[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

  And the moment you say, for example,  that exploitation is wrong and that capitalism is morally bad this places on the working class a moral obligation to overturn it.  As socialists though, we don't rely on the capitalist class fulfilling their moral obligation to us, and I'd be rather reluctant to tell members of the working class that they were failing in their moral duty by not being socialists.

Interesting counter-argument (the killer one?) against using the language of morality. Much better (warning: joke) to talk of the working class having a "historic mission" to overthrow capitalism.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Listen up!I will repeat, once only, that I do not nor have I ever advocated that socialism or the case for socialism be based solely on a moralistic appeal.

Noted, but keep your hair on. Nobody here has suggested that you do or ever did. The argument here is, as in so many cases, about definitions and language. All socialists are outraged at what capitalism does to people (that's no doubt why we became socialists), but the question is whether or not we think it would help the socialist case to add "immoral", "unjust", "unfair", "wrong",  "bad" to the adjectives we throw at capitalism. Most Party members think not and prefer to stick to "can't work in the interest of the working class", "irrational",  "anti-social", etc.Supposing we did adopt these terms, people would turn round and say "why is capitalism immoral, unjust, bad, etc?" and we'd have to answer "because it can't work in th interest of the working class", "because it doesn't advance human welfare", even "because it degrades humans into things".  As I said, some Professors of Moral Philosophy would regard these as "moral judgements". Maybe they are, but they are not appeals to some vague, abstract eternal principles of Morality and Justice.

SocialistPunk wrote:

In my opinion, based on experience and observation, "scientifically" sidelining such here and now human concerns, such trivialities as morality, right and wrong, is a mistake.

Who is sidelining people's protest or outrage at what capitalism does to them and to other people? It's basically a question of what language is used to express this.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Now can anyone explain how the harsh, "scientific", obsessive mindset in the SPGB is going to tune in to people from the Occupy movement etc, and cleanse their "unscientific" moral outrage?

I can't see what's "harsh" or "obsessive" about having a scientific mindset. Presumably in view of your opening statement above you too think that the case for socialism is based on a scientific examination of the facts. I imagine many in Occupy do too. But where have we ever said that Occupy were wrong to be outraged at capitalism and its effects? In any event, a scientific mindset will go down a bomb with Zeitgeist (they even argue that what's right and what's wrong can be discovered scientifically).

[ALB]

Just been reading an article about the "water footprint" of different countries, i.e the amount of water used in them to produce their national product. We've all heard of "carbon footprints", i.e. the amount of CO2 released in producing something.  What this shows is that the Technocracy people are right in saying it would be possible to calculate the "energy footprint" of products too. Just checked and this is being done too. I'm not sure of the implications of all these calculations, except that they are calculations in kind, not money.What you would seem to be envisaging, Young Master, is calculating the "labour footprint" of products? A useful calculation no doubt but why should this particular calculation in kind be considered more important than the other ones?

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

The scientific stance is the only thing that can create a conscious movement for socialism and keep us on course; ethics cannot distinguish between socialism and reformism, and tends to lead to the latter because it overwhelmingly focuses on single issues.

Hud955 wrote:

I 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.

I think we should be careful not to overdo this line of argument. For two reasons.First, because it is possible to imagine a "moral" argument against capitalism which would not lead either to reformism or to single-issueism. Only some moral arguments lead to this, i.e those that criticise capitalism from its own standpoint (for not being "fair" to all workers), because capitalism can, has and is putting this right: minority groups don't have to be discriminated against.Second, even an argument based on class analysis can lead to reformism. After all, the classic Social Democratic and Old Labour case was that their parties were defending the interests of the working class within capitalism.The case against basing the case for socialism on some abstract morality is that this is not what motivates social change. It's classes acting in their own class interest. That's how it's been in the past and how it is likely to be in the future change from capitalism to socialism, especially as this change will be one brought out by the majority class acting consciously, which will involve an understanding of what it is doing, i.e acting in its own class interest.

[ALB]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle not the struggle for 'justice' or improved 'morality', whatever they may mean

Exactly.

[ALB]

We are always criticising capitalism for being "irrational", "insane", "crazy", "anti-working class", "anti-human", "anti-social", etc. (just read any issue of the Socialist Standard). What benefit would we get if we started saying that it was "immoral", "unjust", "unfair", etc?No doubt a professor of Moral Philosophy would say that both sets of criticisms are "moral judgements", but this is to ignore the different connotations of the two sets of phrases. The second suggests mere namby-pamby whingers. The first science-based class warriors. There is a difference and we need to make it clear which we are.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

some critics of Leninism even those calling themselves Marxist socialists just want state-capitalism.

Of course, Karl Kautsky would be a prime example.  Social Democrats tended to see that what was wrong with Russia was a lack of political democracy not the state ownership and control of industry. For them, if political democracy had existed there it would have been socialism. In other words, they stood for the impossible dream of a democratic state capitalism. So did many on the left of the Labour Party. In the olden days.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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]

Actually this has been suggested before and someone put it forward as a "bright idea" in the brainstormig workshop at 52 Clapham High last Saturday. The big obstacle to be overcome would be the find members to make the coffee and sandwiches 6 days a week.What is interesting in the Guardian article is that the Firebox Cafe in Bloomsbury is financed by "Counterfire" which is a breakaway from the SWP by a number of their high-ranking cadres (Chris Bambery, John Rees, Lindsey German). It is rather amusing to see these hard-line Leninists reconvert themselves into Bohemians. But this happened before with "Marxism Today" and "Living Marxism". "Counterfire" is in fact the only Trotskyist group in this country that has made a determined effort to infiltrate the Occupy Movement here.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

I just dug out an e-mail from him last year where I asked him about the SPGB and other groups and he replied;"I … find the exclusive attention on parliament a real diversion. 

That was him at it again. Distorting our position. What "exclusive attention on parliament"? The pamphlet he was reviewing and which it must be presumed he read says this on page 10:

Quote:

This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.

This re-iterates what the Socialist Standard said in an article on "The Socialist Party and Economic Organisation" in November 1937:

Quote:

The Socialist Party, therefore, whilst holding that the working class must be organised, both politically and economically, for the establishment of Socialism, urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their labour-power. That the trade unions must inevitably accept the Socialist theory as the logica1 outcome of their own existence, and as such will provide the basis of the economic organisation of the working class to manipulate the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution when the capitalist ruling class have first been dislodged from political power. The essential conditions for obtaining Socialism must never be underestimated. At the very moment that the workers have gained control of the State machine provision must be made simultaneously for the economic requirements of the community. The Socialist working class of the future will, no doubt, see to this as one of its supreme functions.

The full article can be found on our website here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1937/no-399-november-1937/socialist-party-and-economic-organisationIt wouldn't have taken much difficulty for a "radical" historian to have discovered this, but of course it isn't what they want to discover. 

[ALB]

I know you're not supposed to speak ill of the dead but, ok, Alan Woodward was a nice bloke and a good trade unionist but he spread all sorts of false stories about us. For example, this snidey review of our pamphlet on parliament.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/debating-anarchists.htmlHe was also a guest speaker at one of our meetings at Head Office in 2009. It was one of the most embarrassing meetings we've held there as it became clear that he didn't have a clue about what socialism was (he thought it was some form of self-managed market economy). The only effect this visit seems to have had on him was the basis of this nasty comment

Quote:

One mystery remains about the `Small Party of Good Boys'. What do they do with their vast financial income that neither keeps the UK banking system going nor invests in capitalist type institutes? One thing is certain, it does not go to people fighting for socialism outside the parameters of the Holy Script or Principles. The funding of the SPGB is not covered by either of the following texts, the unofficial and the semiofficial versions.

He also accused us of being "vanguardist" and "authoritarian":

Quote:

In the mind of this reviewer, the SPGB is located slap bang in the middle of the Marxist vanguard groups whose characteristics it shares – authoritarian structure, party chauvinism and so on. What else can be said about this eccentric body?

There are people outside the SPGB who are socialists but he was not one of them.

[ALB]

Here's a meeting organised by Occupy London next Sunday (4 November) that we must be present at:

Quote:

Sunday 4 November Venue: Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London. E1 6LS 11am-5pm Capitalism is Crisis (Another World is Possible…) The sessions on capital, power and the State will tell a story of capitalism. They will explore the character of the capitalist process that is continuing to tear up the planet and to exterminate its inhabitants. The purpose of the sessions is to investigate why we are doomed, and also how we might escape the doom. Speakers. Discussion. Workshop. Event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/283364291772404/

We'll try and organise a group of comrades to go. Anypne interested please contact Head Office.

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/a-nobel-for-planning.html

Good. Confirmation that I was not alone in thinking that there was more behind this award than having worked out a formula for speed (and non-speed) dating.I hadn't realised that Kantorovich had been awarded a Nobel Prize (in 1975, the year after that joke Hayek). So, along with Amartya Sen (whose work had shown that famines are not caused by an absolute shortage of food but by a collapse in the ability of some people to buy or exchange something for food) and Elinor Ostrom (whose research exposed the myth of “the tragedy of the commons” by showing that in practice where commons existed they had been managed by the community and did not break down through the self-defeating selfish behaviour of those have access to them), that makes three other winners who were worth it.  Actually 4, as I see Wassily Leontief got one in 1973 (for the development of input-output tables, something else that could be used in socialism).Here's a book review which deals with Kantorovich and the problems he had to deal with:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1275-november-2010/book-reviews

[ALB]

Yes I had though of making a play on words myself with "repugant" and "repugnance".Of course as far as we socialists are concerned all capitalist economic theory is "repugnant economics". "Repugnance economics" ought to mean something different, like what the paper said: "the study of transactions where the application of the price mechanism is regarded as morally repugnant". I could say that socialists regard putting a price on anything as "repugnant" so that we are interested in the study how transactions can take place without price and money, but that might open the question of whether socialism is a "moral" as well as a class or scientific issue. Fortunately, looking up the dictionary definition of "repugnant/repugnance" I see it can also mean something that is logically inconsistent. Which, under capitalism, not allowing body parts to be bought and sold is.In any event, personally I do regard the sale of body parts even within capitalism as (even morally) "repugnant".

[Author]

Posts