The Religion word

[zundap]

[quote-robbo203] “It so simple and straightforward and yet you make such a big hooha about it as if it were some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo descending from the heavens to baffle and confuse us mere mortals. It’s not.  It’s a completely human made social product designed to ensure people get along with each other in with the business of living in a society”.[/quote]So what does that mean if it isn’t self interest? I suggest you mount up and gallop that moral high horse of yours straight to the knackers yard.The best thing I ever heard that class traitor Neil Kinnock say was “socialism is enlightened self interest” – exactly!The present social code of behaviour reflects capitalist self interest, as to maintain class division and their superior position, in socialism the social code will reflect the self interest of all in a society without classes. The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn’t exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest.  The social code in socialism will be informed common sense, like “Do as you would be done by”, and “If nobody works nobody lives, but if we all work well everybody lives well”; self interest.Socialism will be a socially conscious society, conscious of what it is to be Human, so when we are considering a proposal or an act, we will decide not the basis of morality but our understanding of who we are.        

[robbo203]

zundap wrote:

 The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn’t exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest. 

 And there M’Lud I rest my case….The witness has just admitted that in  “identifying” with others and being concerned with the wellbeing of these others in the working class who he would feel bad about exploiting (it “would make us miserable”)  he is adopting a moral position and that such a moral position is fully compatible with, and runs alongside, his self interest.   Just like I’ve said all along as a matter of fact

[SocialistPunk]

I think Robbo is way ahead on this one.Morality is not a swear word, morality is simply a word used to condense a number of words into a convenient definition, that being the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are good (right) and those that are bad (wrong). Obviously this differs over time as well as between cultures.A future socialist society will have a moral content. I imagine it will share certain features as we see today, but it will obviously be free from the whims of a ruling elite.Any objections?

[steve colborn]

Right or wrong, can only be judged on the mores and values within which they are contextually assessed against.
In a society, which is premised on slavery, ie ancient rome, one does not have the benefit of hindsight we have today looking back. One would have no point of reference.
In a society in which life expectancy is, perhaps 30 at the most, is it morally wrong that those as young as 12 were thought to be of childbearing age? Once again it is the context in which this happened!  In todays society, with life expectancy relatively high and the same for the period of womens reproductive lives so long, we judge this on entirely different criterion.
As with many things we must judge in context!
Morality, whatever that means, is fluid. Using hindsight, or the existing social context prevailing at a given time, the two judgements are, and must remain dissimilar. One cannot judge past societies, or social values, using the MORAL precepts existing today.
What I can and do say is, that I think the class based society we have today, is unnecessary. We have the ability to produce enough for all. That a minority have used their POWER and ownership to continue their dominance is a fetter to the fulfillment of the needs of all. A state that is not relevant, nor to be warranted.
When the dispossessed majority see through this travesty then, and only then will we see it’s end. Mass social consciousness, rather than, MORALITY will see to this.

[zundap]

[quote-robbo203] 

zundap wrote:

 The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn't exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest. 

And there M'Lud I rest my case….[/quote]Knowing you Robin, I bet you won't.

robbo203 wrote:

The witness has just admitted that in  "identifying" with others and being concerned with the wellbeing of these others in the working class who he would feel bad about exploiting (it "would make us miserable")  he is adopting a moral position and that such a moral position is fully compatible with, and runs alongside, his self interest.   Just like I've said all along as a matter of fact

This a practical position not a moral one, being miserable is not in my self interest. I want the maximum happiness through self fulfillment as possible, being surrounded by wage slaves who accept their servile social position in capitalism aint going to cut it for me.All societies have been, are, will be social relationships, so the more we know about what we are relating with and who we are relation to the more human, the more functional that relationship will be. So is it not in the self interest of Humans to discover more about what it is to be Human? How we identify ourselves determines what we want, what we do, I see myself because I share the same ancestors as every one else, as a member of the human family, so to be true to my self I need a society based on a familiar relationship, bringing and taking according to ability and need, so it's in my self self interest to work for socialism. Marx wrote "we shall have an association where the free development of each, is the condition for the free development of all". Is it not in the self interest of the individual to inhabit a society where every one was encouraged to develop their personality, their creativity and discover their potential?The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.Let me ask you this Robin, you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?  

[SocialistPunk]

 

zundap wrote:

The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.

I wonder if any one bleating on about self interest is aware of how it sounds to non socialist onlookers. It sounds like  some of the concepts found in science fiction. The Borg spring to mind. To be moral is sentimental, of course it is, morality is concerned with emotions. Emotions are often imprecise, they make us human. Morality does not automaticaly imply self sacrifice, or self denial. I don't get that? How is concern for the welfare of starving children in a world of plenty, self sacrificial? I see sorting out society from a socialist perspective, not only logically sound but also from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do.I think some people here are deliberately misunderstanding this issue. I believe Robbo said that we can have morality as well as socialism, the two can go together.Where is the problem?Does it have to be one or the other?Morality reflects cultural values, what is acceptable or unacceptable at a given time and place, morality is fluid. (I refered to that in a previous post). Who decides moral values, is I think where the problem lies. It is no accident it arose on a thread that originally discussed religious views.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 

zundap wrote:

The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.

I wonder if any one bleating on about self interest is aware of how it sounds to non socialist onlookers. It sounds like  some of the concepts found in science fiction. The Borg spring to mind. To be moral is sentimental, of course it is, morality is concerned with emotions. Emotions are often imprecise, they make us human. Morality does not automaticaly imply self sacrifice, or self denial. I don't get that? How is concern for the welfare of starving children in a world of plenty, self sacrificial? I see sorting out society from a socialist perspective, not only logically sound but also from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do.I think some people here are deliberately misunderstanding this issue. I believe Robbo said that we can have morality as well as socialism, the two can go together.Where is the problem?Does it have to be one or the other?Morality reflects cultural values, what is acceptable or unacceptable at a given time and place, morality is fluid. (I refered to that in a previous post). Who decides moral values, is I think where the problem lies. It is no accident it arose on a thread that originally discussed religious views.

That's all well and good but what happens when the moral choice contradicts the correct decision?I mean many people might say it's immoral to have a violent revolution, but if it's the only option available then that's the way it has to be. Supplanting the rational for the sake of a subjective notion is idealism.

[SocialistPunk]

 

Ed wrote:

That's all well and good but what happens when the moral choice contradicts the correct decision?

Does that mean you accept the human weakness of morality? If only I could write that in the style of a Dalek.Joking to one side. I notice you use the term "correct decision".  The basis of morality is making decisions between what is considered right (correct) and wrong (incorrect) with regards to behaviour.So I suppose your "correct decision" could be viewed as moral.But please feel free to put forward a hypothetical scenario that could shed light on which is the correct way for a socialist society to conduct issues of an emotional nature.

[SocialistPunk]

Sorry Ed I didn't see the last sentence of your reply.Please accept my appologies.I'll get back to you shortly.

[zundap]

SocialistPunk wrote:

To be moral is sentimental, of course it is, morality is concerned with emotions. Emotions are often imprecise, they make us human. Morality does not automaticaly imply self sacrifice, or self denial. I don't get that? How is concern for the welfare of starving children in a world of plenty, self sacrificial? I see sorting out society from a socialist perspective, not only logically sound but also from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do

Because it implies that we do what we do for others and not for ourselves. The fact that unnecesary mass privation and suffering exists pisses me off, if it didn't I wouldn't give a toss.Perhaps you could answer the question I put to Robin: you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?

[steve colborn]

To have a violent revolution is not immoral, it is just irrational. When a majority of workers want, understand and work to bring about Socialism it will happen. Remember the members of Capitalisms coercive arms are workers themselves, their families are. Do you imagine class ideas will pass them by? Leave no trace on their minds! To posit this is, irrational in itself.Can you answer that contradiction between immorality and irrationality ED?

[SocialistPunk]

 

Ed wrote:

That's all well and good but what happens when the moral choice contradicts the correct decision?I mean many people might say it's immoral to have a violent revolution, but if it's the only option available then that's the way it has to be. Supplanting the rational for the sake of a subjective notion is idealism.

Again I apologize Ed, somehow when I read your reply the last sentence didn't appear.I suspect we could end up down an infinite road of philosophical ethics over this one.The way I understand it, the WSM seek to win a worldwide socialist revolution through democratic, relatively peaceful means. If that goal succeeded and the capitalist minority decided to attack the democratic socialist majority, then I am sure self defense would be the only option. It does not mean the revolution would be a deliberately violent one.Can you imagine many people objecting to defend themselves, being torn between what is moral and what is correct? 

[steve colborn]

Up for the gym tomorrow marra? Work off some of these "naturally violent tendencies PUNK, lol

[SocialistPunk]

zundap wrote:

Because it implies that we do what we do for others and not for ourselves. The fact that unnecessary mass privation and suffering exists pisses me off, if it didn't I wouldn't give a toss.Perhaps you could answer the question I put to Robin: you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?

I was under the impression that humans are the most social species on this planet. In many respects at times we do things for others without any obvious benefit. I have done so on a number of occasions, even to the detriment of my own health. So much for my self interest! Of course we could if we choose, analyze every ounce of human behaviour for ulterior motives, some academics do just that, to demonstrate that we are animals motivated by self interest. How odd then, members of the SPGB should on one hand claim we are not selfish creatures, capable of living in a highly cooperative society as socialism. Then on the other hand claim socialists are motivated by self interest. I don't get that!To coin a phrase, "There is no I in team".I have never put forward the notion that a desire for socialism is motivated by morality. however I could see an aspect of socialism that would make me unhappy. Being surrounded by people who deny their emotions have any significance and go about like calculating machines.LOL. Sorry I could not resist that one.I do not wish to war with fellow socialists.I have a question. Does it have to one or the other, why not both?

[steve colborn]

Indeed!

[Author]

Posts