> This doesn't work, because what somebody's interests are are defined by
> the individual person and his or her system of beliefs, including moral
> ones.
>
> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> But we know that the meaning which
>> the contending
>> classes, ethnic and other groups, attach to these concepts
>> coincides
>> precisely with their interests.
================================
Then how to explain, for example, that ruling classes who depend on profits
and rents have typically understood "justice", "freedom" and "security" to
mean respect for private property; low levels of government spending on
social programs; legal safeguards for corporations and creditors, etc. while
workers and small propertyholders, to they extent they have been conscious
of their interests, have interpreted these to mean more state regulation and
ownership of the economy; more spending on social programs; legal protection
for wageearners and debtors, etc.?
Individual values are socially determined. Not always, but typically. Class struggles have been clashes of interest moreso than of values; in fact, each side often appeals to the same religious and moral code. If those of us from working class, small business or farm backgrounds hadn't been able to escape our parents' class position thanks to an expanding economy, our occupations and corresponding values would still largely reflect those of our workmates, relatives and friends in the neighbourhoods and localities we left behind. I very much doubt, that Chris would define his "interests and system of beliefs, including moral ones" in the same way if he were an assembly line worker in Alabama rather than a well educated and mobile professional in Russia.