Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:53:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: ethics and intentions



So, Russell's answer to my question is that under socialism technology
will be so perfect that there will be no such problems as I described.

This of course is a very specific answer to an example that was posed to
show a general problem, namely, that tyhere will be hard choices which
require reference to moral principles. That is to say, Russell utterly
misses the point.

OK, here's another dialog that doesn't require that we assume that
technologfy is less that perfect:

We are on the Thaxis city soviet again. Russell says, you know, if we
extend the workday from three hours to four hours, we can all move up into
bigger apartments. I really think we should do that. Justin replies, no, I
don't think we need more space, certainly not if that means working longer
hours. Now what? OK, say we put it to a vote. But Justin says, wait a
second, why should I and those of who are quite satisfied with the spacew
e have have to work longer hours just because we lost the vote? 

Please answer him without reference to moral principles.

I am really astounded at the wild-eyed utopianism of the conceptions of
socialism that abound on this list. I really had no idea that so many
socialists from so many different places had the notion that if we got rid
of capitalism we would live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. No wonder the
working class doesn't listen. They think you're nuts and they're right. 

James suggests that conceptions of morality miught be different under
socialism. No doubt they would. What's the point, though? I wasn't arguind
that we'd have any particular conception, or that some particular
conception was valid for all times and places, just that we'd need some
conception or other of morality even if we helped ourselves to the very
best of your utopian pipe dreams. I don't mean yours, James. I mean the
others'.

--jks


On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Russell Pearson wrote:

> Justin writes:
> 
> >This is the point of the little dialog I have been urging Carrol to
> >continue concerning the siting of a power plant nwear his house. Recall
> >that it goes like this. We are in the Thaxis city soviet in th year 2200.
> >We have had communism, or anyway socialsim, for 100 years. Happily all my
> >dire predictions that the economy would collapse if markers were abolished
> >turned out to be false. Everything is planned. Crime, racism, and sexism
> >have evaporated because of the powerful solidaristic bonds created in the
> >struggles for socialism in the 21st century. I was wrong about that too:
> >without capiatlsim to set us at odds, we get on like clams in a clam bed.
> >Not only has there not been a crime for 50 years, but people are
> >unfailingly polite and desperately considerate and caring of one another.
> >
> >But there's this problem. It's very specific. Soviet member Yoshie has a
> >study that says the new power plant should go over there, right by member
> >Carrol's collective apartment complex (he represents the complex
> >cooperative board on the Thaxis Soviet). He, and his constituents, don't
> >want it by their place. How do we proceed?
> >
> >We could say, Carrol and his contituents are being narrowly
> >self-interested. They should consider the public good. Decisions like thsi
> >should be made by reference to what craetes the greatest overall benefit.
> >But of course this is a moral principle--a utilitarian one. Or we could
> >say that such decisions should be made by a fair procedure, such a
> >democratic vote in which each voting member gets a single vote. But the
> >reference to a fair procedure is again a moral principle.
> >
> 
> OK the intent is a hypothetical argumment to draw out the question of
> morals, but...
> The problem that I tend to find with these visions the future is that they
> almost invariably project current social relations and their technology
> onto some distant point. In Justin's example social relations have changed
> and we are presented with a crime-free, planned society mediated by strong
> solidaristic bonds, in which everyone is polite and nice to each other.
> Notwithstanding the fact that this appears like an episode of the cult
> British TV programme 'The TeleTubbies' (and that's not necessarily meant to
> decry it!), there's another more underlying problem. Namely, that Justin
> presumes that in all this time technology has stood still.
> What this results in is a metropolitan society (itself a trope of most
> future worlds)  in which energy production is both large-scale and
> presumably dirty and/or dangerous. Hence Carrol's envisaged NIMBYism.
> Perhaps, with 100 years of capitalist technology and with 100 years of
> unhampered socialist technology as the icing on the cake, energy production
> might not be so centralised and unfriendly. To take what maybe considered a
> puerile parallel: drawing admittedly from the dangerous and dirty sun,
> 'nature' on earth manages to utilise vast amounts of energy via literally
> de-centralised plants.  Presumably this is not beyond human capabilities
> also.
> In the meantime, enthusiasts of city design might wish to purchase/pirate a
> copy of the computer game SimCity2000. Sadly lacking much democratic input
> (apart that is from the coup by outraged citizens if the player bankrupts
> the city)  and having little grasp of the dialectics of change, this
> entertaining game enables the budding planner to create a virtual Thaxis
> City Soviet and to set up power plants to their heart's content.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---