robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
stanislavdoskocil wrote:Let me ask you, what is the greatest lie ever created. What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind. Is it slavery, the holocaust, dictatorship. No its the tool with which all that wickedness is built, altruism. Whenever someone wants to do there work they call upon there altruists, never mind your own needs they say, think about the needs of whoever, of the state, the poor,of the army, of the king, of god, the list goes on and on. What catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself", its the king and country crowd that light the torch of destruction. This ancient lie has chained humanity to this endless cycle of guilt and failure.
I would still like to hear from this poster how he or she can come to this conclusion when manifestly it is not the altruist that is the cause of the "vicious obscenity" referred to but rather those who "thinking only of themselves" cynically exploit the good intentions of the altruistically inclined This whole line of argument presented here is positively Randian in outlook. The poster refers to the "Bolshevik poison" and the "parasites of Moscow" he or she left behind behind and in so doing perhaps unwittingly echoes a comment made by Ayn Rand in a lecture delivered at Yale University on February 17, 1960, namely that the “ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia” (http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm) But hold one here! That doesn't make sense at all does it now? How is a "parasite" compatible with altruism, eh? Soviet Russia cannot possibly stand as the "ultimate monument" to altruism if it happened to be administered by a bunch of parasites which in fact it was. The Soviet capitalist class was a tiny parasitic class – effectively, the apparatchiks – that brutally and systematically exploited the Russian workers through its complete stranglehold on the state machine and economic decision makingOf course the Soviet Union would have talked about "working for the common good" etc but – Hells Bells! – name me one capitalist state that doesn't talk in these terms? Cameron is forever going on about working together for the "good of the nation". So is Obama. So is Hollande or Merkel . So is every other capitalist statesman. Whats so unusual about that?. All this disreputable bunch of good-for-nothing smooth-talking inveterate liers have in common is that they are more than willing to cynically exploit the altruistic tendencies of people for their own ends and the capitalist class they represent. Just like in the Soviet Union in fact…..
sarda karaniwan wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't believe altruism exist and those capitalists have proven that.About that "drowning child" (the usual argument case), it is not about altruism or being a hero, it is only about responsibility, if everyone took up responsibility accident will not happen.Sarda,Of course altruism exists! I suspect you have a very narrow and misleading interpretation of what altruism means. All it boils down to basically is concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others. Everyone exhibits such a concern in their daily lives – perhaps barring the odd sociopath – from the mother who provides milk for her newborn to the young person who vacates her seat on a crowded bus to allow some elderly person to sit. Charities would cease to exist if altruism did not exist. Come to think of it, even the capitalists exhibit altruism contrary what you claim. Capitalists after all frequently bequeath their worldly goods to their kin or endeavour to assist the latter in numerous other ways in life. This is a variety of altruism dubbed "kin altruism" in evolutionary psychology; another is "reciprocal altruism". Google the terms and see for yourself As for your argument about the Drowning Child example – well, how on earth do you figure this is not altruism. The "responsibility" you refer to presupposes an altruistic concern for the child in question and the moral imperative to act on that concern. Being altruist doesn't make you a socialist but it does make you a human being . So, no, you are quite wrong to sayIf altruism exist in every human being then we don't need to change anything at all, all we need to do is wait for those capitalists to show their altruism and everything will work out fine. This is a misunderstanding of what the argument is about. Altruism doesn't necessarily have socialist implications. Actually, the rabid nationalist -or indeed suicide bomber – who professes to be willing to die for his or her "nation" is, in an important sense, thinking as an altruist. Socialists reject nationalism, of course. Our concern lies primarily with the welfare of our fellow workers with whom we express solidarity. That is why we refuse to cross a picket line when workers strike. That is why we protest when workers are evicted from the homes. And so on and so forth. We take these actions because the welfare of those workers matter to us. We are being altruistic in other words We need much more of that kind of altruism – socialist altruism. The ridiculous idea that seems to be implied in your position – that socialism is purely a matter of self interest – is actually the most insidiously anti-socialist argument imaginable. If self interest is all that matters – the Smithian paradigm of the Market's Invisible Hand – then socialists might just as well shut up shop and busy themselves with advancing their own careers and stabbing their fellow workers on the way up the greasy pole of job promotion. Self interest is part of the reason for wanting socialism but it can never ever be the whole reason. If it were that would negate everything that socialism stands for which is implied in the very word itself – SOCIALism
stanislavdoskocil wrote:Let me ask you, what is the greatest lie ever created. What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind. Is it slavery, the holocaust, dictatorship. No its the tool with which all that wickedness is built, altruism. Whenever someone wants to do there work they call upon there altruists, never mind your own needs they say, think about the needs of whoever, of the state, the poor,of the army, of the king, of god, the list goes on and on. What catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself", its the king and country crowd that light the torch of destruction. This ancient lie has chained humanity to this endless cycle of guilt and failure.This is a ridiculous argument, frankly. Its the same naff argument trotted about by the likes of Ayn Rand and the Objectivists. It doesn't even make sense. You are misattributing the blame to "altruism" yet telling us that the problem arises when some call upon others to behave altruistically in the name of whatever cause. You could just as easily argue that it is the egoism of the former in cynically exploiting the altruism of the latter that is the real cause of the problem. Altruism and self interest are two sides of the same coin that is our human species. Neither are dispensable. Its what makes us human beings In evolutionary psychology there is an argument gaining ground that "group level" selection – not just individual selection – may have been a powerful factor in the evolution of our species. That is to say, groups exhibiting a stronger degree of solidarity amongst it members tended to be those that survived. In other words, concern for the wellbeing of others – and the word "altruism" derives from the Latin word “alter”, meaning “other” – was a factor in group cooperation and survival. Put simply those groups whose members did not display a minimal degree of altruistic feeling towards others in the group simply perished. The development of Game Theory in the post war years has massively reinforced these conclusions and has shown that purely egoistic strategies are very clearly sub-optimal. Google the "Prisoners Dillemma" and see for yourself. Altruism is the basis of morality and there is a strong argument (promoted by the likes of Chomsky and others) for saying that our disposition towards moral behaviour., like our capacity for language, is something that is hardwired into us. Its not the specific moral beliefs or practices that I am talking about – these things are indeed culturally and historically conditioned – but the fact that we are inclined to think and behave in moral terms at all. The discovery of “mirror neurons” in the brain by Giacomo Rizzolati and his colleagues in the 1990s, which neurons seem to be linked to our capacity for empathy – a basic building block of morality – supports this argument. At the end of the day we are neither purely egoistic or altruistic but both – and necessarily so. The nonsensical rant of the Objectivists against what they call "altruism" underscores their totally impoverished worldview. It hasn't got a leg to stand on. To use Peter Singer's classic example of the Drowning Child, would you pass by a pond in which a child was drowning without being perturbed in the slightest, without wanting to help? No of course you wouldn't. No normal human being would – though a clinical sociopath might. Your "praxis" in the world , to coin a phrase, thus stands in total contradiction to your absurd claim that altruism is some kind of unmitigated evil.
jondwhite wrote:I'm happy for it to be suggested, and wouldn't object to members of the general public doing it but flag-burning is not something the party or members should be doing. It doesn't encourage critical thought, rather the opposite. Nationalists (ever-ready to shut down critical faculties) would readily be enraged and respond emotively, and the apathetic would remain apathetic.Stunts are not the way to raise our profile. They're certainly not a shortcut to consciousness raising either. Stunts aren't a strategy, they're the absence of one.Ok, its just a suggestion and I'm not too hung about it but I would have thought it would be quite possible to combine an approach that embraces "critical thought" with a symbolic gesture of this sort. – for instance in the form of a leaflet opposing nationalism which could be distributed before, during and after the event in question.. Ditto a press statement to explain the significance of the event. Things are not black-or-white.
Came across this site – the US Holocaust Memorial Museum – which makes a distinction between "holocaust denial" and "holocaust distortion": http://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion Amongst other things, it asserts that "Common distortions include, for example, assertions that: the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration" and that "Denial and distortion of the Holocaust almost always reflect antisemitism". If that is the case then it would appear that a large number of historians, including Israeli historians, are guilty of distortion and are likely harbouring anti-Semitic sentiments. I cannot pretend to know much about historical details of the holocaust.. Like most people, I suspect, I simply took it for granted that 6 million was the correct figure. Now I discover that many historians themselves dispute this figure and that some put the true figure at around 1 million. As I said, even 1 million is bad enough. It is a grotesque obscenity that it should have happened at all that so many Jews (and, of course, many others too) should have died in this fashion. But, apparently, to say this and to suggest that the numbers involved might have been only 1 million and not 6 million is highly likely to indicate "anti-Semitism". I think the reasoning behind such a claim is utterly absurd and spurious. Frankly I smell a rat. It is a way of silencing criticism through the manufacture of a taboo. Without going along with any particular figure as such – I simply don't have the knowledge yet to reach an informed decision – I would nevertheless assert that it is entirely possible to reject the official figure as a literal statement of fact AND reject anti-Semitism as a repugnant and totally unacceptable standpoint. . The US HMM seems to presume from the outset that the matter has already been settled and that anyone who dares question the figure it bandies about is engaged in a "distortion". This is actually a close-minded, dogmatic and arrogant approach to history. Paradoxically, IF it so happens that the figure is a gross exaggeration then the effect would actually be to cheapen the memory of those Jews who lost their lives in this horrific fashion by feeling the need to embellish the historical record in such a fashion: do we really need to artifically boost the numbers involved in order to find the whole thing morally repulsive? The link I referred to at the outset suggests that those who accuse others of distortion are themselves guilty of a gross distortion. It suggests also reasons why they might want to engage in such a distortion. The Israeli capitalist state is no different from any other capitalist state in wanting to clothe itself in the mythology of nationalism. As in war, truth is often the first casualty. "History" becomes just another propaganda tool. And the holocaust, I think, plays a central role in the ideology of a state that seeks, as all states must do, to justify its own existence from some morally unassailable or impregnable high ground. Not just history but prehistory too . I recall Steven Pinkers arguments in "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" (2011). According to him, violent deaths have declined dramatically from about 15% in pre-state societies and "today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species" ("Violence Vanquished " , The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2011). The hidden agenda behind such thinking is to justify the existence of the Hobbesian state: we need the state to quell our "natural instinct" to inflict violence on each other at the slightest pretext. It is, of course, a junk theory that Pinker and others have been busily pushing . First off, he overlooks the distinction between band societies and tribal societies. The former characterise the vast majority of humankinds existence on this planet and exhibited a built in mechanism of conflict avoidance through fissioning and nomadism. Tribal societies, though not yet class societies, are much more recent and arguably did show signs of militarism and hierarchy. Also as anthropologists like R. Brian Ferguson, considered to be the foremost expert on the early history of war, has pointed out Pinker and co have grossly misinterpreted the evidence of forensic archeology: "Many hominid remains once thought to establish the most ancient evidence of homicide or cannibalism were actually gnawed by predators or just suffered postmortem breakage ("The Birth of War" R. Brian Ferguson , Natural History Jul/Aug 2003, Vol. 112, Issue 6). This is to say nothing of the findings of studies on contemporary hunter gather groups – like the one recently conducted by researchers from the Abo Academy University in Finland looking into violence in early human communities. That study concluded that such violence was "driven by personal conflicts rather than large-scale battles" and that "war is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a behaviour that we have adopted more recently" ( "Primitive human society 'not driven by war' ", BBC News: Science and Environment, 18 July 2013). The point that I'm making here is that there may well be parallels between the way prehistory has been rewritten to suit the ideological outlook and prejudices of establishment thinkers and the way in which recent history has also been presented. The holocaust phenomenon is a case in point. Mass murder is an obscenity, however you look at it, but there is undeniably also something quite distasteful about the way in which states cynically and sanctimoniously employ the evidence of "history" for their own ulterior purposes.
Hi all, Thanks for your obsrvations and suggestions. Incidentally, specifically in relation to the question of inflation I came across these two references in the wiki entry on QE which appear to contradict each other until you realise that "money supply" or "injecting more money into the economy" may not be the same as printing more currency. But can QE involve an element of printing more currency and if so how does this happen? What is the process?Quantitative Easing Explained. London: Bank of England. 2011. The MPC's decision to inject money directly into the economy does not involve printing more banknotes. Instead, the Bank buys assets from private sector institutions – that could be insurance companies, pension funds, banks or non-financial firms – and credits the seller's bank account..Bank of England . The Bank can create new money electronically by increasing the balance on a reserve account. So when the Bank purchases an asset from a bank, for example, it simply credits that bank's reserve account with the additional funds. This generates an expansion in the supply of central bank money
1875 wrote:If a majority of socialist workers should take power only in a country like the United Kingdom, then there wouldn’t be a socialist revolution; only managing capitalism would be possible.There is, I think , an intermediate position between that of socialism-in-one-country and that of instantaneous worldwide revolution, neither of which seem plausible for different reasons. That is to acknowledge that, were a majority of socialists to take power in one country first, this would necessarily presuppose a near majority of socialists almost everywhere else. It is inconceivable that you could have significant spatial lags in the spread of socialist ideas given the potential of modern telecommunications as well as the increasingly interdependent nature of modern production. Not to mention the determination and resolve of the globally based socialist movement itself to minimise the extent of such spatial lags through the redirection of effort and assistance to those parts of the world where the growth of socialist conscious appeared to be lagging most. Therein perhaps lies the key to an approach that the socialist movement might increasingly put into practice the larger it become. The domino theory of revolution, as I like to call it, fundamentally differs from the socialism-in-one-country model in that the latter regards the spread of socialist ideas outside of the country in question , though useful, to be essentially a matter of indifference whereas the former regards that spread to be absolutely indispensable.Socialism in one country is a recipe for managing capitalism under the aegis of the so called dictatorship of the proletariat – an oxymoron if there ever was one – which will sooner or later morph into just another capitalist government managing some kind of state capitalist variant (probably) of capitalism; the domino theory, on the other hand, allows for the direct implementation of genuine socialism in some or other part of the world first to be followed soon enough afterwards by others parts. Its confidence and ability to take that giant step depends on the certain knowledge that other parts of the world are hard on its heels. It recognises the external constraints on implementing full free access socialism immediately, given the fact that t has still to deal with a residual capitalist world outside and with which it will still have to maintain certain economic relations for a little while longer, relations which will probably take the form of barter. But internally, it eliminates the commodity relation altogether and administers society no longer under a state (since classes will have disappeared) but through the democratic organisation of society itself within the temporary and increasingly porous territorial shell of the now completely extinguished nation state. In short, there is no country anymore and therefore no socialism-in-one-country. If there is a sound rationale behind the distinction between a "lower" and "higher" phase of socialism/communism as outlined by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme then perhaps it derives its force from this distinction that could be made between the external relations a newly constituted socialist zone has to maintain with the residual, if rapidly shrinking, capitalist world outside and its own internal mode of production and way of life
Came across something by Chris Hedges on the subject which makes for an interesting read….http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111 There are organisations like PEGIDA in Germany – there is a Pegida offshoot in the UK too – that seem to want to focus on the nature of Islam itself as a suppposed threat to democracy, free speech etc etc. As far as I know – someone can correct me if I am wrong – Pegida turns out to be of the far Right and ultra-nationalist in persuasion. A leftie on my local FB group had recommended Pegida to me before discovering to her dismay what it was all about. Hedges seems to me to take a sound approach which focusses attention instead on the conditions which Islamic communities face in Europe and elsewhere. Their particular religious beliefs is not the reason why a tiny minority resort to such obscene acts of violence but rather an excuse or pretext. I recall Hedges saying something on an RT interview the other day about a militant Islamic group he had encountered somewhere – Syria perhaps? It turned out that only one of their number had ever even read the Koran despite them all putting on the front of being devout Islamists! Incidentally, it appears that there have been more than 50 French trademark applications for the phrase "Je Suis Charlie" for commercial purposes, of all things. Capitalism just cannot resist gettings it grubby hands on anything that moves. Seems its not just the professed commitment of opportunist politicians to free speech that rings hollow. See herehttp://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30797059?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=inxmail_newsletter&ns_campaign=bbcnewsmagazine_news__&ns_linkname=na&ns_fee=0
duncan lucas wrote:You are tumbling over yourself to make your "we are all the same people " fit in with your political logic when the truth is we are as different as chalk and cheese . You seem to deny nationality of countries and people so you feel easier saying "We stand for one people wherever they are " .This defies logic ,the truth common sense and perceived actuality. Each nation is people unto themselves who think ,act differently .But, Duncan, aren't you the one who is tumbling over yourself in your haste to assert that "we are all the same people" as far as the Scots are concerned in contradistinction to, say, the English? An English worker has far more in common with a Scottish worker than the latter has with the capitalist class. So why then chose to disaggregate society along nationalistic lines when it makes far more sense to do so along class lines?Sure there are cultural variations between different regions – although much of this exists only in the fertile imagination of nationalist mythologisers (see Benedict Anderson's illuminating book on the origins of nationalism, entitled Imagined Communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities). Socialists don't decry cultural differences; if anything we celebrate them. It is global capitalism and the "McDonaldisation" of society that is eroding national differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization) just as nationalism was itself – and still is – a force for cultural homogenisation and the obliteration of local cultures and dialects. However, Scotland is no less part of the global capitalist world than anywhere else and you delude yourself with your fantasy of an independent "socialist" Scotland . The overwhelming majority of Scottish workers support capitalism in one form or another just as the overwhelming majority of English workers do likewise – however reluctantly or unenthusiastically. To be be brutally frank they have no conception yet of an alternative to capitalism – to wage labour, to buying and selling, to the money system. Your talk of a "socialist" Scotland shows that you too do not have a clear idea of what socialism means either, unfortunately.To equate it with the "welfare state" or whatever is ludicrous. The welfare state was actually introduced with the full support of the big capitalists back in the 1940s. As one of them, Samuel Courtauld, put it, 'Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long term investment the country could make. It will ultimately lead to a higher efficiency among workers and a lowering of production costs.'You don't seem to understand the point that capitalism can take many different forms and that to a large extent these forms themselves are the product of historically contingent factors. In an increasingly competitive globalised economy and with the decline in economic growth – and profit – rates since the 1970s placing a burden on government spending, governments of all political persuasions have in recent years tended to evolve towards a neo-liberal form of governance. It bears out the expression that "its not governments that run the system but the system that runs the governments".Believe you me, the government of an independent Scotland, had it materialised, would be no different in any fundamental sense. It would be no less ruthless in its attacks on the working class than the present conservative government and while it might appear to give more with the one hand it will also take more with the other. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. Since it has no intention to transcend the profit system such a government would have to abide by the rules of the game that require it to act in the interests of capital and therefore against the interests of wage labour.The fact that it is Scottish workers that the Scottish capitalists are exploiting will make absolutely no difference in the long run. If it did those patriotic Scottish capitalists would simply relocate their capital elsewhere where they can get away scot free – to coin a phrase – from having to pay punitive levels of taxation that a militant Scottish "socialist" government might want to impose on them to fund their ambitious welfare programme. That will soon enough tame such a government and bring it to heel
twc wrote:wrote:A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution.These are not specifically socialist issues, and should be evaluated rationally according to circumstance.Most socialists don’t need an “ethical” crutch to be motivated to perform acts of working-class solidarity, and many anti-socialists act this way without socialist prompting.The worst of what you are saying is that the Party should mandate that all proletarians should:always obey the dictates of each and every Union boss, independent of whether he runs a scab Union, or whether he calls a strike for anti-socialist reasons with anti-socialist outcomes—like corrupt Union officials in cahoots with the bosses.always condone or encourage welfare fraud, independent of its punitive consequences. Why not always the same for criminal theft?always reject working class solidarity with our fighting boy and girl proletarians who put their lives on the line. What about those proletarians whose non-frontline labour safely supports the war effort, or those whose labour actively supports capitalism?
These issues may not in themselves be "specifically socialist issues" – one does not have to be a socialist to observe that it is unethical to cross a picket line – but I am asserting nevertheless that no socialist would want to do such a thing. No socialist worth their salt would find such a thing morally acceptable.You are once again twisting my words or inventing spurious and irrelevant arguments/scenarios to try to get round the simple point I was making. I didn't say anything about proletarians always needing to obey the dictates of some Union boss on each and every conceivable occasion – did I now? – and it is presumptuous of you even to suggest that I would support such an undemocratic arrangement as Union bosses "dictating" what their members should do. Obviously one uses a degree of discretion here. But if a strike was conducted not for anti-socialist reasons, would you, TWC, find it morally acceptable as a socialist to cross a picket line? Yes or no?Ditto, welfare fraud. Of course crime can be sometimes unacceptable – most particularly when the victim is a fellow worker. Once again its a case of using your own nonce to determine what is acceptable and what is not from a socialist point of view. But I thought as a revolutionary socialist you would recognize that the system is one of the legalised robbery by the capitalist class of the fruits of our working class labour. I would have thought as a revolutionary socialist you would support or, at any rate, condone any attempt by workers to slightly redress the balance. So let us hear it from you, TWC. – would you as a revolutionary socialist spill the beans to the authorities if you came across a worker claiming benefits while a working a few hours on the side? Do tell us – why would you not do this unless you thought it was morally unacceptable as a socialist to betray your own class members? Call a spade a spade, TWC – you wouldnt do it because you consider it morally unacceptableFinally, in yet another adept display of TWC twisting other people's argument you questioned whether proletarians should "always reject working class solidarity with our fighting boy and girl proletarians who put their lives on the line". I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that one. Put their lives on the line for what, TWC? Are you saying there are occasions when it is justified that workers fight in a capitalist war? Some revolutionary socialist you have turned out to be! Once again, you should read what I said and not what you imagine I said. Of course,as socialists, we express solidarity with all workers regardless but we don't necessarily condone what they do, do we now? You yourself have made this very point – ironically! However I was not talking about expressing working class solidarity with fellow workers in the armed forces. I said quite clearly that what would be morally unacceptable for a socialist to do is to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc. I was talking about their actions, not the fact that they are working class. Your whole position is based on a completely false reading of what ethics is all about. Ethics is not some external "crutch" that we can usefully, or otherwise, employ in voluntaristic fashion to bring about our desired end. Rather, our socialist ethics is fundamental to who we are and it is part of what defines us as socialists in the first place. As a socialist you simply cannot help but take up a socialist moral perspective on life
twc wrote:Incidentally, this is very late news for the rest of us, who’ve apparently been, until now, only groping blindly for a working-class emancipation that will involve “the emancipation of all mankind, independent of race or sex” [DOP 4].In case you hadn't cottoned on, TWC, the emancipation of all mankind etc is something that is supposed to only materialise after the socialist revolution not before it. Before the revolution, the working class continues to exist and with it the need for – nay, the inescapability of – a working class ethics . Unless, of course, you no longer see the working class as the primary agent of socialist revolution but then again trying to decipher what you are trying to say – most of which, incidentally, as far as the above post is concerned, seems to consist in a quite outlandish attempt, to the point of sheer gibberish, to attribute to me views I dont even hold anyway – is, as per usual, no easy task so I wont even attempt it. Much of the time I havent the foggiest notion what you are warbling on about and I strongly suspect Im not alone in thinking that.My position is much more straightforward then you seem to want to portray it. A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution. And you think ethics makes for "social impotence", huh?. You should descend from the clouds, TWC. The view may be inspiring but you need to plant your feet on the ground sometimes
twc wrote:.But to argue against ethics myself. Ethics are the soporific of capitalism. They are its essential sham veneer. That’s the only ethical case we have under capitalism.For the rest, capitalism’s ethics are appropriate to and perfectly adequate to capitalism, and there’s little we can do about it that our capitalist politicians can’t, and they have the virtue of being in a position to legislate those necessary legal aspects that changing capitalism demands.For our part, ethics is a distraction. More important than ethics is moral integrity.Integrity is the fount of the Socialist Party’s survival in the face of the enormous odds stacked against it. The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation. Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card. Not insipid ethics.I now find it hard to see what specifically socialist essence remains in your Socialism of “anger, emotion, ethics, etc.” that distances it from any other political movement, since they all rely on it, and play this card like professional experts.Sorry TWC but this is a very weak argument. Others may well rely on "anger, emotion ethics" but your suggestion that we should not do so ourselves, since that will mean we will be unable to differentiate ourselves, or our "socialist essence", from them, is frankly ridiculous. The anger of the nationalist is directed against other nations or ethnic minorities that he or she perceives as diluting the purity of the nation. Our anger by complete constrast is directed against the capitalist system and what it gives rise to. I dont think there is any danger of people not seeing the difference, do you?Actually, it is absurd to even talk of "anger, emotion, ethics" in such voluntaristic terms as though these things are something one chooses to employ as a matter of deliberate strategy. Rather, you become a socialist precisely because you are angered by what you see around you, by what you consider to be morally offensive about capitalism. You dont just coolly and intellectually consider the case for socialism, and in a detached manner, decide that it makes "good rational sense" and then opt to become a socialist, having beeen swayed by the labour theory of value or Marx's prognistications on the falling rate of profit. These two things – emotion and reason- go inextricably hand in hand . One without the other, as I said, is utterly uselessYou say:The Socialist Party will soon enough find more than enough “anger, emotion, etc.” in its support, involuntarily out of the nature of capitalism. It has no need to foment it in order to create socialists."Foment" means to instigate or stir up. Foment is, I think, the wrong word because it implies that the anger is not there to begin with but has to be artifically induced by socialist propagandists which, of course, is nonsense. "Express" would be a more appropriate. We should be tapping into the anger both we and our fellow workers feel. If socialist propganda means any thing it means helping to sharpen the focus of workers' anger and directing it against the system itself rather than against immigrants or politicians or other nations or whatever. It certainly does not mean disassociating ourselves from such anger in order to sustain the illusion that we are somehow objective, value-free "scientific" socialists. Cue for L Bird methinks You also say: The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation. Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card. Not insipid ethics.I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. How does sticking to our "rational case for socialism" constitute a "moral trump card"? Morality, if it means anything at all, is based on an altruistic concern for the wellbeing of others; it is essentially other-oriented. Nor am i clear about what lies behind your implied distinction between morality (which you seem to endorse) and ethics (which you find "insipid"). I suppose you have in mind the notion that ethics is about the theory whereas morality is about the practice, yes? In any event, I endorse and enthusiastically recommend to you, the notion of a "proletarian ethics" which is a form of "ethical particularism" (as opposed to the "ethical universalism" of philosophers like Kant). I don't really see how the socialist case cannot but embrace a proletarian ethics; it is implied in the very appeal to working class unity. The argument that the case for socialism is based on nothing more than "self interest" strikes me as absolutely ridiculous. That is not an argument for socialism at all but, in the final analysis, for the amoralism of a completely atomised market economy in which each pursue their own separate and selfish interests. It thus reinforces "actually existing capitalism" Self interest has a place in the case for socialism but alongside, and not at the expense of, our socialist and moral concern for the wellbeing of our fellow workers. If the only thing that concerns you is what is in your own self interest then why bother trying to achieve a socialist society? It would be preferable from your point of view to divert all your energies into enriching yourself at the expense of everyone else in the here and now, quite frankly
twc wrote:No, that was not the peeved miserable point Alan was making.He knows precisely what I mean, even if you don’t.In that case, would you care to outline what that "peeved" and "miserable" point was that Alan was supposedly making. It seems to me that the point he was making was a pretty reasonable one and your reaction to it was both overly cantankerous and irrational
Having attacked Alan for being "cantankerous " and "irrational" – the words "pot" and kettle" spring to mind – note the "passion, anger, righteous outrage" with which TWC himself seeks to condemn precisely these qualities that Alan (correctly) sees as being integral to a socialist outlook. Nope, I fully and wholeheartedly side with Alan in this dispute. Of course a clearly thought out rational argument is essential to the struggle to establish socialism. But so too is a burning sense of outrage at what capitalism does to us. One without the other is useless Everyone here – barring TWC it would seem – would, I imagine, understand that this was the point that Alan was really making. Sorry TWC but your post is way way over the top and you should know it.
LBird wrote:The problem originated with Engels, and was carried forward by the Second International, and Lenin.L Bird,How would this quote support your thesis? Correct me if Im wrong but Engel's repudiation of a contrast between mind and matter sounds a bit like your idealism-materialism, no?Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly…. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will humanity not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity (Frederick Engels 1876 The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man)
