EA is a very good idea for cultural innovation precisely because it challenges socialism. It wasn’t class struggle that enabled humanitarian advances in an increasingly technological society, but the moral evolution of citizens (usually upper-class) who gradually rejected the “systemic violence” of class society. The social improvements of the disadvantaged classes were merely concessions by the oppressor class, rather than “conquests of the oppressed” (Spartacus gained nothing by rebelling).
EA doesn’t require “class consciousness”… but rather “awareness” of its own value as a moral innovation and its significance.
Isn’t economic growth the main driver of improvements since the industrial revolution, rather than either better morals or class struggle?
For what it’s worth though, I am not a social scientist, but when I once had a quick look at the social scientific literature on the growth of democracy specifically, I got the impression that most people writing in that literature modeled the rise of democracy as being about elite actors balancing competing interests, one of which was “don’t have the working class literally stage a revolution”, rather than about expanding moral circles or anything like that. I actually am fairly skeptical of social science, but I think this is at least moderate evidence that class struggle (amongst other things) was important to the growth of democracy. It was certainly important to the French Revolution, which is to some degree where modern democracy and human rights begin. (I don’t think the work I was looking at was by Marxists, mostly mainstream US liberals was my impression.)
I think this is at least moderate evidence that class struggle (amongst other things) was important to the growth of democracy
From the moment oppressed classes existed, they have always sought to free themselves from their suffering. One might wonder why they never succeeded—gradually—until the arrival of the democracies of the 19th century. It was technically easier for the oppressing classes to exercise their power with modern technology—weapons, propaganda. It was not the oppressed—developing a political strategy—but the oppressors—largely renouncing their brutality—who changed and allowed for democracy and greater social justice.
Let’s say that the oppressing classes evolved ethically, “seeking the salvation of their souls,” for example.
I don’t think we can conclude just from the fact that the change occurred when it did that the cause was a change in the morals of the oppressors, rather than a change in how easy it was for revolts to succeed for other reasons (like more urban populations making revolution easier).
In the 19th and 20th centuries, at the height of class struggle, the justice/charity opposition was resolved with the paradigm that charity was merely an alibi masking the systemic oppression of the upper classes.
The failure of socialism—but not of liberal democracy with a social market economy—now provides an opportunity for a rationalist and non-traditional conception of charity.
This implies charity as an economic dimension of cultural change—moral evolution. In a non-political sense, this is also revolutionary and should be expressed in the form of a social movement with explicit ideological content (anarcho-pacifist, basically… but this requires an ideology of human behavior itself). This remains to be done, but a rational conception of charity as a driver of social change is already a great step forward.
EA is a very good idea for cultural innovation precisely because it challenges socialism. It wasn’t class struggle that enabled humanitarian advances in an increasingly technological society, but the moral evolution of citizens (usually upper-class) who gradually rejected the “systemic violence” of class society. The social improvements of the disadvantaged classes were merely concessions by the oppressor class, rather than “conquests of the oppressed” (Spartacus gained nothing by rebelling).
EA doesn’t require “class consciousness”… but rather “awareness” of its own value as a moral innovation and its significance.
Isn’t economic growth the main driver of improvements since the industrial revolution, rather than either better morals or class struggle?
For what it’s worth though, I am not a social scientist, but when I once had a quick look at the social scientific literature on the growth of democracy specifically, I got the impression that most people writing in that literature modeled the rise of democracy as being about elite actors balancing competing interests, one of which was “don’t have the working class literally stage a revolution”, rather than about expanding moral circles or anything like that. I actually am fairly skeptical of social science, but I think this is at least moderate evidence that class struggle (amongst other things) was important to the growth of democracy. It was certainly important to the French Revolution, which is to some degree where modern democracy and human rights begin. (I don’t think the work I was looking at was by Marxists, mostly mainstream US liberals was my impression.)
From the moment oppressed classes existed, they have always sought to free themselves from their suffering. One might wonder why they never succeeded—gradually—until the arrival of the democracies of the 19th century. It was technically easier for the oppressing classes to exercise their power with modern technology—weapons, propaganda. It was not the oppressed—developing a political strategy—but the oppressors—largely renouncing their brutality—who changed and allowed for democracy and greater social justice.
Let’s say that the oppressing classes evolved ethically, “seeking the salvation of their souls,” for example.
I don’t think we can conclude just from the fact that the change occurred when it did that the cause was a change in the morals of the oppressors, rather than a change in how easy it was for revolts to succeed for other reasons (like more urban populations making revolution easier).
In the 19th and 20th centuries, at the height of class struggle, the justice/charity opposition was resolved with the paradigm that charity was merely an alibi masking the systemic oppression of the upper classes.
The failure of socialism—but not of liberal democracy with a social market economy—now provides an opportunity for a rationalist and non-traditional conception of charity.
This implies charity as an economic dimension of cultural change—moral evolution. In a non-political sense, this is also revolutionary and should be expressed in the form of a social movement with explicit ideological content (anarcho-pacifist, basically… but this requires an ideology of human behavior itself). This remains to be done, but a rational conception of charity as a driver of social change is already a great step forward.