Marxism and morality

by Ray Jones

Marx and Engels

 One common attack on Marxism is that it is amoral, that Marxists don’t really have any morals at all. It’s said that they believe that ‘the end justifies the means’ in all circumstances and are quite happy to indulge in the eating of babies if they think it serves their devious purposes.

Marxists take morality very seriously but approach it a scientific way – not from a list of ‘eternal’ does and don’ts handed down from a god or gods.

In a sense no-one can escape morality. Humans could not exist if they did not co-operate to produce their food and shelter, and in so doing, basic codes of conduct are produced, a ‘social consciousness’ is formed. The simpler the society the simpler these rules of behaviour towards each other generally are – and no society has yet been found without them.

As societies change their means of producing the needs and desires of life and become more complex, they develop more complex cultures. Social consciousness takes various forms – eg art, morality, religion, legal – but they remain fundamentally linked to, and the product of, the means and relations of production.

With the development of the means of production comes class societies, where different groups have different relationships to how the necessities of life are produced, who owns them and who controls them. Because of the different relationships, different points of view and behaviour arise, and cultures, to an extent, diverge. Even within the major classes, attitudes can differ and clashes occur, but whilst the means of production remain relatively stable the morality of the society will be under the sway of the dominant class.

In feudal days in Western Europe the Catholic church played the major role in morality, backed by the military system of ownership and governance. But the two did not always see eye to eye, in fact there was more-or-less constant conflict between the theologically influenced ideas of the church and the military priorities of the kings and knights.

For example, the church disapproved of crossbows as weapons that were too nasty and efficient to use against other Christians, and of tournaments because they caused too many unnecessary deaths. On the other hand, knights valued the former because it was an efficient killing machine, and the latter as a training method and a way to increase their incomes. More fundamentally, Pope and kings clashed over which had the ultimate say in this material world.

Eventually one could say that the kings won and the secular forces came out on top, but this was bound up with the rise of capitalism, which was bad news for the kings, and it was far from the end of the love/hate relationship between church and state.

Although morality has been linked to religion for much of history, with the rise of capitalism attempts were again made to separate the two. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) described the idea that morality came from divine law as “non-sense on stilts” and he and JS Mill, his student, are usually credited with the invention of classical Utilitarianism. Mill said that “...actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Happiness being pleasure and the reverse pain.

This theory can be applied to how people {should} and {do} behave and has given rise to many interpretations – some of which remain amongst philosophers and the general public today, despite the many problems it raises.

Under 19^th century capitalism there were attempts to put it into social practice. With the introduction of Workhouses under the new Poor Law, conditions inside them were deliberately made so dreadful that only those about to starve would choose to go there. People would choose the greater ‘pleasure’ of living on the verge of starvation outside them – and so save the local rate payers (the well-off) a few shillings.

There were of course massive protests and riots, and the conditions were gradually improved. But the Workhouses remained for many years – and the fear and hatred of them amongst the working class longer still.

In our own times, remnants of feudal/aristocratic culture and morality remain entrenched in parts of society: conspicuous consumption, patronising noblesse oblige, the belief in a classical education (for themselves – obviously) and undemocratic views. These interact and conflict with the dominant capitalist ideas of constant reinvestment and increase of profit, charity for the ‘worthy’ poor, education to produce suitable workers and bosses for industry, and limited bourgeois democracy. And with working class beliefs, which is the job of Marxists to support, in fairness, community and an education to ‘get on’, to improve their lives.

But when a means of production breaks down, when the ruling class cannot go on in the old way and the oppressed class will not continue in the old way, a revolutionary leap occurs. Power shifts to a new class and a different dominant culture emerges, which has developed in the bowels of the old.

No culture vanishes overnight but the balance of forces changes decisively. Under socialism, working class feelings for collectiveness and fairness are given greater freedom and old prejudices, which were encouraged by capitalism, reduced. A new and better society can be built.

Well, it’s only common sense, isn’t it?

Bishop Berkeley

 By Ray Jones

It’s often claimed during discussion and arguments that something or other is common sense. Sometimes as a last resort when backed into a corner but sometimes in all seriousness as a triumphant coup to end debate.

But what is common sense? A dictionary definition says it’s “Sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts” which seems reasonable but leaves much unclear. What is “sound and prudent”? What is “a simple perception”?

Perhaps we can assume that sound and prudent means something like “what most people would think sound and prudent” or “what a wise person would think”. Which when you consider it are not necessarily the same thing at all and anyway, do we know what most people think or which wise person is being referred to? If we do know what most people think (eg: via a poll) or which wise person is referred to does it follow they are right? Majorities are not always right and wise people are sometimes wrong.

The second part of the definition is perhaps even more difficult. Does “a simple perception” mean a perception by someone who is simple (in a good way or a bad way)? or a perception which is not complex or scientific – why should this be better or worse?

Is common sense merely the view of “the man on the Clapham omnibus” (as philosophers use to say in less PC times)? British academic philosophers, often wandering in obscure unrealistic thought, are sometimes reproached by their rivals with the cry that have gone too far from ordinary language, too far from how the  people in the street think. The response may be, “So what?” but it often makes them stop and reconsider.

It is sometimes amazing what philosophers believe the average person thinks or may think. Bishop George Berkeley (1685 - 1753) seems to have genuinely believed that they would easily agree with him that no solid matter existed in the world, only spirits and their ideas and that this did not seriously conflict with their everyday outlook and conduct.

In spite of some philosophers people have generally believed in the material world. But having said that they have very often believed in gods, spirits and ghosts as well.

Many things considered common sense in the past are generally thought just wrong now. For example for centuries it was taken for granted in the West that the Sun and planets circled the Earth and that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Our everyday experiences and perceptions appeared to prove this – and it said so in the Bible.

It was not until there were technological advances and social changes that this belief was undermined, eventually rejected and a replaced by a new common sense.

The idea of a Sun-centred universe in the West came from Copernicus (1473 – 1543) but not published by him until just before his death. He was reluctant to publish because he feared being laughed at and persecuted by the Catholic Church – both fears were realistic. It was not until many years later, when feudalism had decayed still more and science had advanced, that the theory became generally accepted.

The common sense of the day, the one that dominates, comes from the ruling class, the class that controls the means of production and exchange. It is propagated through their control of education, communication and religion and changes as that class changes in the development of society.

But it changes more profoundly when the old society breaks down entirely and a revolution produces a new ruling class. Because in class societies the oppressed classes produce their own common sense which often conflicts with that of the ruling class and after a revolution will replace much of it.

Different ways of making a living, different relationships with the means of production, can produce these different ways of looking at things.

Owners of industry will foist some ideas of common sense on their employees but not all their ideas and not all employees. “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” is a phrase often used by both capitalists and workers but what is meant by “fair” can be quite different because of their different and conflicting stand points. As the old society goes into crisis these conflicts become more serious, they are part and parcel of the leap from one type of society to another – of a social revolution.

Common sense then can be progressive or reactionary or neutral. There is no simple single common sense. As we always have to ask, “Democracy for whom?” we have to ask, “Common sense for whom and in whose interests?”

An Indian spotlight on the communist world

by Robin McGregor

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY, Vol XXV, No 1, October 2019. £5.00 + £1.50 p&p from NCP Lit: PO Box 73, London SW11 2PQ.

This twice yearly Indian Marxist-Leninist journal has caught up with its publication schedule, with the October issue now available.

As is the custom, the first section is devoted to contemporary India. It begins with an article with the self-explanatory title of Obituary of a Liberal Democracy: Ushering in Hindu Rashtra. This is a depressing survey of the widespread electoral triumph of the incumbent Hindu-fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alliance, which won 353 seats out of the 545 seats in the Lok Sabha in the 2019 parliamentary elections. Following are two pieces that confirm the malign effects of BJP rule on India. The first is an account of the state of the Indian rural population, from figures provided by the official Indian statistical body (a second article on the urban working class will follow). In many respects the already low living standards in the countryside (where 72 per cent of the labour force live) are showing signs of decline. The second deplores the BJP’s recent budget, which falls far short of its election promises and is obsessed with attracting foreign investment.

The death of Tufail Abbas, a sometime member of the Communist Party of Pakistan and founder of Pakistan’s airline workers union, is marked not only by a number of tributes but by a translation of an extract from his autobiography that includes fascinating details of a trip to China in 1966 at the height of the Cultural Revolution.

The second section is concerned with materials from parties affiliated to the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations (ICMLPO). These include items about recent developments in Ecuador, Turkey’s military actions in Syria, and Bolivia. The latter, from the Revolutionary Communist Party of Bolivia, takes an extremely hostile view of Evo Morales whose Movement of Socialism (MAS) is accused of selling out almost as soon as it first came to power in 2006. If that were indeed the case one might wonder why there was any need to depose him last November.

Half this issue is taken up with archival materials of both theoretical and historical interest. The most recent one is a 2004 article from the Russian Communist Workers Party that condemns the economic policies of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as a retreat back to Trotsky’s ‘market socialist’ theories. This ties in with the oldest piece, a 1926 article translated from Under the Banner of Marxism. Here we learn in great detail about the development of Karl Kautsky’s theories on imperialism in his various writings between 1898 and 1912. These theories, which had such a baleful influence in the German Social Democratic Party, later became widespread under different labels, which makes an understanding of them important today.

Pod Znamenem Marksizma to give Under the Banner of Marxism its proper name, was an important early Soviet philosophical journal published between 1922 and 1943. It would be useful to see other articles from this source that are not as well-known as they ought to be.

There is also a translation of an internal report made in 1947 for the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) on the recent history and activities of the Communist Party of India (CPI) just after India formally became independent. It includes the CPI’s views on the British Labour Party, the party’s views on the dangers of Japanese imperialism during the war, and its changing views on the establishment of the separate Muslim state of Pakistan.

We also have a 1952 article about political events in Poland in the run up to the 1948 foundation of the Polish United Workers Party with a merger between the communist Polish Workers Party and the Polish Socialist Party after many complex battles within the two parties.

 Two shorter pieces are a 1954 memoir of the Italian communist leader Palmiro Togliatti in 1935 which suggests that the standard Marxist definition of fascism as the “open terroristic dictatorship of reactionary finance capital” was Stalin’s own. This is followed by a prophetic 1956 letter to the General Secretary of the CPI arguing that Khruschev’s attacks on Stalin, were in fact an attack on Marxism-Leninism itself.

Just occasionally the translations could do with an extra polish but that should not deter readers who will find much of interest, even if the ICMLPO is not to everyone’s taste.

An evergreen Marxist digest from India

Review

Arkady Shaiket
Construction of the Moscow Telegraphic Centre, 1928,

by Robin McGregor

Revolutionary Democracy Vol XXIV, No 1, October 2018. £5.00 + £1.00p&p from NCP Lit: PO Box 73, London SW11 2PQ

Revolutionary Democracy, the twice-yearly Indian Marxist journal is catching up on its schedule and its latest issue is now on sale from the above address. Like Gaul, the journal is in three parts. First there are collections of articles on contemporary India, then statements and articles from various parties belonging to the International Conference of Marxist Leninist Parties and Organisations. Finally there is the always interesting material from the Soviet archives, which editor Vijay Singh assiduously ferrets out.

The Indian section begins with an article entitled Culpable Genocide Not Amounting to Murder – The Tuticorin Massacre, which deals with long-running attempts by local people to close a dangerously polluting coper smelting plant in Tamil Nadu. In one protest, 13 people were killed when police opened fire. Opponents of the closure included workers employed at the plant, who were to become targets of the protestors. As the author points out, this is not a unique case and the working class needs to become involved in environmental questions.

Other articles take a harsh look at the BJP government’s financial management and its most recent budget that promises far more than it delivers. There is also a piece on women in agriculture, which both describes the dire effect of neoliberalism on the sector and offers some pointers to a better future. Short articles deal with frequently brutal trade union struggles. The 1931 case of Bhagat Singh who was hanged for anti-imperialism is considered from the perspective of Jawaharlal Nehru’s inaction at the time.

The articles on contemporary international problems include two on the recent presidential election in Brazil. The first offers a plausible analysis of errors and omissions by the Workers Party of Brazil that caused it to lose support. These factors include adopting the very neoliberal policies it criticised in 2015. The second article warns that the new president is clearly a full-bloodied fascist.

The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan) offers A Communist Approach to the Question of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination in the Era of Imperialism, which is critical of Kurdish claims to a separate state that will be a base for imperialism in the region. A writer from the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) offers a more theoretical discussion on the merits of the Popular Fronts.

The archival material begins with a brief but telling letter from Stalin written in 1925, distancing himself (but not too sternly) from proposals to rename the city of Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad. There is also a report from a Soviet delegate on the Youth Conference of South-East Asian Countries, held in 1948. This is followed by a 1950 account of disputes within the Communist Party of India, these were pronounced in Bengal and focussed on the merits or otherwise of armed struggle.

On the Question of Lavrentiy Beria}is the first part of a report given by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov on the 2nd July 1953 to the Central Committee of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] shortly after Beria had been deposed as Minister for Internal Affairs.

Of particular interest to British readers will be the report Serious Mistakes and Shortcomings in the Activities of the CPGB [Communist Party of Great Britain], written in January 1954 by the leading Soviet philosopher Mark Borisovich Mitin. This report to the CPSU Central Committee addresses the decline in the party’s support since its high watermark in 1945.

Mitin is critical of General Secretary Harry Pollitt for side-lining the party’s recently adopted programme, the British Road to Socialism. He is also critical of the party’s view of the Labour Party, then in right-wing hands, and for downplaying the role of factory branches and inactive members.

This reviewer suspects that Mitin underplays the hostile Cold War environment of the early 1950s, but this piece offers useful reflections for historians of the CPGB and for present day struggles.

Unfortunately, thanks to the miracles of information technology, readers receive an unintended bonus. This issue comes complete with an additional incomplete title page and a version of the first article before the main body of the journal. This malfunction does not detract from the overall content however, and we hope that it won’t happen again.