jacobin1949
28th November 2007, 02:30
An Introduction to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Class Interest Theory of Ethics, [S.H.] (As of 6/14/07) — The beginning portion of a book in progress. (Draft of the first two chapters only, in Microsoft Word format.)
http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/...icsChaps1-2.doc (http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/IntroToEthicsChaps1-2.doc)
Preface
This is a book on ethics or “moral philosophy”. It is an attempt to expound, and to some limited extent to further develop, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of ethics along the lines begun in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao.
None of the great leaders of the proletariat ever wrote a treatise on ethics and their writings avoid moralistic language. It is reported that “the moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter”. At times these leaders even seem to suggest that the whole subject of morality is a bourgeois hoax. Nevertheless throughout their writings and lifework the most fervent and consistent moral stand is evident in their total devotion to the working class and the oppressed people of the world. And there is to be found in their writings all the essential points of the most profound theory of ethics.
My goal is not just to state the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of ethics (which I will usually abbreviate at “MLM ethics”), but to show why it is correct. I view MLM ethics as a scientific theory, which must be established by scientific methods. Unlike many writers on philosophical subjects, however, I make no pretense that I am starting off unbiased. It should not be thought that using scientific methods precludes one from having an initial point of view; keeping an open mind does not require starting with an empty head.
The most general scientific tools are empirical investigation and theoretical analysis. Since our subject is ethics, the broad areas to be investigated and analyzed are human interrelationships and human society. The preeminent scientific discipline covering these topics is historical materialism, which was discovered by Marx. MLM ethics is thus a component part or sub-set of historical materialism. But other sciences also relate to human society, and two of them in particular will find considerable reference in this book: linguistics and anthropology.
My means of establishing the MLM theory of ethics are:
1) Elaborating the theory, showing that it is internally consistent and coherent (despite claims to the contrary).
2) Showing that MLM ethics is consistent with the more general scientific theory of historical materialism.
3) Explaining why Marx’s distaste for moral language does not show that he “rejected morality”, let alone that he and other Marxists are “immoral”.
4) Answering all the objections I can locate which have been raised against MLM ethics, and showing that they are based on misconceptions or even almost complete ignorance of the theory.
5) Providing a linguistic analysis of moral terminology.
6) Sketching the history of the development of morality in human society.
7) Discussing the biological basis for both the ideological aspect of morality and also for the partial physical internalization of morality in brain (and the seat of the conscience).
8) And, to a very limited degree, showing why other ethical theories are erroneous.
On the last point, I should stress that it will not be possible to consider in turn all the various idealistic ethical theories which have ever been thought up, let alone to do so in depth! The most I can promise is to consider a few of them, especially those which seem to bear a resemblance to certain aspects of MLM ethics. I will also briefly look into a few of the other ethical theories which have been put forward by those who consider themselves Marxists.
This essay, though fairly long in itself, largely consists of partially rewritten excerpts from an even longer (but incomplete) manuscript on MLM ethics which I mostly prepared way back in 1979. In that manuscript I got somewhat bogged down in the technical aspects of lexical semantics and other secondary details. In this introductory essay to MLM ethics I avoid that problem by simply summarizing these technical issues and fine points.
Despite this considerable pruning of detail, however, some of the sections of this book may still seem overly technical to some. I am a little afraid that some readers may therefore find some parts of this essay to be a little off-putting. I can only suggest that such readers skim through the portions they find too technical or long-winded. Readers are under no obligation to pay equal attention to every part of every book they read! It does seem to me, however, that all this diverse material is appropriate and necessary to my subject.
I have made every attempt to face up to criticisms directed against MLM ethics, no matter from where they might come. In fact, I have purposely sought out as many bourgeois critiques as I could find, with the goal not of belittling and dismissing them, but rather of carefully considering these criticisms and answering them seriously. It is not that I am trying to “be fair” to bourgeois apologists and anti-communist professors; that doesn’t concern me in the least! But I do wish to show where their arguments fail so that these arguments cannot be used to confuse and mislead people.
In particular, I have tried to address the following issues very directly:
1) The charge that revolutionary communists have no real morality, but instead openly proclaim that they will resort to the crassest political expediency. I find it very curious, for example, that many, many bourgeois critics who dismiss MLM ethics as “mere expediency” quote from Lenin’s remarkable 1920 speech, “The Tasks of the Youth Leagues” in an attempt to prove their point. The fascinating thing here is that this speech by Lenin is actually a concentrated, and most profound summation of Marxist-Leninist ethics, but the ethical theory actually presented there is completely lost on these critics.
2) What I (and some others, I learned ) call the “central” or “fundamental” problem of MLM ethics, the fact that we say that all moralities are class based, yet still insist that one class morality (proletarian morality) is “better than” another (bourgeois morality). This seems to suggest that we want it both ways, or that we are being inconsistent. The solution to this conundrum is not particularly difficult, but it is a fact that the criticism has been made over and over again and up until now a fully satisfactory reply has not been forthcoming.
3) The question of ends versus means. A summary discussion of this is included in its own section (chapter 10, §4). But the issue is actually approached from many angles throughout the book, and especially in the sections discussing proletarian morality. Much has been written on the question of ends vs. means in relation to MLM ethics, and in fact the issue has really been accorded attention far beyond what it deserves from a theoretical perspective. I can only say that I am forced to give it as much space as I do simply because it has already been made into such a “big issue”.
4) The appraisal of Marxist/Leninist/Maoist practice from the standpoint of proletarian ethics. And here I must confront some hard questions, which have frankly not been confronted very well in the past: questions of the relation of proletarian morality to democratic centralism; the question of whether or not the discipline of the proletarian party should ever be rejected by its members; questions of the relationship between the party and the people from the standpoint of ethics, especially after the seizure of state power; etc.
Included here is the “Stalin question”. Evaluating Stalin—and Marxist practice in general—is not very difficult theoretically. The biggest problems are factual or historical—that is, determining what actually was done and why it was done. I freely admit that this difficulty itself implies a legitimate criticism of Marxist practice during the Stalin era, and to lesser extents before and after it—one of the issues we will get into in due course.
It is a fact that we Marxist-Leninists have not always acted in accordance with our own theories, ethical or otherwise. We have made mistakes, including some very serious ones. Some of these mistakes will be mentioned in the course of the book, in the Marxist spirit of summing up errors in order to help avoid repeating them in the future. On the other hand, a great many of the crimes attributed to us by the bourgeoisie are actually either not crimes at all, or are not things we have done, or are crimes committed by the bourgeoisie itself under our banner. Everything done by the Soviet Union and China since the overthrow of proletarian power in those countries comes under this last heading, and there is no reason for us to accept responsibility for the enemy’s actions. Many of the bourgeoisie’s crimes will also be mentioned as we proceed.
I claim no great originality for the ideas set down here. But on the other hand it is irrelevant to the theory here presented if I have inadvertently misinterpreted some of the ideas of others, be they the great Marxist theoreticians or non-Marxist writers. It is the theory of ethics presented in these pages which I am championing. My goal is not to be original but to be correct and clear. To a degree there is always a contradiction between being fully correct, and being quite clear, and I must confess that I have been somewhat more concerned with the first of the two. It is of course highly unlikely that I have fully achieved even this first goal and therefore I sincerely invite the reader’s comments and criticisms.
There is a glossary and a bibliography in the back pages.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 What is Ethics?
What makes something good or bad, right or wrong? This is a question that people have discussed and argued about for at least 2,500 years. They have come up with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different and conflicting answers. This might suggest that the question is very hard, or perhaps even unsolvable. Many have thought so. But actually, the answer is fairly simple. Even proving that this answer is correct is not tremendously difficult (though here, as elsewhere, any proof will be rejected by those who fail to comprehend its soundness).
The first roughly correct answer was discovered by the thinkers of the French Enlightenment several hundred years ago. A more precise answer, fully appropriate to contemporary class society, was discovered and elaborated on by Marx, Engels, Lenin and other Marxists. But still, this fairly simple, elegant and extremely compelling explanation of morality has by no means been widely adopted. Most people, indeed, have never been exposed to it at all. One obvious reason for this is that the capitalist ruling class always goes to great lengths to keep “dangerous” Marxist ideas away from the people. But it must also be admitted that we Marxists ourselves have so far not done a good job in putting forward our views on ethics, clearing up confusions and misconceptions, and replying to objections that have been put forward by bourgeois apologists. And many Marxists themselves have been quite confused and mistaken about ethics, arguing for all kinds of views such as those of Kant or the Bible—in the name of “Marxism”—or arguing that Marx “rejected” all morality. (I’ll talk about that claim later on.)
I started with the question: “What makes something good or bad, right or wrong?” That is the most basic question in ethics. Of course there are many other questions as well, such as:
• Why does morality exist among humans in the first place?
• When and how did morality originate?
• How come there are different opinions about what is right or wrong?
• What is a person’s conscience, and what is its relationship to morality?
• Why don’t people always do what they think is right?
• Does morality, what is right and wrong, change from time to time and from place to place?
• Is there such a thing as “moral progress”?
And of course there are specific questions about various human actions, such as:
• Are such things as lying or killing other people ever justified? If so, when?
• Is abortion right or wrong?
• Are wars ever morally justified?
• Is revolution morally justified? Even if it involves widespread loss of life?
Questions like these in this second group are questions of morality, that is, specific questions about what is right or wrong, good or bad. When you collect everything that one person has to say about all such questions, or what one group says, or one social class, or one whole society (i.e., the dominant views in that society), you have a specific moral code. Ethics, however, concerns itself not with directly answering these sorts of specific moral questions, or directly with constructing any moral code. Instead, it deals with the theoretical questions behind morality—such as what the real essence of moral codes are, how they arose, how they can be justified or discredited, the rational basis for choosing between them, and so forth. Of course most people who talk about morality either present ethical views at the same time, or at least imply them. And most of those who talk or write about ethics also present some of their specific moral views as well. I will too.
http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/...icsChaps1-2.doc (http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/IntroToEthicsChaps1-2.doc)
Preface
This is a book on ethics or “moral philosophy”. It is an attempt to expound, and to some limited extent to further develop, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of ethics along the lines begun in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao.
None of the great leaders of the proletariat ever wrote a treatise on ethics and their writings avoid moralistic language. It is reported that “the moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter”. At times these leaders even seem to suggest that the whole subject of morality is a bourgeois hoax. Nevertheless throughout their writings and lifework the most fervent and consistent moral stand is evident in their total devotion to the working class and the oppressed people of the world. And there is to be found in their writings all the essential points of the most profound theory of ethics.
My goal is not just to state the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of ethics (which I will usually abbreviate at “MLM ethics”), but to show why it is correct. I view MLM ethics as a scientific theory, which must be established by scientific methods. Unlike many writers on philosophical subjects, however, I make no pretense that I am starting off unbiased. It should not be thought that using scientific methods precludes one from having an initial point of view; keeping an open mind does not require starting with an empty head.
The most general scientific tools are empirical investigation and theoretical analysis. Since our subject is ethics, the broad areas to be investigated and analyzed are human interrelationships and human society. The preeminent scientific discipline covering these topics is historical materialism, which was discovered by Marx. MLM ethics is thus a component part or sub-set of historical materialism. But other sciences also relate to human society, and two of them in particular will find considerable reference in this book: linguistics and anthropology.
My means of establishing the MLM theory of ethics are:
1) Elaborating the theory, showing that it is internally consistent and coherent (despite claims to the contrary).
2) Showing that MLM ethics is consistent with the more general scientific theory of historical materialism.
3) Explaining why Marx’s distaste for moral language does not show that he “rejected morality”, let alone that he and other Marxists are “immoral”.
4) Answering all the objections I can locate which have been raised against MLM ethics, and showing that they are based on misconceptions or even almost complete ignorance of the theory.
5) Providing a linguistic analysis of moral terminology.
6) Sketching the history of the development of morality in human society.
7) Discussing the biological basis for both the ideological aspect of morality and also for the partial physical internalization of morality in brain (and the seat of the conscience).
8) And, to a very limited degree, showing why other ethical theories are erroneous.
On the last point, I should stress that it will not be possible to consider in turn all the various idealistic ethical theories which have ever been thought up, let alone to do so in depth! The most I can promise is to consider a few of them, especially those which seem to bear a resemblance to certain aspects of MLM ethics. I will also briefly look into a few of the other ethical theories which have been put forward by those who consider themselves Marxists.
This essay, though fairly long in itself, largely consists of partially rewritten excerpts from an even longer (but incomplete) manuscript on MLM ethics which I mostly prepared way back in 1979. In that manuscript I got somewhat bogged down in the technical aspects of lexical semantics and other secondary details. In this introductory essay to MLM ethics I avoid that problem by simply summarizing these technical issues and fine points.
Despite this considerable pruning of detail, however, some of the sections of this book may still seem overly technical to some. I am a little afraid that some readers may therefore find some parts of this essay to be a little off-putting. I can only suggest that such readers skim through the portions they find too technical or long-winded. Readers are under no obligation to pay equal attention to every part of every book they read! It does seem to me, however, that all this diverse material is appropriate and necessary to my subject.
I have made every attempt to face up to criticisms directed against MLM ethics, no matter from where they might come. In fact, I have purposely sought out as many bourgeois critiques as I could find, with the goal not of belittling and dismissing them, but rather of carefully considering these criticisms and answering them seriously. It is not that I am trying to “be fair” to bourgeois apologists and anti-communist professors; that doesn’t concern me in the least! But I do wish to show where their arguments fail so that these arguments cannot be used to confuse and mislead people.
In particular, I have tried to address the following issues very directly:
1) The charge that revolutionary communists have no real morality, but instead openly proclaim that they will resort to the crassest political expediency. I find it very curious, for example, that many, many bourgeois critics who dismiss MLM ethics as “mere expediency” quote from Lenin’s remarkable 1920 speech, “The Tasks of the Youth Leagues” in an attempt to prove their point. The fascinating thing here is that this speech by Lenin is actually a concentrated, and most profound summation of Marxist-Leninist ethics, but the ethical theory actually presented there is completely lost on these critics.
2) What I (and some others, I learned ) call the “central” or “fundamental” problem of MLM ethics, the fact that we say that all moralities are class based, yet still insist that one class morality (proletarian morality) is “better than” another (bourgeois morality). This seems to suggest that we want it both ways, or that we are being inconsistent. The solution to this conundrum is not particularly difficult, but it is a fact that the criticism has been made over and over again and up until now a fully satisfactory reply has not been forthcoming.
3) The question of ends versus means. A summary discussion of this is included in its own section (chapter 10, §4). But the issue is actually approached from many angles throughout the book, and especially in the sections discussing proletarian morality. Much has been written on the question of ends vs. means in relation to MLM ethics, and in fact the issue has really been accorded attention far beyond what it deserves from a theoretical perspective. I can only say that I am forced to give it as much space as I do simply because it has already been made into such a “big issue”.
4) The appraisal of Marxist/Leninist/Maoist practice from the standpoint of proletarian ethics. And here I must confront some hard questions, which have frankly not been confronted very well in the past: questions of the relation of proletarian morality to democratic centralism; the question of whether or not the discipline of the proletarian party should ever be rejected by its members; questions of the relationship between the party and the people from the standpoint of ethics, especially after the seizure of state power; etc.
Included here is the “Stalin question”. Evaluating Stalin—and Marxist practice in general—is not very difficult theoretically. The biggest problems are factual or historical—that is, determining what actually was done and why it was done. I freely admit that this difficulty itself implies a legitimate criticism of Marxist practice during the Stalin era, and to lesser extents before and after it—one of the issues we will get into in due course.
It is a fact that we Marxist-Leninists have not always acted in accordance with our own theories, ethical or otherwise. We have made mistakes, including some very serious ones. Some of these mistakes will be mentioned in the course of the book, in the Marxist spirit of summing up errors in order to help avoid repeating them in the future. On the other hand, a great many of the crimes attributed to us by the bourgeoisie are actually either not crimes at all, or are not things we have done, or are crimes committed by the bourgeoisie itself under our banner. Everything done by the Soviet Union and China since the overthrow of proletarian power in those countries comes under this last heading, and there is no reason for us to accept responsibility for the enemy’s actions. Many of the bourgeoisie’s crimes will also be mentioned as we proceed.
I claim no great originality for the ideas set down here. But on the other hand it is irrelevant to the theory here presented if I have inadvertently misinterpreted some of the ideas of others, be they the great Marxist theoreticians or non-Marxist writers. It is the theory of ethics presented in these pages which I am championing. My goal is not to be original but to be correct and clear. To a degree there is always a contradiction between being fully correct, and being quite clear, and I must confess that I have been somewhat more concerned with the first of the two. It is of course highly unlikely that I have fully achieved even this first goal and therefore I sincerely invite the reader’s comments and criticisms.
There is a glossary and a bibliography in the back pages.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 What is Ethics?
What makes something good or bad, right or wrong? This is a question that people have discussed and argued about for at least 2,500 years. They have come up with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different and conflicting answers. This might suggest that the question is very hard, or perhaps even unsolvable. Many have thought so. But actually, the answer is fairly simple. Even proving that this answer is correct is not tremendously difficult (though here, as elsewhere, any proof will be rejected by those who fail to comprehend its soundness).
The first roughly correct answer was discovered by the thinkers of the French Enlightenment several hundred years ago. A more precise answer, fully appropriate to contemporary class society, was discovered and elaborated on by Marx, Engels, Lenin and other Marxists. But still, this fairly simple, elegant and extremely compelling explanation of morality has by no means been widely adopted. Most people, indeed, have never been exposed to it at all. One obvious reason for this is that the capitalist ruling class always goes to great lengths to keep “dangerous” Marxist ideas away from the people. But it must also be admitted that we Marxists ourselves have so far not done a good job in putting forward our views on ethics, clearing up confusions and misconceptions, and replying to objections that have been put forward by bourgeois apologists. And many Marxists themselves have been quite confused and mistaken about ethics, arguing for all kinds of views such as those of Kant or the Bible—in the name of “Marxism”—or arguing that Marx “rejected” all morality. (I’ll talk about that claim later on.)
I started with the question: “What makes something good or bad, right or wrong?” That is the most basic question in ethics. Of course there are many other questions as well, such as:
• Why does morality exist among humans in the first place?
• When and how did morality originate?
• How come there are different opinions about what is right or wrong?
• What is a person’s conscience, and what is its relationship to morality?
• Why don’t people always do what they think is right?
• Does morality, what is right and wrong, change from time to time and from place to place?
• Is there such a thing as “moral progress”?
And of course there are specific questions about various human actions, such as:
• Are such things as lying or killing other people ever justified? If so, when?
• Is abortion right or wrong?
• Are wars ever morally justified?
• Is revolution morally justified? Even if it involves widespread loss of life?
Questions like these in this second group are questions of morality, that is, specific questions about what is right or wrong, good or bad. When you collect everything that one person has to say about all such questions, or what one group says, or one social class, or one whole society (i.e., the dominant views in that society), you have a specific moral code. Ethics, however, concerns itself not with directly answering these sorts of specific moral questions, or directly with constructing any moral code. Instead, it deals with the theoretical questions behind morality—such as what the real essence of moral codes are, how they arose, how they can be justified or discredited, the rational basis for choosing between them, and so forth. Of course most people who talk about morality either present ethical views at the same time, or at least imply them. And most of those who talk or write about ethics also present some of their specific moral views as well. I will too.