The Revleft and Ethics

[MKS]

Are ethics nessecary in a socialist, commuist or anarchist society. And if they are, why?

There have been many threads on Che and homosexuals, Marx and Engles on homosexuality, if they were homphobic or not. On communism and nationalism, racism etc.

However couldnt one argue that in a society ruled by the people of by the masses such ethical concerns such as, protection of minorites, tolerance, justice etc could be unfairly dismissed?

When did tolerance for homosexuals, racial minorities, come into play with Marxism and modern communist thought?

Shouldnt the main aim of Marxism, Anarchism, etc be the protection and establishment of a workers state, thus implying equal protection for all people.

Couldnt racism and intolerance be just as prevelant in a workers state?

[coda]

Hello, MKS,

anti-racism/homophobia probably came into play of communist thought in the 1960's during the civil rights movement because those elements do not resemble equality and so classify people within an oppressive sub-class. Yes, the worker state should protect all people, but those things discriminately targets a group of people with specific traits that are outside work and wealth disparities so, it may need an extra valiant effort of protection and safeguarding so that it does not become prevalent in a worker's state.

My theory is that the 1960's and 1970's were the pinnacle of radical thought; there is no generation gap between radicals of that era and now. There is also no generation gap in music/drug culture between the late 60's and now. The late 60's was the epitome of free-thought. In that I mean that there is nothing much to add.

anyway, I am an anarchist who is ruled by a sense of morality, be it my own twisted idea of it.

[guerillablack]

Socialism and Communism will not wipe out racism. Racism is deeply rooted and will take generations if even to remove if communism is ever reached.

[MKS]

anti-racism/homophobia probably came into play of communist thought in the 1960's during the civil rights movement because those elements do not resemble equality and so classify people within an oppressive sub-class

Isnt it just political pandering to gain support? It should be implied that socialist.communist or anarchists mean to include everybody when they speak of an equal society. Overtly stating a tolerance and acceptance for any minorty may seem like another form of political wrangling and coercion.

Also by advocating for such minority rights, dont we loose sight of the "big picture", the destruction of capitalism. Hopefuly once the system is changed the attitudes and prejudices that were so prevelant will disappear.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:28 AM
Socialism and Communism will not wipe out racism. Racism is deeply rooted and will take generations if even to remove if communism is ever reached.
Right. Pessimist :D
If we ever reach THAT stage...We have already comesth so far that such people whould simply be obsolote! :o

[monkeydust]

Very interesting thread.

I suppose the answer varies according to what ideology within what might be classed as "revolutionary left" we're talking about.

Marxism is, at first sight,"value free". It's a set of tools for understanding and explaining the world, and in turn for predicting what will happen in future years (in the broad sense).

The system works fine based on self-interest: the bourgeosie trying to get all they can out of the proletarians, and the proletariat ensuingly getting very pissed they'd be better off without the bourgeosie. Classes work in unity based on mutual interest.

Anarchists are often more overtly moralistic. Many socialists simlarly so.

But to answer your main question...


Are ethics nessecary in a socialist, commuist or anarchist society. And if they are, why?


...I think the answer has to be yes.

Any polity has to make moral judgements. What views do we class as acceptable? Is euthanasia morally permissible? Is capital punishment ever justified?

The questions are endless, and any society will have to deal with them and many others that arise in future times.

The problem is that no one's really agreed upon how these should be solved.

Nearly all revolutionary leftists will reject any "metaphysical" or religious basis for
ethics - few will simply believe we get our answers "from the sky".

But with this gone, what do with have left?

There are many answers, but no widely accepted. Most, however, tend to be somewhat more "practical" than conventional morality - I think Redstar had an excellent article on "situational ethics" to this point.

Another answer could be to adopt a utilitarian approach - assuming "right" to be "the greatest good for the greatest number". This itself is fraught with problems, but I've seen many more practical and sophisticated versions of it given which, to me, make a lot of sense (if you want me to elaborate, ask, and I'll be happy to).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the subject of homosexuality, and certainly in the case of racism, I don't think it's necessarily a moral issue at all.

Racists claim that people of certain ethnicities are somehow "inferior". We don't need to say this is "wrong" for moral reasons, we can perfectly easily say it is wrong because it is wrong in scientific terms. There is demonstrably no significant difference between races in terms of what they are capable of and thus those who treat certain races as "inferior" are wrong beyond doubt. (Again we can also bring moral considerations into this as well).

It's a similar thing for homosexuality - once religion is taken out of the picture.



I hope that helped answer your questions a little, though I probably ended up confusing you even more.

[MKS]

Nearly all revolutionary leftists will reject any "metaphysical" or religious basis for
ethics - few will simply believe we get our answers "from the sky".

This is where I think many revolutionary leftists go wrong, they are very good at addressing the "science" of class struggle, and revolution, but very bad at rlating to the "human" side of the struggle, that is to say, the unamed qualities of the human condition. People who do such are labeled as idealists, or utopian dreamers. Why is there such a rejection of "spiritual" sentiment.



Racists claim that people of certain ethnicities are somehow "inferior". We don't need to say this is "wrong" for moral reasons, we can perfectly easily say it is wrong because it is wrong in scientific terms.

The moral question becomes a factor when you take into factor the willingness of people to accept the science, obviously the science of race has been on record for many years, however there is still a large contingent of people (especially in the US) who are ardent racists. Morality in terms of racism, is a willingness to look beyond social conditioning, and backwards beliefs and just look at the facts. Even if there were not one shred of scientific evidence about the equality of the races, I would still hold the moral position that the treatment of a man (or woman) based on the color of thier skin, their national origin or sexual orientation, is wrong.


Another point; Isnt targeting certain issues, such as gay rights, civil rights, etc pandering, and doesnt it go against the real aim of Marxist communism?Shouldnt we be foucsed on the overall destruction of the systems that oppress, and subsequenlty the prejudices and attitudes that prevailed in the old society will dissappear. Or do we have to start to re-shape attitudes about these issues before any substantial societal change?

[Shogun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:32 PM
Are ethics nessecary in a socialist, commuist or anarchist society. And if they are, why?

There have been many threads on Che and homosexuals, Marx and Engles on homosexuality, if they were homphobic or not. On communism and nationalism, racism etc.

However couldnt one argue that in a society ruled by the people of by the masses such ethical concerns such as, protection of minorites, tolerance, justice etc could be unfairly dismissed?

When did tolerance for homosexuals, racial minorities, come into play with Marxism and modern communist thought?

Shouldnt the main aim of Marxism, Anarchism, etc be the protection and establishment of a workers state, thus implying equal protection for all people.

Couldnt racism and intolerance be just as prevelant in a workers state?
i would answer yes that it is nescessary to an anarchist government because that is what it depends on man's natural harmony. As for socialism and communism i think no its not nescessary because, that is what will bring them down it is good in concept but just look at these people in this forum some so called ardent communists have pictures of the american flag burning. Most are attacking Islam. This is why communism/socialism doesn't work because, is imperfect.

[monkeydust]

Forgive incoherence in my post (drunk.)



This is where I think many revolutionary leftists go wrong, they are very good at addressing the "science" of class struggle, and revolution, but very bad at rlating to the "human" side of the struggle, that is to say, the unamed qualities of the human condition. People who do such are labeled as idealists, or utopian dreamers.

I don't think they're "going wrong". It's simply that utopian visions require a huge load of assumptions - with scant or no evidence - and we'd be hard pressed to convince the "unconverted" of the veracity of these.

No one knows exactly what these "unnamed qualities of the human condition are", so it would be hard to bring them into a theory.


Why is there such a rejection of "spiritual" sentiment.

There's at least two points here:

1) "Spirituality" is generally considered to be at odds with science, rationality, logic, reasoning (etc. etc. an naseum) which most modern respected theories are based upon.

2) Most conventional spiritual values are incompatible with revolutionary ones. How many values, for instance, of Islam could be applied to Socialism? (oppression of women, obedience to authority and so on)


I would still hold the moral position that the treatment of a man (or woman) based on the color of thier skin, their national origin or sexual orientation, is wrong

Agreed.

The "moral" factor is perfectly compatible with the "matter-of-fact" one in this regard.


Isnt targeting certain issues, such as gay rights, civil rights, etc pandering, and doesnt it go against the real aim of Marxist communism?Shouldnt we be foucsed on the overall destruction of the systems that oppress, and subsequenlty the prejudices and attitudes that prevailed in the old society will dissappear. Or do we have to start to re-shape attitudes about these issues before any substantial societal change?


I think you're describing a dichotomy that doesn't exist in reality.

I see no reason why can't do both simultaneously - it's not a case of "one or the other".

[MKS]

) "Spirituality" is generally considered to be at odds with science, rationality, logic, reasoning (etc. etc. an naseum) which most modern respected theories are based upon.

2) Most conventional spiritual values are incompatible with revolutionary ones. How many values, for instance, of Islam could be applied to Socialism? (oppression of women, obedience to authority and so on)

I put the word spiritual in quotes just to give a name to the unamed qualities and ideals of the human condition. In regards to ethics, we have to recgonize that ethics and morals are contived from an unknown source. Sure situations can give rise to ethics, however some ethical concerns seem to be derived from "nothing". While most Rev Lefters overwhelmingly dismiss the religous origins of ethics, it has to be recgonized that many ethical ideals are dervied from various religous traditions.

The question again surfaces;If the revolutionary forces deem the source of ethics simply as another product of the material reality, how will the change of that reality ensure ethics and moral principles are intact. What is stopping the reality from creating a lack of ethics? Why is it assumed that ethical responsibility will be ensured in a post-revolutionary world?


Most conventional spiritual values are incompatible with revolutionary ones. How many values, for instance, of Islam could be applied to Socialism? (oppression of women, obedience to authority and so on)

there is often a confusion between spirtualism and religion (religous dogma), a "spirtual" value would be the very general sentiments of fair treatment, justice, acceptance, equality etc. I call them spirtual because there is no scientfic reason for the establishement and protection of these rights or ethical responsibilites. They speak to a that unamed quality of the human condition.
Religous values, held by certain religous sects are completley different, and I would say act more to oppress than to liberate. (as was pointed out in the previous post about Islam).

QUOTE


Isnt targeting certain issues, such as gay rights, civil rights, etc pandering, and doesnt it go against the real aim of Marxist communism?Shouldnt we be foucsed on the overall destruction of the systems that oppress, and subsequenlty the prejudices and attitudes that prevailed in the old society will dissappear. Or do we have to start to re-shape attitudes about these issues before any substantial societal change?




I think you're describing a dichotomy that doesn't exist in reality.

I see no reason why can't do both simultaneously - it's not a case of "one or the other

Let me give a situational example:
In the U.S the majority of Americans (as proven by the past election and polling) are against the establishment of gay marriage. Now a Communist revolution occurs, time passes, and the society is equal, by all definitions set forth by Marx and modern Communist theory, however the attitudes towards homosexuals are still prevelant among the people causing a rift or possibilty of inequality/discrimination.

In this situation I would argue that the attitudes of the people need to change before the revolution, in order to create true equality. However one could argue if the majority of Americans accepted Communism they would accept homosexual rights and equality.

Another question: Could a communist, anarchist, socialist, still be a communist, etc, etc, and not hold, the "beliefs" of equal rights for the races, homosexual rights?

Conclusion: The situation usally determines the ethical attitude or outcome, but I still assert there needs to be certain moral imperatives established and held by all the people in order for a truly equal society to thirve.

[monkeydust]

The question again surfaces;If the revolutionary forces deem the source of ethics simply as another product of the material reality, how will the change of that reality ensure ethics and moral principles are intact. What is stopping the reality from creating a lack of ethics? Why is it assumed that ethical responsibility will be ensured in a post-revolutionary world?


I think it's probably because most of us reject the Hobbesian view that humans are natually brutal, stupid and violent creatures.

We think that people will be more or less sensible, when the situation calls for it.

And, for anyone, it makes more sense to create a rational - but flexible, practical and material - ethical code, because that is in their interest. At least in the long term, most people will want some basic rules underlying a polity in order for it to function and for their lives to be safe and enjoyable.

As for "ethical responsibility", I think it's assumed that people will still follow it without some divine compulsion because:

A) There's considerable "social pressure" to do so.

B) You won't "get away with it" if you choose to act in a way contrary to these basic rules.


Interestingly, this brings us on to one of the paradoxes within Anarchism. Any anarchist polity will have to have some basic rules, and they'll almost certainly be built upon anarchist principles: Anti-statism, anti-authoritarianism, maximum social freedom and so on.

The paradox lies in the fact that, whilst anarchism claims to allow a great amount of freedom within the scope of its values, if anyone tries to challenge or not abide by these, they will be forced to abide by them.


there is often a confusion between spirtualism and religion (religous dogma), a "spirtual" value would be the very general sentiments of fair treatment, justice, acceptance, equality etc. I call them spirtual because there is no scientfic reason for the establishement and protection of these rights or ethical responsibilites. They speak to a that unamed quality of the human condition.
Religous values, held by certain religous sects are completley different, and I would say act more to oppress than to liberate. (as was pointed out in the previous post about Islam

Your right that I wrongly conflated "spiritual" and "religious", but I don't think that what you listed under "spiritual" really fits the definition.

But even if we take your definition, I don't think the dichotomy between "spiritual" and "scientific" really works.

Sure, those "background values" of justice, rights and so on aren't scientific, but that doesn't make them "spiritual".

They are both material and rational...at least if we accept the Liberal argument for their existence (and most people around in the West these days are at least Liberals in some form).

As for the more "spiritual" values of Marxism, though I'm reluctant to mix the two terms, it's often at least partially based upon some a priori conception of what is "right" - and here I take your point. Marxists can't avoid the fact that their paradigm is at lesast implicitly "value-laden".


In this situation I would argue that the attitudes of the people need to change before the revolution, in order to create true equality. However one could argue if the majority of Americans accepted Communism they would accept homosexual rights and equality.


I disagree.

I think we should fight as hard as we can to rid ourselves of homophobia present now, but, if that fails, and if their is some revolution in the distant future, then we needn't "hold up" until the former task is completed - we can finish it off afterwards.


Another question: Could a communist, anarchist, socialist, still be a communist, etc, etc, and not hold, the "beliefs" of equal rights for the races, homosexual rights?


No, not in my view.


Conclusion: The situation usally determines the ethical attitude or outcome, but I still assert there needs to be certain moral imperatives established and held by all the people in order for a truly equal society to thirve.



Agreed.

What that is to be is another matter entirely. But there are workable solutions that do not require religious values.

[Severian]

Their Morals and Ours by Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-mor.htm)

I highly recommend it for cutting through a lot of crap of various types.

Che's Socialism and Man in Cuba is also useful on ethics among other things.

I really don't see why racism, homophobia, etc., are specially ethical questions. They're questions of political program and strategy.

Marxism has from the beginning proclaimed "workers of the world unite." Clearly to accomplish this, it's necessary to oppose discrimination and prejudice which divides the working class.


anti-racism/homophobia probably came into play of communist thought in the 1960's during the civil rights movement

No. It's older than that, especially anti-racism.

Besides the foundation in Marx - "workers of the world unite" - the fully formed policy goes back to the Bolsheviks. They developed this policy In order to build a party and make a revolution in the multi-national empire of the tsars - where Great Russians were only about half the population. They learned that in order to unite workers of many different nationalities, it was necessary to oppose all oppression of the smaller nationalities, and even support their right to independence if they wanted it.

The early Communist International strongly encouraged communists all over the world to adopt this policy, and the Communist Party in the U.S. actively did so, from the 20s and 30s. From south Alabama to South Africa, "Communist" became synonymous with uncompromising opposition to racism...it was even legally defined that way in South Africa's "Suppression of Communism Act"

The early Soviet Union also abolished all laws against homosexuality...but continuity with that was largely lost thanks to rabid anti-homosexual prejudice promoted by Stalinism. Really it was with the rise of the women's liberation movement and gay rights movement in the U.S. that radical left groups began reexamining or reemphasizing it. But the basic reason is the same, that it's necessary to oppose anything that divides working people.