Is Socialism a Moral as well as a Class or Scientific Issue?
- This topic has 39 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB: … the question of whether socialism is a "moral" as well as a class or scientific issue.
Yes — socialism is a moral as well as a class and scientific issue.
That, however, is by no means the last word on the subject.
Morality and science are inescapable social necessities. They are essential to conscious social being. They are our social feeling and our social thinking — the union of our social doing. They are central to conscious social us.
But it is our science that explains our morality — not the other way round. That explanatory science is Marx's materialist conception of history. It alone — for there's no viable alternative social science over the perceivable horizon — anchors the case for socialism.
The materialist conception of history deals with those three great central social categories — morality, science and class — as its very life's blood. And the call to action that emerges from it is our own social necessity for socialism.
Marx, in Capital and elsewhere, employs morality in its tendentious capitalist form to expose, by contradiction, the actual immorality of the capitalist system — but usually as mere literary coup de grâce to a scientific critique of the practices of [his contemporary god-fearing overtly morality-spouting] capitalists. The current godless bunch are, if possible, even more shameless. Socialist readers savour Marx's excursions into biting moralistic satire.
It is probably not so wise to mount a political case against capitalism on moral grounds, at least by using current capitalist morality as a moral counter-argument to itself, since — as clearly explained by the science of the materialist conception of history — capitalism conforms quite smugly to its own social morality.
A moment's reflection makes it clear that capitalism couldn't have emerged and now flourish as an all-embracing social formation if it didn't — spontaneously and naturally [and therefore deterministically and so understandable scientifically] — generate its very own pervasive form of morality — the monstrous creation of a class-exploiting society that holds us in its thrall.
It should be — but isn't — evident to everyone that the morality adequate to an exploitative social formation must be intrinsically perverse.
Hence the bafflingly complex philosophical ethics that plague the best minds of an exploitative class society — minds that unwittingly are necessarily trapped within that society's perverse morality.
Hence the devilishly complex apologetics of an exploitative class society's sophisticated theology that — if a cosmic morality really existed — would be benignly redundant, as being self-evident to all without any cloistered study of sacred texts. But the theologians, who would entrap their flock, are themselves doubly trapped within exploitative society's perverse morality — the second entrapment being, of course, the remarkable Feuerbachian one.
The history of the rise of capitalism is simultaneously the history of the rise to dominance of its brash huckstering morality against earlier opposed forms of morality, which ultimately fell subservient to it. An abstract moralist might fleetingly feel pity for the Church, whose hierarchical social morality came off second best.
Capitalism had to fight for its morality — so must we fight for socialist morality, but consciously so, by openly treating both capitalist and socialist morality as subservient to science — as a social construct adequate to a social economic formation, which it helps sustain.
Of course capitalism has morality on its side — it possesses its very own duplicitous creation. That creation is what we, necessarily social beings, daily imbibe and in part obligingly nourish and sustain. To some extent, morality will always be sustained thus but with this difference that, in a society of associated producers who hold the social means of production in common, morality will consciously track, and so closely reflect, discernible social need.
Whereas in the current antagonistic world of us disassociated producers, a morality that challenges the interests of the private holders and controllers of the social means of production will be vehemently opposed and politically attacked tooth and nail. The uncritical response is then to unreflectingly bind our own moral feelings in subservience to the dominating social moral feeling of the owners and controllers ever more tightly.
It is this capitalist antagonistic moral cordon that science — the materialist conception of history — teaches us how to snap, and guides us on the socially necessary task of issuing in a cooperative society that spontaneously and sustainingly generates its own social-needs based empathetic morality.
Ulimately, science — the materialist conception of history — is our most secure weapon. But also — as the Party has demonstrated for more than a century to the World at large against every other Party and every other social movement — conviction based upon science breeds morality. Yes, socialism is also a moral issue.
Both Marx and Engels rejected the idea of eternal truths such as morality and justice: ideas held by idealists of their day.Marx in the Communist Manifesto wrote:“Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality…. It therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience”And Engels argued in Anti-Duhring that, if the overthrow of capitalism depended on the assumption that it was ‘unjust’ and that communism was ‘just’ “we should be in a pretty bad way, and we might have a long time to wait” This was the party’s position too: “The socialist case holds no reference to justice or the rights of man. its foundation, like that of capitalism, is in material interests.”“That society will be a thousand times better and more satisfying in every way is true – but the drive to it is not a moral one” “The mistake is in the assumption that there is a true justice which is simply being with-held or misapplied…. ““But the argument and struggle had better be for concrete purposes, not for the phantom of moral truth.” ‘Down With Justice’ June 1972 Socialist Standard
Dear TheOldGreyWhistle, in the spirit of your open invitation to discuss central issues of our case — though not yet in the forum you propose — I submit this response to your previous.Marx [Preface to the Contribution] sees morality [by implication] as a definite form of social consciousness arising from the "relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production".He sees socialism as ending class antagonism in the sense of "an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence", and with it the demise of "legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic" ideological forms of consciousness.He makes the case for socialism in terms of class interest, and not in terms of "morality" nor, by implication, in "legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic" terms. But he also points out that these are the very "ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out".In other words, we have to combat these ideological forms with science [the materialist conception of history], in terms of class interest, because they are the central ideological forms that our opponents conceive our case by and confront it with.We would hardly concede that socialism is not a "political" issue, for we actively engage with that ideological form by using it but opposing it as a class issue. Likewise, with the other ideological forms, especially "art", but also that dreaded ideological form "morality".
twc wrote:But it is our science that explains our morality — not the other way round. That explanatory science is Marx's materialist conception of history. It alone — for there's no viable alternative social science over the perceivable horizon — anchors the case for socialism.[…]It is probably not so wise to mount a political case against capitalism on moral grounds, at least by using current capitalist morality as a moral counter-argument to itself, since — as clearly explained by the science of the materialist conception of history — capitalism conforms quite smugly to its own social morality.I think you've summed it up pretty well here. Which would confirm that the party is and has been going about it in the right way.
Well, this all sounds very familiar. Hi bothI think this issue all depends on what we understand socialism to be. If it is understood as a force within society (a material struggle by an economic working class) then that material force is non-moral, just as gravity is non-moral, even though, within society it will find no doubt find many forms of expression in moral language and ideology. What can turn that material force into a directed movement of the working class for revolutionary action is the growing consciousness of class interest. For conscious socialists engaged in promoting the development of that consciousness the socialist case is thoroughly non-moral. It is based on a material understanding not on an ethical imperative – socialists do not promote socialist understanding because they believe they have a moral obligation to do it. They do not promote or make a revolution because they feel they 'ought to' or even have a' right to' any more than the capitalist class did when they came to power. Morality is merely a reflex of class interest, not class interest itself. I will not pursue my right to so something if I do not perceive an interest in doing it. Adam's closing remark is spot on. Socialism *breeds* morality. Socialism is the platform on which moral expression can stand but it is not moral in itself.
Dear Hud955,Both you, TheOldGreyWhistle and I, as committed socialists all three, accept that capitalist conceptions of "rights" and "morality" are socially-necessary ideological expressions of an exploitative class society.Both of you, however, overstep the science when you spirit away the ideological conceptions of capitalism as if they were figments of the imagination. If we could unmask them as easily in practice, we'd already have won socialism.Our task is to unmask them in practice. If you've already spirited them away in theory, you've already dismissed the central problem, and all means of its solution.Our most powerful weapon, the materialist conception of history, when applied to the capitalist economic formation is almost exclusively devoted to comprehending and exposing these ideological expressions and their life history. For us not to use this science against its special target — human ideological forms — is to give up the fight before it starts.Furthermore Marx expressly concludes that these are the very "ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out". That conviction lies at the very heart of his science.[Of course he acknowledged these forms as expressions of "relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production", but we don't fight class battles at that deep level — or as he would have put it — we conduct class struggles in the "ideological" superstructure and not in the "ecomonic" base, even when it appears that we do.]Naturally, Marx himself fought with intellectual ferocity against these capitalist ideological forms all his theoretical life. Most spectacularly, he went for capitalism's jugular when he exposed its central commodity fetish. This central ideological conception of capitalism acts like a law of nature — just like gravity, as you both imply — and we, necessarily social beings, in our daily lives can do little practical about it other than shrug our shoulders and unwittingly help sustain it — and we don't even have to help sustain gravity.Your brave clause "revolutionary action is the growing consciousness of class interest" is too abstract if it doesn't lock horns with the system-sustaining ideology of capitalism. For that's what it has to overcome, mentally before physically, and largely all it can do with its weapon — the materialist conception of history. Fortunately for us, it is salutary to discover that the most powerful science of human history is on our side.A life time's exposure to commodities and money never brought anyone — apart from Marx — around to a spontaneous realization that capital and money are not [just] things but ideological expressions of the exploitative capitalist social process of production. [He found them to be its most perfectly-concise and adequate ideological expression. Who but he could have seen that — but once assimilated as a key to his thought processes, it completely changes how we understand the capitalist system. Amazingly, this apparently rarefied insight almost tumbles out of his well-known basic formulation of the materialist conception of history.]Similarly, isolated personal insight through social experience into less-veiled capitalist ideological expressions is still unlikely to lead to socialist consciousness without first being comprehended in the global context of the materialist conception of history. That's why we, along with humanity as a whole, need that conviction-based agreed-upon socially-necessary social construct called science.Because prospective socialists are all trapped [just like us] to varying degrees within capitalist ideology, we create our own process of winning them to our ranks. This intellectual [or conscious] Primitive Socialist Accumulation process must engage directly with but in opposition to capitalist ideology if it is to engage with anything substantial — not abstract or purely academic — at all.Capitalism has spontaneously prepared the inevitable ideological battle field. It has exploitative-class ideology on its side. We have the materialist conception of history on ours. We have the intelligence on it.
Hud955 wrote:Adam's closing remark is spot on. Socialism *breeds* morality. Socialism is the platform on which moral expression can stand but it is not moral in itself.Actually, Hud, that is TWC's final remark not mine. I've not done much more in this debate than vote with the majority to repeal the 2010 Conference resolution which said that socialism was an ethical as well as a scientiofic issue.But I do agree that we shouldn't use capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality as part of the case for socialism. That way leads to reformism, i.e trying to make capitalism live up to its own standards, eg by not discriminating against women, gays, immigrants, disabled people, etc. This is what all the Trotskyists groups specialise in, by making special appeals to groups that are discriminated against/treated unfairly within the system by its own standards (as far as capitalism's is concerned all it is interested in is a worker's ability to work, not any of their other qualities, so discrimination on the basis of any of these other qualities is "immoral" from its point of view). Paul Foot, the SWP writer, even made a speciality of exposing "miscarriages of justice" (and even then didn't always get it right, as in the Hanratty case)There is discrimination against groups within capitalism, but the point is there doesn't have to be. Capitalism could bring about women's equality and in fact is in the process of doing this.
ALB wrote:But I do agree that we shouldn't use capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality as part of the case for socialism. That way leads to reformism, i.e trying to make capitalism live up to its own standards, eg by not discriminating against women, gays, immigrants, disabled people, etc.Really?What off the millions who have died of starvation or are in the process of doing so? What of the millions of lives torn apart by war during the last century?Would these be considered "capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality"? I think so. I've never heard any politician openly support mass starvation and they always claim war is the last resort.The party so very often points to these failings as the strongest argument for the failure of capitalism and why it needs to be eliminated.Why? Could it be because we "care"?I was attracted to socialism as a teenager, not out of some all powerful philosophical correctness, but simply because I thought it could end the vast majority of human suffering.
SocialistPunk wrote:What off the millions who have died of starvation or are in the process of doing so? What of the millions of lives torn apart by war during the last century?Would these be considered "capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality"? I think so. I've never heard any politician openly support mass starvation and they always claim war is the last resort.These failings may be the strongest argument for the failure of capitalism but not because they are examples of 'capitalism failing to live up to it's own morality', but because they are examples of unnecessary human suffering, which is not the same thing.At the end of the day all that this kind of argument boils down to is "boo for capitalism" and "hurrah for socialism". Humans being are moral animals because evolution has provided us with the capacity for empathy and socially we have constructed societies where such things are useful. As society changes, morality changes but to say that 'morality' is the driving force of change is really to put the cart before the horse.None of this is particularly controversial so I don't know why it keeps getting bought up every now and again. Probably because of people still clinging on to some medieval belief in 'free will'….
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:What of the millions who have died of starvation or are in the process of doing so? What of the millions of lives torn apart by war during the last century?Would these be considered "capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality"? I think so. I've never heard any politician openly support mass starvation and they always claim war is the last resort.These failings may be the strongest argument for the failure of capitalism but not because they are examples of 'capitalism failing to live up to it's own morality', but because they are examples of unnecessary human suffering, which is not the same thing.
You beat me to it. That's just the point I was going to make.This is not criticising capitalism from the point of capitalist morality but from a standpoint of how human beings should be treated or what it is the interest or welfare of humans and/or the working class. Something quite different.By "capitalist morality" I meant the ideological reflection of the exchange of equal value for equal value, i.e that all commodity exchangers should be treated equally and that it is therefore wrong that some market participants should be at a disadvantage because of their gender, skin colour, or whatever. In practice of course capitalist governments and politicians support all sorts of discriminations which makes them hypocrites from the point of view of capitalist morality. I was trying to make the point that we shouldn't try to base the case for socialism on the fact that capitalist governments are hypocrites, i.e that they don't apply the capitalist morality they preach. We can leave it to supporters of capitalism to take them to task for that.
This subject has been discussed previously and no doubt it will again in the future, as there is no right or wrong answer.When I referred to the morality of capitalism, I simply meant it often shows the hypocrisy politicians so readily display. However the idea that we do not use the hypocrisy of capitalist morality against them is a strange idea. We cannot afford to ignore any philosophical, theoretical weapon in the fight against capitalism. If we could get Cameron into a debate about capitalism, I am sure he would not say millions dying of starvation is acceptable, (he may think it) yet he would defend the system that creates it. Such an opportunity to expose capitalisms managers would be jumped at by most in the SPGB.As for morality, it is a word, a word that like it or not is used on a regular basis in every walk of life. Most people have an idea it is to do with right and wrong. Feel free if you wish to tell them it is irrelevant.Humans are the most social creature on this planet. Empathy and compassion exist as human emotional states. I don't think they are hardwired, but we tend to gravitate towards these tendencies more, in our everyday social lives. It is as a consequence of these human bonding emotions and behaviors that we get ethics and morality emerging.If our species was, as some would have it, non social or anti social, vicious etc, we would not have a concept such as morality.I care about others, I care about what happens to others I have never even met. Do socialists not care, and see only logical necessities?"Capitalism and other kids stuff", opens up with a highly emotive scenario, it pulls at our human emotions, it is meant to.It is an effective tool.It could be argued it is moral in its approach.When I talk about socialism and morality, I do not mean that socialism is just a moral issue, I have never advocated that. I see them as compatible. It is self defeating to try to surgically remove such a powerful, motivating force, as if the emotional aspect will somehow get in the way. Perhaps it is the scientific part of the SPGB and companion parties? Objectivity vs subjectivity? In science and medicine subjectivity is often seen as irrelevant. That is fine with pure science, but when we add humans into the equation, ignoring human experience is fool hardy.Feel free to rip me to shreds, like I said there is no wrong or right answer.
Hi TWC, My main puzzlement about your post is that despite your opening rebuttal, you appear to elaborate more or less point for point the argument I made previously. The main difference between us seems to be that we are making our arguments from a different starting position. The starting point for me is the existence and role of class conscious socialists with a materialist conception of their capitalist world. In whatever way we reached that understanding , it is this materialist conception of history and not an ethical imperative that holds us together and provides us with a socialist identity and determines our activity and our aim. The MCH gives us a 'scientific' viewpoint from which to observe ideological structures. To 'banish' ethics, or more accurately to push it to the margins of our understanding is a theoretical act and is by no means the same as banishing it in reality as you seem to be implying. The reality of capitalist ideology will not be banished until the end-point of capitalism is reached in socialism. In the meantime the working class will continue to fight out its battles with the capitalist class largely though capitalist ideological lenses. It's only when it begins to perceive the underlying social and economic reality through a non-ethical materialist understanding of its world, that day-to-day battles within capitalism will give way to a battle for a post-capitalist society. And you are right. It is highly unlikely that this will happen spontaneously. So the gradually increasing influence of conscious socialists, standing on a clear materialist platform is probably essential in this process. And that makes it all the more essential that we maintain a clear understanding of our 'scientific'/ theoretical foundations and not confuse them with ethical imperatives.Hi Socialist PunkI think we can certainly use capitalist morality against capitalism itself, but it is a dangerous weapon and needs to be used carefully, because on its own it leads directly to reformist solutions not to socialist ones. Only when you go beyond the moral to the material will a socialist movement really begin to express and assert itself. So no, I don't see this as about denying that human beings have moral feelings or moral sensibilities (popular Victorian concepts), but it is, in theory, to place the current moral discourse in its right relationship with the material basis of capitalism, and to act accordingly.
Can you imagine, Socialism and MORALITY, in one package? Can you not imagine the impact? If it were done in, OUR WAY?
steve colborn wrote:Can you imagine, Socialism and MORALITY, in one package? Can you not imagine the impact? If it were done in, OUR WAY?To me, that would depend on what we mean by 'morality', Steve. It's a pretty slippery notion. In one sense, it's exactly what we do now. We mix the materialist case with moral criticism of capitalism (in the way that Marx did by turning capitalist morality back against the system). It's a form of irony, and it goes with a certain tone. The Socialist Standard is full of it.If you mean mixing materialism with moral judgement, that would be a pretty odd combination. My first thought is that it would stand a good chance of blowing up in our faces.
Hi Hud955,Well I am glad we can make some ground. I think (at least I hope you do) you know I do not advocate reformist solutions, it is why I am not afraid to use terms such as morality. The socialist case is powerful enough to be able to withstand the use of such "awkward" language. To hijack a common term, I am confident in my political skin. I just think care needs to be taken not to alienate people. I know from my time as a young punk that many I came across were distrustful of "isms" (I still find it now). Including socialism (imagine that). I came across a lot of distrust of organized politics, with its inevitable "dogmatic" views and rules.The same is seen in the Occupy movement, a lot of individuals distrustful of organized politically motivated groups and parties, including the SPGB. It is a reality, that needs to taken seriously.Sidelining morality is looked upon by many with mistrust, (not just the religious) a lot of angry frustrated people see the horrors of capitalism and judge them to be ethically and morally wrong. Who are we to say otherwise? Yes, it very often leads them into single issue politics.But has anyone considered the party scientific stance on morality just might be a turn off for many? The clever use of such a powerful motivator, could find new allies.But who knows and who cares?I'm gonna end it here, as this could end up in circles as it did previously.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.