Amoral Marxism

[Mute Fox]

Interesting question I came up with recently: Is it possible to understand historical materialism/Marxism, be class-conscious, and still determine that it's in one's material interests to *not* be a revolutionary?

To give an example that might help you understand what I mean, I've been told that many capitalist neo-consvervatives have a very good understanding of historical materialism, are class-conscious, etc...they just decide that since they're capitalists, they have no moral problem with benefitting from imperialism.

I guess my ultimate question is, since historical materialism's basic premise is that people make decisions based on rational self-interest (i.e. selfishness), does that negate the idea that there's some "moral imperative" to become a communist? Can we truly fault people for behaving in their perceived self-interest? The whole idea of communism is that it is in humanity's rational self-interest to run things in a classless, stateless, property-less, directly democratic fashion...and so communism is ultimately inevitable. If people "in the mean time" wish to live their lives in a different way, the world being what it is now, can we fault them? Perhaps it really *is* in the interest of a lot of proles to decide to become petty-bourgeois, or even capitalist...or at least try, anyway. Since, by definition, being a prole sucks.

I'd just like your thoughts, as usual.

[jake williams]

Interesting question I came up with recently: Is it possible to understand historical materialism/Marxism, be class-conscious, and still determine that it's in one's material interests to *not* be a revolutionary?

To give an example that might help you understand what I mean, I've been told that many capitalist neo-consvervatives have a very good understanding of historical materialism, are class-conscious, etc...they just decide that since they're capitalists, they have no moral problem with benefitting from imperialism.
Yes, and many of them do it. That said it does take a special kind of sociopath to be fully cognizant of what capitalism entails and still support it. A few do, but many of them make up various justifications and rationalizations. The ruling class globally is quite class conscious, but their understanding of capitalism and its effects of people is in many ways obfuscated.


I guess my ultimate question is, since historical materialism's basic premise is that people make decisions based on rational self-interest (i.e. selfishness), does that negate the idea that there's some "moral imperative" to become a communist? Can we truly fault people for behaving in their perceived self-interest? The whole idea of communism is that it is in humanity's rational self-interest to run things in a classless, stateless, property-less, directly democratic fashion...and so communism is ultimately inevitable. If people "in the mean time" wish to live their lives in a different way, the world being what it is now, can we fault them? Perhaps it really *is* in the interest of a lot of proles to decide to become petty-bourgeois, or even capitalist...or at least try, anyway. Since, by definition, being a prole sucks.
Socialism is in the class interests of the working class, and ultimately humanity as a whole, period.

Yes, it is possible for individuals within the working class to align their interests with the ruling class in exchange for real (eg. police salary) or perceived (eg. "someday I'll be rich too!") benefits. But not only are those people class traitors and scumbags, they're counting on the support of a ruling class that ultimately doesn't give a fuck about them, their friends or their families, and so it's not exactly a risk free life. Again, in the long run, socialism is in the interests of the working class as a whole. A very few working class people betray their class and end up weathy and powerful themselves, but it's exceedingly rare.

[mikelepore]

since historical materialism's basic premise is that people make decisions based on rational self-interest (i.e. selfishness).

There is no such premise in historical materialism. Historical materialism is the principle that the way to understand the ideas of a society is by considering the state of development of its tools of subsistence and its methods of subsistence. If you choose any society in history, if you want to arrive at an understanding of their philosophy, morality, legal conceptions, religion, family relationships and art, then your first question should be at what stage are they in the tools of subsistence (bow and arrow, horticulture, agriculture, metallurgy, domestication of animals, machinery) Your second question should be what relations of production they have (tribal, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). Each step of economic devleopment has associated kinds of ideas, for example, tribal religion, tribal morality, tribal art, feudal religion, feudal morality, feudal art.

[Outinleftfield]

Since the mind itself is part of matter for it to really be in your material interests you have to be a sociopath(and suffer no displeasure from hurting other people). We are hard-wired to be social, empathetic beings from thousands of years of evolution. Objectively, there is nothing immoral about a sociopathic exploiter because there is nothing objective about morality. Morality is just a subjective determination about whether different things in the world meet your "self-interest" or not and when enough people agree that exploitation is "immoral" there is nothing immoral about getting together to stop the exploitation regardless of what the exploiter's own personal morality says about it.

Its possible a nonsociopathic capitalist might justify exploitation on "rational self-interest" too if you distort the concept of "rational self-interest" and limit it to exclude satisfaction from cooperation and solidarity. Objectivists are the clearest example of this. They've distorted the meaning of "self-interest" so much that to them it really means "conforming to objectivism". They are involuntary egoists ruled by the concept of egoism who have managed to convince themselves that they are voluntary egoists.

[Mute Fox]

Quote: Originally posted by mikelepore:

Originally Posted by Mute Fox http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1806183#post1806183)
since historical materialism's basic premise is that people make decisions based on rational self-interest (i.e. selfishness). There is no such premise in historical materialism.

Truly? I admit I haven't read enough to be able to empirically back up that statement; but I always thought that even if not explicitly stated, it was an implicitly assumed premise of historical materialism that rational self-interest is the prime motivator of humanity. Otherwise, of what use are those wonderful tools and methods of subsistence? Or perhaps I am missing something...

[meow]

i agree with jammoe (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=15476) with exception of word 'betray'. if marx is correct history forces us into groups. these groups are no more natural or chosen then nationality. just like you cant betray your country you cant betray your class.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by meow:
if marx is correct history forces us into groups. these groups are no more natural or chosen then nationality. just like you cant betray your country you cant betray your class.

I fully agree, comrade meow. At least, one can't "betray" one's class in any moral sense. Being wrong doesn't make someone a bastard. At least in my estimation. Communist revolution is pretty much inevitable...the fact that the capitalist class tries to postpone it, and sections of the working class "give up" on it won't make a lick of difference in the end.

That being said, from a subjective standpoint I don't blame anyone for calling such defectors "bastards." Just don't think they believe that they're "evil" and are "betraying" you out of spite.

[mikelepore]

Truly? I admit I haven't read enough to be able to empirically back up that statement; but I always thought that even if not explicitly stated, it was an implicitly assumed premise of historical materialism that rational self-interest is the prime motivator of humanity. Otherwise, of what use are those wonderful tools and methods of subsistence? Or perhaps I am missing something...

Consider the observation of Marx and Engels in _The German Ideology_:

"The ideas of the ruling class are, in every epoch, the ruling ideas; i.e., the class which is the ruling _material_ force of society, is, at the same time, its ruling _intellectual_ force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control, at the same time, over the means of mental production, so that, thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it."

(The phrase "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class" was re-used in drafting the Communist Manifesto.)

What does that imply?

If the ruled class (always a majority) spend most of their time having the ideas that the ruling class (always a minority) wants them to have, that means that the ruled class spend most of their time being opposed to their own self-interests.

At certain moments, the cusps between social systems, the ruled class acts out of self-interest, but these are rare moments, not typical ones . When the rising capitalist class overthrew feudal society, they acted out of realization that their business interests are incompatable with feudalism. Similarly, the working class goes numerous centuries neglecting their own self-interests, positively hostile to those who suggest that they should act according to their interests, but presumably they will eventually amend that habit and will act according to their self-interest --and that will be the day of the revolution -- not an everyday occurence.

Perhaps you are refering to those historical junctures, because they alter the overall direction of history. If so, you would be right. I was refering to the typical day in the life of human beings, when people don't even recognize what their self-interest is, much less act on it. I should have been clearer in the first place, but I was too brief.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by mikelepore:
I should have been clearer in the first place, but I was too brief.

Not at all, comrade. You're just dealing with a newbie here. What Marx and Engels seem to have suggested, according to your quote, makes a weird kind of sense...the ruled masses are only fully "rational" and "self-interested" when it really counts. That seems to make sense. What I don't get is how, if that premise is true (which it seems to be), why class-consciousness and communist ideas can arise in periods where it doesn't historically "count"...like in Russia in 1917. Or how can capitalists come up with it, like Engels? If being determines consciousness, how can anyone know anything important except at the instance where "necessity becomes the mother of invention", so to speak?

Or perhaps I am over-thinking this....

[28350]

Marxism is amoral.
Or at least, not about morality.
I didn't read this thread.
I probably should have.
I think I will now.

[Adil3tr]

I think the theoretical term, in the full philosophical sense is called "being a douche bag".

[mikelepore]

Not at all, comrade. You're just dealing with a newbie here. What Marx and Engels seem to have suggested, according to your quote, makes a weird kind of sense...the ruled masses are only fully "rational" and "self-interested" when it really counts. That seems to make sense. What I don't get is how, if that premise is true (which it seems to be), why class-consciousness and communist ideas can arise in periods where it doesn't historically "count"...like in Russia in 1917. Or how can capitalists come up with it, like Engels? If being determines consciousness, how can anyone know anything important except at the instance where "necessity becomes the mother of invention", so to speak?

Or perhaps I am over-thinking this....

When you say "really counts", I think you're indicating a need to explain when and why revolutions happen. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. Marx's theory is more about the potential for what the revolution can develop into -- it can offer a new system that will resolve prior contradictions. Marx puts an inner limit on the timing: a revolution usually doesn't occur until the previous system has developed as far as it could and then "fetters" on further development are detected. That doesn't mean that a revolution occurs then. It means that a revolution ordinarily doesn't happen before then. It can happen anytiime afterwards.

20th century events didn't follow what Marx would consider normal development. Russia was supposed to have a capitalist revolution and replace the monarchy with a republic. IMO, you must have a republican form of government before you can have socialism, otherwise you won't end up with the workers in democratic control, and the name "socialism" will be a misnomer. But Marx didn't say that because he didn't believe that the events of Russia in 1917 were possible at all.

I don't understand what you're saying about ideas arising. The idea of socialism can arise in anyone. Before the invention of mass production methods, the idea cannot be fulfilled, something like the hope of going to the moon before people have invented aircrafts. Because the idea is impractical at first, the idea is expected to occur in few people. After mass production is invented, the idea of socialism is now a practical idea, and now having become a practical idea is the thing that can make the conceivable to many more people.

Socialism is the recognition by people of a potential that is already present in the modern machines. These machines contain within them the potential to produce an abundance for all without arduous labor. Suppose you were driving your car one day and you noticed for the first time that the transmission has a high gear that you never before shifted to. You try it and learn about a new potential in the car. That's what socialism is. People today are failing to notice that the industries which they operate every day have a potential to accomplish more results. If people come to realize it and begin to use the potential of the means of production, that will be socialism.

[mikelepore]

On my web site I copied the excerpts from Marx and Engels that thought constituted a definition of the materialist coneption of history:

http://www.deleonism.org/materialist-conception-of-history.htm

but see also these excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan:

http://www.deleonism.org/lewis-henry-morgan-ancient-society.htm

[Glenn Beck]

A capitalist would not come to understand the system the same way someone else would, though they would certainly perceive their class interest and have at least a working grasp of the way the system works. They would be most likely to have the kind of ideas that suit their self-interest, not the same ideas you have but reversed.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by mikelepore:
Things and Stuff.Thanks for the clarification, comrade. If I understand you correctly (we'll see...) then the phrase "being determines consciousness" doesn't mean that you can't hold an idea that's independent of material conditions; you just can't act on it. Or, you can try, but you'll almost certainly fail. Likewise, the working masses are perfectly capable of grasping the ideas of socialism at any time; but it doesn't seem practical to a majority of people until material conditions make that self-evident...as you put it, "a revolution usually doesn't occur until the previous system has developed as far as it could and then "fetters" on further development are detected. That doesn't mean that a revolution occurs then. It means that a revolution ordinarily doesn't happen before then. It can happen anytiime afterwards."

Since capitalism hasn't developed as far as it can - it still has "breathing room" - not enough people can see the "fetters" that capitalism has imposed on the means of production. When capitalist development reaches the breaking point, socialism will be, if not inevitable, then very very probable.

Is that a fair summary?

Oh and thanks for the links mike....and thanks to all the comrades that decided to chime in on this thread :thumbup1:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

On my web site I copied the excerpts from Marx and Engels that thought constituted a definition of the materialist coneption of history:

http://www.deleonism.org/materialist-conception-of-history.htm

but see also these excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan:

http://www.deleonism.org/lewis-henry-morgan-ancient-society.htm

Make sure to also read Marx versus historical materialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyril_01.htm)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Since capitalism hasn't developed as far as it can - it still has "breathing room" - not enough people can see the "fetters" that capitalism has imposed on the means of production. When capitalist development reaches the breaking point, socialism will be, if not inevitable, then very very probable.

Capitalism has been a decadent system for around a century.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by Nothing Human Is Alien
Capitalism has been a decadent system for around a century.

Could you elaborate? It was my understanding that for roughly 50-75% of humanity, mostly in the global south, capitalism has yet to fully develop, if at all. Now if you're talking about the advanced industrialized countries of Europe and North America (and Japan and Australia, etc), then that's a fair statement. I think socialism/communism seems almost overdue in these countries. Not in the sense that it should have happened already, just that it could have, and hasn't...which is disappointing.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You have to realize that capitalism is a global system.

Capitalism proved that it was no longer progressive when it plunged humanity into a barbaric world war. That's what we're talking about here.

And no, capitalism is not progressive even in the "global south." It's no more capable of bringing the extremely underdeveloped economies up to the level of the advanced countries than it is of solving the ecological crises it has created and continues to create.

The means now exist to satisfy the needs and wants of all of humanity, but the private ownership of those means by a tiny minority prevents that from happening. Capitalism is a fetter on human development.

[tellyontellyon]

Human nature is adaptable and our personalities are dialectical. Different circumstances will draw out different facets of the mind. The fact that people can concieve of generosity and sharing and Marxism... means that people can be MORE than selfish.
We are so much more than even we can imagine... Socialism is just the start... once the problems of basic human needs are sorted out, we will have an oppourtunity to explore the full creative, emotional and psychological potential of human beings.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by Nothing Human Is Alien

You have to realize that capitalism is a global system.

Capitalism proved that it was no longer progressive when it plunged humanity into a barbaric world war. That's what we're talking about here.

And no, capitalism is not progressive even in the "global south." It's no more capable of bringing the extremely underdeveloped economies up to the level of the advanced countries than it is of solving the ecological crises it has created and continues to create.

The means now exist to satisfy the needs and wants of all of humanity, but the private ownership of those means by a tiny minority prevents that from happening. Capitalism is a fetter on human development.I humbly disagree, based on what I've learned of historical materialism. I was under the impression that one cannot "skip" capitalism in any region and expect a communist outcome. It's been tried, and has consistently failed. Unquestionably, capitalism sucks and I'd love to see the day that it is inevitably replaced, but I just don't see it happening globally for quite a while. I'm not even so sure that we have the means to satisfy the needs and wants of all humanity quite yet...most of the world still lacks the necessary productive forces, infrastructure, etc. Not to say that there's not a tremendous amount of unnecessary waste under capitalism, of course, but I disagree with you when you say that capitalism is incapable of raising the third world to our standards of living. Most of the "global system" you point to is less of a global capitalist market and more of an imperialist free-for-all, with a few core advanced capitalist countries raking in profits from emerging or pre-capitalist areas.

I'm just trying to be scientific here...communism is less a "moral imperative" and more an as-yet-to-unfold social phenomenon. It won't come just because we want it and need it; the material conditions for it's emergence have to come about.

Or such is my opinion. I have no doubt you would like to enlighten me further on that score.

[mikelepore]

I don't know if you can skip capitalism. Personally, I think that having experience with self-government is more important than the industrial base. As long as electric motors, combustion engines, etc. have been invented somewhere in the world, any common science book tell you how to make them, you can get them very fast. You don't have to go through through a prolonged development process. I think what went wrong with Russia in 1917 is they didn't know what democracy was yet. They went directly from monarchy to some new regime that told everyone we're going to implement a new idea, it's called having an election, that's where you have one name on the ballot, and you may either vote for that person or not vote at all, and everyone said horray, not even having enough experience to know that doing that isn't an election. I do not interpret that as a case where the material conditions were to blame for the repressive outcome. I think it's a case where ideological factors were in the lead.

***

"According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure - political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas - also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form." --- Engels, letter to Joseph Bloch, 1890

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I humbly disagree, based on what I've learned of historical materialism. I was under the impression that one cannot "skip" capitalism in any region and expect a communist outcome. It's been tried, and has consistently failed. Unquestionably, capitalism sucks and I'd love to see the day that it is inevitably replaced, but I just don't see it happening globally for quite a while. I'm not even so sure that we have the means to satisfy the needs and wants of all humanity quite yet...most of the world still lacks the necessary productive forces, infrastructure, etc. Not to say that there's not a tremendous amount of unnecessary waste under capitalism, of course, but I disagree with you when you say that capitalism is incapable of raising the third world to our standards of living. Most of the "global system" you point to is less of a global capitalist market and more of an imperialist free-for-all, with a few core advanced capitalist countries raking in profits from emerging or pre-capitalist areas.

I'm just trying to be scientific here...communism is less a "moral imperative" and more an as-yet-to-unfold social phenomenon. It won't come just because we want it and need it; the material conditions for it's emergence have to come about.

Or such is my opinion. I have no doubt you would like to enlighten me further on that score.

"Historical materialism" is not a rigid law that can be applied mechanically from without. The very people who promoted that practice also happen to be the ones who presided over the "failed attempts" you mention.

That was never Marx's approach.

"The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history... In general, the word 'materialist' serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge " - Engels (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm)

Also see: Marx Versus Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyril_01.htm)

History does not march on a predetermined straight line. There are all sorts of zigs, zags and aberrations. The antique mode of production didn't come into existence everywhere any more than tributism did.

Capitalism is a global system. The very fact that there are underdeveloped countries, which have not "developed normally," issues out of this.

You argument here boils down to "capitalism is still a progressive system," which countless inter-imperialist wars, massacres, and destruction and unchecked atrophy of means of production and infrastructure disproves.

"2008: UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) in its annual Least Developed Countries Report said yesterday that the poverty rate in the world’s 50 least developed countries is rising – despite an overall economic growth in these countries of 7% between 2005-2006, the fastest in 30 years. Instead of the poor though experiencing substantial improvements in living conditions, 277 million people still live on less than US$1 a day (compared with 265 million in 2000 and 245 million in 1995); while two-thirds of all people in those 50 countries survive on just US$2 a day."

The means do exist (on a world scale, not limited to any particular country) to satisfy the wants and needs of everyone. That means it's time for a new system.


It won't come just because we want it and need it; the material conditions for it's emergence have to come about.

The reason we want and need it is precisely because the conditions for its emergence have come about.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They went directly from monarchy to some new regime that told everyone we're going to implement a new idea, it's called having an election, that's where you have one name on the ballot, and you may either vote for that person or not vote at all, and everyone said horray, not even having enough experience to know that doing that isn't an election. I do not interpret that as a case where the material conditions were to blame for the repressive outcome.

1. A provisional government and soviet with elections existed before the October Revolution.

2. Not everyone "said hooray." See: Krondstat, the Workers Group, etc.


I think it's a case where ideological factors were in the lead.

That's incredibly idealistic. Ideology isn't something that comes out of thin air. The degeneration of the October Revolution wasn't a result of strategic and tactical errors.

[Muzk]

Marxist Amoralism and Eternal Truths

The most popular and most imposing accusation directed against Bolshevik “amoralism” bases itself on the so-called Jesuitical maxim of Bolshevism: “The end justifies the means.” From this it is not difficult to reach the further conclusion: since the Trotskyists, like all Bolsheviks (or Marxists) do not recognize the principles of morality, there is, consequently, no “principled” difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism [...]





“It is necessary to be able ... to resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and illegal methods, to evasion and subterfuge, in order to penetrate into the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on communist work in then at all costs.”




The “amoralism” of Lenin, that is, his rejection of supra-class morals, did not hinder him from remaining faithful to one and the same ideal throughout his whole life; from devoting his whole being to the cause of the oppressed; from displaying the highest conscientiousness in the sphere of ideas and the highest fearlessness in the sphere of action, from maintaining an attitude untainted by the least superiority to an “ordinary” worker, to a defenseless woman, to a child. Does it not seem that “amoralism” in the given case is only a pseudonym for higher human morality?



TL;DR: Without morales society imposed on you, you'll be a "machine" made to turn the wheels of time faster; to fight for socialist revolution as the next stage of human development.