Marx and Engels were against Moralism yet they were class traitors. What is the material explanation for this? Clearly empathy for the proletariat and their suffering is an insufficient explanation, because that's just moralism, and they weren't moralists.
Egoism. Also they likely understood that the petit bourgoise were downwardly mobile and wanted to be ahead of the curve.
>>2686836Engels was a factory owner, not petty bourgeois.
>>2686837>like you do realize why scientists put aside their own morals when doing science, right?no, explain.
>>2686847>why put aside subjective biases when trying to maintain objectivity and neutrality in researchbruh before even bothering to read marx we are sending you back to high school first
>>2686847Science is knowledge making/discovering, if the author is at all relevant beyond having valid credentials that poses replicability issues. Therefor you have to do science not as yourself but as a scientist.
Theres a funny tendency where communists say they are amoral but then you look at marx writings. He uses a lot of moral language in it.
>>2686858Provide some examples
>>2686862is this not moral language?
“Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.”
“The prolongation of the working day… only slightly quenches the vampire thirst for the living blood of labour.”
“Surplus-value is exacted from the labourer by the capitalist without an equivalent, and this transaction is therefore an act of robbery.”
“If money, according to Augier, ‘comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood
>>2686855who are you quoting
>>2686871No. They are metaphors, also, robbery isn't necessarrely a moral term (it just describes a type lf stealing), you just asign it yourself a moral connotation.
I'm not sure you can say that Marx and Engels were "against moralism", rather they eschewed moralism in their analysis and sought to discover objective laws of social development. The basic structure of historical materialism holds that all societies must develop moral codes as part of their superstructure in order to justify any perpetuate their mode of production. It follows that a socialist society would necessarily need to develop a socialist morality as part of its superstructure.
>We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. That in this process there has on the whole been progress in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, no one will doubt. But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life.
There is such a thing as morality, it's just been co-opted and manipulated by class interests. The triumph of communism will mean not abolition of morality, but the establishment of a really human morality not subverted by class antagonisms.
Marx rejected morality as part of objective scientific analysis of social economy, he didn't reject morality outright and clearly had some moral views of his own.
>>2686902>There is such a thing as morality, it's just been co-opted and manipulated by class interests.this contradicts the quote you posted
Class struggle and the eventual victory of the proletariat is an amoral fact. Choosing to partake in it and organize the labour movement is a personal, moral choice. At least thats how I've always thought of it
>>2686913Similiarly Marx and Engels discovered this amoral philosophy, and chose to spread it by their moral conviction. Just like penicillin killing bacteria is a basic, amoral fact, but wanting to spread it around the world to fight disease is a moral choice.
Yes Marx and Engels had beliefs and convictions. Yes they created narratives and myths as well to kickstart their political project. They also attempted to create an objective assessment of political economy. It's not super complicated.
>>2687009>Yes they created narratives and myths as well to kickstart their political projectnope, communism isnt an ideology and neither is marxism
>They also attempted to create an objective assessment of political economynope, they were doing critique
>It's not super complicatedyet it seems it flew entirely over your head
>>2687039>nope, communism isnt an ideology and neither is marxismWhat exactly does this mean?
>>2687065it's just some borderline religious shit people say on here because they're quirky and not like the other girls
>>2687039Critique is a systematic investigation of the scope and conditions of a topic, aka, an objective assessment.
>>2687234oh like "I'm not a leftist, I'm a a communist"?
>>2687039Communism is an ideology. Isolated workers' struggles have not led to communism thus far and the collapse of capitalism does not have to result in communism
Unique IPs: 18