Tag Archives: morality

The politics of morality and Palestine solidarity

Posted on by
Reply

The rights of ‘the people’ or ‘humanity’ may appear to be more fundamental and therefore more vital than those of a particular class (e.g. the working class), but this ignores the essential nature of the society that makes the struggle for these rights necessary.  Society is based on particular relations of production that generate the threats and the struggle to defend them.  These relations are capitalist, and the working class is the only social force that can fundamentally challenge these relations and the attacks on democratic and other rights that are generated by them.

It is not an answer to claim that the fight for ‘human rights’ can be taken up by the socialist and working class movement as a struggle to involve the widest layers of society in defence of what might appear legitimately to be human rights – the question of genocide in Gaza is one striking example – especially when it is claimed that no particular class perspective is required.  So, it might be claimed that surely denial of the right to life, most poignantly illustrated in the children murdered by the Zionist state of Israel, is one such example of human rights that transcend class and class interests.

The problem with this is that it ignores the cause of the genocide; that it lies in the nature of the Zionist state and its settler colonial role, and more fundamentally ignores that this is role is on behalf of Western, particularly US, imperialism.  The cause of the genocide does not lie beyond or transcend class politics but is a searing demonstration of the consequences of the continuation of the capitalist system.

Capitalism as the fundamental causal factor is disguised not just by mainstream media censorship and spin but by popular and inadequate understanding of what capitalism is.  It is not a case of class ‘reductionism’ to note that the ideology of Zionism and the actions and policy of the settler colonial state are inadequate explanations for the genocide, which can only be adequately explained by the support and endorsement by western imperialism.  Without this the genocide would not be taking place.

Even attributing the cause to imperialism can leave open a misunderstanding of what is happening, and the tendency to see it a something separate from capitalism, as opposed to its nature as its most advanced form that encompasses the planet. In this case, opposing imperialism can be a way of not opposing capitalism and avoiding putting forward a working class and socialist alternative.  This often begins by excluding a class perspective from the start and appealing to supposedly more fundamental humanitarian concerns that can be expressed in the demands and objectives of single issue campaigns.

This approach confuses the need for the working class to take on board opposition to all oppression and exploitation – to be the universal class that represents the new society within the old – with relegating its own class interests and the central role around which all the struggles against oppression must coalesce and unite.  The working class thus doesn’t become the leadership of such a movement but becomes simply one component of a putative coalition with different agendas, which excludes agreement on the central role of working class struggle and socialism.

The effect of watering down demands to appeal to a wider human-rights concerned audience is that it fails to identify the cause of oppression and fails to fight it effectively.  The constant humanitarian approach, that today justifies the old popular front strategy of yesteryear, has moved older activists to the default belief that this is the path to mass campaigning and led them to forget previous debates about the difference between this approach and a workers’ united front.  For younger activists all this is a completely different language that they see no need to learn.  As George Orwell once said about thought corrupting language, language can corrupt thought.

An example of the effects of this was illustrated to me in a recent conversation with a comrade in Dublin who is involved in the Palestine solidarity campaign.  When Israel, and then the US, bombed Iran she asked that fellow activists oppose the bombing.  She found no support, with opposition usually framed on the grounds that attention should not be distracted from the plight of the Palestinians.

The first thing to note is the instinctive rejection of opposing the attack on Iran (while also opposing the genocide), illustrating how previous instincts for solidarity have been severely weakened.  This is, however, entirely consistent with the policy of single issue campaigning which fails to recognise how the world actually works, meaning you have no coherent idea how it might be changed.  It means no protest against the extension of Zionist and US aggression, intended to strengthen their power – including against the Palestinians – and no intention of offering a total opposition to the forces of oppression.

It rests on the claim that what is needed is that attention is focused on the genocide, as if everyone by now doesn’t know exactly what is going on.  Those who don’t, don’t want to know, and those who do need to realise that the problem isn’t that people are not aware but that they feel powerless to do anything about it.  The repeated demonstrations and protests have not changed anything so those who previously took part, or looked on wondering whether to do so, can see no point to them except that they haven’t worked.

They have failed not because people haven’t been paying attention but because the protests are based on the illusion that an obvious humanitarian disaster will lead to those responsible for it stopping if enough people say that they should. Except appeals to those who are the problem are not a solution.  Western states are fully in support of the Zionist state; thinking this can be radically changed by ‘pressure’ simply avoids recognition that the Western states under ‘pressure’ press back by trying to criminalise opposition.

This approach simply exposes the fact that there is no understanding about the nature of the imperialist system despite often repeated references to it.  It simply leads to some taking more radical direct action that shows awareness of the problem but simply displaces responsibility to a small number of activists.

The current approach of moral condemnation allows many to claim that they are part of the solidarity movement when all they do is mouth words of outrage and nothing else.  Those supposedly in positions of influence are allowed to speak at protests while doing nothing, not because they are getting away with fooling their audience but because this is all that the movement demands.  They pay no price for their failure and the whole movement is rendered impotent by the acceptance of it.  If the movement accepts false friends, why should Western states fear false enemies?

Even to put it like this illustrates the problem.  It is not a question of changing the minds of this or that government but of challenging the interests of the imperialist states involved.  Were a conscious attempt made to go beyond ritualistic moral protest and seek to radicalise the movement politically, including by taking up the attack against Iran, the movement would just by this become a greater concern to the political leadership of the imperialist states.  Were organisation to be directed to workers’ action to prevent armed support to the Zionist state it would have both an immediate direct effect and increase the radicalisation of the movement.

Such a focus is not guaranteed to be successful but only the blind can deny current failure.  At worst we would have a more politically advanced working class movement for the future.

In one respect the slogan “we are all Palestinians”, which I really dislike, is true.  The failure of the political leadership of the Palestinian people is mirrored by the failure of the moral politics of the solidarity movement.

Marx’s critique of moral politics and the politics of morality

Posted on by
Reply

Marx’s criticism of the republican politics of Heinzen was just as cutting as that of Engels, with the title of his writing setting out its nature and the necessary response – Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality. He described it as ‘constantly preaching morality and constantly offending against it’ and again contrasted the approach of communism to that of republicanism:

‘Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws.’

This type of analysis was not a question of simply understanding the world better but informing to what extent it was possible to change it, thus informing the correct approach to doing so:

‘If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie.’

Where Heinzen declared that “You are trying to make social questions the central concern of our age, and you fail to see that there is no more important social question than that of monarchy or republic.” Marx said that ‘The question of property, depending on the different levels of development of industry, has always been the vital question for a particular class. In the 17th and 18th centuries, when the point at issue was the abolition of feudal property relations, the question of property was the vital question for the bourgeois class. In the 19th century, when it is a matter of abolishing bourgeois property relations, the question of property is a vital question for the working class . . . It so happens that the “social questions” which have been “dealt with in our own day” increase in importance in proportion as we leave behind us the realm of absolute monarchy.’

Today, the realm of absolute monarchs for the vast majority of countries has passed and the spread of capitalism has created a larger and larger working class that puts the social question to the fore.  If working class revolution is not currently on the agenda in any country it is not because the class struggle between the working class and capitalism does not exist but because the bourgeoisie has had a relatively long period of winning it.  Because the question of absolute monarchy was on the agenda in Marx’s time and capitalism and the working class were undeveloped, Marx had to reckon on how to orient in these circumstances so that the working class could take an independent position and advance its own interests.  The latter is the task today in an analogous situation in so far as the forces seeking to do so are again weak, although for very different reasons.

It is not therefore the case that the 19th century is a foreign land buried in a past epoch but that Marxists today can learn from the original Marx in how to defend and advance working class politics when it is politically weak.  This includes rejection of the claimed alternatives – in their approach to understanding society and identifying the forces that will create a new one – that existed then and are put forward now.  They are not exactly the same, but neither are they wholly different.

So, while Marxists see the property question as primary, the bourgeoisie today turns its back on it when presenting its own ‘solutions’ to the social question. Marx noted that ‘Nowhere . . . does social inequality obtrude itself more harshly than in the eastern states of North America, because nowhere is it less disguised by political inequality.’ He notes that it is here, and in other ‘constitutional or republican representative state[s], that the “question of property” has become the most important “social question”, it is very much the narrow need of the German bourgeois that interjects: the question of the monarchy is the most important “social question of the time”. It is in a very similar way that Dr. List, in the foreword to his Nationalökonomie* expresses his so naïve irritation that pauperism and not protective tariffs should have been “misconstrued” as the most important social question of our time.’

Today the question of tariffs is again to the fore – for the location of the largest capitalist firms across the world; the rivalry of the various capitalist powers through the creation of huge trading blocs, including the question of Brexit; and the pursuit of trade wars by the strongest power in an attempt to prop up its eroding supremacy.  In these circumstances the modern reactionary alternative, that in the mid-19th century was embodied in the petty bourgeois politics of artisan workers and the peasantry, is now embodied in the idea of the resurrection of national sovereignty and equality between nations, which has never existed and never will.

Marx noted that the 19th century version of middle class reform was ‘just a matter of avoiding extremes! What rational political constitution would be compatible with these extremes, these oh so abominable extremes! . . .  take a look at Heinzen’s “federal republic” with “social institutions” and its seven measures for the “humanisation of society”. We find that each citizen is assured a “minimum” of wealth below which he cannot fall, and a maximum of wealth is prescribed which he may not exceed’.

‘Has not Herr Heinzen solved all the difficulties, then, by reiterating in the form of state decrees the pious desire of all good citizens that no person should have too little and none, indeed, too much, and simply by so doing made it reality?  And in the same manner, which is as simple as it is splendid, Herr Heinzen has resolved all economic conflicts. He has regulated property according to the rational principles corresponding to an honest bourgeois equity. And please do not object that the “rational rules” of property are precisely the “economic laws” on whose cold-blooded inevitability all well-meaning “measures” will necessarily founder . . .’

These measures promised by republicans, which Marx ridicules as impossible under capitalism, were prompted to address the oppression of the absolute monarchy and the state then existing:

‘The violently reactionary role played by the rule of the princes only proves that in the pores of the old society a new society has taken shape, which furthermore cannot but feel the political shell—the natural covering of the old society—as an unnatural fetter and blow it sky-high.  The more advanced these new elements of social decomposition, the more reactionary will even the most harmless attempt at conservation by the old political power appear. The reaction of the rule of the princes, instead of proving that it creates the old society, proves rather that its day is over as soon as the material conditions of the old society have become obsolete.’

While it was not possible for the working class to pose its own solution immediately, Marx defended them in independently supporting steps towards the political freedoms that they could employ to further their own cause:

‘The workers know very well that it is not just politically that the bourgeoisie will have to make broader concessions to them than the absolute monarchy, but that in serving the interests of its trade and industry it will create, willy-nilly, the conditions for the uniting of the working class, and the uniting of the workers is the first requirement for their victory.’

‘They can and must accept the bourgeois revolutions a precondition for the workers’ revolution. However, they cannot for a moment regard it as their ultimate goal.’

Today, the ‘violently reactionary role played by the rule of the capiatalist class only proves that in the pores of the old society a new society has taken shape, which furthermore cannot but feel the political shell—the natural covering of the old society—as an unnatural fetter and blow it sky-high.’

These current political forms of capitalism are embodied in the nation state and their regional and world-wide alliances. They are incapable of serving the interest of humanity and are instead the mechanisms by which inter-capitalist rivalry threatens to precipitate a world war from which humanity may not emerge again, except perhaps as a species put back millennia in its civilisation.

The political shell to be broken today is this system of states; ‘its day is over’ and ‘the material conditions of the old society have become obsolete’.  It is not, however, opposition to globalisation and the utopian pursuit of a return of national sovereignty that is the solution.  Workers should reject the reactionary calls of nationalism, the shutting of borders and opposition to immigrant workers. Nor should it swallow the lies that their lives and freedoms are safe with their own ruling class but threatened by that of foreign rulers, so that they must unite with the former in war against the latter. Capitalist war is always draped in the robes of freedom and justice and the war cries today against Russia on behalf of the Ukrainian state are no different that the pleas on behalf of poor little imperialist Belgium during the horrors of the First World War.

Just as 150 years ago, the development of capitalism creates the ‘conditions for the uniting of the working class, and the uniting of the workers is the first requirement for their victory.’  We should not reject the creation of these conditions internationally in order to return to a past nationalism. Socialism is international or it is not socialism and we should not seek to support the division of the world working class but go beyond the unity it has achieved.

Marx’s progress beyond 19th century republicanism was based on the materialist analysis of the development of society at that time, and so it should be today.  His alternative was not moralistic criticism but the working class and its political movement.

Part 64 of Karl Marx’s alternative to capitalism

Back to part 63

Forward to part 65

Part 1

Bourgeois democracy – reply to a critical reader

Posted on by
4

In the previous post a reader of the blog expressed disagreement with my approach in a comment.

He stated that “I find it hard to fathom how you can heavily criticise bourgeois democracy like you did in a recent post and at the same time advocate for something you call democratic rights.”

The comment doesn’t reference the particular post and makes only general references that are difficult to identify, including reference to the views of Marx as quoted by Paul Cockshott. I agree with the comment by Boffy in response that:

“I am always rather suspicious of people who cite what Marx and/or Engels are supposed to have said about something, without actually giving the quote, and source of it, because I have frequently found that either the claim is false, altogether, or else, the context, and text of what they said completely changes the meaning of what is being claimed. Given what they say in the Communist Manifesto about workers having no country, and the fact that they were themselves refugees from Germany, makes me doubt what is being claimed for them, here.”

I can only add that it is not altogether clear what the comment Boffy responded to is claiming.

In relation to bourgeois democracy – this post being one example – it is one political form of the dictatorship of capital – the exploitation of the working class, which is separated from the means of production and subject to wage slavery, as its labour power becomes a commodity.  I don’t see how you can be a Marxist and not take this view.

Does this mean we cannot demand and fight for democratic rights within capitalism?  Only the most formal of formal logics could lead to such a view and someone who regularly quotes philosophical thinkers should know this.

The fight for democratic rights was recognised by Marx as necessary in order for the working class to develop itself politically so that it could have the freedom to identify its separate interests, organise around them and struggle for the realisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The word ‘dictatorship’ has rather changed its meaning since it was used by Marx and does not refer to lack of freedom but to the economic and social domination of the working class – uniting the working class with the means of production through cooperative and common ownership, the ending over time of the wage relationship and thus ending of exploitation.

The struggle for this freedom includes the struggle for democratic rights which are not “abstract principles . . .like as a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat” but are concrete measures to be imposed on, or accepted by, the state through working class struggle.  One of the points I have made continually is not to base the struggle for these rights on appeals to the state but to be won by the workers themselves, in opposition to the state if necessary.

He asks “Are your democratic rights legal claims that somehow endure without the presence of a State”?

Marxists do not invent a world subsisting without a state; we recognise the real world that exists in which there is one.  It is why Marxism has no need to invent such things as natural law.  Rights are not worth much if they cannot be validated and this very often is done by the state: so often the democratic rights demanded are demanded from the state, to be accepted by or imposed on it, but always with the view that it is the power and activity of the working class that will ultimately protect and defend them, to whatever extent this can be done within capitalism.

Marxists believe that society can only be understood as it really is – and thereby changed –  by recognising that it is structured by classes with their irreconcilable interests. It is the writer of the comment who is guilty of proposing ‘abstract’ ‘principles’ and ‘morals’, which is why he states that he doesn’t understand what I have written.  It is why he says such things as “I can honestly say I don’t know what these things are” and that “I might not agree with humanitarian morality but at least I could say I understood what was going on.”

When he says that he “would be happier if you and others who speak up for and march out for the asylum seekers did so on the basis of some common humanitarian morality” he simply says that he would be happier if I lapsed into the “abstract principles” he denounces as akin to “pulling rabbits out of a hat.”

He provides me with the option of justifying my position by saying that “I can see how you might get around the problem by imputing an interest and not a morality to the working class.”  And this is roughly what I have done, although I would not put it in those terms.  This, however, is an option that he obviously rejects, yet also rejecting a general “humanitarian morality” as an alternative. Where that leaves him is not my problem.

He then states: “let’s us assume that the bulk of the working class misrecognises the interest you impute to them or consciously rejects that interest. Well you are back with your principles again, an undisclosed humanitarian morality. It turns out therefore that lurking behind the objective interest of the working class is an undisclosed humanitarian morality.”

This is a big, big assumption, and the history of the working class demonstrates that significant numbers have identified that they have a separate interest.  This is demonstrated objectively in the alienation of the working class; its distrust of its rulers and opposition to many of its actions – including those rulers support for the current genocide in Palestine. It is demonstrated in its separate organisations, and in its long history across the world of class struggles big and small – from strikes to revolutions.

Naturally the bourgeois media, culture industry and education system ignores or distorts all this, which makes its undeniable existence all the more necessary to recognise and appreciate.  But let us presume that the assumption is correct for the sake of argument.

If it were true that “the working class misrecognises the interest you impute to them or consciously rejects that interest”; i.e. that it never develops class consciousness; then yes, there would be no material interests that could be realised, and any such interest would be abstract, therefore general and “undisclosed.” The point of the blog is to disclose this interest and advance understanding of what it is so that it can be realised in the real world, through informing working class struggles that are going on quite independent of it.

This is where morality ceases to be abstract, is attached to material interests, where ‘what is’ meets ‘what should be’.  To understand this, it is necessary in some way to be part of the struggle to understand and change the world.  The commentator is not part of this, so appears incapable of understanding Marxism. It is this purely contemplative perspective that, it seems, means that he never gets the point.