I've recently had a discussion with a group people who believed, in summary, that Communism was an ideology which had absolutely no use for any ethical terminology, and that any grounds upon which you may try to justify it was nothing more than "petty moralism". They instead proposed that people should just do whatever is "useful" or "helpful", and that whether or not one should want Communism simply, ultimately, came down to a personal preference which they held for the reason that Communism would be "helpful" for them.
Ultimately, this is just shielding an ethical question in "practical" terms while overlooking the overall statement being made. When a person says that people should do whatever is "helpful" or most "useful" they are actually taking a thinly-veiled utilitarian stance. They believe that one should engage in whatever act, and support whichever ideology most increases utility. However, by de-emphasizing the social role of that utility (and reducing it to individualistic terms) they reduce even utilitarianism to a type of rational egoism (a person has a rational self-interest, and they should pursue whatever actions maximize their interest) which reeks of so-called "Libertarian" ethics and Ayn Rand's "Objectivism". While I will not take the time here to critique the myth of the rational self-interest, I will note that an egoistic, consequentialist or objectivist ethical framework can justify absolutely any political system insofar as it benefits the class in power.
I would imagine that most leftists would not agree to such a stance. They see capitalism as inherently unjust, indefensible and see communism/anarchism (these are interchangeable for the purpose of this discussion, as their differences are not a key factor for this purpose) as ethically superior, either because of a rational social consequentialist position (more people will be better off under an anarchist/communist politico-economic system) or, as I think is usually more the case: a deep-seated ethical conviction which can be rationalized using a utilitarian framework, but which is ultimately a "felt" belief more than a rationalized one.
I don't believe that there is any rational basis for human ethics (insofar as humans do not consult any rationally defined framework to judge the moral quality of their actions before they do them). However, a society has certain basic ethical intuitions, which develop over time, both through socialization (an ethical rule is created based either on rational framework or inner ethical convictions, that rule is disemminated through the society, and after several generations becomes a cornerstone of that society's ethical thought: good examples are relatively recent convictions that slavery is wrong, racism is unjustifiable, and an increasing awareness that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is indefensible, etc) and through evolution (our baser moral instincts: convictions against pointless murder and other violence is perhaps the strongest example). Because these moral intuitions are entirely relative (yet have served society well, and have not given us any good reason to discard them) there is a certain degree to which they can be trusted to guide us on the ethical basis for deciding which politico-economic system "ought" to be adopted, to help us answer questions not of what is but what should be. You need ethics to answer the question "Why should we adopt communism/anarchism?".
Perhaps the greatest, simplest and most effective ethical justification I have yet found for the overthrow of capitalism is based on the notion of "Legitimate Force". Society at large has decided (and there is evidence of this being nearly universal) that the killing of other humans is only fully justified when it is done in self-defense. This is how wars are justified (even pre-emptive wars), this is why people who kill another when defending themselves from attack are exonerated and let free without consequence, and if we extend this intuition to all violence (as many liberal 'pacifists' do, a position which deeply resonates with many people despite its obvious deficiencies) we can discover an ethical basis for the destruction of capitalism.
If, as most basic moral intuitions would tell us, the only legitimate (read: just) use of violence is in self-defense, this STRONGLY strengthens the revolutionary position. While a bourgeoisie or liberal pacifist would interpret this as meaning that violent revolution is not justifiable, as revolutionaries it is our job to probe further than this most superficial understanding of violence and see it for what it truly is. Let me quickly somewhat formalize the proposition I am making here with regards to violence.
1) The use of force is legitimate/just if and only if that force is used to defend oneself against the perpetration of illegitimate or unjust force.
2) Only so much force as is necessary to end the perpetration of unjust force is legitimate/justified.
3) The use of force can be legitimate/just pre-emptively if and only if there is a reasonable expectation that the use of a lesser force pre-emptively can prevent the use of a greater force later, and the consequences of allowing the would-be perpetrator of illegitimate force to remain unhindered can be reasonably forseen. (This is a complex one, so I'll provide an example: It is legitimate to, for instance, sieze, arrest, or even injure or kill a group of neo-nazis with a rope in hand walking towards a gay black man's house. It is illegitimate to use force pre-emptively to, say, drop a nuclear weapon on a populated city to keep them from potentially later causing more death because you cannot reasonably forsee the consequences of not dropping that weapon, and you cannot reasonably predict that your action will result in lesser force needing to be exerted later)
Capitalism is an institution which runs on structural violence, an illegitimate force which is not based on self-defense but defense of property. The capitalist system, which coerces labor power by restricting access to basic human needs except to those who provide their labor (from which the capitalist extracts surplus value) ensures that only those who provide them with labor survive. This is absolutely a form of violence against any and all people either employed for a wage (victims of structural violence, kept in line by threat of further violence) or unable to procure a wage (victims of structural violence, starving). The extraction of value from the producing class is, in its design, a form of violence which is wholly illegitimate. Revolution, then is an act of self-defense of the working class: an absolute expression against the perpetration of violence, and the amount of force necessary to end the perpetration of that violence is exactly the destruction of the system and power structures which create that violence... the abolition of private property.
This also provides great insights into questions such as the death penalty and abortion.
When a murderer is in the act, about to kill a person and they act out in self-defense, killing the attempted murderer, that is justified because it is reasonable to believe that killing the perpetrator was the only viable course of action which would result in the saving of the victim's life.
However, after the act of murder has been committed and the murderer caught, killing is no longer the only viable course of action which would prevent the further perpetration of violence by that murderer (nor is it even the cheapest, or most practical) so the use of lethal force is no longer legitimate in light of the fact that the use of restraining force is sufficient to keep people safe from that murderer.
In the case of abortion: the fetus is, for all intents and purposes engaging in an act of violence against its carrier. The woman carrying the fetus, can reasonably either choose to consent to this violence (knowing fully the risks, and desiring the long-term consequences of doing so) or to, in an act of self-defense (in protection of her body, state of mind, etc.) abort the fetus. An ethical position on violence based upon the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate force seems to be the most consistent with our ideals, the best expression of our values, and can be used to justify the entirety of our long and short-term revolutionary goals.
Why should we pretend to abandon ethics in its entirety (while merely shielding an ethical opinion in so-called "practical" lanuage) when ethics, and basic, human moral convictions about the legitimacy of the use of force so well defends our revolutionary and post-revolutionary goals?
THANK'S :- http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=458
Ultimately, this is just shielding an ethical question in "practical" terms while overlooking the overall statement being made. When a person says that people should do whatever is "helpful" or most "useful" they are actually taking a thinly-veiled utilitarian stance. They believe that one should engage in whatever act, and support whichever ideology most increases utility. However, by de-emphasizing the social role of that utility (and reducing it to individualistic terms) they reduce even utilitarianism to a type of rational egoism (a person has a rational self-interest, and they should pursue whatever actions maximize their interest) which reeks of so-called "Libertarian" ethics and Ayn Rand's "Objectivism". While I will not take the time here to critique the myth of the rational self-interest, I will note that an egoistic, consequentialist or objectivist ethical framework can justify absolutely any political system insofar as it benefits the class in power.
I would imagine that most leftists would not agree to such a stance. They see capitalism as inherently unjust, indefensible and see communism/anarchism (these are interchangeable for the purpose of this discussion, as their differences are not a key factor for this purpose) as ethically superior, either because of a rational social consequentialist position (more people will be better off under an anarchist/communist politico-economic system) or, as I think is usually more the case: a deep-seated ethical conviction which can be rationalized using a utilitarian framework, but which is ultimately a "felt" belief more than a rationalized one.
I don't believe that there is any rational basis for human ethics (insofar as humans do not consult any rationally defined framework to judge the moral quality of their actions before they do them). However, a society has certain basic ethical intuitions, which develop over time, both through socialization (an ethical rule is created based either on rational framework or inner ethical convictions, that rule is disemminated through the society, and after several generations becomes a cornerstone of that society's ethical thought: good examples are relatively recent convictions that slavery is wrong, racism is unjustifiable, and an increasing awareness that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is indefensible, etc) and through evolution (our baser moral instincts: convictions against pointless murder and other violence is perhaps the strongest example). Because these moral intuitions are entirely relative (yet have served society well, and have not given us any good reason to discard them) there is a certain degree to which they can be trusted to guide us on the ethical basis for deciding which politico-economic system "ought" to be adopted, to help us answer questions not of what is but what should be. You need ethics to answer the question "Why should we adopt communism/anarchism?".
Perhaps the greatest, simplest and most effective ethical justification I have yet found for the overthrow of capitalism is based on the notion of "Legitimate Force". Society at large has decided (and there is evidence of this being nearly universal) that the killing of other humans is only fully justified when it is done in self-defense. This is how wars are justified (even pre-emptive wars), this is why people who kill another when defending themselves from attack are exonerated and let free without consequence, and if we extend this intuition to all violence (as many liberal 'pacifists' do, a position which deeply resonates with many people despite its obvious deficiencies) we can discover an ethical basis for the destruction of capitalism.
If, as most basic moral intuitions would tell us, the only legitimate (read: just) use of violence is in self-defense, this STRONGLY strengthens the revolutionary position. While a bourgeoisie or liberal pacifist would interpret this as meaning that violent revolution is not justifiable, as revolutionaries it is our job to probe further than this most superficial understanding of violence and see it for what it truly is. Let me quickly somewhat formalize the proposition I am making here with regards to violence.
1) The use of force is legitimate/just if and only if that force is used to defend oneself against the perpetration of illegitimate or unjust force.
2) Only so much force as is necessary to end the perpetration of unjust force is legitimate/justified.
3) The use of force can be legitimate/just pre-emptively if and only if there is a reasonable expectation that the use of a lesser force pre-emptively can prevent the use of a greater force later, and the consequences of allowing the would-be perpetrator of illegitimate force to remain unhindered can be reasonably forseen. (This is a complex one, so I'll provide an example: It is legitimate to, for instance, sieze, arrest, or even injure or kill a group of neo-nazis with a rope in hand walking towards a gay black man's house. It is illegitimate to use force pre-emptively to, say, drop a nuclear weapon on a populated city to keep them from potentially later causing more death because you cannot reasonably forsee the consequences of not dropping that weapon, and you cannot reasonably predict that your action will result in lesser force needing to be exerted later)
Capitalism is an institution which runs on structural violence, an illegitimate force which is not based on self-defense but defense of property. The capitalist system, which coerces labor power by restricting access to basic human needs except to those who provide their labor (from which the capitalist extracts surplus value) ensures that only those who provide them with labor survive. This is absolutely a form of violence against any and all people either employed for a wage (victims of structural violence, kept in line by threat of further violence) or unable to procure a wage (victims of structural violence, starving). The extraction of value from the producing class is, in its design, a form of violence which is wholly illegitimate. Revolution, then is an act of self-defense of the working class: an absolute expression against the perpetration of violence, and the amount of force necessary to end the perpetration of that violence is exactly the destruction of the system and power structures which create that violence... the abolition of private property.
This also provides great insights into questions such as the death penalty and abortion.
When a murderer is in the act, about to kill a person and they act out in self-defense, killing the attempted murderer, that is justified because it is reasonable to believe that killing the perpetrator was the only viable course of action which would result in the saving of the victim's life.
However, after the act of murder has been committed and the murderer caught, killing is no longer the only viable course of action which would prevent the further perpetration of violence by that murderer (nor is it even the cheapest, or most practical) so the use of lethal force is no longer legitimate in light of the fact that the use of restraining force is sufficient to keep people safe from that murderer.
In the case of abortion: the fetus is, for all intents and purposes engaging in an act of violence against its carrier. The woman carrying the fetus, can reasonably either choose to consent to this violence (knowing fully the risks, and desiring the long-term consequences of doing so) or to, in an act of self-defense (in protection of her body, state of mind, etc.) abort the fetus. An ethical position on violence based upon the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate force seems to be the most consistent with our ideals, the best expression of our values, and can be used to justify the entirety of our long and short-term revolutionary goals.
Why should we pretend to abandon ethics in its entirety (while merely shielding an ethical opinion in so-called "practical" lanuage) when ethics, and basic, human moral convictions about the legitimacy of the use of force so well defends our revolutionary and post-revolutionary goals?
THANK'S :- http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=458
No comments:
Post a Comment