[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I always supposed the answer is the same aswhat would happen when (as is much more likely) socialists gain control of local authorities: we democratise administration, use resources available to make concrete plans for how production for use could be administered, and promote socialism generally.  Such local administration to go on (under a sort of capitalist basis) until the worldwide movement is ready to make to global change.

 So just to be clear – you are saying in effect that a socialist administration  would take over the running of capitalism until such time as the socialist movement everywhere had captured political power and socialism could be introduced simultaneously on a worldwide basis.  Is that right? This is of course precisely the argument that was put forward by the left communist i was debating with who contended that a dictatorship of the proletariat had to be set up in whichever part of the world a socialist movement came to power first which would  effectively have  to wait till all other parts of the world had similarly seen socialist movements likewise come to power.  By default and of necessity such a DOTP would have to operate capitalism I argue to the contrary that this would be a disastrous error.  It would result inevitably in substitutionism as the socialist administration sought to grapple with the contradictions of trying to run capitalism  (which can only be run in the interests of capital ) while at the same time  claiming to represent the interests of the workers A far better approach in my view would be to introduce a circumscribed or modified version of genuine socialism with a mix of  free access and rationing but scrap capitalism and class ownership completely The template to be used in this instance is not what would happen if socialists were to capture local authorities,   as opposed to state power,  but rather the kind of model set out in the old Guildford branch circular “The Road to Socialism”. (1987) That circular proposed that the stronger the movement for socialism the greater the elbow room available to socialists and  the greater the possibility of circumventing and replacing the market completely.  The capture of state power at the national level represents a watershed possibility of moving over to full socialism with the only difference being that external relations with residual capitalist states would still have to take done in  some non socialist form  such as barter deals as I suggested above Gaining control of local authorities is of a quite different order to  capturing power at the state level precisely for the reason that the former is subservient to and derivative from, power exercised ar the latter level.  The nation state on the other hand excepting of course  where it falls under the limited domain of international treaties, is the ultimate source of political power and the means by which the capitalist system is politically entrenched via electoral choice and the expression of the so called will of the people.  So i it makes sense to talk of socialism only being introduced when power at the national level has been democratically captured and not at the level of mere local authorities The problem is you seem to want to continue with capitalism until all national state have been politically captured by socialists so that socialism  can be introduced simultaneously throughout the world. I say that is not possible

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I’ve disagreed with Robin before about this ‘extended gift’ trope, so far as I am concerned, we are about breaking the link between labour and return outright.  In our workplaces, right now, we don’t treat it as a gift economy.  We co-operate (laterally) with our colleagues to get work done: we approach the person whose task is designated or who can achieve an end, and ask them to do things.This is faintly relevant to the main topic under consideration.  In hunter gatherer tribes, so I believe, a general rule operates called the Own Kill Rule (or some variations on it).The principle is, if you kill it, you don’t get to eat it.  Maybe hunter gatherers are just immoral in completely repudiating Lockean property principles.  Of course, this works because you get to eat what others kill (either through a name relationship, or through clan connections).  but that’s not a gift, because, you don’t have a choice, that’s just the arrangement, and it works because it’s in everyone’s generalised interest to keep the system going, the first to defect will be the loser. 

 I’m not quite sure what you are on about here. ” Breaking the link between labour and return outright ” in the sense that there is no quid pro quo set up is precisely what is meant by “generalised reciprocity”.  It is a generalized or diffused sense of  moral obligation that obtains between you as an individual and the society or collectivity in which you exist.  You depend on society and society depends on you and others like you and so what we as individuals are enabled to take from society for our own needs goes with the understanding that we ought also to make some contribution to the production of these things in the first place.  . It is a moral transaction rather than economic transaction as such The examples you give confirm rather than refute  what I am saying.  To say that the hunter gatherer has no choice but to refrain from eating what he kills so that the group as a whole can benefit  (of which he is a part) and therefore is “not a gift” , is to misconstrue completely what is meant by a gift economy in the first place.  The whole point of  a gift economy is the sense of moral obligation that is built into it that induces you to reciprocate – to put back something into society what you have taken out of it. To say that you are under a moral obligation is precisely  to denote a lack of choice that is implicit in the gift relationship ( or at least ” lack of choice”  in relative terms since the Hunter-gatherer  can always choose to eat his kill but it comes at a cost of incurring  the wrath of the group).  Its the same with Xmas gifts. Someone one gives you a gift and you feel obliged to buy something in  return.  Does the fact that you feel obliged to do so make it any the less a gift?  Of course notThis is actually – ironically – one of the strongest arguments against the human nature argument raised by people like Fabian on this list,  and the absurd claim that people are naturally indolent and need to be induced to work by  means of monetary incentives. Thats nonsense anyway  since most actual work that is carried out today even under capitalism is unpaid work outside of the market economy  (which is by no mean limited to the domestic household economy BTW)  

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

 Morality is a social construct. It has no fundamental truth other than what the individual assigns to it. The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law. The individual can have a view of morality seprerate from that of the state but more or less bound to the state’s definition of right and wrong, which in most cases supercedes their own interests in the favour of the ruling classes interests. Either way it’s an idealistic approach which we are taught.

Of course morality is a “social construct”.  That’s not the point though, is it?  I’m not denying morality adapts to changing material conditions. The point that I am making is quite  different.  I’m not so much concerned with the content of morality – the particular notion of  what is or is not morally acceptable = as with the fact of morality itself   You are constantly confusing these two things. Human beings are social animals and there is no such a thing as a society that does not have some kind of code of behaviour. In short,  a morality. – whatever form that may take,   If you think there is such thing as an amoral  society then show me the evidence.  It would be a truly remarkable find in the world of anthropological researchYour claim that The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law is I’m afraid, complete bollocks.   Are  you seriously trying to suggest here that pre-state societies – like hunter gatherer band societies had no sense of morality, no code of conduct which differentiates between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable behaviour? .Conflict resolution in such societies admittedly tended to be radically decentralised involving often only the affected parties but in even the most extreme cases it is easily possible to show social mechanisms loke socialisation  for the conveyance of group opinion on the morality of certain acts such as manslaughter and often as not the parties involved in a dispute would key into group motions of morality to justify their own stance.  The group opinionis always in the background But never mind pre=state societies – what about the post state society we call communism/socialism? You claimed earlier that the quite from Engels in Anti Durhring lent support to your position. However if you read on a little this is what Engels has to say which puts the matter beyond disputeWe have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life (my emphasis)

Ed wrote:

ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

Your position it seems to me is one based old fashioned 19th century positivism.  Things exist only if they can be apprehended through senses. Yes?   Of course by this token capitalism does not exist. Have you ever smelt tasted touched or even seen capitalism?  Of course not.  Capitalism is a construct just as morality is a construct  and therefore, I suppose,  “not real.”  The working class is not real either.  Nor society and I take it as a naive empiricist you would accept Mrs Thatcher’s claim that there is no such thing as a society only individuals and their familiesAnd yet, according to you, despite this thing called morality  not existing it is conspiratorially used by the ruling class as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”.  How something that is non existent can have such a discernable real -world effect on the “lower classes”  (assuming these exist too which by your empiricist logic dont seem to) is to put it mildly, baffling

[robbo203]

The quote from Questions of the Day gives good reasons why we can expect the growth of the socialist movement to be reasonably spatially even or balanced on a global basis,  Specifically,  it also hints at the pro-active potential of an organised global socialist movement to ensure such balanced growth occurs – presumably by such means as the  prioritisation of funding and propaganda in favour of those parts of the world that are lagging in that respect. What the quote does NOT address,  however,  is what happens when a socialist majority first democratically captures power somewhere in the world (as would have to be the case since it is inconceivable that this could happen everywhere at exactly the same time).  We have no way of knowing for sure but let us assume the time period between this happening  and the last residual capitalist state  turning socialist is a matter of,  say,  a decade or two (although  it is conceivable this process could speed up in the end due to the domino effect) . What happens then? There are two main questions to be answered in relation to the Initial  Socialist Region (ISR) hypothesis 1) What are the likely internal relations of the ISR? .  Can a socialist mode of production be truly instituted under these circumstances and what, if any, compromises would have to be made?  Do the arguments made against the Stalinist theory of socialism in one country apply in this case too?  Some  Left communists I have debated with contend that all that one could do in those circumstances is for the socialist working class to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and continue with capitalism in the guise of state capitalism until such time  as the working class everywhere has captured state power . Then  and only then, they contend,  can real socialism be introduced.  I think their argument is ridiculous and is a surefire recipe for substititionism and the emergence of a new ruling class since capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital. But still  – what is the SPGB response to this?  Would something like Marx’s lower phase of communism be necessary in this period 2) What are the likely relations between the ISR and the residual capitalist states?  The globalised nature of  much  modern production necessitates the continuance of material flows between these two areas at least for the a while. On what basis would these  material flows be coordinated and effected?.  Logically,  the only way I can see that happening is on the basis of barter deals since you could not organise trading relations on the basis of  monetary transactions when one partner in the trading transaction has abolished money as a means of exchange! However,  what consequences does the existence of barter deals have for the internal organisation the ISR?  .  Also, since one assumes that the borders between the ISR and the residual capitalist states would be relatively porous in the absence of a “socialist state” to defend them,   what consequences does this hold for the ISR and the residual capitalist states respectively?   Is it conceivable that this might encourage an inflow of parasitic free riders from the residual capitalist states to take advantage of the free access system operating in the ISR (if indeed such a system were to be operating there) without making a reciprocal  contribution. This cuts both ways though since the presence of an easily accessible ISR across the border would undermine markets within the residual capitalist state I do not believe these questions have ever really been effectively addressed by the SPGB . Or at least I’ve not come across any attempt to do so.   They need to be addressed because they present a truly formidable  array of  thorny problem  which cannot simply be brushed under the carpet.  I might add that the very fact that this is the case strengthens my belief – that on the “Road to Socialism” (and some here will know what Im alluding to), socialism itself has to be prefigured in some sense by the growth of socialistic type institutions such as intentional communities that strive to transcend the capitalist market relation as far as possible., Without the growth of such institutions,   informed by the growth of socialist consciousness  itself and commencing well before the democratic capture of state power as suchm  I cannot see how at least some of these problems that I have referred to above  can be effectively addressed,.  We need to develop within the womb capitalism the necessary practical institutions and practical orinentations  that anticipate and preempt the possibility of future failure that such problems could arguably bring about 

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

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. 

 Certainly I would agree that empathy,  though a necessary condition for morality, is not a sufficient condition. Morality as I said earlier, is  “other oriented” and presupposes that others have value in themselves and are not simply regarded as a means to your own ends (instrumentalism).  When someone inflicts pain on someone else we empathise with that person  – put ourselves in their shoes – and this forms the basis upon which it may develop into a moral point of view. Whether it develops into a moral point of view depends on  context, doesn’t it?  Of course, dislike of pain is not morality as such.  Morality is concerned with the social regulation of behavour.  Tripping over a stone and causing pain to my knee is not going to evoke a feeling of moral outrage. It might conceivably do if we knew someone had deliberately placed the stone there with the intention of causing harm but thats another matter. You ask me to prove the “objectivity of morality”.  Well surely you have experienced a sense of moral outrage yourself on occasions?  If someone – to use our above example  – maliciously placed a stone in your path and you tripped over it how would you react?  I can hear your thoughts now as I write – “the little bastard – wait till i get  my hands on him”  or ” this sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed!”  Is that not evidence enough? See, I’m not too sure what you mean when you talk about the “objectivity” of morality.  Feelings sentiments and values are subjective things aren’t they.? Some researchers have identified certain neurons in the brain which are called  mirror neurons  which they consider to be responsible for empathetic behavior and there is some suggestion that autistic people suffer from mirror neuron dysfunction.  But I don’t think mirror neurons can adequately account for the existence of morality and precisely for the reason you cite that  it changes with material conditions and class consciousness.  But note what you are acknowledging here is that “it” – morality – exists.  Human beings are social animals and there is no such thing as a society without social rules  It is these rules that is the stuff of a moral outlook – how we ought to behave with regard to one another.  These rules are influenced by the kind of society we live in but also by the kind of society we would like to live in and that is why you tend to get a clash of moral opinion  and why our overall pattern of moral opinion is subject to change. 

[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

[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

[robbo203]

It would perhaps  be helpful to think of a socialist society in terms of a gift economy – “from each according to his/her abilities to each according to his/her needs.  The dominant form of reciprocity in that case would be generalised reciprocity  (see for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28cultural_anthropology%29) Gift exchanges are fundamentally unlike market exchanges.  They are essentially moral transactions  – another reason why I consider the SPGB’s reluctance to recognize that its standpoint is in fact a moral one to be nonsensical.  The purpose of gift exchanges is to bind people together in ties of reciprocal obligation, not to separate individuals into atomistic economic actors  who perceive themselves to have separate and indeed competing interests .  Thus, the seller of a commodity wants as a high a price as possible while the buyer has the opposite interests.  With gift exchanges what is important is not so much what is being exchanged as the social bonding that results form  it With generalised recprocity the sense of moral obligation is diffused – or generalised.  If people take according to their needs without payment of any kind  – that is without any quid pro quo arrangement applying – then there is a generalized expectation that they should also contribute according to their needs.  How they do that is up to them.  Generalised reciprocity amounts to nothing more than a kind of background form of moral pressure on individuals which highlights the fact that we are all dependent on each other and that we all need to pull together to make society tickObviously if you have free access to foods and services there is no way in which an individual artisan say could start selling his or her product to the general population.  Priced goods would be no match for free goods in that respect and even if people had the means with which to buy priced goods why would they want to?  Why for that matter would the seller want to sell his or her goods when he or she could likewise get what he or she need for free from the communal distribution points I think the point that Fabian is getting at is that people should be able to do their own and dispose of their product as they chose. O have some sympathy this view but think it needs to be pointed out that this would apply to a very narrow range of goods which can be individually produced such as artisanal products or food from your kitchen garden etc etc .  The great bulk of goods produced are essentially produced by cooperative labour and cannot be disposed of in this way .  In fact the only way that makes any sense is to make such goods available to the general population via the communal distribution stores. However in the case of individually produced goods, I see no  problem with the idea of person X exchanging a bunch a carrots for a handcrafted wooden utensil from person Y.  This is not generalised reciprocity but balanced or symmetrical reciprocity since it is directed at specific individuals    but it could certainly supplement the latter in a socialist society .  Its not strictly barter  because again the motivation is different . – it is not so much carried out in order to obtain a bunch of carrots or alternatively a wooden utensil.  These things re almost incidental to the process which is to solidify and cement a relationship between X and Y.

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

 

robbo203 wrote:

Morality does not have to be bourgeois morality.  The morality of the socialist movement is a proletarian morality. The bourgeoisie don’t have a  monopoly on “morality” but this is what we are encouraged to believe it would seem.

This is what was actually said; nowhere does the statement exclude the possibility of elements of a proletarian morality coming into play.

 This is muddled and contradictory.  If being ” indignant”  means “elements of a proletarian morality coming into play ” then why say the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material interests alone?   Why not just come with it straightforwardly and admit that the case for socialism is based BOTH on a moral repugnance towards capitalism AND on what is perceived to be the material interests of the working class? This pussyfooting around the notion of morality is, as far as I’m convinced, baggage from the long tradition that has infected the socialist movement from the beginning with its emphasis on the fact-value distinction and its delusional tendencies towards scientism 

gnome wrote:

However, the issue of Marx and morality poses a conundrum. On reading Marx’s works at all periods of his life, there appears to be the strongest possible distaste towards bourgeois capitalist society, and an undoubted endorsement of future communist society. Yet the terms of this antipathy and endorsement are far from clear. Despite expectations, Marx never says that capitalism is unjust. Neither does he say that communism would be a just form of society. In fact he takes pains to distance himself from those who engage in a discourse of justice, and makes a conscious attempt to exclude direct moral commentary in his own works.The initial argument that Marx must have thought that capitalism is unjust is based on the observation that Marx argued that all capitalist profit is ultimately derived from the exploitation of the worker. Capitalism’s dirty secret is that it is not a realm of harmony and mutual benefit but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another. How could this fail to be unjust? Yet it is notable that Marx never concludes this, and in Capital he goes as far as to say that such exchange is “by no means an injustice”.

  Yes but he also in “Capital ” compares this process of exploitation to the “age old activity of the conqueror who buys commodities from conquered with the money he has stolen from them”  and talks of the economic surplus having been “embezzled” from the worker.  How does one square that with the claim that there is no injustice involved?The plain fact of the matter was that Marx writings on the matter of morality were contradictory. I agree with  Alvin Gouldner when he refers to what he calls the “two marxisms” – Scientific Marxism and Critical Marxism  (A Giddens,  Social Theory and Modern Sociology,1987, Polity Press Cambridge  p.256-262 ) which, in his view, are fundamentally irreconcilable. 

gnome wrote:

Furthermore, again according to Marx, “in any society the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class” (The German Ideology – 1846) , which inescapably include precepts of morality.

 Which is precisely why resistance to the ideas of a ruling class must  inescapably include precepts of morality. that run counter to their precepts.

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Socialists are indignant about the effects of capitalism on people and the environment. However, the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material class interests. Marxism reveals, as no other theory can, how capitalism came into being, what its dynamics are, why it must exploit and what it must be replaced with. Morality does not exist in a timeless social and economic vacuum; the current (basically liberal) notions of rights, obligations, justice, etc. misrepresent the exploitative social relations of capitalism and are inappropriate in the struggle for socialism. In all societies there must be rules of conduct or the society would fall to pieces. In a socialist society, when it has been established, there will be rules of conduct in harmony with its social basis. The moral outlook will be the custom, based on voluntary co-operation with common ownership and democratic control of the means of life.

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 suspect all this nonsense about socialism having nothing to do with morality stems from an old fashioned  historical attachment of some socialists to a  deluded scientism and the pretension to being  value-free in one’s analysis of capitalism – so called “scientific materialism”.  It goes back to 19th century positivism, and has been a blight on the socialist movement ever since. Marx ironically in his early writings regarded the fact-value distinction as a symptom of human alienation and so it is. In his “1844 Manuscripts”, he contended   that it “stems from the very nature of estrangement that each sphere applies to men a different and opposite yardstick—ethics one and political economy another.”Anyone who thinks they can  be in the business of changing society without this engaging or challenging the kind  of values people hold is seriously misinformed 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” 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. On the face of it, the reason why some socialists reject the notion of morality is contained in this sentence above Morality does not exist in a timeless social and economic vacuum; the current (basically liberal) notions of rights, obligations, justice, etc. misrepresent the exploitative social relations of capitalism and are inappropriate in the struggle for socialism But who says morality exists in a timeless social vacuum?  This  is a complete straw argument. Not only that,  it is one that is completely contradicted by the following sentence which shows  morality not to be timeless afterall : In a socialist society, when it has been established, there will be rules of conduct in harmony with its social basis. The moral outlook will be the custom, based on voluntary co-operation with common ownership and democratic control of the means of life. Implied in this is the idea  that morality far from being “timeless”  is eminently adaptable according to the kind of society you live in. Well,  if that is the case why then are we not  also talking about the movement to establish socialism likewise adapting morality accordingly in line with  that objective – in other words, accepting that the case for socialism is also in part a moral one?   Morality does not have to be bourgeois morality.  The morality of the socialist movement is a proletarian morality. The bourgeosie dont have a  monopoly on “morality” but this is what we are encouraged to believe it would seem. Oddly enough Engels hinted at the kind of position I’m advocating here in his Anti DuhringAnd 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).

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Perhaps I’m nitpicking

Yes you are!

Quote:

I was saying that determinism implies more than just causality.  It also implies directionality. – some things are causal agents; other things are effects – and hierarchy – some things are more determining than others, etc. So a non deterministic model is not necessarily one that is a-causal.  It’s the pattern of causality that makes it deterministic…

I don’t know where you’re getting this definition from. None that I’ve came across define it so narrowly, or with so many caveats. Broadly speaking it just means “the doctrine that every event has a cause”.But I’m getting the feeling this discussion has passed it’s usefulness now…

 When people refer to “determinism”,  as when they ascribe to Marx, say,  (as some do)  the idea of “technological determinism”,  they usually mean by this that some aspect of reality is being adduced – in this case the  technological infrastructure of a given society –  to account for certain other aspects of that society.  This is the point that I am getting and, incidentally,  its  not a particularly narrow definition of determinism either even if it is not quite as wide as yours.    Saying that “every event has a cause” is indeed a kind of generalised definition of “determinism” but a rather anaemic one in my view. Its not particularly meaningful or useful in the same way that if the only colour we could see was red  (or different shades of red) then “red” would not be particular meaningful eitherHowever,  in the context that we are talking about, we are not trying to explain small discrete “events” but, rather, large scale patterns such as a  certain belief system of types or social institutions.  Do such things have some single cause as might be said of “an event”?  When you try to claim that they have then it is in this sense that you might reasonably be called a “determinist.”  It is a form of determinism based on reductionism in which the causal process may be grossly oversimplified and is often viewed as one way process.  There is something about that here if you go to this link:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Factor_priority.  You can see there are a number of different kinds of “determinisms” that come under this headingI find it difficult to believe that you have not come across this particular usage.   The SPGB, for instance sometimes criticises biological or genetic determinism which tries to explain human behavior in terms of genetic endowment .  When the party does this it is not attacking  the idea that “events have a cause” but is attacking what it sees as a simplifcation of reality –  the view that human behaviour is “determined” by our  genes – genetic determinismChanging the subject slightly, there is also something called called “soft determinism” or compatibilism which argues  that free will and determinism are compatible.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)  I guess that would make me a compatibilist in that case!  The notion that we have no free will whatsoever is just as ridiculous as the notion that we have absolute free will, in my view.   The truth lies somewhere in between…..

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But the fact that you cannot produce direct empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness does not mean it does not exist.  This is problem with positivism , it precludes all other sorts of knowledge and epistemological approaches such as rationalism and phenomenology

This is not what I said “Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that.” Can you not read?

 I’m not quite sure what you are on about.  I was referring directly to Harris’ comment as follows:The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience Perhaps I’m nitpicking but if Harris had qualifed his statement  by saying there is no emprical evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world I might have been happier 

DJP wrote:

Quote:

The example it gives of such a cascading event is the 3 domino pieces. Push one and it knocks over the other which knocks over  the final piece.  There is in other words a sense of directionality which is implied in the very idea of a “cascading” event.  A deterministic system implies more than just the universality of causality. It implies a hierarchy or a sense of temporal priority. So the third domino piece tippling over can  be explained by the first domino piece toppling over which affects the second and thus the third.  However the third cannot account for the first toppling over.  To that extent we have a one way deterministic account.

Yes that is because in the example we are moving forward in time, spooky hey? That surely never happens in real life?Again your not reading the whole article and quoting bits out of context, look at the other examples given for deterministic systems. Would you be happier if instead of “determinism” I used the word “causality”?

 What article are you talking about?  The Harris article or the Wiki article? I was referring to the latter which you linked to to substantiate your definition of determinism.  I was saying that determinism implies more than just causality.  It also implies directionality. – some things are causal agents; other things are effects – and hierarchy – some things are more determining than others, etc. So a non deterministic model is not necessarily one that is a-causal.  It’s the pattern of causality that makes it deterministic…

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent.  For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience.

 This point is explained further in the footnote. Has anyone ever held and photographed an intent or a feeling? We might be able to view a brain scan of someone intending or feeling something but this tells us nothing of what the actual experience is like.

 But the fact that you cannot produce direct empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness does not mean it does not exist.  This is problem with positivism , it precludes all other sorts of knowledge and epistemological approaches such as rationalism and phenomenology For instance,  on this basis I could just as easily retort that economic classes in a Marxian sense do not exist.  You cannot photograph or empirically capture in some way the essence of an economic class and yet as socialists we are certain that economic classes exist.  Why? My argument is that everything that Harris has to say about about physical existence presupposes his consciousness of it. Even the very act of articulating a long and thoughtful argument to show that there is no evidence for the existence of consciousness is itself evidence for the existence of consciousness 

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

and this Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves.So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand,  there no evidence for consciousness  and on the other  that there are “signs” of consciousness.  Figure that one out if you will….

The only evidence for consciousness is consciousness itself but as consciousness is something that can only be experienced privately it seems hard to know how science can objectively observe it.

 But  this is precisely why I stress the limits of scientific understanding and the risk of “scientism”. It is also why I feel uncomfortable about the fetishisation of “scientific materialism”  – as if science can explain everything. It cant. Science is an extremely  useful tool to aid understanding but it is not the be all and end all.  Its also why I dont like the term scientific socialism,.  Apart from anything else socialism is also a question of values

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. So what is Harris trying to say here?  If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would  be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of  this consciousness?  There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2)  that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3)  that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)

Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that. But rejects the ego as a fiction.You’re right he is committed to options 1 or 2 or maybe some other ones you haven’t thought of. His answer is probably “we don’t know” which at this moment in time would be the correct one.If you cannot admit the problems with emergence as an explanation of consciousness then that’s your problem not mine.There’s some good stuff of Harris’s site you should give it a read to get the full gist of his argument before prematurely accusing him of being inconsistent.

 Yes sure I will do some more reading of Harris but logically speaking it seems to me that he can hardly deny that consciousness exists – denial would itself constitute proof of consciousness – in which case I can only  logically think that one of the 3 options I outlined above must be the explanation. To me that is emergence theory.  the alternative is creationism or the mystical idea that consciousness has always existed. Of course there are, and always will be,  “problems” with emergence as an explanation of consciousness. I’m not denying that – but that again points to the limits of scientific understanding.  We may never know how consciousness or mind appeared as an emergent property of the brain but we do know that it exists by inference and that it exerts downward causation for which there exists pretty solid indirect evidence of an empirical kind  – psychosomatic effects etc 

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else.  A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the former

Well I just checked and there’s nothing in the standard definition of a deterministic system which says that effects do not go on to be causes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy)The problem is not ‘determinism’ per se but ‘economic determinism’, ‘technological determinism’, ‘genetic determinism’ etc which take one factor as the sole explanation of others.

 No, the piece from Wikipedia is not saying what you are saying – at least as I interpret it  For example it says In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. The totality of these cascading events can theoretically show exactly how the system will exist at any moment in time. The example it gives of such a cascading event is the 3 domino pieces. Push one and it knocks over the other which knocks over  the final piece .  There is in other words a sense of directionality which is implied in the very idea of a “cascading” event.  A deterministic system implies more than just the universality of causality. It implies a hierarchy or a sense of temporal priority. So the third domino piece tippling over can  be explained by the first domino piece toppling over which affects the second and thus the third.  However the third cannot account for the first toppling over.  To that extent we have a one way deterministic account. Transferring this argument to a discussion of society and history  in general  you might have a crude deterministic model such as contained in Marx’s famous formulation that social being determines consciousness and not the other way round. Though this is a caricature of his thinking which was much more nuanced than that, it conforms to what I would call a deterministic model –  there is a one way movement of cause and effect. The thing to note is that this does not have to be absolute – it can be relative depending on how much weight you attach to the factor “social being” in comparison with consciousness”.  So it would still be possible to propose a relatively  deterministic model if you see consciousness having a pretty weak reciprocal influence on social being compared with the effect of the latter upon the consciousness itself

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

I don’t think anyone is denying this “downward causation” either. All I’m denying is that there can be causes that are not caused by something or something else.

  This is specifically not what is being said,  Neither Horgan nor myself would suggest anything to contrary.  The question is not whether there can be such a thing for which there can be no cause but rather what that cause is.  Can mind itself be a causal agency in the world? You would seem to accept that it can since you accept the reality of ” downward causation” 

DJP wrote:

Until yesterday I don’t think I had heard of Sam Harris. But the briefest look at his website shows that the final sentence of this is pure strawman. See this for example: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

John Horgan wrote:

But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world.”

 Again myself, or Sam Harris, do not deny that ideas have an influence in the world. The question is do minds somehow magically escape the world of causation? There is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest they do not. And if they do I have not seen an explanation of how they do this, but maybe I’ve missed something.Did you watch that video Robin?I’m not convinced that ’emergence’ is an adequate theory of how consciousness came into being anyhow, but I admit I need to look into the issue more.

Unfortunately I have no audio facility on my decrepit computer so there was no point in me watching the video.   I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent.  For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. and this Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand,  there no evidence for consciousness  and on the other  that there are “signs” of consciousness.  Figure that one out if you will…. There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. So what is Harris trying to say here?  If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would  be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of  this consciousness?  There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2)  that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3)  that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)  

DJP wrote:

 

robbo203 wrote:

It concerns me that there are Marxists who toy with the deterministic language of a teleological model of society and history.

No-ones suggesting a “theological model of society”. Teleological explanations explain things in the sense that things happen “in order to” do something. Deterministic explanations explain things in the sense that everything happens “because of” everything else. Clearly not the same thing. I am not a Marxist by the way!

 No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else.  A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the former This is fully compatible with a teleological view of history which in effects looks at this one way causal relationship between determining and determined aspects of the universe as working itself out over time.  So the claim that  “socialism in inevitable” implies that the development of  the economic base of capitalism has a built in or inexorable consequence of turning workers into socialists who in turn must necessarily introduce socialism.  In other words socialism comes about as a result of a lawlike process which can only have socialism as its outcome

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

STOP THINKING OF DOLPHINS RIGHT NOW!We do not choose what comes into our consciousness, and neither are we aware of, or choose, the myriad of factors that contribute into us making a choice. What other things did you think about when you read this sentence? Did you choose them?Am I responsible for my actions? On the deepest level, no. I didn’t create the circumstances that gave rise to my being. On a practical level, yes. People are social animals and as social animals it is advantageous to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. Men make their own history but under conditions not of their choosing, but it is also under conditions not of their choosing that men are made.Mind states are not reductable to brain states, I agree. But I’m not sure how “Mind must then be seen as having a degree of autonomy in its own right” necessarily follows. The non-reductive things are things like intentionality “aboutness” and phenomenological experiences i.e. the ‘what it is like’-ness of a mental state. It seems difficult as to how you’d capture these in a physical description of the brain. Non-reductivness does not mean that mind states are free from the influence of physical laws.

 Nobody -leastways, not me – is saying mind states are free from the influence of physical laws. The bio- chemistry of the brain can obviously have mental and behavioural effects.  For example, the rate at which serotonin and acetylcholine is released through biochemical activity in the brain can affect one’s mental state and give rise to mood disorders such as depression which, in turn, can be regulated by medication.  But, even so, the mind is more than the brain upon which it depends.  The mind can effect the brain , can exert “downward causation” on the brain as I tried to show earlier In precisely the same way society depends on empirical  individuals but exerts “downward causation” on individuals.  This does not mean that society exists as something ontologically separate from individuals  (any more than the mind exists separately from the brain). But  it does mean that society cannot be explained simply in terms of psychological facts  or “human nature” expressed in individuals.  This is so basic to a Marxist theory of history and society that I cannot see how anybody claiming to be a Marxist can deny it. Emergence theory, I suggest,  is the paradigm within which a sound Marxian approach to things can  operate  but it means abandoning once and for all any kind of totalistic  or deterministic mode of explanation in favour of an interactive approach. It means recognising that history is creative  process as much as a determined one. It means acknowledging that we can choose  and that we do have free will but it is not absolute free will; it is constrainedI very much agree with the passage from the article to which OGW provides a link:Here’s the difference. The man with a tumor has no choice but to do what he does. I do have choices, which I make all the time. Yes, my choices are constrained, by the laws of physics, my genetic inheritance, upbringing and education, the social, cultural, political, and intellectual context of my existence. And as Harris keeps pointing out, I didn’t choose to be born into this universe, to my parents, in this nation, at this time. I don’t choose to grow old and die.But just because my choices are limited doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just because I don’t have absolute freedom doesn’t mean I have no freedom at all. Saying that free will doesn’t exist because it isn’t absolutely free is like saying truth doesn’t exist because we can’t achieve absolute, perfect knowledge.Harris keeps insisting that because all our choices have prior causes, they are not free; they are determined. Of course all our choices are caused. No free-will proponent I know claims otherwise. The question is how are they caused? Harris seems to think that all causes are ultimately physical, and that to hold otherwise puts you in the company of believers in ghosts, souls, gods and other supernatural nonsense.But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world. This perfectly sums up my own position. If we cannot choose as conscious beings and so exert a cause ourselves  then we are left with a fatalistic teleological view of the universe in which the future is already decided and lies latent within the configuration of forces that constitute the present.  Actually, I would maintain that this view – because it surrenders the future to what has gone on in the past –  is the most hyper-idealistic and mystical view imaginable.  We are rendered completely at the mercy of some unimaginably vast objective mechanism in which everything is predetermined and worked out in advance.  FATE has replaced God in this schema or perhaps it might just be an expression of God’s “will” It concerns me that there are Marxists who toy with the deterministic language of a teleogical model of society and history.  Though Marx explicitly rejected teleology,  there are some passages in his writings that skirt perilously close to a teleological viewpoint –  like the famous one about social being determining consciousness rather than consciousness determining being – as if consciousness and social being could ever be separated in the first place and as if causality in this case could be demonstrated  in the manner in which one billiard ball impacts upon another and “causes” the latter to move in a given direction and with a given velocity The attempt to dismiss free will,  human intentionality and human creativity as  mere idealism is utterly misplaced and is itself a form of hyper-idealism.  It reduces us to the status of tiny cogs in a  vast machine whose purpose is inpenetrable to our mortal minds Freedom and necessity are both ONLY understandable in relation  to each other and to that extent I go along with the quote from Engels that you provide.   But I still cannot escape the niggling feeling that what is being suggested is  that freedom  (free will  , human creatively) is some kind of by-product of “objective necessity” and if this is the case then this is to misconceive the relation between them.  The one is never separate from the other  in the same way that consciousness is never separate from social being and so cannot be fully explained – or determined –  in terms of that latterWe are always free to choose even if  we are constrained in what we choose.  We should acknowlege and celebrate this fact because the self emancipation of the working class depends upon us freely choosing to get rid of capitalism and establish socialism

[Author]

Posts