[lbo-talk] Is Obama Running Interference to ProtectBankers' Pay?

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Sun Mar 22 21:07:17 PDT 2009


Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Eubulides wrote:
>
>> No, it's everyone's problem/issue and there needs to be more
>> discussion regarding whether deploying concepts historically
>> identified as *moral discourse* are effective tools of persuasion in
>> helping people deal with creating viable alternatives to the ongoing
>> *tragedy* of contemporary capitalism.
>
>
> Tragedy is a literary/aesthetic category. How dare you? We should be
> scientific. No, it's not science exactly, but it's something, anything,
> as long as it's not moral. Or aesthetic. Only idiots and assholes do that.
>
> Doug

I've said it before on the list, but I can't resist jumping in again. Moral reasoning rarely "guides" or "drives" behavior; rather, it primarily functions as post hoc justification (or condemnation) of actions already taken. Nietzsche is very good on this: morality is a product of power relations, and it is informative to trace the genealogy of certain moral systems (e.g., Christian "slave" morality). However, the moral system is always the product of the historical moment, not the cause. To explain a social movement or a social transformation by appealing to the moral beliefs of individuals is a fundamental category error that--not coincidentally!--is endemic to capitalist social relations (e.g., "people are poor because they don't have a good work ethic").

From this perspective, speculations about the morals of people supporting or resisting social change are irrelevant. We know that moral systems will shift when historical transformations occur, so the important thing is political action to transform society. The moral beliefs that justify and reinforce the new social conditions will follow.

Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list