The moral basis of socialism

[Jon Teunon]

FR

I’ve never read any of Gray’s books but I’ve always read his articles in the Guardian for example with great interest. Is he ‘right wing’? He comes across as independent and against monolithic systems of ideology, but that could just make him iconoclastic and anti-authoritarian. A bit like Brigg…

On wikipedia, it is inconclusive because while he worked for the New Right in the 80s and New Labour in the 90s he is critical of neoliberalism and the freemarket. So he can’t be Brigg after all!

Brigg

Connecting socialism to exploitation is vague, but having been accused of arguing that there is only one type of socialism I was demonstrating how I actually contend that the various strands can be connected – i.e. by a general moral conviction that the many are exploited by the few.

The relative sophistication of the actual theory of exploitation is of course down to the individual system, and is part of what defines them, e.g. anarchism or Marxism etc. I maintain that vulgar Marxism’s widespread success was partly because its theory of exploitation (which is complemented by alienation) was sophisticated enough to gain ‘intellectual credibility’ amongst the opinion formers – professors, politicians and journalists, whilst being accessible enough to reach a wider audience – both necessary in order to have success in a liberal democracy. This of course doesn’t necessarily make it either right or desirable.

And politics is more than just theory, and many people would have been drawn to socialism emotionally or viscerally because they’d experienced exploitation, personally or witnessed it. “Look how those immigrants are being treated…” or “I have to do as I’m told – or my family starves…” But how many Tories (or Evangelist Christians) would have found similar motives? Did people really vote Thatcher in 1979 because of exploitation? They might have been vaguely against the power of the Unions etc but exploitation is unlikely to be part of their vocabulary. (People seem to be more upset by people who’ve done well through exploitation than through an abundance of good luck or talent).

This is not to claim that somehow the ‘left’ have a monopoly over ‘being moral’. Having a morality is common to political parties (there is a Fascist morality – which we reject) but it is a question of which morality, and this is still likely to be the starting point for many in how they think.

But it seems that Marxism (at least not the versions that became ascendant) despite its relative sophistication to most other forms of socialism, is now neither widely popular nor considered as a serious option by the cultural elite. But the feeling of outrage at all the exploitation -at home and abroad - is still very much there and is likely to increase. Does the left have anything relevant to say about this, now that the forms of Marxism which once had such widespread support are mostly ignored at best?

[Johnnywas]

Briggs

yes, i can see the argument for Tory politics being ethical.

Adam Smith wasn't an apsotle for selfishness he attempted to show how markets created optimal outcomes and how that benefited the greatest number of people. however in terms of practical policies, Conservatives do tend to deny that politics should have any distinctively moral basis. it seems to me that one of their central claim is that conscious moral interventions always have a negative impacts. that individuals are best left to engage  in free exchange.  a large part of the Socialist movement has sought demonstrate the falsity of that. we point to the possibilities that are inherent in politics for alleviating the worst outcomes of untramelled capitalism. we point out too that in a complex society we do need conscious interventions -  decisions cannot always be left to the invisible hand.  

there is also always the possibility that Tories aren't infact as motivated by ethical considerations as they occassionally pretend. politeness, good manners and personal generosity may mask a determination to do nothing in the face of poverty and starvation and to allow nothing to be done.



j

[rob9443]

Well most Tories I know are more attractive people on the personal level than quite a few socialists I know. No political philosophy has a monopoly of virtue.

Siome free market types are callous bastards, others have a genuine belief in freedom and are more committed to civil liberties than New Labour as the ID saga demonstrates.

The problem with Tory freedom is that it often lacks imagination can translate into freedom for those who can afford it.

[Free Radical]

Jon

Re John Gray - I may be doing him a disservice with the label 'right-wing'. He seems to be arguing for a re-thinking of politics that cuts across the left-right axis, and he is interesting on environmental matters. Whatever he is, he is a very interesting writer and it's just the kind of provocative writing that we need I think. I'm enjoying 'Gray's Anatomy'.

[Brigg57]

"Mam, what's menstruation?". Answer and relevance at the end.

I never took a liking to John Gray, I'm afraid, though I came across him when he was really right-wing, back in the 80s. Neverthless he's a very interesting non-socialist thinker; as you may gather, I like the unorthodox thinking in which he has the luxury to indulge, and he's very thought-provoking. I've not read Gray's Anatomy -either of them.

JWas, Adam Smith, like Burke, was never a Tory (and had a very 18th century conception of morality, tied to the Scottish Enlightenment). But like Burke, he has been wrenched out of his historical context by Tories who've used his free market ideas to defend their own politics - and morality. Sir Keith Joseph famously handed copies of the Wealth of Nations round to civil servants at the Trade and Industry Dept when he took office back in '79. This was as about as near to a neo-liberal politics and morality as you got in that period - harking back to Samuel Smiles doctrine of selfishness.

But even then it wasn't the only morality floating round within the Tory party. Angus Maude, a long-time Powellite, debated with Joseph on this question, attacking the whole notion of the market and self-interest, while Powell himself had a much more complex politics than the simple neo-liberal ideology he is credited with - one of the reasons that Hayek (a genuine liberal individualist) suddenly found himself profoundly disagreeing with Powell after initially believing that Powell was his supporter (Hayek wrote an article called Why I Am Not a Conservative). Powell was converted to free market ideas by Diana Spearman, one of the brightest figures in the Tory Research Dept in the early 50s, and Mrs Spearman's approach was profoundly influenced by the Tory philosopher, Michael Oakeshott - Oakeshott's ideas of morality - that we were living in a moral Tower of Babel - were very similar to the ‘Notes from the Moral Wilderness’ of New Left moral philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre (first editor of International Socialism, later the SWP).

So ethics is quite a complex business. The importance of religion - especially the Church of England - on all parties can't be underestimated, though it's died away of recent years. When I was in my late teens, i remember some Tory MP on the radio (while extolling the Vichyite morality of Work, Family, Motherland), arguing against Abortion Law Reform by saying that menstruation was the cry of the lost baby in the womb. “Ma-a-a-am, what’s menstruation?” shouted I in our uptight household. And you know she never told me, with the result that to this day....

[Jon Teunon]

Adam Smith believed in Public Education and Libraries - he was socially to the left of both New Labour and Old Tory. And we all agreed that unorthodox ideas are not only to be welcomed but listened to, so as long as John Gray is peacefully making his point - then good for him.

But we're concerned with whether there is a moral basis to socialism(s).

In England I would suggest that the Christian influence was more non- conformist - for example William Godwin (who influenced Robert Owen and the Chartists - and even Marx) was from a Dissenting tradition and the Levellers et al. were all squarely against the Anglican Church. (The fact that anglican - ie state - priests had to be educated at Oxford or Cambridge was seen as a way for the King and establishment to control thought in England).

The sort of committee democracy I seek is of a producer-consumer democracy which controls the economy and allows people to be left alone.

Said Brigg on another thread.

If they could understand what the vernacular, I think the Levellers, Diggers and syndicalists would agree with the spirit of this, in a way that conservatives and liberals wouldn't.

[Brigg57]

Jon,
hmmm....

The Levellers weren't socialist (the Diggers, the 'True Levellers' were) and Godwin was an atheist. The left-wing ILP socialist, John Wheatley, was a Roman Catholic; Eric Heffer, left labour MP and a genuine socialist, was an Anglican.

What I'm getting at is that morality is interpreted differently according to your political outlook when it comes to certain things - property, democracy - but not others - what Charlie calls the morality of a basic humanity. This is why I find that my moral sympathies lie more with (some) Tories than they do with (some) Leftists. I still remember some Trotskyist hack from the IMG (as it was then) talking with glee as to how he would like to personally throw rich people off tall buildings; one woman from another Trotskyist group I was unhappily associated with about 30 years ago talked quite happily of how public whippings would be restored to keep order in a socialist society. The ones you worry about are those who aren't stupid enough to utter such indiscretions - but would feel no qualms of instituting them should the occasion arise.

We certainly need a public doctrine, binding the community together, which isn't quite the same as a moral basis. Until recently, that doctrine in the UK was the Church of England and the Empire - all bound together by the Monarch. That doctrine is rapidly disappearing, with a resulting uncertainty and indifference to the way we treat each other. That doctrine was founded on toleration of dissent - religious and political. In practice that doctrine applied only to the UK - dissent in the colonies was handled with great brutality.

So I'm saying that a cooperative community needs a public doctrine - of cooperation and solidarity - with a tough set of rights firmly appled to protect dissent; but that people of varying personal and religious moralities will work together within it.

[Jon Teunon]

Brigg

Yes I think adding the Levellers was a mistake – they were a very mixed bunch, but claiming them to be proto socialists considering their general views on economics is taking it too far – apologies for the very sloppy thinking!

 But I think you are confusing different issues considering Godwin, his birth to a family of Dissenters and the atheism he develpoed later (from a friendship with Thomas Holcroft).

As Peter Marshall puts it in Demanding the Impossible:

As a boy Godwin was deeply religious and intellectually precocious. It was    decided to send him at the age of eleven to become the sole pupil of a Reverend Samuel Newton…an extreme Calvinist, a follower of the teachings of Robert Sandeman, and the pious Godwin soon adopted his new tutor’s creed…Godwin went on to pull the Calvinist God down from the heavens and to assert the innocence and perfectibility of man, but he retained much of the social and economic teaching of the Sandemanians. He not only traced his excessive stoicism and condemnation of the private affectations to his early Calvinism, but specifically held Sandemanianism responsible for his belief that rational judgement is the source of human actions.

Eric Heffer seems a rather late example in a discussion concerning origins! I’m not at all implying that someone from other traditions are therefore incapable of reaching similar conclusions – and anyway to pretend that the young Eric’s Catholic upbringing could have kept out all non conformist influences would be patently absurd anyway!

But I am more concerned with the ideas rather than the personalities here. As the excellent Gang of Four put it (the post punk band not the Chinese or SDP):

We’ve all opinions – where do they come from?
 
It fair enough to assert that you feel that there is an area of morality that you feel is apolitical, a sense of common decency that could and/or should be equally relevant to all people regardless of politics. (A ‘modern’ manifestation of the ‘group ethic’ that held tribes together in primeval time is one theory). But you’re stretching this point too far by introducing that old favourite of individual socialists’ morals as opposed to socialist morality.

You might be right in your impression - (and this ‘feeling’ is probably more common than you think – it is certainly unscientific or unempirical – I have never seen any surveys on this!) But despite what many think, the completely outrageous actions of a self claimed socialist doesn’t bear on the matter of whether socialist ideas as a whole are any use. Outside the editorials of the Daily Mail of course.

But having said your piece about ‘basic humanity’ at the end of the day we still need a socialist morality for the concepts that as you say are the real ideological points of demarcation, such as property and democracy. Insist that this is still informed by decency by all means, but that still leaves a lot of space (The religious moralities may vary and not be a problem – but how can a personal sense of ‘basic humanity’ or ‘decency’ vary in the same way? Surely you’re either tolerant or not? I thought that was your point…) The ‘public doctrine’ as you put it – still needs some content – and some form of ethics will inevitably still be used.

[Brigg57]

Jon,
none of us seem to be deeply versed in moral philosophy here, but that doesn't matter. Moral philosophy seems quite arcane (deontology vs utilitarianism, etc), and the ideas of MacIntyre and Oakeshott strike me as quite a good assessment of the state of morality today in political terms.

But we need to be clear and not get bogged down.

First, the morality of socialism means two things - one is the morality binding together a socialist society (I called this a public doctrine, such as that founded on the Church and Empire i the UK until recently). I would imagine it having to be a sense of cooperation, and for various reasons (with nods to de Tocqueville and Mill) stress protection of dissent through a tough set of rights, firmly observed. Public doctrine is another term for civil religion, as used by sociologists (as used by Durkheim).

The other is the moral basis of a socialist movement as it has arisen in history. I don't think there can be one, as there are so many variants of socialism. If you look at history, socialists have often turned the guns on one another; in Spain socialist militants were tortured by the Stalinists in an attempt to extort confessions that they were fascist spies out of them). What possible morality can unite national socialists, some of whom appear on this board, from those who assert that national boundaries and flags should not divide people from one another? What single morality could unite people who are profoundly pacifist, often for religious reasons, from people who seem to have a very easy approach to hurting other people?

There are socialisms, with moralities which go with them.

As for individuals mentioned, Heffer was an Anglican, not a Catholic, just as Beatrice Webb was a High Anglican (woe for her as she was deeply in love with the Unitarian Joe Chamberlain, marrying the less-handsome Sidney Webb in reaction), along with Tawney (from my memory, too lazy to corroborate that); Wheatley, the militant Red Clydesider leading light of the ILP, was a founder member of Glasgow’s Catholic Socialist Society about 1908. You’re absolutely right about the influence of Godwin’s religious background, but I’m not sure of the importance of this for the socialist movement – Godwin wasn’t a socialist, but a Philosophical Anarchist (a term he didn’t use) and his main influence was on poets like Shelley and the young  Wordsworth. The individual morality of all these people is very important for their biography; I’m less sure for the socialist movement.

[Little Richardjohn]

I've posted it before and I'll post it again.
Orwell had the most sensible, realistic interpretation of socialist morality and psychology of all with this little nail on the head.

"I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue."
http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun
There is simply no need for all the agonising. It isn't that complicated.

[Free Radical]

Gee, how stupid we have all been!

[Little Richardjohn]

I'd say too clever for your own good, if anything.

[Free Radical]

"There is simply no need for all the agonising. It isn't that complicated."

Worthy of Richard Littlejohn perhaps?

[Little Richardjohn]

Carry on your agonised soul-searching all you like. It won't achieve anything.
Now what,  if anything, did you object to in the Orwell essay? (If I can direct you back to the point)

[Little Richardjohn]

And if it's morality you're after, how about Orwell's defence of the Marxist restatement of the Gospels?

"It could be claimed, for example, that the most important part of Marx's theory is contained in the saying: ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.’ But before Marx developed it, what force had that saying had? Who had paid any attention to it? Who had inferred from it — what it certainly implies — that laws, religions and moral codes are all a superstructure built over existing property relations? It was Christ, according to the Gospel, who uttered the text, but it was Marx who brought it to life. And ever since he did so the motives of politicians, priests, judges, moralists and millionaires have been under the deepest suspicion — which, of course, is why they hate him so much."

"moral codes are all a superstructure built over existing property relations? "

[Brigg57]

the point is whether there is a moral basis to socialism.

Orwell is very much concerned with agonised soul-searching - 1984 is a real example of someone lost in a controlled world.

But when he talks of human brotherhood, (sisterhood? ah, well, as well as being a State informant, he was a tad misogynistic), don't you think that he raises more problems than he solves? Common sense, which lays out a simple statement like that, always acts with exasperation when someone asks questions. Orwell is a valuable writer, who often raises uncomfortable questions, but he's hardly the last word, and some of his comments are frankly laughable.

If you look at the thread, some basic questions are asked. Is human brotherhood enough? There are socialisms which pooh-pooh the idea. Marx himself objected strongly at one Congress when John S Mill proposed human brotherhood, saying that there are some people he wanted no truck with at all, still less to claim as brothers. Is there a moral code in our society, and if so does it still have meaning for the people within it? It's been argued here that a moral code which embodies the shards of a Judeo-Christian morality has disintegrated, and people within our society now operate in a society which is morally ambiguous.

These are serious questions. None of us are moral philosophers, but the questions are there for everyone, not just moral philosophers, and we try to discuss them in a non-technical manner. If you don't think they're worth bothering with, or you're simple enough to think that there are simple answers, then just don't bother with the thread. I don't bother with some threads, though that doesn't mean they're without interest. Easiest thing in the world to just appear, make some simple pronouncement, then denounce everyone for continuing to discuss when it’s so obvious that discussion has been ended by your simple pronouncement – that’s just a sort of flatulence, and people will wait for the smell to go before resuming.

[Little Richardjohn]

So do you or don't you agree that moral codes are all a superstructure built over existing property relations?
I missed where you  did that bit.

[Brigg57]

No, I don't agree that morality, or politics, or law, or much else is a 'superstructure' coverng property relatons. I don't find the base-superstructure model of marx very convincing at all.

Property plays a huge part in our society, of course, but to see morality as a superstructure orf any sort is too simple. If you read the thread, several people make this point. EP Thompson made his strongest arguemnts in the days of the New Reasoner that morality was not superstructural.

[Little Richardjohn]

Not much of a socialist then, are you?
You mean you believe in some kind of eternal Verities? Or that the environment doesn't influence behaviour and culture?
Sounds like you need another kind of politics altogether to meet your personal needs.

[Brigg57]

Ther are socialisms, not one socialist approach. If you read the thread properly, you could have seen that.

I'm saying no more than EP Thompson argued in his articles on 'Socialist Humanism' in The New Reasoner in 1957, or in Outside the Whale. If he wasn't much of a socialist, then neither am I.

Answer his points. They're available on the web. If you can answer them rationally without throwing a great deal of excreta everywhere, then I'll listen.