Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Sid)

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Dec 6 11:54:13 MST 2001


To briefly answer S.(Sid) Chatterjee's question, "If the concept of what is
called  'morality' is *solely* "a product  of social development, not a
pre-existing substance", then how is it possible for you and people on this
list to have morals that are superior to the bourgeois morals since we are
presently living under the capitalist mode of production?"

The simple answer is "contradiction". The same set of social circumstances
do not produce the same response in every individual, or in every social
class. Rather, they produce wildly different and contradictory responses
based on class, other social factors, and even individual factors like
health, a frightening experience, etc.

The fact that we have a different morality than say, George Bush, is
entirely explainable by different responses to social contradictions.

In the same post, Sid also writes,

"Evolution appears to have some sort of 'direction' or 'directed
development' which is beyond our understanding at the present moment. What
is wrong with that? The electron existed long before it was discovered."

Evolution may appear to Sid and others as being 'directed' but they have
not produced any evidence to back them up, and as far as I can tell, there
is none.

Sid, incidentally answered his own question about Buddhism - 'the Asiatic
mode of production' (arguments about what it was exactly aside) in India
was sufficiently different to produce a different morality than other
'modes of production' did. [Sid is free to believe that Buddhism is
superior to Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., I have no position on the
issue.]

All the best, Anthony


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list