 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » The ethical obligations of revolutionaries in search of "Co |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Hunter |
 Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In a nut shell, gentlemen (and hopefully Fran too for she has thought
about these problems more than most), here is what I understand to be
Marx's take on freedom of the individual under Communism---arranged in
four sets of related problems. I think we will all acknowledge that as
a whole it, the Marxian vision in all its historical stages, could well
have practical economic implications attendant to efforts to give
history a "push" even though we may differ as to what they might be,
partially because of differences of opinion as to how to interpret the
20th Century experience.
I. Marx rejected the ancient liberal conception of freedom, most
particularly freedom of contract in the work place. He attacked what he
saw as the merely "formal" and inexorably "negative" concept of
"bourgeois" liberty and was especially dismissive of what we know today
as human rights, e.g., as summarized for us conveniently in the
American Bill of Rights. In a typical tour de horizon he claimed to
have "unmasked" (later a favorite Stalinist term applied to people
instead of ideas) liberal freedom's "class content" and denied it had
any claim to universal significance, though occasionally it is said he
was forced to admit it had some relative value. I think it evident that
this part of the doctrine is pregnant with economic implications which
should be of interest to revolutionaries who know at this stage anyway
that failure has implications.
II. Marx was the founder (he would have preferred Engels' term
"discoverer" so as to have been ranked with Darwin) of historical
materialism, a deterministic theory of social change which includes the
notion that human ideals are all class bound, dependent on economic
interests, and that socioeconomic systems cannot be freely chosen
because their inner logic is subject to objective necessity, a theory
to which our British friend Roger is devoted. Determinism of this sort,
if only in the psychological sense, will, I think, also have possible
economic implications which should be of interest to revolutionaries
thinking of taking the future into their own hands.
III. In terms of the immense political, social and economic impact of
his work, primarily in the 20th Century, Marx must undoubtedly be
acknowledged to have been a great man--so long as no moral or ethical
responsibility for the results (or for his presumed political motives)
is imposed. It seems inescapable that he was an utopian visionary who
was convinced that communism would bring "truly human freedom," and
restore the unity of mankind. This form of liberation was undoubtedly
speculative, a belief in a God-like liberation dependant on the
"positive overcoming," of private property, the destruction of the
exchange economy, i.e., destruction of the market--even the destruction
of money itself; for him a de-alienated and humanized market was a
contradiction. Everything depended on *restoration* of "unmediated
social unity" through consciously planned and "directly socialized"
production which he speculated would eliminate the alienating
mechanisms of the market. Again, for the impatient, i.e., for
"revolutionaries" who hope to anticipate historical necessity this
doctrine is it seems fraught with peril.
IV. Finally, Marx combined his "scientific method" of explaining
history with a quasi-millenarian vision of collective earthly salvation
in the communist society of the future. This notion made use of causal
necessity but also interpreted history as a teleological, meaningful
process leading inevitably to human liberation. This freedom for him
was the only standard for transcultural appraisal--by comparing and
appraising different modes of production and different socioeconomic
systems. As science and millenarianism might be restless bedfellows at
best, we again find revolutionaries faced with difficult decisions
should they contemplate the possibility of failure.
So I ask you, gentlemen, and Fran, what are the probabilities and
likely economic impacts of failure should red-hot revolutionaries such
as Vladimir Lenin attempt again to push the river, to anticipate the
operation of historical necessity, and succeed in taking power--for a
while anyway. Is there any obligation they might owe to the people, the
masses, given these possible impacts? And I also ask you to consider in
this light the question of political legitimacy, the lack of which
albatrossed the Soviet regime to its very end.
And finally I ask you what concrete effects are likely from the
deep-sixing of traditional liberal human rights in such an adventure?
After all, we do have some precedents from the history of the 20th
Century.
(To save time I have shamelessly cribbed bits and paraphrased more of
this from several sources, mostly from Andrzej Walicki's "Marxism and
the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom". I urge you all to read it.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter Watson |
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:bcacc19170]In a nut shell, gentlemen (and hopefully Fran too for she has thought
about these problems more than most), here is what I understand to be
Marx's take on freedom of the individual under Communism---arranged in
four sets of related problems. I think we will all acknowledge that as
a whole it, the Marxian vision in all its historical stages, could well
have practical economic implications attendant to efforts to give
history a "push" even though we may differ as to what they might be,
partially because of differences of opinion as to how to interpret the
20th Century experience.
I. Marx rejected the ancient liberal conception of freedom, most
particularly freedom of contract in the work place. He attacked what he
saw as the merely "formal" and inexorably "negative" concept of
"bourgeois" liberty and was especially dismissive of what we know today
as human rights, e.g., as summarized for us conveniently in the
American Bill of Rights. In a typical tour de horizon he claimed to
have "unmasked" (later a favorite Stalinist term applied to people
instead of ideas) liberal freedom's "class content" and denied it had
any claim to universal significance, though occasionally it is said he
was forced to admit it had some relative value. I think it evident that
this part of the doctrine is pregnant with economic implications which
should be of interest to revolutionaries who know at this stage anyway
that failure has implications.
II. Marx was the founder (he would have preferred Engels' term
"discoverer" so as to have been ranked with Darwin) of historical
materialism, a deterministic theory of social change which includes the
notion that human ideals are all class bound, dependent on economic
interests, and that socioeconomic systems cannot be freely chosen
because their inner logic is subject to objective necessity, a theory
to which our British friend Roger is devoted. Determinism of this sort,
if only in the psychological sense, will, I think, also have possible
economic implications which should be of interest to revolutionaries
thinking of taking the future into their own hands.
III. In terms of the immense political, social and economic impact of
his work, primarily in the 20th Century, Marx must undoubtedly be
acknowledged to have been a great man--so long as no moral or ethical
responsibility for the results (or for his presumed political motives)
is imposed. It seems inescapable that he was an utopian visionary who
was convinced that communism would bring "truly human freedom," and
restore the unity of mankind. This form of liberation was undoubtedly
speculative, a belief in a God-like liberation dependant on the
"positive overcoming," of private property, the destruction of the
exchange economy, i.e., destruction of the market--even the destruction
of money itself; for him a de-alienated and humanized market was a
contradiction. Everything depended on *restoration* of "unmediated
social unity" through consciously planned and "directly socialized"
production which he speculated would eliminate the alienating
mechanisms of the market. Again, for the impatient, i.e., for
"revolutionaries" who hope to anticipate historical necessity this
doctrine is it seems fraught with peril.
IV. Finally, Marx combined his "scientific method" of explaining
history with a quasi-millenarian vision of collective earthly salvation
in the communist society of the future. This notion made use of causal
necessity but also interpreted history as a teleological, meaningful
process leading inevitably to human liberation. This freedom for him
was the only standard for transcultural appraisal--by comparing and
appraising different modes of production and different socioeconomic
systems. As science and millenarianism might be restless bedfellows at
best, we again find revolutionaries faced with difficult decisions
should they contemplate the possibility of failure.
So I ask you, gentlemen, and Fran, what are the probabilities and
likely economic impacts of failure should red-hot revolutionaries such
as Vladimir Lenin attempt again to push the river, to anticipate the
operation of historical necessity, and succeed in taking power--for a
while anyway. Is there any obligation they might owe to the people, the
masses, given these possible impacts? And I also ask you to consider in
this light the question of political legitimacy, the lack of which
albatrossed the Soviet regime to its very end.
And finally I ask you what concrete effects are likely from the
deep-sixing of traditional liberal human rights in such an adventure?
After all, we do have some precedents from the history of the 20th
Century.
(To save time I have shamelessly cribbed bits and paraphrased more of
this from several sources, mostly from Andrzej Walicki's "Marxism and
the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom". I urge you all to read it.)
[/quote:bcacc19170]
Here, to stimulate reflection, I add the ten original human rights
articles of the Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution:
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article IV
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
Article V
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
Article VI
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article VII
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Article VIII
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article IX
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article X
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article XI
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article XII
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
****
Source: The Laws of the United States, printed by Richard Folwell,
Philadelphia, 1796. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FRAN |
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
I think you overstate the deterministic elements in Marx at the exepnse
of the more humanistic views he also expressed, and you miss the
interplay of these two in his approach. But we've been here before.
[quote:430e988302]
So I ask you, gentlemen, and Fran, what are the probabilities and
likely economic impacts of failure should red-hot revolutionaries such
as Vladimir Lenin attempt again to push the river, to anticipate the
operation of historical necessity, and succeed in taking power--for a
while anyway.
[/quote:430e988302]
It all depends. If. once again, the collapse of an existing social
order in a largely subsistence agricultural country allows an isolated
band of leftists to come to power and invent ways of staying in power
within the narrow confines of some very marginal economy, I'd say the
possibility of an absolutely progressive outcome would be remote. If on
the other hand, communists in the first world were to become the
dominant political movement amongst working people in a couple of
advanced industrialised countries then the prospects for humanity as a
whole would look very much brighter indeed. Suddenly, that subsistence
agricultural country would have a strong industrial economy or two with
which to trade and develop without taking it out of the hides of it's
rural workers.
[quote:430e988302]Is there any obligation they might owe to the people, the
masses, given these possible impacts? And I also ask you to consider in
this light the question of political legitimacy, the lack of which
albatrossed the Soviet regime to its very end.
[/quote:430e988302]
Political legitimacy is key -- and devising a feasible and maintainable
instrument to give ongoing effect to the political and social interests
of working people is *the* key challenge.
[quote:430e988302]And finally I ask you what concrete effects are likely from the
deep-sixing of traditional liberal human rights in such an adventure?
[/quote:430e988302]
I see no reason to "deep six" these things.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FRAN |
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter Watson wrote:
[quote:f900d8f239]Hunter wrote:
Here, to stimulate reflection, I add the ten original human rights
articles of the Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution:
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
I would have no problem at all with that. Of course, the US has had a
few problems with this one. The "Patriot" Act is an absolute beauty. (I
thought someone was kidding when they told me it was actually an
acronym, and what it stood for)
[quote:f900d8f239]Article IV
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Again, no problem here, although I'm going to emphasise the
"well-regulated" bit.
[quote:f900d8f239]Article V
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Again, fair enough.
[quote:f900d8f239]Article VI
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Gosh, that's had a bit of a workout in the US of late. This one must be
on its last legs, though I doubt that the concept of wiretapping
crossed the minds of the designers of this little piece of dicta. But
yes, absolutely -- no unreasonable search and seizure, probable cause,
no fishing expeditions. Rules of eivdence to exclude "fruit from the
tree" of unreasonable searches and seizure, no evidence to be adduced
where certainty that the evidence was obtained by legally defencible
means -- ie no torture, transparency over plea bargaining etc ...
[quote:f900d8f239]Article VII
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Again all legitimate and foundational IMO. I'd go further, and say that
even in cases where an issue of military expediency *was* raised, there
should be an ex parte hearing before a suitbaly qualified independent
arbiter where the prosecution must demonstrate that a compelling case
exists for waiving civil indictment procedures. Practices such as
"rendition" in the case of foreign nationals ought to be ruled illegal,
and transparency on the conditions in which enemy combatants were held
ought to apply. The Rumsfeld view on what consitutes torture ought to
be discarded and aside from imprisonment itself, prisoners ought to be
treated *at all times* in accordance with acceptable standards in
public hospitals. Where issues of "crimes against humanity" are raised,
these should be dealt with by independent international bodies with due
process applying.
[quote:f900d8f239]Article VIII
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed,
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Except as above "crimes against humanity".
[quote:f900d8f239]which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Absolutely
[quote:f900d8f239]Article IX
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
No problem in principle there, though the $20 benchmark probably needs
adjustment.
[quote:f900d8f239]Article X
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
That's one not in force in the US, probably because "excessive" isn't
well-defined and "cruel and unusual" is meaningless these days. I think
bail should either be denied if there is a reasonable risk of witness
intimidation, further offences or flight, or nominal bail imposed.
Reporting conditions could be strengthened so as to restrict movement
or flight. Breaches of bail conditions should result in remand.
[quote:f900d8f239]Article XI
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
Not sure what this means.
[quote:f900d8f239]Article XII
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
[/quote:f900d8f239]
I abstain on this one -- as this is really a division of powers issue
and that would be subsumed by more gneral issues of the polity.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FRAN |
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter Watson wrote:
<snip>
[quote:060a8a4599]For his expensive failure, he was sentenced to five years' jail, which
was later commuted to five years' exile in the Central Asian republic
of
Kazakhstan in 1931. A year later he died, reportedly after falling sick
while standing on a freezing railway platform.
[/quote:060a8a4599]
Did you intend this for me?
If so, it's a rather odd approach to discussing the topic.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter Watson |
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
FRAN wrote:
[quote:9bae814b47]Hunter Watson wrote:
snip
For his expensive failure, he was sentenced to five years' jail, which
was later commuted to five years' exile in the Central Asian republic
of
Kazakhstan in 1931. A year later he died, reportedly after falling sick
while standing on a freezing railway platform.
Did you intend this for me?
If so, it's a rather odd approach to discussing the topic.
Fran
[/quote:9bae814b47]
Certainly not just to you, but yes, to you. The central point I made in
the first post of the thread had to do with the hostile
Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Hitlerite attitude toward competing
traditional moral and ethical systems, the ones received from our
ancestors over thousands of years of trial and error which are central
to our culture. In your post you side-stepped those arguments. Just
yesterday I ran across this "Scotsman" article about policy emanating
from the Politburo in 1926, at least three years before Stalin
consolidated personal power in the Soviet Union. It supports the point
I made with near perfection. Indeed, what else might emerge when the
traditional restraints are destroyed and nothing but dictatorial
caprice takes their places.
Think of the response Hitler's one night stand, out-of-wedlock superman
breeding program would have received in Austrialia or in any Christian
democracy. Consider the response this *particular* proposal and its
military rationale would have received outside the totalitarian
environment where traditional values had not been disabled as a matter
of doctrine plus terror.
What my point boils down to is a fundamental critique applicable to all
totalitarian systems.
The demise of the scientist involved is another subject. They were
chewed up by the thousands in the Soviet Union. That was routine. It
began, by the way, under and at the insistance of Lenin. himself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FRAN |
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter Watson wrote:
[quote:fd323e192a]FRAN wrote:
The central point I made in
the first post of the thread had to do with the hostile
Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Hitlerite attitude toward competing
traditional moral and ethical systems,
[/quote:fd323e192a]
Is there balm in Gilead?
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:34 am
|
|