morality and socialism

[redarmyfaction38]

i believe that in the modern world, socialism offers the highest form of moral conscionce, a consciousness long abandoned by religion and govt.
both of whom are engaged in a struggle for power and influence rather than the struggle for human enlightenment.
i also believe that personal religious beliefs should be seperated from accepted or state religious beliefs vis a vis the major religions because "religious individuals" in the "lower" orders of society tend to practice beliefs of compassion and care for humanity and the world in general rather than just talk about them.
i would like to suggest that "god" gave humanity free will in the hope that humanity would progress and rise above itself and be worthy of sitting on the right hand of god.:scared:

[Holden Caulfield]

organised religion will always twist morals and will always be part of the opressing powers,

as long as we recognize something as being better or sinless or whatever something else will always be seen a lesser than this which is against socialism,

''if there was a god it would be necessary to abolish him'' said Bukanin, and this is true to what i have said, as long as their is a leader then the rest will always be opressed and will always be less than they could be,

morality must be removed and replaced with 'social conscince', the term morality has became twisted and so has it concept,

[Qwerty Dvorak]

My question would be, does socialism necessarily carry with it a certain morality? I mean, it is obvious that there is some morality in socialism, but is there a specific socialist morality to which all socialists should or do adhere? Or is the socialist movement comprised of many people with different moralities who happen to agree on certain aspects of morality?

[Hit The North]

I understand socialism as being a particular form of humanism and I think that we can talk about a humanist morality.

I find it irrational to ask people to struggle for a future that is not intrinsically more moral than the present order.

[Vanguard1917]

Morality can't be understood in the abstract. It's a social product and it serves social interests. This is how Trotsky put it in Their Morals and Ours:


Whoever does not care to return to Moses, Christ or Mohammed; whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character.http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm



My question would be, does socialism necessarily carry with it a certain morality? I mean, it is obvious that there is some morality in socialism, but is there a specific socialist morality to which all socialists should or do adhere?


Yes, i think there is. From the Marxist perspective, socialism is morally justified because 'it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man' (Trotsky). The socialist 'morality' is meaningful only from the perspective of human emancipation. Human emancipation is the subordination of nature to humanity's will and the abolishing of the rule of people over people.

[Crest]

In general, the answer is yes, it does. This is because it abolishes classes, and while still not abolishing religion and government (as Communism is, making it, at this point, utopian), it does certainly help with a just system.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I would strongly warn against such talk as socialism being "more moral" than capitalism, since it is the emancipation of man. Morals are subject human inventions and to proclaim socialism from a moral perspective is a sad practice indeed.

Personally I am a moral nihilist. I stand opposed to any form of moral objectivity, and recognize, as any Marxist aught to, that the morals and ethics of a particular stage of society can only be those of the ruling class, based in the material conditions of the time.

During the socialist epoch I believe that a form of utilitarianism will come to be the moral standard, I however in no way endorse utilitarianism as some greater form of moral and ethical system. It, like all moral codes, is a human invention and will always be dependent on the material conditions and economic arrangement of that society.

[redarmyfaction38]

I would strongly warn against such talk as socialism being "more moral" than capitalism, since it is the emancipation of man. Morals are subject human inventions and to proclaim socialism from a moral perspective is a sad practice indeed.

Personally I am a moral nihilist. I stand opposed to any form of moral objectivity, and recognize, as any Marxist aught to, that the morals and ethics of a particular stage of society can only be those of the ruling class, based in the material conditions of the time.

During the socialist epoch I believe that a form of utilitarianism will come to be the moral standard, I however in no way endorse utilitarianism as some greater form of moral and ethical system. It, like all moral codes, is a human invention and will always be dependent on the material conditions and economic arrangement of that society.

can you expand on that statement please?
i see "morality" in a "socialist" sense, service to your fellow, the elimination of poverty and ignorance, rising above what "society" or "birth" dealt out to us in order to create a "better world" for all.
or maybe i'm more influenced by "bushido" or the whole concept of service to humanity than i'm prepared to admit to myself.

[Niccolò Rossi]

can you expand on that statement please?
i see "morality" in a "socialist" sense, service to your fellow, the elimination of poverty and ignorance, rising above what "society" or "birth" dealt out to us in order to create a "better world" for all.
or maybe i'm more influenced by "bushido" or the whole concept of service to humanity than i'm prepared to admit to myself.

Morality in a socialist society is different from a "socialist morality" in a capitalist one.

As I stated above I predict that due to the collective economic structure of a socialist society, the most probable moral code that will emerge in this stage of society will be a utilitarian one that reflects the collective economic relations of that society.

However, socialism is not something we strive for based on moral principals. We strive for socialism based on economic, social and historical necessity, not out of creating a "more fair society". Marx called himself a "scientific socialist", this is because his theory and ideas were not motivated by his own personal ideals for a perfect utopian society, but by definite historical, social and economic factors which he was able to observe and apply to the passage of human history.

Applying a "socialist morality", as you described above, in todays society does no good. You can't bring about a revolutionary change in society by appealing to all classes to bring about equality and a better society, that's idealistic bourgeois socialism. We as Marxist scientific socialists, must appeal to the revolutionary classes based on their historically and economically determined desire to bring about the destruction of this society and the forging of a new one with the proletariat at its head.

My advice to you, stay away from the "Bushido"

[Hit The North]

I would strongly warn against such talk as socialism being "more moral" than capitalism, since it is the emancipation of man. And you don't believe that the emancipation of man is a moral imperative?

All moral codes base themselves in an appeal to universality. The problem with class society is that it cannot deliver such universal good. Communism, on the other hand, as the negation of class society, offers such a possibility.


Morals are subject human inventions and to proclaim socialism from a moral perspective is a sad practice indeed.
So what? Capitalism and socialism are also human inventions.

Personally I am a moral nihilist.
So you don't believe in any moral directive? I might as well rape my sister and kill my brother if it suits my self-interest?


I stand opposed to any form of moral objectivity, and recognize, as any Marxist aught to, that the morals and ethics of a particular stage of society can only be those of the ruling class, based in the material conditions of the time.Understanding the material basis of moral codes does not, in itself, negate the fact that human beings employ a moral understanding to their actions and the actions of others. Whether this is purely ideological is less important than the fact that people are morally or ethically motivated. As revolutionaries we want to motivate revolutionary activity. I doubt this can be done merely on the basis of an appeal to the technical superiority of one system over the other.


We strive for socialism based on economic, social and historical necessity, not out of creating a "more fair society".I disagree. I think one leads to the other. But, importantly, we don't invite fellow workers to engage in class struggle merely on the basis of some abstract "historical necessity". What would that even mean in practical terms?

[mikelepore]

We strive for socialism based on economic, social and historical necessity, not out of creating a "more fair society".

What is "necessity"? Socialism isn't the only alternative. Destruction of the world with atomic weapons is another alternative. A thousand years of fascism is an alternative. There's no way to know that socialism is the best choice except through moral views.


I would strongly warn against such talk as socialism being "more moral" than capitalism, since it is the emancipation of man.

Without reference to a moral theory, there no way to determine that emancipation is desirable, or to determine what kind of change can be described as emancipation.


Marx called himself a "scientific socialist", this is because his theory and ideas were not motivated by his own personal ideals for a perfect utopian society, but by definite historical, social and economic factors which he was able to observe and apply to the passage of human history.

Marx wouldn't admit that his own viewpoint was thoroughly based on moral principles because was never completely able to get over his roots as a Hegelian.

[Dean]

i believe that in the modern world, socialism offers the highest form of moral conscionce, a consciousness long abandoned by religion and govt. both of whom are engaged in a struggle for power and influence rather than the struggle for human enlightenment.
I agree, to some degree. I think communism is a moral action, a way of looking at humans as humans, not as objects. I think that is one of the fundamentals of communism, and that this fundamental is distinctly moral.



i also believe that personal religious beliefs should be seperated from accepted or state religious beliefs vis a vis the major religions because "religious individuals" in the "lower" orders of society tend to practice beliefs of compassion and care for humanity and the world in general rather than just talk about them.
I disagree. If you believe something, you belive it. Indicating a "religious vs. worldly /scientific" dichotomy simply legitimizes whatever religious belief you would like to hold on to. I don't hate religion, but I think its wrong, and unhealthy for people to categorize their beliefs in that way.


i would like to suggest that "god" gave humanity free will in the hope that humanity would progress and rise above itself and be worthy of sitting on the right hand of god.:scared:
Well, I disagree. I think God, as an external abstract, is almost always a vacant, irrelevant archetype. I think you should more closely examine your position on God, and what you think is and isn't real.

[Niccolò Rossi]

And you don't believe that the emancipation of man is a moral imperative?

The emancipation of man can be viewed from a moral perspective, but I believe this is not what we should be focused on. I believe the emancipation of man should be viewed from the perspective of being the necessary social and historical result of the class struggle.


So you don't believe in any moral directive? I might as well rape my sister and kill my brother if it suits my self-interest?

If you were to act in killing your brother and raping your sister I would have to say that these actions are no less universally morally right or wrong than any other. Humans invent moral codes, the purpose of which can be debated (social control by the ruling class?), and of course such actions as murder and rape would break these moral codes, but there is no way I can assess these actions from a universal perspective and say they are "right" or "wrong". I can only judge actions from the perspective of a human moral code, which is in no way right, true or universal and thus redundant to assess the actions of others from.


Understanding the material basis of moral codes does not, in itself, negate the fact that human beings employ a moral understanding to their actions and the actions of others. Whether this is purely ideological is less important than the fact that people are morally or ethically motivated. As revolutionaries we want to motivate revolutionary activity.

You make a very legitimate and insightful comment here. I would agree with your statement that appealing to the morals of the masses for socialism is a useful tactic. I see such, however, as being almost a watering down of scientific socialism. If we are to employ a moral perspective it must be as a tactic, not a doctrine, and only as one component for raising class consciousness.


I doubt this can be done merely on the basis of an appeal to the technical superiority of one system over the other.

I don't hope to appeal to the masses by demonstrating the "superiority" of one system over another. Instead I hope to motive revolution by appealing to the material conditions of the proletariat, bringing about a class consciousness that motives them towards revolution.


But, importantly, we don't invite fellow workers to engage in class struggle merely on the basis of some abstract "historical necessity". What would that even mean in practical terms?

I agree, that's why I noted the economic and social necessity of revolution and not just a historical necessity. In practical term historical necessity is simply what history has demonstrated to us. What I meant by Historical necessity is the recognition of the role that revolution plays in history and it's relevance throughout it, even today


Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.


Without reference to a moral theory, there no way to determine that emancipation is desirable,

I don't believe we have to describe the emancipation of the proletariat from the forces of capital (socialism) and the emancipation of man (communism) as being desirable. You don't just go and choose the structure and stage of society which is most desirable! The stage and structure of society are all determined by the revolutionary class motivated by social, economic and historical necessity.


Without reference to a moral theory, there no way to determine ... what kind of change can be described as emancipation.

Emancipation does not need to be described morally. It is simply the freedom from bondage and oppression, in the case of the socialist revolution it is the emancipation of the worker from the forces of capital.

[mikelepore]

Dean did not write those last two paragraphs. I wrote them.

Your phrase "freedom from bondage and oppression" is a moral judgement. It has no meaning unless someone has a conscience that tells them that there's something wrong with having hunger, homelessness, infant mortality, and the other effects of capitalism. If a world were populated by robots simulating the expression of feelings, but not actually feeling them, then there would be no reason to establish a socialist organization to advocate a change.

Your phrase "historical necessity" is a moral judgement. No formula can indicate objectively that any social change is on the agenda to perform this year instead of waiting another thousand years or forever. It is only meaningful by reference to the needs and wants of human beings.

As David Hume explained, an "is" can never imply an "ought."

Marx appended moral characterizations to his descriptions. When Marx noted that "capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt" (Capital, chapter 31), the point of the metaphor was a moral one.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

Capitalism and socialism are also human inventions. Communism, however, is not an invention. It is how human society started and it is the natural state of things. All other modes of production, however, are social constructions, because people thought they were moral.


As David Hume explained, an "is" can never imply an "ought." I completely agree. There is no objective "ought" separate from what is. However, I think that to get around that problem and have morality you can define "ought" as the same as "is". However this ought may not be the same ought as you normally think of when talking about morality. It is the ought like "the shoes ought to be in the closet because I just put them there." The person who is saying that is not saying what is moral but what is reality. The reality is the shoes are in the closet. If you use "ought" in this way, it is the same as "is" That is the only way, IMHO, to have an objective morality.

Using this objective morality, you can argue for communism because there really is no such thing as capitalism or the state if you think about it. They are just socially constructed moralities which are actually immoral since they do not correspond to reality.

I just invented this "objective morality" so tell me what you think about it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This approach to ethics has been around for some time, in fact -- it's called 'descriptivism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Meta-ethics

Where is seems to fall down is over the moral sense of the word 'ought', not the pragmatic use that you considered.

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

I didn't see anything about descriptivism on wikipedia, although I saw descriptive ethics. However, that was just a study of people's morality. I don't think it is the same as what I described. What is your approach to ethics?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I posted the Wiki article just for the definition; this is perhaps better:.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_descriptivism.htm

My approach to ethics is largely based on the work of G H von Wright's: The Varieties of Goodness, and Phillipa Foot's work (which are themselves developments of Aristotle's views).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Henrik_von_Wright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Foot

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

[Niccolò Rossi]

Dean did not write those last two paragraphs. I wrote them.

My apologies


Your phrase "freedom from bondage and oppression" is a moral judgement.

Let us first define morality. Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

Bondage and oppression do not have to be judged or defined morally. The fact that the proletariat are oppressed and seek to end such oppression is a simple economic and social assessment, one which requires no moral judgment.


It has no meaning unless someone has a conscience that tells them that there's something wrong with having hunger, homelessness, infant mortality, and the other effects of capitalism.

There is nothing "wrong" with hunger, homelessness and infant mortality since there is no universal correct moral standpoint from which to make such an assessment. The symptoms of an oppressive class society such as those listed above, do not have to drive people morally toward revolution. They can drive people materially. People as human beings require humane conditions. When the proletariat are exploited to such as extent as their material conditions of existence are excruciatingly painful and unlivable, they become truly revolutionary lashing out at the forces whcich keep them in such a state of living, not based on moral principals but on social , economic and material ones.


If a world were populated by robots simulating the expression of feelings, but not actually feeling them, then there would be no reason to establish a socialist organization to advocate a change.

If those robots were programmed to need food, shelter and human "livable" conditions there would still be revolution as they would be forced to act to save their own "lives" and improve their conditions of living to such a level being withheld from them.


Your phrase "historical necessity" is a moral judgment. No formula can indicate objectively that any social change is on the agenda to perform this year instead of waiting another thousand years or forever. It is only meaningful by reference to the needs and wants of human beings.

You are exactly right in revolution is only meaningful in reference to human needs and wants. But you forget, these needs and wants have nothing to do with what the proletariat perceive as being moral i.e. what is "right" and "wrong".


Marx appended moral characterizations to his descriptions. When Marx noted that "capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt" (Capital, chapter 31), the point of the metaphor was a moral one.

I don't quite understand how this metaphor is a "moral" one, let alone a quote advocating socialism from a moral standpoint

[mikelepore]

There is nothing "wrong" with hunger, homelessness and infant mortality since there is no universal correct moral standpoint from which to make such an assessment.

That reason is not relevant. Morality is based on the way it makes some people feel emotional pain to realize that someone else is feeling pain. This should be obvious. Clearly in a leftist forum I wasn't going to base my position on some supposed requirement to obey the code of Hammurabi or Moses.


The symptoms of an oppressive class society such as those listed above, do not have to drive people morally toward revolution. They can drive people materially. People as human beings require humane conditions. When the proletariat are exploited to such as extent as their material conditions of existence are excruciatingly painful and unlivable, they become truly revolutionary lashing out at the forces whcich keep them in such a state of living, not based on moral principals but on social , economic and material ones.

Your concept of being "driven materially" is unable to explain why people organize to discontinue the oppression of others. You might have noticed that some people who have never been anywhere near a war zone are anti-war, that some men resist the subjugation of women, and some people who will never be hungry seek to end the system that leaves many others to go hungry. Are they wasting their time distributing revolutionary pamphlet on the street corner because it isn't their own exposure to the worst conditions that motivates them? How is it that I take a position on water pollution when I live in a rural area and I own my own well? What's with those white people who participated in the black civil rights movement?

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most accurate one. This is one of those times.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Your concept of being "driven materially" is unable to explain why people organize to discontinue the oppression of others. You might have noticed that some people who have never been anywhere near a war zone are anti-war, that some men resist the subjugation of women, and some people who will never be hungry seek to end the system that leaves many others to go hungry. Are they wasting their time distributing revolutionary pamphlet on the street corner because it isn't their own exposure to the worst conditions that motivates them? How is it that I take a position on water pollution when I live in a rural area and I own my own well? What's with those white people who participated in the black civil rights movement?

Of course I acknowledge people act based on morality and I acknowledge now that appealing to morality can be a tactic employed to assist in bringing about class consciousness. My standpoint however, on avoiding using morality to motivate proletarian revolution, is in some ways a reaction to the populists and social democrats which have advocated their brand of "benevolent capitalism" based on moral ideas of "making a better system", equality and fairness.

[Hit The North]

My standpoint however, on avoiding using morality to motivate proletarian revolution, is in some ways a reaction to the populists and social democrats which have advocated their brand of "benevolent capitalism" based on moral ideas of "making a better system", equality and fairness.

Well there are two ways of approaching the moralism of these populists. One is to point out the limitations of the material conditions of capitalism in being able to deliver equality or develop universal human potential, despite the appeals to these values which its ideologues make. The other is to question the alienated and fetishistic form in which human values appear in capitalism.

EDIT: The fact that our enemies claim that "a better [social] system" is possible, doesn't mean that this is untrue; merely that they don't have a clue as to how one could be realised.

[gilhyle]

Only tangentally relevant to this thread but I wanted to post the following somewhere to draw attention to it:

"It is - generally speaking - just as permissable for us to make use of the advantages conceded by the present day state to the privileged members of society as it is for us to make use of the products of others to live indirectly on the the exploitation of others, as indeed we must in so far as we are not ourselves economically productive. If the labour party benefits as a result I would even regard it as a duty. " Engels P. 78 MECW Vol 49

[Dean]

I don't believe we have to describe the emancipation of the proletariat from the forces of capital (socialism) and the emancipation of man (communism) as being desirable. You don't just go and choose the structure and stage of society which is most desirable! The stage and structure of society are all determined by the revolutionary class motivated by social, economic and historical necessity.
You don't choose them and create them. But you DO choose what you strive for.




Emancipation does not need to be described morally. It is simply the freedom from bondage and oppression, in the case of the socialist revolution it is the emancipation of the worker from the forces of capital.
To be effective, I think it does. What point, and how strong is a revolution without passion?

[Niccolò Rossi]

To be effective, I think it does. What point, and how strong is a revolution without passion?

Of course, but it doesn't have to be a utopian or bourgeois socialist passion, that is appealing to humanity and morality in order to achieve a better society. The class strugle and the revolution are born out of the material conditions of a particular society, not out of moral ideas of right and wrong.

Of course I acknowledge that in turn these moral codes rest upon the material conditions of a society, but they can not be the driving force of the revolution. The revolution isn't a product of ideas, but the product of material conditons