Soul and morality

Regarding 1- Originally in the Book of Mitzvot, it can be explained that it is about correct behavior…
But in the P”A of the Laws of Opinions it is more difficult, it speaks explicitly about the virtues and tendencies, and at the end the pious man says that it is a mitzvah to ‘walk in his ways’, and lists all the virtues….

In my opinion, the Mussar movement was certainly an unusual success with very clear and innovative techniques until the Chazon Ish came and killed it without realizing it. All the high school yeshivas without exception in Lithuania, the USA and Israel were established by members of the Mussar movement who were confident in the righteousness of their path and in their ability to use the methods of the Mussar movement to deal with modernity. Hebron also did not initially aim for haredi seclusion but aimed to establish rabbis who would operate in the new settlement from within it without fear of modernity, as Shlomo Tokczynski shows.

Although the Mussar movement had different psychological techniques, the shared assumption that man is a psyche (soul) united them all. What brought them down was the use made by the Chazon Ish in the famous Rambam that man is influenced by the people of his place and therefore the only way to deal with modernity and Zionism is to escape to the deserts, i.e. the yeshiva. The use made by the Chazon Ish of this Rambam, which of course they could not reject, expressed the superiority of sociology over psychology. No matter what psychological tools they employ, a person will still be influenced by his peers. As a result, all the methods of the moral movement were abandoned and its institutions moved into Haredi seclusion.

The only person who offered a sociological alternative to the Chazon Ish in principle was Rabbi Kook, but Rabbi Kook consciously crossed the line in terms of Haredi tradition and became modern. For Rabbi Kook, the hidden religious side of Zionism makes religion the place of Zionism, and therefore religion has nothing to fear from Zionism. This can be seen in the mechanistic education that emphasizes the fact that Zionism is a divine movement, and that military service is not only a threat to religious identity but a way to participate in the highest work. In Rabbi Kook's opinion, those who do not understand their place are precisely the secularists who believe that the state is secular and Western in nature instead of seeing it as the seat of God in the world as it truly is.

One could argue that there is also a modern Orthodox alternative, but so far we have not found anyone who has directly addressed the sociological problem raised by Maimonides.

To the best of my knowledge, the Chazon Ish did not express opposition to the Moral Movement in general, but to Novohardok as an individual.
His opposition was mainly to the piercing mental probing of this movement, which sometimes caused mental crises and prevented real progress. Suspecting every motive as stemming from pride and therefore invalid, despite the benefit that can be derived from it. And also to a large extent to the abandonment of traditional paths, with singular pride and disdain for those who walk in them.
(As explained in the omitted part of Faith and Confidence and as Haim Grada did a good job of describing in his book The Atlas Plant)
Although he himself chose his brother-in-law from among the well-known Novohardok students.
Regarding the Moral Movement from the house of Kelm and Slobodka, I am not aware of any particular opposition to them, (and most of the Lithuanian yeshiva buildings today define themselves as continuing their path.)
And even if there was any opposition, it was null and void in the sixties.
The moral movement as a strong and influential movement has diminished over the years due to the change of generation
and apart from external characteristics of human greatness
not much remains.

Moishe,
I didn't say he was against them, only that his argument against integration into the Zionist state, which was based on the aforementioned Rambal, actually undermined their central premise. Rabbi Israel Salanter's innovation was that man is a soul (pasha) and with the help of appropriate methods it can be split and directed to the service of God. The Mussar movement is perceived as a dark movement, but in fact it was an optimistic movement. It believed that with the help of its methods religious Jews could be modern without harming their faith. As a result, the Mussar people were not afraid to open professional educational institutions alongside the Yeshivah educational institutions and integrate their graduates into key branches of the modern economy.
The Chazon Ish did not come to argue with them. His main concern was dealing with the new Yishuv, as Benny Brown shows in the Chazon Ish's biography. However, the conclusion that the Chazon Ish reached was that anyone who participates in the Zionist enterprise will always set aside their fear of God in favor of building the Zionist enterprise, and he used the Rambam's statement that a person is influenced by his or her peers to explain his position and convince the traditional public that after the Holocaust stood wondering and staring at the new Jewish state. His use of the Rambam indicated the superiority of sociology over psychology and thus knocked the ground out from under the feet of the members of the Moral Movement. If the Rambam is right, all the psychological exercises of the Moral Movement will not help and the person will always follow his or her peers. Although this Rambam was familiar to the members of the Moral Movement, he always perceived it as a local matter and not as a sweeping claim. The Chazon Ish turned it into a sweeping claim, and the members of the Moral Movement did not really have a counterclaim against the Chazon Ish. As a result, the Mussar movement lost its vitality and was dragged along by the Chazon Ish's move to isolate itself in yeshivas.

Sounds like a weak theory from the outside
In Haredi terminology, things simply don't work that way
Even if the narrator had quoted the words of Rambam thousands of times, it wouldn't have changed anything
In addition to the fact that it is not known that the Mussar movement focused particularly on integration and openness in general society or alternatively on Zionism
Apart from the exceptional case of the elitist high school yeshiva of the grandfather of Slobodka, and several of his students who were individually connected to Zionism, such as Rabbi Kaplan and Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, served as heads of the rabbinical seminary in Berlin, it is difficult to conclude from these cases that the Mussar movement had a special inclination towards Zionism.

Yes, I know the Haredi closures. What is outside their noses simply does not exist.
Even if you give them the example of Hebron in the 1940s, the network of high school yeshiva operated by Rabbi Bloch, the head of the Telz Yeshiva in Lithuania, and more, you will not satisfy them. It simply does not fit the Haredi template created by the Chazon Ish, so it cannot have existed.
It also does not help that you write that they were thinking about dealing with modernity and therefore acted in all sorts of places in the world such as Lithuania, the USA and Israel, while the Chazon Ish dealt with Zionism. From their point of view, if the Chazon Ish dropped the ground from under them, they probably leaned toward Zionism.
It also does not matter that you explain that the Chazon Ish did not argue with them, but that the very argument he presented in the name of Maimonides (and which is repeated in every self-respecting Lithuanian sermon) raised a question that their psychological system could not deal with.
If things deviate from the Haredi template, they are probably mistaken.
Good.

Since the discussion has strayed here towards the influence and status of the Chazon Ish in the Haredi community.

I cannot resist quoting the following news here:

The head of the yeshiva of the ‘Rabbinu Chaim Ozer’ in Bnei Brak, Rabbi M.C. Berlin, warned his yeshiva members that any young man who participates in the demonstrations of the Jerusalem faction will be expelled from the yeshiva.

Pay attention to his persuasiveness and rhetoric. Pay attention to how he knows how to explain his position against participating in the demonstrations (an impressive ability to express and reason that almost approaches the miraculous abilities of Rabbi Michi):

“There is not a single young man who cannot grow up and become a Maran Chazon Ish. Therefore, here in the yeshiva, no young man should go to any demonstrations. Because whoever goes to the demonstrations has no chance of becoming a Chazon Ish.

“Therefore, anyone who thinks he didn't come out as expected has no place in the meeting”.

Amazing.

Attached link:
http://www.bhol.co.il/125582/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%97%D7%AA%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%96%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A7.html

Y.D. Dear El Bafach
But I have difficulty understanding the logic by which you reached such a far-reaching conclusion.
First, you assume that the trend of the Mussar movement was integration into the local culture.
Based on the evidence, if the prophet mentioned the well-known Maimonides, then surely his intention was to exclude from the Mussar system,
And if he is talking about an intra-Haredi gathering, then apparently the system of the Mussar was integration into general society.
And second, you bring evidence from isolated cases such as the Telaz Yeshiva, which was not a flagship yeshiva in terms of the Mussar movement, but was later annexed to the movement's yeshivahs,
When you bring up a theory with such significant two sides, if a claim of such an influence is decisive, you need more than flimsy evidence that depends on interpretation, and more than evidence from isolated cases within the movement.
(Especially since there is significant counter-evidence from Rabbi Yisrael's famous kollel, which was the source from which most of the well-known moralists, the disciples of the Rabbi, emerged)
By the way, I personally do not see any special value in Haredi inward seclusion, the truth is still dearer to me than anything else, and I cannot accept an argument that would support my views, but would be disconnected from reality.