[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are still not getting the point, EdI’m not disputing that what people take to be  moral truths are variable, adaptable and historically contingent  . Of course there is no right or wrong in that absolutist timeless sense. What is right in one circumstance may very well be wrong in another and vice versa- although the American anthropologist  Donald Brown has noted in his work on “human universals” that there are certain things, such a bias favoring kin over unrelated strangers, which are culturally invariant.  Thus “charity begins at home” or something like that might perhaps be an example of the kind of moral truth you might be looking for

That’s a big concession because if there is no universal right and wrong then no moral judgments are true. I must say I am surprised that you chose nepotism as your example of a moral truth.. Rather than it being a moral choice to favour ones offspring could this not be a case of perceived best interests? I mean it’s hardly objective, half the people I grew up with were being kicked out of their family homes while they were still at school. Dumped on social services at worst or put up by friends families if they were lucky. There’s also the rather ghoulish tendency of some to look forward to relatives dying due to the inheritance.

  Even if  there were no timeless absolute moral truths in the sense of being operative in every kind of society we have ever known  – and as I say, some people like Brown would question this –  this does not mean there are not relative moral truths applying to particular societies at particular times.  You are using the word “truth” in an absolutist sense which is absurd.  So you say if there is no universal right and wrong then no moral judgments are true.  But that’s not the case.  A moral truth is not like an empirical truth and cannot be inferred from the latter as Hume contended (the Is-Ought problem).  What might be true for you might not be true for someone else.  But it is still true for you!  So someone might find eating meat morally reprehensible , someone else might find it perfectly natural.  For each of them this is their truthOn nepotism, or kin selection as it is called in the literature, here we have a classic case where both self interest AND altruism is apparent.  It is not simply a case of perceived self interest on its own as you claim. That’s absurd when you think about it.  You as an individual are relating to someone else – your child, brother, parent or whatever –  on the basis that they have value in themselves.  This is a moral choice without question.  A person who dives into a raging river with no concern for her own safety to save her drowning child is acting on a deep rooted moral impulse. If it were simply a case of self interest as you claim, she would want to preserve her life and not risk losing it.  As Dawkins put it in his book The Selfish Gene, while the replication of your own genes requires that you survive and pass these on to your offspring, genes themselves have no motivation – that is an anthropomorphism – and it would be misleading to transfer the metaphor of the selfish gene to conscious sentient organisms like human beings who are fully capable of psychological altruism as well as psychological egoism 

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

However for the purpose if this argument this is not really what interests me.  What interests me is the plain and deniable fact that people always and everywhere have had some notion of what is right and what is wrong –  irrespective of what these notions may mean in practice. I repeat – there is no such  thing as a society that lacks some notion of morality whatever that notion may be.. Nor could there ever be.  Living in society involves conforming to certain rules about one ought to do or not do do .    What these rules are of course depends on the society in question but all societies without exception have such rules -a code of behavior.  It is this code of behavior that we are talking about when we refer to “morality”

But you’ve just said that there is no right or wrong. I see this as a contradiction or not following through with the logical conclusion. If there is no moral truth then all moral judgments are based on fallacies. What people do claim are their morals amount to no more than asserting an opinion.”murder is wrong” this is a subjective statement presented as fact by a person who is presupposing that there is a moral truth to murder being wrong. It is however based on a fallacy and so must be incorrect. All the statement is really saying is “I don’t like murder so don’t do it”. Now it may be a true statement for material reasons that people should not kill each other but the way it is presented makes it a fallacy. This also means that in the context of moral socialists (which I think was your original point a few pages back) that people can be motivated to be socialists on moral grounds (and in my experience the vast majority of socialists are). However, that motivation is not based on a material position it’s based on a fallacy. So they are correct but for the wrong reasons. They can of course correct this by learning socialism from a scientific perspective..

 I did not say there was no right or wrong. I said there was (apparently) no absolute notion of what is right or wrong. People will fashion their notion of right or wrong to fit their circumstances  but they will always have some notion of right or wrong whatever that may be.  THAT is what is universal – not the actual content of their moral beliefs.  And this will apply also to  people living in a socialist society. There is simply no “fallacy” involved in the way you suggest ,behind the claim that saying murder is wrong is a moral truth.  It most certainly is a moral truth for the person uttering such a claim . You assert that all the statement “murder is wrong” is really saying is “I don’t like murder so don’t do it”.  Well hardly – surely you can see it is saying rather more than something like “I feel squeamish at the sight of blood when the murderer plunges his knife into chest of his victim so please don’t do it front of me”. It is saying that the victim has a life that has value and that it is outrageous that he or she should forfeit that life at the hands of a murderer. The injunction “don’t do it” is intended as a general rule which applies to everyone including those unknown to the individual making this statementOn the face of it your position seems to one of “psychological egoism” in which everything is viewed through the prism of what is perceived to be in the interest of the one’s self. Every act even the most altruistic act such as the willingness to lay down one’s life for someone else is perceived to be fundamentally self interested.  This is what James Rachels has dubbed the egoistic “strategy of redefining motives” (The Elements of Moral Philosophy)  and it is deeply flawed for all sorts of reasons.  I might add that I find it very ironic that a socialist  should be espousing such an individualistic viewpoint. I thought socialism was predicated on the assumption of the social nature of human beings

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are no different.  Let me ask you –  would you regard, say, deliberately running over an old lady crossing the street is a matter of complete indifference?  Of course you wouldn’t.   In fact even if you ran over the old lady by accident you would still feel completely gutted and, quite likely, overcome by a sense of guilt that might last a lifetime even though strictly speaking you may not have been to blame at all. That is, of course, unless you were a clinically diagnosed as a sociopath  But why would you feel like this? The reason is that for you that old lady has value in herself.

This presupposes that the old lady is not Margaret Thatcher. If it were I don’t think I’d feel guilty and I’d probably never have to buy another drink for the rest of my life. So no I’d be quite pleased in certain circumstances. But you also presuppose that I am acting in an irrational way. For what reason am I attempting to run down this old lady? Surely I must have a reason for my actions based on material reality rather than behaving in a completely random manner. And if it were an accident then it would be irrational to proportion blame on myself since by the fact of it being accidental.

Yes of course it would be “irrational” to feel culpable for running over the old lady by accident but that’s the whole point, surely? . People are both rational and irrational; we are not just cold calculating machines assessing the world around us in terms of our own self interest.  The normal reaction to running over an old lady by accident would be one of horror and guilt. All sorts of thoughts  would go through one’s head  like  “If only I had stopped off at the newsagents a minute earlier this might not have happened”.  This is how real people think in real life.  Of course they will also try to rationalize what  happened too.  But whether they feel guilty or not the point is they will definitely not feel indifferent unless they are some clinically diagnosed sociopath.  And why is that?  To say that it is simply a case of you not liking  the idea of an old lady being run over is obviously trite. Its more than this surely. It is because the old lady is perceived to have value in herself. This is the basis of all moral thinking- that others matter and not just ourselves.  Group existence requires it and there is growing body of opinion in the world of evolutionary pstchology which argues that group selection  (which Darwin endorsed) may in fact be a reality.  In other words a capacity for moral thinking – like a capacity for language –  might be hardwired into our very nature

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

This is what morality is about. It is about our relationship with other people who we care about,  who we see as having value in themselves and not simply as a means to our own selfish ends.  Who those people are who we care about will, of course, vary from society. to society. A nationalist might morally identify with her nation and the citizens who comprise it but not the citizens of some other nation.  A gang member will morally identify the members of his gang  but happily kick the shit out of someone from some other gang.  Minimally, almost everyone cares about and morally identifies with their family and close relativesIn this sense there is no escaping the moral impulse and it is absolutely delusional to think that you can. Human beings are moral animals because they are social animals. PeriodAre you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses

So what you are calling morality I call acting in perceived self interest. Now when I said self interest before you started thinking ZOMG Stirner, Rand, Individualism this must be evil. However as we are indeed social animals our interests are linked and cannot be separated. If something negatively affects one of us it can have far wider implications affecting all of us. So it is in our best interests to prevent harm and negative impacts on one another even if it does not affect us directly. However, as I feel I’ve demonstrated many times morality itself is an empty phrase with no meaning based in reality. So people may act in their best interests and say it’s a moral act but as I said the action may be correct but not for the right reasons. The real reason they are doing something is due to their own perceived self interest.Moral Nihilism is simply saying that morals don’t exist and explaining why. It’s not promoting a view where everyone should go out and murder each other.

 Morality is not about perceived self interest.  This is Randianism pure and simple . Rand would not disagree with a single word you have written thus far and would endorse your claim about your interests being linked with the interests of others and this being a reason for you to cooperate with them  – because they serve your own selfish ends.  Actually no –  even Rand wouldn’t go quite as far as you since although she utterly rejected the  Kantian idea of a moral duty she did nevertheless concede that other have some value in themselves but this value could never supersede ones own worth  (see her writing on the subject of benevolence)If you feel you have “demonstrated many times morality itself is an empty phrase with no meaning based in reality” this is because you yourself have drained it of meaning . The real reason people are doing something according to you is not because they feel under some kind of moral compulsion to do it but because it is due to their own perceived self interest.  So a volunteer who rushes into burning house without a seconds thought to save the life of stranger is doing this out his perceived interest and not out of any sense of moral compulsion, huh? Come off it, Ed . You must know this is ridiculous argument.And, again,  I put it  to you – if your perceived self interest is all that motivates you  – and note I’m not saying self interest is not a source of motivation and that it does not have a role to play  – why not strive to become a capitalist or simply a better paid worker?.  Why not become a scab when your workplace goes on strike because obviously it is in your perceived self interest that you should continue getting paid while others are striking and, indeed, you might even get a leg up on the career ladder later on as a result by a grateful management.  How is advocating socialism in your perceived self interest when we are still a million miles from socialism and when you could be utilising all that energy to advancing your “perceived self interests in the here and now much more effectively and for a much bigger ” return”The truth of the matter is that there is much more to life than your  “perceived self interest” and you as a socialist, of all people, should know that

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

“Are you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their  members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses”

I will not be against rape of a ten year old girl because of some idea that it is morally wrong or a ‘sin’ I will be against rape because it is pain that I feel, empathy. I do not want to be raped! Not because of an inbuilt ‘morality’ or because of the ten commandments! Preventing the rape of children is in our genes. Self preservation, survival. Is it ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ to be hungry? Or to allow a 10 year old child to go hungry? Hunger can kill!

Firstly, morality is not necessarily linked with religion at all.  So the notion of  “sin” is irrelevant to this discussion.  Most atheists I know of are extremely morally sensitive individuals Secondly, the issue is not whether you don’t want to be raped because it is painful.  The issue is precisely that someone else is being raped and you obviously disapprove of it.  Morality as I said is  an other-oriented disposition and one way or another , the disapproval you evince towards someone else being raped is  a moral response.  You regard it as morally unacceptable.  Why not simply call a spade a spade?   I cannot understand why some socialists pussyfoot around the word morality as if even to utter it is to condemn yourself  in the venerable comnpany of  ..ahem… “scientifc materialists” who have no truck with such “idealist” nonsense   Whether your response is “inbuilt” or not is neither here nor there and I’m not quite sure what you mean by that anyway though I imagine you mean “genetically determined”. I doubt that it is but what cannot be doubted is that it is a moral response that is being demonstrated by your display of moral disapprobation towards the act of raping a ten year old child

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Probably there would be a move towards to temporary autarky, minimalising international barter.  

 Yes I think this is correct  and it is precisely why I would want to link this whole problematique of what  might happen to our hypothetical ISR  with the strategy of building up from the ground level now  a network of socialist inspired intentional communities that seek as far as possible to break with the capitalist  cash nexus.  The bigger the political movement for socialism,  the greater the elbow room there would be for such institutions to take root and flourish.  Who knows – we can only speculate – these institutions may well serve as as the essential link between the residual capitalists within which they would still operate and the newly liberated zone of socialist production outside in the shape of the ISR

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

I’m obviously not being clear enough so apologies for that. There is no right and wrong, something can be right in certain situations and wrong in others depending on the material conditions effecting the decision. So if there is no right and wrong there are no moral truths. Any argument based on morality presupposes that there is a moral truth since that cannot be it is bound to result in a fallacy. I’m not arguing for amorality since that also presumes that there is a morality.

You are still not getting the point, EdI’m not disputing that what people take to be  moral truths are variable, adaptable and historically contingent  . Of course there is no right or wrong in that absolutist timeless sense. What is right in one circumstance may very well be wrong in another and vice versa   – although the American anthropologist  Donald Brown has noted in his work on “human universals” that there are certain things, such a bias favouring kin over unrelated strangers, which are culturally invariant.  Thus “charity begins at home” or something like that might perhaps be an example of the kind of moral truth you might be looking for However for the purpose if this argument this is not really what interests me . What interests me is the plain and deniable fact that people always and everywhere have had some notion of what is right and what is wrong –  irrespective of what these notions may mean in practice. I repeat – there is no such  thing as a society  that lacks some notion of morality whatever that notion may be.. Nor could there ever be  .  Living in society involves conforming to certain rules about one ought to do or not do do .    What these rules are of course depends on the society in question but all societies without exception have such rules -a code of behaviour.  It is this code of behaviour that we are talking about when we refer to “morality” We are all socialised in one way or another and to a lesser or greater extent into accepting of internalising this socially sanctioned code of behaviour.  You are no different.  Let me ask you –  would you regard, say,   deliberately running over an old lady crossing the street is a matter of complete indifference?  Of course you wouldn’t.   In fact even if you ran over the old lady by accident you would still feel completely gutted and, quite likely ,overcome by a sense of guilt that might last a lifetime even though strictly speaking you may not have been to blame at all. That is, of course, unless you were a clinically diagnosed as a sociopath  But why would you feel like this? The reason is that for you that old lady has value in herself. This is what morality is about. It is about our relationship with other people who we care about,  who we see as having value in themselves and not simply as a means to our own selfish ends.  Who those people are who we care about will, of course, vary from society. to society. A nationalist might morally identify with her nation and the citizens who comprise it but not the citizens of some other nation.  A gang member will morally identify the members of his gang  but happily kick the shit out of someone from some other gang.  Minimally, almost everyone cares about and morally identifies with their family and close relatives  In this sense there is no escaping the moral impulse and it is absolutely delusional to think that you can. Human beings are moral animals because they are social animals. Period

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But never mind pre=state societies – what about the post state society we call communism/socialism?

I’ll just dust off my crystal ball. I would hope that humanity could transcend past using such logical fallacies as morality and I see no reason why the concept should not disappear in time (may take a long time though).ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

  Are you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their  members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses In socialism morality will not be less important but more important than ever before. As the man said socialism will be the basis on which is a truly human morality can flourish once we’ve dispensed with the class morality of capitalism

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

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?

Actually, my preferred option would be to allow a minority Capitalist Party to govern, with the socialist majority wielding a veto: but I think that would be a hard sell.  The lesser option would be to introduce radical democracy: annual elections, abolition of posts of prime minister, cabinet, etc. (the full Pennsylvania 1776 shebang) to precisely avoid substitution but without trying to tinker with capitalism but instead drawing up plans to introduce production for use.  That way we could not return to the previous status quo, and can hang on until the world movement has sufficient strength to make the decisive change.

 Its an inventive solution but I really can’t see it working.  Wielding a veto while allowing a capitalist minority party to govern means going along with some of the decisions that such a government  would inevitably have to make –  otherwise you would not be allowing them anything.  If you don’t allow them anything they cant govern in which case they might  very well turn round and simply say ” well sod it  – you are not letting us do our job so the buck stops with you – you do the job  instead!”. And of course  if they refuse to govern you’re basically stuffed!Besides I cant see this going down well with the socialist majority.  Some of the things involved in running capitalism means for example cutting costs and ensuring fiscal responsibility.  “Excessive” state expenditures may need to be trimmed back sharply at a time of economic downturn.  If the minority capitalist government attempts to do this and you veto this what then?   Ultimately you will pay for it in other ways as investor confidence plummets and investment falls  and you will be blamed accordinglyThe lesser option you refer is no good either and how introducing “radical democracy” can be squared with the decision to allow a minority to govern – when the point about democracy is that the will of the majority prevails – is problematic to say the least.  All the legalistic innovations in the world wont save you even if there is no prime minister to blame. It will still be a socialist party organisation that will introduce these innovations and it is the very existence of this organisation that provides the very real potential for substititionism in these circumstances.  It will be seen to be calling the shots and thus be the power behind the throne.  Over time a split will develop between the rank and file working class and the organisation which will result in a new ruling class emerging from the latter in true Bolshevik style.The competent capitalist minority will be replaced by the hardline socialists who will know how to deal with their ownDrawing up plans to introduce socialism is something that we can do now but we are million miles away from socialism as things stand at the moment

[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).

[Author]

Posts