Good. Bad. Right. Wrong. In a speech in Glasgow yesterday, Tory leader David Cameron inveighed against ‘moral neutrality’, and evinced a desire to reinstate categories as basic as these in British political discourse.
Nor will this performance a one off; spindoctors confirm that this theme will be central to Conservative agitation and propaganda over the summer months.
Notions of ethics have been central to western philosophy ever since Socrates, of course, and arguably constitute the basis on which political theory is grounded. Political thinkers of all stripes have historically evoked such concepts.
The trouble is, the clash of opinion over what is moral and what is not remains sharp. The right’s understanding of what constitutes the good society is necessarily far removed from that of the left.
Cameron offered the example of obesity. Yes, of course it is reasonable to ask most push the message that those who are overweight through lax lifestyle, rather than medical factors, to shape up. This is not to endorse the cult of size zero, but simply common sense. I write as someone currently trying to lose a stone and a bit to get my body mass index back under 25, and getting there slowly.
But short of providing and publicising the information that people need to make an informed choice, what else can a government do? Much as Cameron might mouth off against the evils of Terry’s Chocolate Oranges on tantalising display near WH Smith checkouts, it is unlikely that a Tory government will introduce restrictions against their consumption. Exhortation is as far as it can possibly go.
The point of the speech becomes apparent when you get to the paragraph decrying ‘the decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification’
These are all – in themselves, and at the abstract level – indisputably good things. Who is going to put their hands up and profess themselves to be against virtue or self-respect? Sure, it’s better to be responsible rather than irresponsible; nobody advocates blindfold jaywalking on the M1 while under the influence of alcohol.
But coming from a party with a distinguished track record in deliberately engineering mass unemployment as a weapon of class warfare, the ‘stand on your own two feet’ message is automatically suspect. It all too easily shades into a hatred for the undeserving poor.
The latest Tory sales pitch has purposely adopted the language of the ‘back to the 1950s’ brigade. Alright, Cameron doesn’t actually call for the restoration of national service and the return of the birch in junior schools, but the subtext is there, alright.
An ideologically self-confident left would have no trouble slugging it out with the Tories on Cameron’s chosen battleground. After all, there is a huge difference between morality, as represented by an individual freely making the choice to live his or her life by a certain code, and moralism, the wish to set down a moral code to which all others must comply.
Posted at 13:59, 9 July 2008
Comments (17)
Here we go. While most of the left seems to go down the spiral of "anything goes" crude liberterianism, we leave, dare I say, "moral" questions to the Tories, Daily Mail and assorted religious fundamentalists none of whom offer any solution whatsoever.
It wasn't always like this one of the many things that used to set socialists apart from our class enemy was that our morality was different to their bourgeois decadence.
Are you saying Cameron is essentially right, Paddy?
Paddy
What sort of moral society would you like ?
As far as morality is concerned, I keep in mind something that Jean Baudrillard once wrote: "To the truer than true, we will oppose the falser than false."
At first glance, it appears that we are put in an impossible position: either endorse the slide into nihilistic obesity (both metaphorically and literally), or turn into a reactionary conservative. That's why any true Leftist ethico-political project must be rooted in a higher - what Nietzsche called 'active' - nihilism. In fact, if anything the truly ethical stance is to push capitalist decadence beyond its own natural limits.
As I said in my post, of course not, he offers no solutions whatsoever. In my opinion part of the reason for the decline in public behaviour and morals is mainly a result of rampant anything goes individualist free market capitalism and its a shame that sections of the left seem to have been corrupted by what I believe is an essentially very right wing liberterian ideology.
The left has historically been opposed to "their" bourgouis morality. If you read James Connolly's book Socialism Made Easy, he goes on at some length about how socialists are different to the bourgouis degenerates that he avidly describes.
Also in Problems of Everyday Life, Trotsky berates those working mens clubs who choose to serve beer (herd liquor having been banned y the Bolsheviks)believing it to be a corrupting influence on the working class.
Ban beer. There's a policy point that will win the Trot left a mass hearing in the working class. Shit, why didn't I think of that first?
I'm not suggesting that at all, as far as alcohol is concerned maybe tighter regulation on sales through state off licences may be a start, this works well in some countries.
Or why not change the very method through which the proletariat get drunk? One can become "drunk" through the excitement of a protest, or an unofficial walkout, or a rescue, or by watching a film. Henry Miller suggested getting drunk on a glass of water.
Because the other methods that Toodle mentions do not result in street and domestic violence, injuries, family breakdown, serious illness, premature death, murders, inability to fight the system, etc, etc.
You also say:
"In fact, if anything the truly ethical stance is to push capitalist decadence beyond its own natural limits"
You think capitalist decadence is desirable? I don't believe capitalist free market decadnece has any limits, they will do what they like. Its up to us to stop them.
Nothing like a discussion on morals to bring out the puritannical streak in yer average lefty ;-)
I can't argue that Cameron's morals are objectively any better or worse than anyone else's. What I can argue is:
(a) It's classic Tory "do as I say, not as I do" - while they're preaching moral fortitude, social continence and delayed gratification for the poor, they'll be going at every available vice full-tilt, they way they always do. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
(b) All these "common sense" solutions seem to have the exact opposite of their intended effect. Surveys prove that availability of abortion leads to a drop in crime, decreases in poverty lead to better school results, etc, yet the Tories promise the exact opposite of what's proven to work, because dog whistling to the out-of-touch is more important than the overall state of the country.
Of course, we've already had this crap going on for nearly 30 years, so I'm not expecting huge changes when Callmedave finally makes it into number 10.
Let Cameron go on about all this stuff.
That way, when one of his shadow cabinet gets caught having an affair it will be fair game because of the hypocrisy, rather than being a intrusion into their private lives.
"Or why not change the very method through which the proletariat get drunk? One can become "drunk" through the excitement of a protest, or an unofficial walkout, or a rescue, or by watching a film."
Why not have a few beers AND go to protests/walkouts/films? I'm not really interested in any sort of socialism that proscribes the workers having a bit of a party and a piss-up from time to time.
"You think capitalist decadence is desirable? I don't believe capitalist free market decadnece has any limits, they will do what they like. Its up to us to stop them."
The limit of the capitalist free market in the developed Western economies is the production of a type of subjectivity i.e. the type of person who doesn't have a problem smiling and asking "would you like fries with that?" or who doesn't take it personally when the customer calling into their call centre screams at them: "You're just a monkey, let me speak to the organ-grinder."
An ethical Leftist politics should not challenge this by reintroducing the notion of human beings as individuals worthy of respect. Instead, we should "over-power" capitalism - not in the sense of over-throwing power, but in the sense of using the instability of the free market to insist on the fundamental instability of the human individual. So that instead of a culture which offers people cognitive behavioural therapy in order to get them off disability benefits for depression and make them more able to handle the stress of working in a call centre, we have a culture which thinks that call centres can't depend on a certain vision of personal mental stability - and either have to change how they view their workers or simply go bust.
That's ultimately what's at stake here - capitalism in its current form assumes a degree of mental stability, and those who fail to meet the standards required are either lucky enough to slot into some niche market or they are put on benefits and morally stigmatized until they become more stable.
To quote Alex Glascow :-
"I should have done it yesterday, but then I had a cold,
But now I've had a beer of two, I'am feeling rather bold !"
Chorus
"As soon as this pub closes,
As soon as this pub closes,
As soon as this pub closes,
The revolution Starts."
GW With fond memories of singing this in Hackney/Islington Pubs in the early 70's
First one has to define 'morality' or 'ethics', and are we talking on a micro or a macro scale? Let's face it, capitalism/imperialism is predicated on an unequal relationship, on the fundamental theft of surplus value and bourgoise morality flows from that fact. We are all unequal. I suppose the Victorian nostrum 'Do as you would be done by' probably covers a practical moral rule. Chaucer also has a pretty good one, if I can remember it right, something about 'taking nature's bounty but leaving enough for those following behind'.
GW,
Alex Glasgow singing it himself.
Not forgetting the great man himself, and his epitet, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'. 'Nuff said.