Foundations of the left

[REVRIGHT]

One of the reasons why I joined this forum is because I have some questions about the moral foundations of the left.

1. I would think that the left is generally an atheist movement wich follows humanist principles (correct me if I'm wrong).

Now as a nihilist I don't see how you can get to absolute principles such as equality.

Off course in practice I too have a certain preference for things like "equality" and "justice", but I'd rather see it as a social construction than as an absolute principle.

Clearly it is considered an absolute principle though, even one that can be imposed on other cultures, see the universal human rights. This brings humanism to the same levell as for example Christianity, which also imposes it's as absolute perceived moral on others.

2. Related to this I recently read something (I forgot where...) about socialism, liberalism and Christianity (Judaism) being phases of the same process.

Christianity was quite revolutionary because it implied a certain equality, equality for God, contrary to the Pagan relgions which were more aristocraticly oriented. Liberalism and the enlightenment went a step further and added a civil equality, for example with equality for the law and democracy, and socialism takes the next step with economical equality.

In that sense you could see the enlightenment not just as a reaction against Christianity, but also as the logical continuation of it, with more equality, also an absolute moral, also a linear conception of time, etc.

3. The third issue I wanted your opinion about is altruism.

When I hear marxist economists or sociologists they generally speak of people as if they where constantly counting and calculating, as if they are very aware of the "social contract" when interacting with other people, is this negative conception typically for marxists?

Personally I would see altruism as an inner-motivation, not something you are aware of. I don't believe in altruism for the sake of altruism, but I do think people can honestly believe to be altruistic, even though the true motivation for there deed can lie in a genetic benefit (saving your children means saving your genes, and that's what it's all about) or in a subconcious social contract by which we get an advantage in sèèming honestly altruistic (and how better to do that than by not being aware of the objective benefit?)



To summarise: 1. Do socialists have absolute humanist principles, and where do they come from? 2. Do you think socialism is the next step after liberalism and Christianity? 3. Where do you think altruism comes from?

[Jack]

>Nihilist
>Flemish nationalist
>talking down of "liberalism"
>REVRIGHT

I'm calling fascist on this one.

[Aloysius]

I'm questioning how a political/economic system could follow a religion, but whatever.
I think Chrisitanity is a rather anti-capitalist religion, at the basics (loving your neighbor, etc.), anyway. The early church was, in fact, a predominately Communistic society (Acts 2:42-47). Otherwise, I believe so, socialism is the next step.

I've no answer for your other questions.

[#FF0000]

One of the reasons why I joined this forum is because I have some questions about the moral foundations of the left.

1. I would think that the left is generally an atheist movement wich follows humanist principles (correct me if I'm wrong).

Now as a nihilist I don't see how you can get to absolute principles such as equality.

Off course in practice I too have a certain preference for things like "equality" and "justice", but I'd rather see it as a social construction than as an absolute principle.

Clearly it is considered an absolute principle though, even one that can be imposed on other cultures, see the universal human rights. This brings humanism to the same levell as for example Christianity, which also imposes it's as absolute perceived moral on others.

it's not a moral question. For some it might be but, no, it's not necessarily a moral question. It's more a practical thing. Capitalism just isn't the best system to serve human needs. Capitalism leads to an irrational division of society, wars that serve no purpose except to enrich a tiny segment of the population, overproduction and waste etc. etc. etc.

2. Related to this I recently read something (I forgot where...) about socialism, liberalism and Christianity (Judaism) being phases of the same process.

Christianity was quite revolutionary because it implied a certain equality, equality for God, contrary to the Pagan relgions which were more aristocraticly oriented. Liberalism and the enlightenment went a step further and added a civil equality, for example with equality for the law and democracy, and socialism takes the next step with economical equality.

In that sense you could see the enlightenment not just as a reaction against Christianity, but also as the logical continuation of it, with more equality, also an absolute moral, also a linear conception of time, etc.

The Christianity bit sounds like wankery to me, I think. Christianity pretty much dropped any pretenses of promoting equality once the Church was established and Christianity became widely accepted. Islam was probably more "egalitarian" in comparison to Christianity early on and throughout the Middle Ages. And there've been ancient movements focused on social equality that existed outside of Christianity anyway.

You're kind of on-track with the connection to Liberalism though. Marxism and Anarchism were built off of the Enlightenment.

3. The third issue I wanted your opinion about is altruism.

When I hear marxist economists or sociologists they generally speak of people as if they where constantly counting and calculating, as if they are very aware of the "social contract" when interacting with other people, is this negative conception typically for marxists?

I've never really heard of anything like this. Could you give any examples?

Personally I would see altruism as an inner-motivation, not something you are aware of. I don't believe in altruism for the sake of altruism, but I do think people can honestly believe to be altruistic, even though the true motivation for there deed can lie in a genetic benefit (saving your children means saving your genes, and that's what it's all about) or in a subconcious social contract by which we get an advantage in sèèming honestly altruistic (and how better to do that than by not being aware of the objective benefit?)

Doing something for someone else feels good. That's why people are altruistic. Pretty much all there is to it.

Have you ever read any communist works at all?

[ZeroNowhere]

it's not a moral question. For some it might be but, no, it's not necessarily a moral question. It's more a practical thing. Capitalism just isn't the best system to serve human needs. Capitalism leads to an irrational division of society, wars that serve no purpose except to enrich a tiny segment of the population, overproduction and waste etc. etc. etc.

Which is bad, presumably. So it's a moral question, then?

Anyhow, taking the position that everything is morally acceptable is still a moral position, and just as 'absolute' as any other, in the same way that the position that abortion is morally acceptable is a moral position. Following this with the fear that moral positions may lead to 'imposition' of some sort is a moral position, and clearly you have no right to impose it upon cultures who impose their moral positions on others.

[#FF0000]

Which is bad, presumably. So it's a moral question, then?

To be honest I think the sort of equality socialism offers is just more justifiable than the class system. I can rattle off a million reasons for common ownership but there's nothing really to justify the boss getting money for what people under him are doing.

EDIT: I suppose it depends though on what you think "society" is there for. But what else is it for than to keep everyone's needs met? Why on earth would you choose "tons of people suffer and a couple people stack paper to the rafters" over "Everything for everyone"?

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest I think the sort of equality socialism offers is just more justifiable than the class system. I can rattle off a million reasons for common ownership but there's nothing really to justify the boss getting money for what people under him are doing.

'Justifiable' in what sense, though? 'Justifiability' is evaluative here. If somebody took the moral position that a boss getting money for what people under him are doing is a good thing, then there's a justification. Further, supporting capitalism does not entail bosses getting money for what people under them are doing.

I suppose it depends though on what you think "society" is there for. But what else is it for than to keep everyone's needs met? Why on earth would you choose "tons of people suffer and a couple people stack paper to the rafters" over "Everything for everyone"?

What you're saying here, though, seems to be that the purpose of society should be to keep everyone's needs met. There is no reason why it needs to be, and it presently is not. The choice between tons of people suffering and the other option is a moral choice; that is, it is evaluative rather than factual as such. If two people agree, morally, that suffering is bad (and most do), then they may argue the facts of the case (whether capital causes suffering); if they don't, then no agreement will come from such. Likewise, if somebody disagrees on what the purpose of society should be, then they probably wouldn't agree with this argument. Whether or not it was an 'original purpose' of some sort has no implications for how it should be.

[#FF0000]

What you're saying here, though, seems to be that the purpose of society should be to keep everyone's needs met. There is no reason why it needs to be, and it presently is not.

No, no I'm just saying that there is no reason for society to not be as egalitarian as it possibly can be, because egalitarianism is just way more rational. I mean what right do the capitalists or the aristocracy or whoever have to occupy their station?

The choice between tons of people suffering and the other option is a moral choice; that is, it is evaluative rather than factual as such. If two people agree, morally, that suffering is bad (and most do), then they may argue the facts of the case (whether capital causes suffering); if they don't, then no agreement will come from such.

Yeah but it's completely irrational to have a bunch of people starving when the capacity to take care of them all is within reach. I mean having a world where everyone is able to explore their own potential and be healthy is such a net gain that the cost of Revolution is a pittance.

You can definitely look at it like a moral issue, but that's not the angle I'm trying to take. To me it just seems rational.

[ZeroNowhere]

No, no I'm just saying that there is no reason for society to not be as egalitarian as it possibly can be, because egalitarianism is just way more rational. I mean what right do the capitalists or the aristocracy or whoever have to occupy their station?

Rights are certainly quite moral. Anyhow, there's no purely factual reason why society should be as egalitarian as it possibly can be. In either case, such a view is evaluative.

Yeah but it's completely irrational to have a bunch of people starving when the capacity to take care of them all is within reach.

"Itches, blains,
Sow all th'Athenian bosoms, and their crop
Be general leprosy! Breath infect breath,
That their society, as their friendship, may
Be merely poison!"

If one were a misanthrope, it could be perfectly rational. Rationality does not determine ends so much as how to reach them. A rational capitalist would be the worst to work under.

[#FF0000]

Well I guess you should probably answer OP's questions then because I'm straining and straining to try to think of a reason why people should suffer when the means to stop that suffering are readily available.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I guess you should probably answer OP's questions then because I'm straining and straining to try to think of a reason why people should suffer when the means to stop that suffering are readily available.

The reason for some is protecting the system which their class benefits from.

I really agree with what you wrote in your first post, and the only thing I'd add is that what informs what is "good or bad" for socialists and anarchists is based out of working class interests. Put crudely, for capitalists, the profit system is good because profits are what allow their system to function, but for workers profits are bad because they come from what is expropriated from our labor.

Why I think that socialism (working class rule) is ultimately more "moral" (though I reject "morals" as any kind of abstract absolute) than capitalism is that the working class can organize society in a democratic way where the people doing the work are the ones who control the results of that labor - in other words, while capitalism has to exploit workers and feudalism exploits serfs, workers don't need too exploit anyone in order to produce what society needs. So a working class that is the ruling class is more "just" than any previous ruling class because they don't have any reason to oppress others for their gain - the benefit for one benefits the rest too and visa versa (Marx said it better).

[RGacky3]

. Do socialists have absolute humanist principles, and where do they come from? 2. Do you think socialism is the next step after liberalism and Christianity? 3. Where do you think altruism comes from?

1. Depends what you mean by humanist principles, thats a strange phrase because it assumes some are anti-humanist, personally, I'm a christian, however, I think most people have general principles of justice, where that comes from, I don't think anyone knows.

2. I think don't think socialism is the next step neccesarily, but I think its a system that benefits everyone better, and is a more just system (economic democracy)

3. I don't think people know yet, although theres been research on human nature, and most would agree that there is no fixed human nature, that it changes based on circumstances, although some argue that humans tend toward communalism, which would nessesitate altruism.

However whether or not altruism is a natural human tendancy does'nt really matter, even if humans were naturally selfish always, socialism would still be better, because if humans were naturally selfish why would you leave the economy of a whole society in a few peoples hands (as does capitalism ultimately), it would be better to democratize economic power so that that selfishness cannot be used to abuse economic power (as what happens in Capitalism.)

[REVRIGHT]

I've never really heard of anything like this. Could you give any examples?

Just an impression I had when hearing socialists, but if you don't recognise it it's propably not true.

Have you ever read any communist works at all?

I read "het Neoliberalisme" from Jaap Kruithof which seemed like a nice summary of (his) marxism. Das Kapital lies on my "to read"-pile.

Any suggestions? Things I should urgently read to understand communism?

[Palingenisis]

My Leftism is based on a sense of empathy aswell as reason and duty.

And also a sense of belonging to humanity (but I guess that is the same as empathy)....Being both an individual and something that transcends me.

[#FF0000]

Kind of wish the guy wasn't a fascist so he could learn things.

[Robert]

You all sound like you are either afraid of making moral judgments, or afraid of having your judgments labeled as moral.

When I hear marxist economists or sociologists they generally speak of people as if they where constantly counting and calculating, as if they are very aware of the "social contract" when interacting with other people, is this negative conception typically for marxists?

I understood and thought I was going to agree with the first clause, but the sentence "runs on" to something about the social contract and then runs on to something about a negative conception. Is English your native language?

[#FF0000]

You all sound like you are either afraid of making moral judgments, or afraid of having your judgments labeled as moral.

It's just shaky ground, is all.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think a Secularism is best because religion is a tool of the Capitalists Im glad that the left secular ?

[Jimmie Higgins]

You all sound like you are either afraid of making moral judgments, or afraid of having your judgments labeled as moral

Morality is a wonky term. Every ruling class operates on the level of the ends justify the means. The US loves to support democratic countries until democracy get in the way of their goals. Usually morality is just whatever behaviors or actions the ruling class of a society. They tell us "peace" and "pacifism" are virtues while sicking riot-cops on us and bombing other counties. Capital punishment is moral, stealing food because you are starving is immoral; bombing villages and dams in Vietnam is moral, bombing a recruiting station would be consider immoral (my judgment on that one is that one individual bombing something just isn't effective for stopping a war). Stealing an MP3 is "immoral" while a landlord removing a tenant is "moral".

Morality just doesn't really exist in the abstract, it all comes from your class perspective. Slave-owners thought slavery was moral and justified it by claiming black people could not care for themselves and needed to be told what to do, fed, and housed. A doctor even said that "whipping" is medicine that cures people of their unnatural and irrational desire to run away - he diagnosed runaway slaves as having a mental disorder: draptomania.

Today's rulers are exactly the same: they think that a system based on the search for increased profit is "natural" (even though it has only existed for a few hundred years and was actually considered a "sin" in Christianity and other religions before that) and gives people freedom. Of course when people don't like the ruler's set-up and try and change it, the ruling class says they are "immoral" and like the slave-master they often try and come up with individual explanations: crime has nothing to do with inequality built into the system, it's just some "bad people" - poor people are just stupid or have bad morals - people made "bad choices".

So I tend to reject the term "morality" because it is too loaded, but if there is a "leftist morality" it is what is "right" or "wrong" for the working class movement - comes out of what means help us get to our goal which is the self-emancipation of the working class. That means individual bombings are not "moral" because they generally do not help organize people to fight in their own interests - the same argument could be made about coups and dictators IMO. Communes while they help people organize themselves, do not actually lead to emancipation from capitalism (it's more of a small and battered shelter in a hurricane of capitalism) so they are not the "right" means to an end.

[Robert]

It's just shaky ground, is all.

It is, it is indeed. I grant you that. It's not "nothing," though. You need to grant me that.

All of this quibbling stems, I think, from a lack of belief in a God who cares. I am not a believer currently, and since I'm not, I writhe and quibble myself.

That said, it is a peculiar animal whose only objection to, say, torture, fraud against the elderly, or child prostitution, is that "it's not rational" or "it's not the most efficient way to liberate the working class," or (the worst) "personally I don't care for it, but who am I to say it's 'wrong' ?"

We all feel outrage and sadness when we hear about children sold into prostitution or any other kind of abuse. Why? It has no impact on working class liberation (for the socialist or anarchist) or increased profits (for the bourgeois or capitalist). But we share a sense of "something" that triggers our outrage. We need a word for that shared something.

I call it "morality". Yes, I understand that it's elusive, relative and arbitrarily assigned. But do you have a better word?