is obviously a ruling class conspiracy to use morality “as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”. It does not seem to occur to you that not all ideas are ruling class ideas – unless, of course,  you think socialist ideas are also  the expression of ruling class interests . Just because people talk in moral terms does not mean they are faithfully reflecting the ruling class outlook into which they have supposedly been “socially conditioned” Heard of the concept of hegemony BTW.  I find all this talk of the…ahem … “lower classes” being socially conditioned into accepting their lot in life rather disempowering and misleading.  Its projecting the view that we are mere putty in the hands of our rulers. Its reinforcing our sense of our own impotence. I just don’t buy this argument, frankly.  Quite often its the opposite  that is the case – the ruling class being socially conditioned into accepting the ideas of the “lower classes”.  This for instance is the case with populist  type governments where politicians pander to the prejudices of the electorate. Your analysis is too simplistic  

Ed wrote:

 

robbo203 wrote:

How many times have I heard socialists come out with the assertion: “I want socialism because it is in my material self interests.”  It makes me cringe every time I hear this because it is so misleading. Actually,  if it really was the case that what drives you to want socialism is self interest and nothing else then you would be better advised to cease forthwith your dilettantish dabbling in a revolutionary socialist political movement and focus your energies on becoming a capitalist instead –  or at least stabbing your fellow workers in the back on your way up the career ladder or whatever Yes, of course “self interest” is involved to an extent but other things matter too and this is the  point . I find it extraordinary that the above post can even invoke the idea of “material class interests” without seeing that in alluding to the interests of others in the working class you are actually and unavoidably adopting a moral perspective!  Morality, like I said is other oriented.  So the “case for socialism” must  by definition to an extent be grounded in morality if it involves workers coming to identify with each other on a class basis.

I want socialism because it’s in my self interest. But I recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class. You sound like that Gina Rinehart. “It’s easy to become a millionaire like me you just have to work harder”. It’s complete bollocks. There are only rare instances where people can catapult themselves into the bourgeois class from starting out with nothing. And even then they’re usually supported through higher education and receive some start up capital. Most of the world don’t have that luxury and never will. You might as well say “why don’t you buy a lottery ticket it’s in your best interest” despite the fact that your chances of winning are 116,531,800/1 (euro millions). Funnily enough those are probably about the same odds of becoming part of the bourgeois proper. Although if I had the chance to run a business I’d have no moral qualms about exploiting surplus value from others labour. Of course revolution would then not be in my self interest and I would be a socialist on purely scientific grounds.

 I did not say you would become a capitalist if you strove to become one did I?  There is no comparison between what I’m saying and what  Gina Rinehart is saying.  Of course the chances of you becoming a capitalist are absolutely minuscule but thats not the point,  is it?  The point is that if you want socialism for no other reason than that it is in your self interests then you might as well forget about socialism in that case because if its self interest that motivates you would be better advised to strive to become a capitalist  (or even just a better paid worker).  Whether you will become a capitalist is another matter entirely, obviouslyYou claim to ” recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class”. Well it wouldn’t be –  would it?  –  if you what you are adopting here is a purely “instrumentalist approach” to the rest of your class. If you see them as simply a means your own selfish ends then clearly it is not true that your self interest is linked to the rest of your class.  Ironically you more or less admit this yourself  when you say Although if I had the chance to run a business I’d have no moral qualms about exploiting surplus value from others labour.  What you saying here is that the realisation of your self interest in the form of running your own business would actually demonstrate that far from your interests being “inextricably linked to the working class” those interests  would actually be opposed to the working class who you would happily exploit to further your own self interests!  The instrumentalist approach to fellow workers that comes across when you say “I recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class”  will be take  a step further and put  into practice should you come to run a business and use these self same fellows to enrich yourself.  

Ed wrote:

 

robbo203 wrote:

Oddly enough Engels hinted at the kind of position I’m advocating here in his Anti Duhring

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 oppressed” (F Engels Anti-Dühring, Moscow 1947, p117).I think this supports my position much more than yours

 No it does not it.  He is talking about the morality of the  oppressed class vis-a-vis the morality of the ruling class.  Your contention is that ” morality is the expression of ruling class interests”. Period  Engels,  by contrast,  is saying it can be either that OR it can be be the class morality of the oppressed class.  This is what I am saying the SPGB should recognise and stop pretending that its case has nothing to do with a moral rejection of capitalism

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

 “You are completely and utterly missing the point.  Everyone has a moral point of view – you wouldn’t be human otherwise.” 

 Really? I will ask you the question I asked Fabian. Can you prove the objectivity of morality?  Can you explain why it changes with material conditions and class consciousness.  Our empathy and sympathy for other human beings is not morality. Dislike of pain and rape for example is not morality. I don’t want pain or rape myself – My reason for making rape illegal would not be based on morality. 

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I get you now. Makes sense.But I can see a problem, for us.If large sections of the working class live in impoverished nations, that have never had decent conditions, how are we going to bring them around to wanting socialism? Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the SPGB and socialist movement  as a whole think that world socialism must come about at the same time?

 That is an interesting point – albeit it slightly off topic. I was arguing with a left communist on Revleft some weeks ago and put forward what I thought was the SPGB view that,  as a socialist  majority captured political power in each country it would immediately abolish capitalism.  However since this has to start somewhere  you would effectively have what the Stalinists call “socialism in one country” – except of course that it would be real socialism and not state capitalism and,  more to the point, would presuppose the existence of mass socialist parties elsewhere who were on the brink of capturing political power as well (which needless to say was not the case when the Soviet Union was around). My left communist opponent contended that the first country in the world  where a socialist majority came to power would have to install a dictatorship of the proletariat and continue  operating capitalism until such time as socialist parties came to power everywhere in which case they could collectively and simultaneously  institute world socialism So what is the SPGB’s official position on this matter or does it have one?  A link would be appreciated

[jondwhite]

Dumping (pricing policy)

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Robbo,Sometimes things do get a bit off topic, I didn’t intend it, blame it on evolution.But it has given me an idea.How about opening this subject up as a new topic for discussion?Does anyone have any objections about discussing this topic as a new post?

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

So what is thei SPGB’s official position on this matter or does it have one?  A link would be appreciated

Here’s what we say in the chapter on “Socialism and the Less DevelopedCountries” in the 1978 edition of Questions of the Day, here on this site:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/questions-day

Quote:

Socialists are sometimes asked about another aspect of uneven development. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced.Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether such a situation is likely to arise, we can say that it presents no problems when viewed against the world-wide character of the socialist movement. Because capitalist governments are organised on a territorial basis each socialist organisation has the task of seeking democratically to gain political control in the country where it operates. This however is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. Given a situation in which the organised socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to gain control of the machinery of government, the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time.There remains the question whether in fact there will be material differences in the rate of growth of the sections of the world socialist movement. At present, throughout the advanced capitalist countries, the vast majority, because they are not yet socialist, share certain basic ideas about how society can and should be run. They accept that goods must be produced for sale with a view to profit; some men must work for wages while others must be employers; there must be armed forces and frontiers; and it is impossible to do without money and buying and selling. These ideas are held by people all over the world and it is this which accounts for the basic stability of capitalism at the present time.It was Engels who remarked that a revolutionary period exists when people begin to realise that what they once thought was impossible can in fact be done. When people realise that it is possible to have a world without frontiers, without wages and profits, without employers and armed forces, then the socialist revolution will not be far away. But this advance in political understanding will be achieved by the same people who now think that capitalism is the only possible system. Because workers all over the world live under basically similar conditions and because of modern systems of communication, when they begin to see through capitalism this will apply everywhere. There is no reason at all why workers in one country should see this while those in others do not.The very idea of Socialism, a new world society, is clearly and unequivocally a rejection of all nationalism. Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could spread unevenly.Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period of each other. It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed to their brothers elsewhere. To sum up, we can say that the less developed countries might present Socialism with a problem, but they do not constitute a barrier to the immediate establishment of Socialism as a world system.

Actually the whole chapter is interesting and relevant.Agree there could be a separate thread on this subject.

[Author]

Posts