Marxism and Moralism Anonymous 27-06-23 20:34:37 No. 19083 [Last 50 Posts]
How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:05:21 No. 19101
Yeah this is something most Marxists struggle to articulate, and I won't act like I have a simple answer. Most important thing to start with is that morals and ethics are not the same thing. Morality is historically and culturally contingent, and is readily identifiable and can be described based on the values a society treats as moral. Polygamy, slavery, eating animals, money-lending, nudity, intoxication, etc are all easy examples of behaviors that have at various points been held as strictly immoral in various societies, while even their historical contemporaries diverged in their judgement of whether and to what degree these behaviors were moral or immoral. Morality is simply the codes, explicit or implicit, that govern what is acceptable in social life. Ethics on the other hand is the deliberate philosophical consideration of what actually constitutes good human behavior. This hasnt historically reached especially consistent conclusions of course, but it's a significant difference. Many people who have lived in slave societies have determined that slavery is unethical even if it is fully acceptable in their own social context. The acceptability of killing another person is morally determied, e.g. whether is morally justified in self-defense, in a duel, in war, etc. But the range of particular moral demands and questions that we see appear everywhere throughout history around the question of killing, and the demarcation of murder from warfare or execution, indicates a consistent ethical concern with killing other people as something basically objectionable that must be heavily qualified.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:07:30 No. 19103
>>19102 So let me be more direct, I see this with the atheist crowd.
LMAO.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:18:06 No. 19107
>>19083 >How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy? It's a philosophy of the development and liberation of productive forces
The self-interest is that it increases productive forces.
Because it will increase productive forces.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:30:17 No. 19108
>>19101 >what actually constitutes good human behavior. Like I said, I feel we're encroaching into sophistry and we're just adding words onto God Go+Od.
Reminds me of the veganism debate I'm having in the other thread. I guess it's a never ending slippery slope until you let your body get eaten by ants so you stop killing things.
Interesting. I guess going back to Marx, I think I agree with myself, the bare minimum we could do as a society is to provide the basis for life to all people. To each according for their need, "Whatever You Do to the Least of These," yeah it makes sense that any just society can't have abundant resource and see humans dying for lack of resource and say "haha fuck them."
I think it's a bunch of bullshit, morality to me comes from the source of our existance but that's another matter. All of us agree on the preservation of human life as our morality.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:34:15 No. 19109
Why are you dumbasses talking about morals and ethics? See
>>19088 , this is a purely mathematical matter, and a matter of collective self-interest.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:44:00 No. 19118
>>19083 >spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today? Too risky and fruitless. The petty bourgeoisie try. And then they get bankrupt/proletarianized.
And again, bootlicking. By trying to integrate into the capitalist system you'll have to put up with all the shit of this system like environmental pollution, consumerism, copyright and proprietary software. And wage slavery. And overwork. And misery.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:45:04 No. 19121
>>19108 >>19108 >the bare minimum we could do as a society is to provide the basis for life to all people. To each according for their need, "Whatever You Do to the Least of These," yeah it makes sense that any just society can't have abundant resource and see humans dying for lack of resource and say "haha fuck them." That is basically my position as far as underlying ethical concerns go. The difference is probably that I think in many ways morals allow a justification for infringing on that basic precept. E.g., when the right to personal autonomy extends to ownership over the food in a store or on a farm, but not to the right of people without money or means to access that food, you could call that an inconsistency. I wouldnt call it inconsistent, because I think it makes perfect sense that within an economy, and the broader social and moral framework it interacts with, where food is clearly produced and distributed on the basis of private property and the attendant systems of wage-labor and money exchange, someone starving because they dont have enough food to eat is a tragedy but not a crime, while if they broke into a store or stole food off the vine that would be a crime on the basis of the immorality of violating the laws that protect a conception of individual autonomy that extends to property.
If youre still bothered by the distinction between morals and ethics that's fair enough, I'm satisfied with it but maybe we could say that Marxists are unsatisfied with basing their politics and analyses around morality because, as in the example above, the tangible application of moral precepts is often contradictory, and applied in favor of the leading sectors of any given society.
That seems especially relevant actually. Do you mean morality derives from a divine source, or something biological/biosocial e.g. we have an innate drive towards preservation of human life?
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:45:19 No. 19122
>>19118 (cont.)
Surveillance, repressions, censorship, reactionarism. All this crap that I'm honestly tired of.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:48:57 No. 19124
>>19115 >"don't be a victim" Conservative, eh.
Anyway, who speaks of "justice" here? I thought you don't like moralism. Toppling a bourgeoisie is indeed very selfish. Because I won't have them as an obstacle. Simple as that. I don't care about "being a victim," my selfishness directs me for more demands than what capitalism can provide me with.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:50:59 No. 19125
>>19124 >Conservative, eh. Nah, it's reality. Just like when someone confronts you with violence, you'd rather one up them with violence, better you than me.
What is your selfishness? You seriously don't believe that capitalism could provide you with more resources than socialism? Lots of idiots became obscenely rich.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:52:06 No. 19126
>>19123 Because if the system changes then no one has to overcome the statistical unliklihood of changing their class.
Acknowledging that this is how much resources you have that determines your class, you should see it like water pressure why saying any individual drop of water in that pipe can just flow to the higher pressure part of the pipe is asinine.
Anonymous 27-06-23 21:53:11 No. 19127
>>19124 (cont.)
It's funny how we start talking about Marxism is moralist and then 180 into justice. If you wanna be a selfish bastard like me then don't hold property laws as an idol you worship. All this "laws" thing. They don't work if you ain't caught.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:03:29 No. 19142
>>19133 You don't have to. Read Marx aaaaaaah.
Do whatever the fuck you want but you don't understand Marxism and neither are the people you're discussing with.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:07:01 No. 19147
>>19143 You don't get it. You automatically assume that everyone here is American and that I should advocate for American imperialist interests.
Ironically you're giving me more reasons to abolish capitalism.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:10:20 No. 19151
>>19146 >you couldn't out compete the average [petty bourgeois] Petty bourgeoisie rolling in the mud and getting bankrupt/proletarianized/taken over by a bigger fish. Exactly my point.
I'm not against being a petty bourgeois but being it long-term? W-why? Do you hate yourself?
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:11:33 No. 19152
>>19150 I'm talking about the probability of a business venture being successful. You can try many times. Many retards succeed.
>>19151 What's wrong with having unlimited resources long term?
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:12:10 No. 19153
>>19151 (cont.)
And don't get me started on monopolists and oligopolists. Like, honestly, fuck these guys, they can kys.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:28:02 No. 19164
>>19162 Since when did I say that I rely on anything? We're heading straight into 1984 and you keep thinking tha, the concern of socialists is just welfare or whatever the fuck.
The current system is full of crises, surveillance and authoritarianism. I don't want to lick the boot, do it yourself if you want.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:30:37 No. 19166
>>19164 (cont.)
It was never about being lazy or envious. I happen to agree with Nietzsche but that doesn't mean that I would defend the capitalist interests. No more than I would defend the fascist interests.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:32:02 No. 19167
>>19117 ?
Both have utility, what are you trying to say
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:35:35 No. 19170
>>19165 It was broken. And I couldn't resend it because it's already gone.
The gist of it is that there are two classes: workers and capitalists. The capitalists want more profit and stability, the workers want more salary and affordable basic necessities like food, shelter and whatnot (look up Maslow's pyramid). Since the workers and the capitalists are unequal in price negotiation their interests clash. It's only natural for a worker to demand more since the worker is persuing their egoistic self-interest. And why shouldn't they? There's no moral nihilist objection to it whatsoever.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:41:12 No. 19174
>>19083 >How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy? It isn't. Marxism is a way of understanding the world (mainly the capitalist world) through the the lens of class society and the way the economic mode of production (capitalism) affects those two classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat). There is nothing moral about this because Marxists see morality as a byproduct of a class society rather than the driving force.
Who are these "needy"? Everyone has needs. The proletariat sells their labor to the capitalists in order to meet their needs met in the form of pay and the capitalists likewise need the proletariat for their own ventures even though their "needs" (ie things they need to live) are already met tenfold (if not a thousand fold) even though "wants" is a better term for them.
Who is this "anyone"? If you mean the workers then they have everything in the world to gain from toppling the system. The capitalist class reaps the results of the workers' labor while the many workers live in squalor as the capitalist system pollutes the sky and its expanse creates the conditions for unimaginable wars and conflicts.
Capitalism as a system creates these conditions for the workers to eventually organize. It is a system that cannot lift up everyone due to how it works but in doing so it proletarianizes the populace. This coupled with class consciousness leads to a clash between these two classes. Marxists believe this will lead to the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing their own rule over society (dictatorship of the proletariat as before it was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and starting the path towards communism (socialism ie a transitional society where the workers own the means of production while communism is a classes stateless society). This has very little to do with the self interest of an individual but of the way classes within society (as well as many other things within and without the mode of production) interact and influences one another (dialectical materialism). In simple terms it isn't self interest as it is the changing of material conditions that reinforce a collective interest.
Also fuck you this question did not need its own thread. Anonymous 27-06-23 22:43:24 No. 19176
>>19174 >It isn't. Marxism is a way of understanding the world (mainly the capitalist world) through the the lens of class society and the way the economic mode of production (capitalism) affects those two classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat). There is nothing moral about this because Marxists see morality as a byproduct of a class society rather than the driving force. Long paragraph that didn't even reply to the quote.
In the quote? Obviously the people lacking ability to provide for their needs.
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:48:22 No. 19179
>>19176 >Obviously the people lacking ability to provide for their needs Marxism
Socialism is not about the poor. It's about the working class. Which includes the so-called middle "class."
Anonymous 27-06-23 22:53:35 No. 19182
>>19180 >But in the 1st world The first world this. The first world that.
I
Don't
Live
In
The first world
Anonymous 27-06-23 23:22:09 No. 19191
>>19176 >Long paragraph that didn't even reply to the quote. Yes I did, you just don't understand. Let me elaborate with an example.
Back in the day, it was "moral" to own human beings as slaves. Now (in most places of the world at least) it isn't. Marxists see morality as something that is influenced as a result of a society's connection to the economic "mode of production". It was "moral" to own slaves because slavery played an ultimate role in the economic stability of society so the ruling class used "morality" to justify slavery because it kept them the capitalists in control.
What I am saying is that Marxism does not use morality as a way of seeing/analyzing the world (therefore it isn't moralistic) because it sees morality as a byproduct of class society.
Read The Communist Manifesto or the Principles of Communism as well as some supplementary text/videos that help elaborate upon those works. It seems you don't know what I meant. "Needy" is a meaningless term in regards to the overall question. Why can't these people get what they need? Because the capitalist system keeps them from doing that. It twists them. It alienates them (and all of us as well). It kills them. Because that is how it works. But in doing so it creates the conditions for its own destruction, not of the self interest of one, but the necessity of the many.
>>19186 >easy Who said this is gonna be easy? it will be done nonetheless.
>Can you tell me with a straitght face that it's easier to topple capitalism than to accumulate wealth under capitalism? This is as silly as that "well you still live in society, curious" meme. People sell their labor for pay and some take those excess profits and become petty bourgeois. This does not erase the fact that capitalism creates way more workers than capitalists and therefore will eventually lead to clashes between these classes. So no, it won't be easy, but it will be done. And also it isn't easy for most workers to amass wealth under capitalism anyway, that is the whole fucking reason why they would overthrow the system.
Anonymous 27-06-23 23:27:54 No. 19192
>>19191 >Yes I did, you just don't understand. Let me elaborate with an example. Like I said to the other guy and we agreed morality and ethics and whatever is a semantic argument.
>>19191 >Why can't these people get what they need? Because the capitalist system keeps them from doing that. A lot of people have needs including cripples who can't provide anything for us under any system yet we provide for them according to our ability, why?
No logic to that statement, like saying christ will return regardless,.
>>19191 >This is as silly as that "well you still live in society, curious" meme. People sell their labor for pay and some take those excess profits and become petty bourgeois. This does not erase the fact that capitalism creates way more workers than capitalists and therefore will eventually lead to clashes between these classes. So no, it won't be easy, but it will be done. And also it isn't easy for most workers to amass wealth under capitalism anyway, that is the whole fucking reason why they would overthrow the system. Fate is the domain of the religious.
Anonymous 27-06-23 23:57:54 No. 19194
Idk if OP dropped the drop or w/e but I think the focus a lot of people have here on productive forces and self interest as personal reasons to advocate and work for communism is pretty silly and gets too hung up on anti-moralism and anti-humanism.
Anonymous 28-06-23 00:02:01 No. 19196
>>19194 >Idk if OP dropped the drop No clue what that means.
>>19194 >but I think the focus a lot of people have here on productive forces and self interest as personal reasons to advocate and work for communism is pretty silly and gets too hung up on anti-moralism and anti-humanism. I agree.
As for the rest of your post, I think it's easy to say that any empathic human can imagine themselves "in the shoes" of any other human potentially and therefore wish them better shoes.
Anonymous 28-06-23 00:50:57 No. 19212
>>19196 Typo, meant "dropped the thread". Though now it seems like they (you?) just didnt respond to my former post
Of course. The distinction I'm making is that to wish them better shoes is, even if it is morality (conceding to you that it may be, I believe it is a sort of pre-moral ethical impulse), is not where morality ends. Many people in our world, as it exists, would (rationally) believe it immoral to give them money to buy shoes (theyll use it for vices, or maybe theres more pressing needs than shoes, etc), and even if it is considered moral to give them shoes outright, this needs to be done within a certain moral(!) framework, namely the donation of individuals or religious bodies, because it is considered immoral to prioritize the shoes of one over the autonomy of another (the latter would necessarily be curtailed by a leveraging of social power towards the provision of basic needs like shoes, food, etc for all). And particularly dogmatic individualists and capitalists will even insist that giving anything away to a needy stranger without some kind of equivelant exchange is immoral, because it will only tend towards reinforcing the reasons theyre needy to begin with (here lack of ambition, misperception of how the world really works, learned helplessness, etc). Even if I reject it, that is certainly a rational moral framework, and it is one that is not even always poorly suited to helping people, even if it does so by encouraging a nearly sociopathic relationship to others. On the other hand, if the wealthy began to supply their children with shoes by raiding orphanges supply as part of a strange fashion trend, I would of course say that that is a despicable way of providing the barefooted with shoes, and I would feel entirely consistent in that judgement despite being technically inconsistent with the former moral precept that sometimes its okay to help some at the expense of others.
I am not trying to be obtuse, but as I see it this is the significant difference. Morality is not wishing that the barefooted had shoes, it's the way in which you would find it acceptable to shoe them.
Anonymous 28-06-23 02:45:44 No. 19218
>>19083 >What is the self-interest in helping the needy? If you are prole the needy are potential competitors who driven by misery will be willing to work for less and less money, driving down your wage, even if they do not directly compete with you, they will compete with people who driven by lower wages will move to other sectors, including yours, lowering overall wages, so as a prole it is in your direct interest to ensure that no only poverty is not a thing, but that all matters high exploitative conditions are also not a thing i.e. slaves. Thus it is in your direct interest to have the whole working class improve at once. Your interests as worker are directly tied to your class, even if your interests as a person are to become a capitalist
>>19083 >How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today? Why does it gotta be just one? Proles try to do both, they try to become capitalist and also improve their conditions as workers through collective action. However, in our current system, it is imposible for everyone to become capitalists, thus the majority of people continue to pursue improving their lives through collective action instead of the opposite, due to them failing. Then, it comes to be that eventually a sector who is class concious appearss, and fights for the collective improving of conditions of the class as a whole, i.e. a communist party. confronted with the realization that crisis ensure there is a minimum level of poverty always, the majorty of people are driven to overthrow class society
Anonymous 28-06-23 03:00:45 No. 19219
>>19218 So to answer your question, Marxism is not moralistic because it merely gets ahead of the curve, and realises that the only way for the proles to truly improve their conditions is to fight collectively and crush the bourgeois. It does not say this is good, or moral, but only that it is the only way to get out of the cycle of exploitation of capital
Also if you respnd only to this comment, and not to the one I made above, I will swat your house at 1 am
Anonymous 28-06-23 03:46:26 No. 19221
>>19083 All economics and sociology implies some moral element. The subject matter is about intrinsically moral agents, human beings.
You're regurgitating a sparknotes, lo-fi rendition of Marx's thought, which in its actual substance is descriptive and analytical. There is Marx the theorist and Marx the revolutionary. The theorist described the laws of history and the internal contradictions of capitalism. The revolutionary felt that the poor and exploited should fix things for themselves. Theory and praxis are famously related in marxism, but they are two different things.
The praxis side of things obviously has to do with moral emotions of injustice and retribution, because that's what animates human beings. The theoretical side is conceptual and intellectual.
Anonymous 28-06-23 06:51:25 No. 19222
>>19183 >spark a revolution Who said I care about sparking a revolution?
1. I care about Marxian class analysis but am not an orthodox Marxist.
2. I care way more about damaging the power of the capitalist class and asserting my will to power on them than creating any socialist utopia "overnight."
Anonymous 28-06-23 07:02:04 No. 19223
>How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy? Sittlichkeit ) and individual morality (Moralität ). Hegel treats the two separately throughout his works, and it's given particular emphasis in his Philosophy of Right .>How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
Anonymous 28-06-23 10:44:01 No. 19225
>>19224 (cont.)
Basically, Nazi Germany is the fault of American colonialism and German reactards. Hitler's ideas weren't even formulated by him in the first place, his schizo brain has just collected all the reactionary ideas that were prevailent in our retarded society at the time.
Anonymous 28-06-23 11:40:21 No. 19230
>>19227 >You give a random guy food and he might someday give something back I mean, kindness seems like an immediate return to me. Many people seem to like it when you treat them kindly.
But what do I know? I have no feelings. Regardless, that's not altruism if you just enjoy seeing happy faces and don't like getting people angry or sad. Altruism is when you make it your sacred duty to help the Humanity. Altruism commands you to help everyone and everything and sacrifice your well-being for the sake of others, which can be suicidal. Patriotic soldiers are the most altruistic people out there.
Anonymous 28-06-23 13:58:10 No. 19231
>>19230 Yes, altruism isn't seeding low cost gratitude investments. I think martyrdom is a different question. One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually.
Back to the topic of the thread. If we're talking about logic, then treason is logical at any point where it's opportune. You fight for communism, but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?
Anonymous 28-06-23 15:14:03 No. 19232
>>19231 >One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually Do you just assume that to conscious egoists life has so little value that sacrificing it isn't a loss for them at all? You're thinking of the self-interest in purely market terms. Self-interest is never limited to a mere accumulation of capital, it has no limits.
People are already egoistic.
Unique IPs: 30