[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

if you even bothered to read what I wrote.

I just have again and this is what you wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.  It needs to do that  if it is to make its whole electoralist strategy more credible in the eyes of skeptics.

To describe the issue as "hugely important" and making our "whole electoralist (!) strategy" less "credible" is a gross exaggeration. It's an interesting subject for speculation, I agree, but having a definite policy on this, at this stage, is not that crucial.

No, you are confusing quite different things here. We can speculate  about some things such as the extent of spatial imbalances in the growth towards socialism.  I have already suggested that there would be a number of factors that would tend  to work towards it being reasonably  balanced  –  telecommunications , convergent economic developments and, of course, the pro-active interventions of the worldwide socialist movement itself to help promote such balanced growth,   However, with the best will in the world, it is pretty inconceivable that every socialist party in the world would grow exactly in lock step with every other to be in a position  be able to capture political power simultaneously; there are inevitably going to be lags, perhaps quite significant lags.  There are, in other words, other factors that work against balanced growth such as global inequalities and cultural legacies.  It would be naive to just  assume that the growing socialist movement would be like some great tidal wave that removes all obstacles in its pathFrom here on – once you accept there is going to be some degree  of spatial imbalance  – the discussion shifts from the realm of speculation to a question of having to make a definite choice and formulating a definite policy .  Assuming some socialist party somewhere in the world is the first to democratically capture political power  it has basically only two options and about this there can be no "speculation":  it is a matter of simple logical deduction1) Does it establish socialism straightaway in the area in which has just captured political power?   This would mean this initial socialist region (ISR) having to come to some kinds of arrangement with the surrounding  residual capitalist states.2) Does it wait until other socialist parties elsewhere have also captured so that together they can all simultaneously introduce socialism?  This would mean this first victorious socialist party having to assume the role of a government of some sort to administer capitalism in the meanwhileI repeat again – there can be no "speculation" about this,  There is no third option,  Assuming you have captured political  (there is one other possibility which is NOT to capture power even though you are a majority though I don't think this is plausible for reasons already explained) you  HAVE to choose one or other of these two options. There are no ifs and no buts here. Refusing to come to some kind of decision  in principle as to which one of these is the best option to choose  does indeed make your electoralist strategy less credible for the very obvious reason that workers are naturally going to ask what is the Socialist Party going to do when it democratically captures power .  What could you and the SPGB say in response?  Absolutely nothing it seems. How is this going to enhance your credibility?Talking of which – what counts as a majority as far as the SPGB is concerned?  Here too all is vagueness with the SPGB  and vagueness is the enemy of credibility. I've come across statements to the effect that what is needed is a "significant majority" but what exactly does that mean?  Perhaps this is implying the possibility that socialists will not capture power even though they are a majority and that they need to be more than must a simple majority of 51%.  But have you even begun to figure out the consequences that would result from allowing a  capitalist government to keep hold of reins of power even though you are a majority?   Nope.  I don't think so.  On this as on so many other things the SPGB remains silent   where even a smidgeon of healthy speculation would help raise your credibility a little

ALB wrote:

You've just gone over the top again in your reply to Steve:

robbo203 wrote:

If you cannot do that then there is no hope for socialism

I don't agree that it "over the top" at all.  I was making a general point  about the importance of going beyond a pat formulaic responses – not just specifically to this question but about the nature of socialist society in general.   You need  for instance to be able to demonstrate how socialism could specifically utilise existing resources to produce for the needs of the population in practical terms –  not just utter ex cathedra type claims  about the merits of socialism,  People will  quite rightly just dismiss you as daydreamers otherwise.  To be fair, the SPGB has made some effort in this direction but still you get this silly argument being rolled out that it is "not for us now to speculate" which is to totally miss the point.  You need to put meat on the bare bones of your model of socialism and if you cannot excite peoples imagination and get them to think of socialism as a realistic  and solid empirically-grounded proposition  rather than just an collection of cosy sentiments that brushes aside any probing question on the grounds that you cant write "recipes for  cookshops of the future" – Marx's famous gaffe – then there is indeed no hope for socialism.  So I fully stand by my statement

ALB wrote:

In any event, as the extract from the Questions of the Day pamphlet shows, we have faced and discussed the issue and come up with something, ie (1) that it's not very likely to happen, (2) that if it was going to, the decision would be up to the World Socialist International to decide. What's wrong with that?

The Questions of the Day pamphlet did not answer the question at all, It was a complete and utter fudge. All it could come up with was this lame piece of  waffle:"the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time"This is just so wishy washy.  Its a cop out and people are just not going to buy it. It did not even outline the options (see above ) that would need to be looked at before such such a decision could be made

ALB wrote:

No need to go into details about ISRs and RCSs or whatever which anyway begs the question by assuming that it is likely that the socialist movement would win political control in just one minority part of the world while the rest will be unaffected. More useful to begin by discussing whether or not this is a realistic assumption. So why do you think that the socialist movement will be more advanced in one part of the world than the rest, and where and why?

Why?  For the reasons stated above. Personally,  I'm not too concerned with which part of the world would be more advanced – this is indeed the subject of speculation  – but rather with the fact that are almost certainly going  to be some  spatial imbalances and if the SPGB or any other socialist party is to appear more credible it has to work out well in well in advance what it would do under these circumstances  if it captured political power when the rest of the world was somewhat lagging.  You cannot just irresponsibly palm this question off to some time in the indefinite future when hopefully the global  movement is much larger. It needs a long term vision now of what it would do under these circumstances.  

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

  I could just as easily retort the Party's insistence that political power needs to be democratically captured is an equally "hypothetical" matter which we should not really make a fuss about now but wait till the socialist consists of tens of millions of people rather than a few thousand  to decide.  But does the party think that the need to democratically captured political is something best left to when socialism is more or less on cards?  No it does not .  To the contrary  I believe that one of the questions on the current membership application  form is "Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievement of socialism?

Good debating point, I concede. But surely that socialism can only come about democratically is a basic socialist principle and that if there's not a majority in favour of socialism then socialism cannot be established. That's the key point.  Yes, it is theoretically possible that once a majority wants socialism they could decide democratically not to try to take political power out of the hands of the ruling class and set about trying to establish socialism while leaving them in control it. However, this would be such a stupid decision that I can't see it being decided: any dogmatic anarchists proposing it would simply be ignored.

Though I think it is unlikely that the state will simply die out as the socialist movement grows, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that statist institutions will tend to weaken considerably  – possibly even to the point of irrelevance – as the socialist movement   reaches the stage  where globally it can count on literally billions of members and supporters.  Who is to say you could not  have a kind of dual power set  up somewhat analogous to the situation with the Bolshevik Revolution in which you had soviets alongside the constituent assembly.  I'm not advocating the soviet model but all IM saying is that you cannot just dismiss the idea.The point I an making is that it is inconsistent on the part of the SPGB to insist that the political power needs to be captured democratically by parliamentary means  and to elevate this principle to a criterion for membership of the party  and yet to dismiss all that follows from this as mere "speculation". There is nothing speculative about the fact that once a Socialist Party has captured power somewhere  and ahead of socialist parties elsewhere,  it will definitely have to  face the two basic options which i gave set out above.  The implications that stem from either of these are hugely important  – despite what you say – and IM just astounded that you cant seem to  figure this out for yourself.  For example,  the option of not introducing socialism immediately  means in effect installing some sort of dictatorship of the proletariat  to administer capitalism which,  in turn, mean seriously  reassessing the parties entire relationship with the Leninist Left.  It means that the Party in some respects  though not all obviously,  would be adopting a position not far removed from that of a  Leninist type organisation.

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, this principle (and question) does not say that parliament must be used, but only that political power must be won, democratically. This leaves open the possibility that political power could be won by some other means, as long as they were democratic. This is in fact a hypothetical situation that we have faced, eg in the event of the ruling class suspending political democracy. Once again, what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances. It is not something we can lay down now, though we can speculate about what they might or could decide to do. But would it help our case or add to our credibility if we decided now that the answer must be, say, a general strike?.

Well what other means are "other mean"s are you talking about by which political power could be democratically  won?  Spell it out.  Don't just leave it up in the air.  Vagueness, I repeat,  is the enemy of credibility.  Be more willing to risk speculating which is far better than saying nothing at all.  You come up with the same old lame excuse  "what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances" but you don't explain what the choices might be out of which a decision might emerge. This is sloppy and unconvincing and conveys the impression that you haven't really thought much about the mechanics of achieving a socialist society.  Do you accept my point above about there any two options which  the first triumphant socialist political party will have to consider if other parts of the world are still some way off from achieving socialist majorities. In which case which option would you chose and why?

ALB wrote:

But, surely, you don't want to include in the membership questionnaire, a question like this: Why do socialists maintain that an initial socialist region must be established if the socialist movement is in a position to win political control in just one country?" Do you?

No, quite the opposite. I think the membership questionnaire needs to be whittled down not expanded upon and some of the questions in my view as you know – like the question on of religious beliefs – is quite redundant from a socialist point of view   I accept that fundamentally socialism has to be introduced democratically but I would leave out any reference on questionnaire form on how this is to be achieved or even whether it would involve the need to capture political power since its a moot point whether the state will  even exist as a relevant institution on the eve of the socialist revolution.However I draw a sharp distinction between what to put in a membership questionnaire and what the socialist movement needs to decide on  a matter of such fundamental importance as this. It needs to come to some kind of collective view – even if only provisional – about what it would do under these circumstances if only to show that it has at least acknowledged there is a  problem and is thinking about it.  Saying nothing does nothing to enhance its credibility but on the contrary diminishes it…

[robbo203]

zundap wrote:

The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.Let me ask you this Robin, you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?

 The problem, Danny, lies not with the concept of morality but your understanding of it –  and that of a number of other comrades here. In rejecting the concept they don't understand what they are rejecting. They are rejecting a caricature. It's very simple really.  Morality is about one's motives.  Whether a moral decision makes you happy or unhappy does not in any way alter its nature as a moral decision.  Such a decision is motivated by a concern for the wellbeing of other individuals – whether they be  your family, your class, humanity as a whole – and by the belief that these others have value in themselves and are not simply a means to your own selfish ends. Morality by its very nature is "other oriented" What you are doing and others here are engaging in is what the moral philosopher James Rachels calls the egoistic strategy of "redefining motives".  Everything is made to appear as if it is motivated by self interest. Someone who dives into the sea to save a drowning child is only motivated by the praise that others will heap on him. This is manifestly false. Do you you care for your family? Of course you do.  Why do you care for them? Because they are the means and instruments to enable your happiness to be realised? .  Stop for a moment and try and figure out how deeply insulting such a view is for the people concerned.  If you were truly "amoral", which I know you are not, you would be saying that members of your family only matter insofar as they advance your own happiness Is this what you believe? Surely not

[robbo203]

zundap wrote:

 The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn’t exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest. 

 And there M’Lud I rest my case….The witness has just admitted that in  “identifying” with others and being concerned with the wellbeing of these others in the working class who he would feel bad about exploiting (it “would make us miserable”)  he is adopting a moral position and that such a moral position is fully compatible with, and runs alongside, his self interest.   Just like I’ve said all along as a matter of fact

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

For Socialists, who have to operate in the current environment, where the movement is small, to then set hard and fast strictures of what could, or could not pertain in the future, when the movement has grown to SIGNIFICANT proportions is, I must say, and would be perceived to be, merest navel gazing and an exercise in futility.As ALB has stated, it will be up to those socialist who inhabit this future to decide, in light of THEIR CIRCUMSTANCE, who must make any decisions. We cannot circumscribe their actions, nor should we.We can merely work now, to put these people in the situation where Socialism is and is perceived to be, a viable alternative.

 In which case it is illogical to insist now that that socialists must work to achieve socialism by capturing political power through parliamentary means which is in fact what you are required to uphold in order to be a member of the SPGB. …. You cant have it both ways. If you think it is not for us in our minuscule numbers today  to determine what could “pertain in the future ” then you cannot stipulate as the Party, let me remind you, does now that political power needs to be captured in the first place before you can have socialism.  According to your logic we are nowhere near the point where we might even be able to capture political power and hence we should not be  stating  definitively that such power needs to be captured.  I say this because there are some socialists who argue that the state should be simply bypassed or that state will wither as the socialist movement grows and capturing it will become  irrelevant by the time the movement consists of tens of millions of individuals. The implication of your argument is that anarchist communists should be welcomed into the SPGB and yet the SPGB  has recently produced a pamphlet claiming to show that the parliamentary approach is indispensable Quite apart from that, I object to the term “navel gazing” on principle. I thought the SPGB had overthrown this silly attitude that thinking about the future – whether it be about the nature of a socialist society or the means to achieving it –  is to be avoided. If you cannot, or are unwilling to,  produce some kind of intelligent and half-plausible response to probing questions that people might ask of you then you are inevitably going to be dismissed as mere daydreamers, not a serious political movement.  This applies even to those more “detailed” aspects ALB was on about not simply the far more important general principles I was concerned with –   like whether or not the socialist movement in one country should install a dictatorship of the proletariat and continue running capitalism there until socialist movement elsewhere had captured power as well.  Anyone who thinks this is not a fundamental strategic matter upon which a clear decision needs to be made has absolutely no idea of the basic logic of the socialist case.and what is important to it.   Its akin to saying we cannot know whether socialism will be based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production because thats way off into the future and who are we to determine what socialism will be Some things – it is quite true – we cannot determine will be be the case in a socialist society. But that does not invalidate the process of speculation . This is the point that is overlooked.  If you don’t strive to put meat on the bare bones of the socialist alternative, the very goal of a socialist society becomes less substantial , a vague abstraction  , a kind of religious dogma or a mere verbal formula to be recited like some catechism in a Roman Catholic pamphlet. .  Substitute “I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” with  “Only Common Ownership and Democratic Control of the Means of Production will solve the world’s problems” and you are still left with same kind of  basic mindset.  The kind of mindset that craves comfort and certainty in the reciting of formulaic dogmasThe point of speculation is not to say what will happen but what might happen. It is to excite the revolutionary imagination. If you cannot do that then there is no hope for socialism

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I was in fact trying to make a serious point in a light-hearted way (even though we were warned in speakers’ class not to employ irony as it is likely to be misunderstood). There is something a bit ridiculous in the few thousand of us in this country who are socialists trying to lay down a detailed policy as to how the future mass socialist movement should react in a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise. We can speculate of course but at this stage it can be no more than that, so to claim that not having an answer to some hypothetical situation is a serious theoretical inadequacy that reflects on the creditibility of our whole case is to go right over the top. Our “answer” can only be to say that it is up to the future mass socialist movement to decide what to do in the light of the actual situation and in accordance with its democratic procedures. All we can do is stick to generalities and insist that whatever is decided should be decided democratically.

 First point  – this is not  some “detailed”  policy I was talking about if you even bothered to read what I wrote.   What is was dealing with precisely the kind of  general point or principle you say we should stick with – namely, what happens when a socialist majorly captures political power somewhere? Does it introduce socialism then and there or does it wait for socialist  parties elsewhere to capture power and install some kind of “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the meanwhile and continue operating capitalismJesus Christ, I would have thought that you of all people would have realised this is hardly some trivial nitpicking point  to be sniggered at .  If the SPGB wants to be taken a little more seriously then it could do without the kind of attitude you have displayed, frankly.  There are very significant implications that flow from either of the above options which need to be faced up to Secondly – yes, the situation is “hypothetical” in the sense that we might not ever arrive at it .  Socialism, after all, is not inevitable,  But that does not mean  the questions I raised can be ignored. It actually cuts the very heart of the SPGB case.  I could just as easily retort the Party’s insistence that political power needs to be democratically captured is an equally “hypothetical” matter which we should not really make a fuss about now but wait till the socialist consists of tens of millions of people rather than a few thousand  to decide.  But does the party think that the need to democratically captured political is something best left to when socialism is more or less on cards?  No it does not .  To the contrary  I believe that one of the questions on the current membership application  form is “Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievement of socialism? Why is my question dismissed is being concerned with only a a hypothetical situation best left till later on but this question on the membership is assumed to be of such vital importance even to the extent that ones membership depends on it And thirdly no I m not calling into question the credibility of the SPGB’s whole case.  There are large chunks of the case I have absolutely no problem with. It’s not the SPGB’s case that concerns me which barring the silly nonsense about religion and one or two other things is fine with me . Rather it is the credibility of some SPGBers who refuse to deal with a serious issue in a serious way even to the point of seeking to belittle and poke fun at  those who raise such issues in the first . ” Lighthearted hearted way ” my arse.   This doesn’t reflect well on the organisation to engage in such smart arse put downs and you shoould know this

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I’ve got no free will in the matter. 

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-one-country?page=2#comment-3006

robbo203 wrote:

The notion that we have no free will whatsoever is just as ridiculous as the notion that we have absolute free will, in my view. 

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/materialism-determinism-free-will?page=9#comment-2861

 Some people just don’t have a sense of humour. I was trying to take the P+++ or didn’t you get that?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Lighten up, Robbo. Why is it always you who introduces an element of acrimony into these discussions?Incidentally, I’m not sure you can call the late Pieter Lawrence to your aid, at least not by what he wrote in 1988 about your ideas:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/19536?var=1

 I’ll tell you what,  ALB – you stop with your irritating habit of interjecting snidey little comments into the conversation and I’ll stop being acrimonious.  OK? Can’t say fairer than that, huh?  Afterall its all cause (snidey comment) and effect (acrimonious put down), innit?  I’ve got no free will in the matter.  As for that other little irritating habit of yours of dredging up stuff from years ago, I will only say this with regards to Pieter’s response  – that he was way off beam in his arguments and in fact his arguments were subsequently soundly demolished.  Nevertheless,   that doesn’t mean that just because someone has been my opponent in a political debate that anything he or she must says must be deemed wrong or unsound. I can recognise a valid point when I encounter it – even in your case if I might say so

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.

I propose that this hugely important theoretical question be referred to the Crystal Ball Dept for report nearer the time of the socialist revolution. Is there a seconder?

This cynical and snidey remark is unworthy of you,  ALB.  Speaking of crystal balls,  there was a time when the SPGB had the balls to face up to the big questions. Perhaps those balls have lost some their lustre now or have simply dropped off and are merrily rolling down Clapham High St as we speak.   I remember when the Production for Use Committee was first set up and I remember also the reasons  advanced for setting up that  Committee – that we needed to put more meat on the bare bones of the socialist alternative and to demonstrate , amongst other things how in a  practical manner it could address the big problems of today like world hunger.   The point was to show the vital relevance of socialism in the here and now not some indefinite remote future. Pieter Lawrence, as I recall, made the rather memorable point along the lines that if you are not prepared to discuss the future then you surrender it to our opponents, or words to that effect. Well,  it seems there are some in the Party – what I call its Conservative wing – are clearly not prepared to do this and clearly prefer to withdraw into the comfort zone of nostalgia and Party reminiscences, Nothing could be more ironic for a Party claiming to be “revolutionary ” that it should so terrified of the prospect of the slightest change within.  What ever became of Marx’s dictum to “question everything”  .  It seems to have been replaced by another –  “turn a blind eye to everything” The questions I asked in my post earlier where made in good faith and they’re far from trivial or something to be sneered at or patronised over.  They actually cut to the very heart of the SPGB’s whole electoral strategy for the democratic capture of political power  – which strategy, I  will say now,  I have always supported, even though i consider it grossly incomplete and one sided.  Outside the cosy little insular world inhabited by the likes of ALB and Gnome,  people – or at least politically active people – are talking about precisely these sort of issues . Go to sites like Revleft where I have been ploughing the SPGB furrow for some time  with no thanks from the backstabbers on this forum and you will see for yourself. These are important issues to discuss and if ALB cannot see their importance then I’m afraid he is a fool.  You can’t just brush such things under the carpet like this and if he doesn’t want to discuss it well then fine – i hope there are more rational comrades in the SPGB  who will

[robbo203]

This discussion of which socialist organisation is currently the biggest and where a socialist party is first likely to democratically capture political power is all very interesting and all very well but rather besides the point of this thread , isn’t it? The point is what happens after some socialist party somewhere in the world first captures  power? Does it establish the first socialist island in a sea of capitalism?  Or does it install a proletarian dictatorship and continue operating capitalism until all the other socialist parties elsewhere have caught up? If the later, how can we avoid the clear risk of “substitutionism” and betrayal by a  “socialist government”? If the former, how would this initial socialist region  (ISR) relate in material sense to the  surrounding residual capitalist states (RCSs)? Will it conduct its relations with the latter in the form of barter deals or will it opt for greater autarky as Alan has suggested or will it be both?  And what about the question of porous borders  and the free flow of individuals across them? Will this be permitted or denied and if so what would be the implications in each case? These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.  It needs to do that  if it is to make its whole electoralist strategy more credible in the eyes of skeptics.  The logical starting point  is to address the question of whether socialism can be established immediately in one part of the world when the rest of the world is still nominally capitalist, albeit increasingly influenced by significant socialist minorities.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Fabian wrote:

Could it be said that socialism is based on an view that everyone has the right to fulfillment of their needs?

You could put it that way and enabling people to fulfil their needs is what socialism will bring about. But there is no need to make out a moral or philosophical case for socialism since socialism will not come about through people accepting such a case. It will come about when material circumstances eventually lead the excluded majority to realise that their material interest (in fulfilling their needs) can only be achieved by making productive resources the common heritage of all, ie as a practical solution to a practical problem, not as the implementation of an abstract principle. This may well be reflected, as others here have pointed out, in a feeling that this change is right/fair/just, etc. In fact I would imagine it will be.

 You don’t need to make out  some kind of separate moral and philosophical case for socialism  – simply to recognise that the case for socialism has both moral and material aspects to it .  It makes no sense for example to criticise capitalism on the grounds that it exploits the working class without meaning by this that you consider such exploitation to be morally reprehensible. Certainly socialism will be in the material interests of the working class but it will also be the expression of our sense of moral outrage at what capitalism does to us and our environment. 

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Do people act a certain way because of their ‘moral principles’? Or do ‘moral principles’ arise because people act a certain way?

 Why can’t it be both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

[robbo203]

Fabian wrote:

 I did. Being that you don’t have any ethical stance on autonomy of the individual I want you to concretely say does that mean that it’s not wrong for someone to take a kidney from me without my consent. And if the answer is no, then why? If you don’t accept my right to exclusive use of my body (being that you don’t believe in anything like what is called natural right), I want to know on what do you base your assumption that my body will be safe in a socialist society?

 I would argue that a socialist society is one in which the fullest possible autonomy of the individual will obtain precisely because there is no leverage anyone or any group could exercise over you or anyone else where labour is performed on a purely voluntary  basis and where goods and service are made available on a free access.  Under these circumstances political power implodes completely and there can be no such thing as a coercive state. It is only under these circumstances that you can be sure that your body will be completely safe in every sense The only form of coercion in a socialist society will be moral pressure based on the clear recognition that we all depend upon each other and therefore  stand in need of each others other help.and coperation.   “Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself ” is a pretty sound moral principle which I consider will find deep roots in a socialist society. You would not like having you kidney taken from you without your consent.  Well then by the same token, you would not want to forcibly remove without their consent the kidney stones of other individuals who you love alongside, depend upon and value for themselves, in the free society we call socialism

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

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 company of  ..ahem… “scientific materialists” who have no truck with such “idealist” nonsense 

You have misinterpreted my words. Nowhere have I said that I find rape morally unacceptable. I do not like rape, I do not like hunger. It is YOU that implies I believe them to be a moral issue. It used to be religious people who thought that their beliefs were the only basis of a civilised society now it is the moral brigade. Socialism will remove the need for both

 Well, no, that’s not quite what I meant although I concede my wording was unclear.  What I should have said is that you deny that rape is morally unacceptable but that your stated opinion on the subject implies just that – that rape is morally unacceptable. This should have been obvious in the context and from my remark “why not simply call a spade a spade” There is,  of course, absolutely no chance whatsoever that socialism or any kind of human society will ever remove the need for morality.   Why do you and Ed persist with this absolutely ridiculous and balmy idea?  I just don’t get it. Morality simply means some socially accepted code of behaviour comprising certain social rules about the “do’s” and “don’ts” of living together in a society.  It so simple and straightforward and yet you make such a big hooha about it as if it were some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo descending from the heavens to baffle and confuse us mere mortals. It’s not.  It’s a completely human made social product designed to ensure people get along with each other in with the business of living in a society. The idea that socialism is not going to have a list of do’s and dont’s implies that you think a socialist society would be completely neutral on the subject of, say,  rape. In that event one could imagine the response of a citizen of a socialist society along the lines of  “well its not my cup of tea but you go ahead and rape that person down the road if you want to, Its not my business” Its banal to say that you reject rape simply because “you don’t like it”. If you don’t  like it then surely for heaven’s sake what goes with that is the imperative that people ought not to rape one another. It is the existence of that implied imperative – don’t rape another person! – which makes your attitude to rape morally-based. You don’t just say “I don’t like rape” and leave it at that.  That is absurd!  What you try to do, precisely because you don’t like rape, is to PREEMPT  rape by the formulation of  a tacit rule “don’t rape another person” and this most definitely is a moral response!

[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

[Author]

Posts