Was Marx a bad guy?

Because he is analyzing the material conditions of the world. Every metaphysical concept is out of the question, he was only interested in discovering how societies and economies actually worked. He was treating this subject scientificially, not philosophically.

Your reading of Nietzsche is laughable.

Doing something is not a moral statement. More generally, someone doing something wrong does not mean that he has proven that what he did was not immoral. For example saying "certain civilization accepted pedophilia" does not tell me anything important, unless you also tell me what were the reasons behind their actions (which may disprove my notion of morality; of course this would not happen if the reason for such a deed would be something like "it's a tradition": in that case the tradition itself would be inherently immoral). Said reasons can be debated, and although a consensus is impossible to reach (and this is true for every human activity), many faulty options can be discarded (for example, there is no good moral argument that could justify torturing children unnecessarily, yet thousands of them can be made against this same act).

If anything empirical arguments are not necessary superior, since
a) the empirical facts they're based upon have no prescriptive value
b) the process of organizing and selecting facts for an argument does not retain the objectivity of the facts themselves (this mean that I can take a bunch of statistics and derive from them both my stance and my opposite stance, and have them being equally solid)

How are you so sure about that?

Tell me a good argument for it.
If you're going to say this, then you should also tell us why they did it, and if you think those reasons are coherent and moral.

No, I don't have an argument. But it seems as though you are categorically dismissing all arguments that could possibly be made in its favour without considering their validity if they do indeed exist.

If I'll hear one, I'll listen to it. Still, I've never heard one and we are both incapable of finding one. I would say that we can rule out this option, can't we? If this is the case, moral discourse is possible and useful.
The fact that we won't ever find a definitive law for morality should not scare you off, for, as I've said earlier, this applies to virtually every single inherently human activity you can think of. More in general, to dismiss moral discourse on the virtue of its percieved subjectivity, is to dismiss the validity every discourse in general, and although you may be right (you are certainly not alone: I genuinely believe this sort of doubt is shared by everyone), you can see by yourself the absolute paralyzing effect this rethoric has, and how adopting it while other people don't is pure defeatism.

I think we can rule it out in general, but say someone did come up with an argument, it would seem wrong, or at least, not in the spirit of perfecting our moral outlook, if it was immediately dimissed beacuse of what it argues for rather than the merit of its arguments.

Is there anywhere to read for someone who's a beginner in moral philosophy (or philosophy in general)? I've been reading Frankfurt School stuff recently but I lack a traditional understanding.

Good… bad… He was the guy with the materialist dialectic.

That is not slave morality.

The people who did it thought that it was. That makes it moral, since morality is subjective, whether to the individual or to a given society. You would not try to make a case for an objective morality, would you?

No he understands Nietzsche just fine. it is you that is retarded tbh.

I was going to educate you on the relevance of the prescriptions and the analyses in N's writings, and the epistemological framework in which they take place, but you know what? Fuck off.

Because those are all subjective and immaterial criticisms. Just like these Holla Forums dipshits that hate all black people because they got bullied in school, as a subjective experience it's negated by "well I love around black people and they're polite to be."

If you don't ground your criticisms in objective, material phenomena then you'll just get an immaterial justification in return, like God wants it that way, or poor people are lazy, or rich people "deserve" their wealth, etc.

I can get drunk and kill a baby, this does not make it moral. As I've said earlier: if people have done so, what were their reasons? The fact that they've done it is irrelevant, for I can act against my own moral and ethical sense.

As I have said, if you can come up with an argument, I'll hear it. If you can't, but you're still going to parrot "b-but other people did it" (I know you didn't do it, but look at the rest of the thread and realize that this how most people actually reason), I would say that it is only reasonable to dismiss such an arbitrary claim, for many objections can be made. I've made a few ones already, the main one being that I can partake in actions that I regard as immoral.

Did he really say this?

Wrong, Marx sticked to dialectical materialism (which is NOT a skeptical position, and which is grounded itself in a metaphysical way of reasoning) only for his historical analysis.
When it came to the prescriptions he gives to proles and revolutionaries, said "objectivity", as you've naively described (most people here ought really to take a course in epistemology) was thrown out of the window.
The foundation is empirical, the conclusions aren't (in fact they are highly speculative, and are usually adopted by his followers on moral grounds).

yes, it's in the Gotha Programme I think

Page 301 of Capital, actually.

You probably think you're really smart but you come off like a real tool box.

For fuck's sake, is there anything that will satisfy losers like you? What the fuck is wrong with that post? Do you think that it is controversial to say that Marx was a materialist in his sociological texts, and a revolutionary in those texts directed to revolutionaries? Do you think there is anything controversial in dismissing a middle-school level idea of what something "objective" is?
What do you want from me? To spout your shitty misreading of wiki pages of theory books, so that you can feel proud of yourself? Fuck off and read Marx.

He read Stirner after all, his arguments where convincing to a degree.

While the realization of communism would have root in people finding the current relations unbearable(a subjective experience), the argument on its own sounds like a petty attempt to appeal to sensitivity rather than to self-interest and personal experiences:
Ultimately everybody knows it's not a good thing and the fellows who use such arguments are just attempting to stroke their dicks by showing off how "virtuous" they are by talking about the evils of capitalism on the internet despite not giving as shit much like the rest of the general population

Or maybe they are just pointing out at obscene consequences of capitalism.

They might "point it out", but ultimately nobody actually cares about this, not even them. It's not like they're bringing it up because they care about the plight of poor people on some faraway continent rather than attempting to present their political opinions as better.

They point it out becuase it shows you that the production lines of most products are compromised in the same way. You care a but too much about other people's feeling, but at the same time you completely ignore the actual consequences of what is being told you.

Saying "almost every product is built through child and slave labour in the third world" is NOT irrelevant, it's instead a gigantic problem that only a complete nihilist (aka a worthless communist) could gloss over.

Because "this is unjust" is an ineffective argument.
People love being told "I'm going to cut one of your testicles off. We need to make tough decisions, but if you give up a ball now then you get to keep the other!", they genuinely cannot stand politicians offering them a free lunch.

Figures in pic related are from the 90s, but the point remains.

It does if that is what you are expected to do. Maybe doing so will appease the barley gods and convince them to give us lots of rain this year. Or maybe you just think that doing so will help people. Who knows? There is no objective morality, just actions that people thing are correct to perform.

That wasn't what I said. I'm not implying it's not a problem that should not be solved, but the fact is bringing that up as a legitimate argument used to convince somebody is inefficient because it is a shit appeal that "people are starving somewhere, so now agree with my opinions or you're literally worse than Hitler", moreover a person bringing this argument up lowkey admits he has a crypto-massiah mentality and is attracted to socialism because he wants to create a secular Kingdom of God on Earth.
Communism will not happen because enough middle-class fagtrons start a revolution because their hearts were moved by images of starving African children.

Then I would need TWO justifications: one from me, since I choose to obey to such brutal orders, and one from who gave me the orders. Why has he told me to get drunk and kill a baby?

So I should accept this trick? Take any tradition at face value, follow it blindly and call it moral? Tell me, were the teachings of this religion moral in themselves? Is it worth it to apply no skepticism to it, and kill babies instead?
For what reason? Can't you see that you can't justify it either?

You're giving me NO reasons, only actions, yet I've already proven that one can partake in actions that he deems as immoral from the start. The result so far is that you have not posted not a single argument for why killing babies for no reason is moral.

No, people are starving and slaving away, and this is DIRECTLY related to many of our consumer choices. There is no "they're far away": people know that these people, regardless of their ubication, are part of the production lines, and if you support said production lines, you ARE part of the process. There is no way around it, and you are not really dismissing the argument itself.

As I've said, stop thinking through stereotypes and buzzwords, and listen to what people are saying. You are dismissing one of the most solid critiques of capitalism on the ground that some anti-capitalists are lame.

It's like when people dismiss communists for being naive, because they are so mature and have already accepted that the world is an unfair, cold place.

Listen faggot, I'm not saying I'm not part of the process. I'm saying that a nobody is bothered by that enough to start an war over that, it never happened in history and it never will.
I can live without that because I prefer to appeal to self-interest rather than sentimental reasons which normally would hardly move anybody beyond the point of giving 10$ to charity from time to time.
It's true in case of communists for whom communism is appealing for spiritual reasons rather than because their material situation or self-interest push them to abolish the present state of things.

Then let's dismiss all the solid arguments we'be got against capitalism, on the ground that they are not popular. Can't you see how skewed your logic is? At best you should think about how to recontextualize critiques that work and make sense.

Basically, you want something in exchange? Even if you know it's the right thing to do, you will stop exploiting third world workers only if there is a narrative behind this choice of yours, which satisfy your egoism? Get out of my board, porky.

Keep this in mind: you are absolutely worthless to every leftist cause as long as you will put your self-interest above everything. I mean it literally: useless.

What do you think morality is? A tradition that you blindly follow is exactly what morality is.

You need the same two justifications not to. Others have to tell you that it is wrong, and you have to tell yourself that it is wrong. What makes it wrong?

Morality is tradition which we largely take at face value and often follow blindly. Most of us hardly question our "ethical duties," and, when we do, we try to justify to some extent the ethical systems with which we are the most familiar, or systems which are generally compatible with such systems.

Yet another strawman and I thought I was clear here. You are free to make your shitty moral critiques about things happening on other continents, but absolutely none of them will be a reason why would the people attempt to abolish capitalism. Revolution can happen only because people personally finding their conditions unbearable, only because of this and nothing else as history has continuously proven. Thus people aiming to end the present state of things should appeal to each person's personal experiences rather than some morality-based shit.
Frankly I have no idea what the fuck are you talking about now.
You're even more useless than I could ever imagine to be because you understand communism as an idea to liberate the world and placate your morality rather than something that might happen because of the capitalist relationships becoming so unbearable for people they start revolting against them. You're the very thing Marx has been shitting on in the works like German ideology or even commiefesto.

Because he wanted his critique of Capitalism to be scientific, not moralistic. Moral arguments are flexible and subjective, scientific arguments are not.

because progress is independent of morality

Did monarchies fall, did slavery end, because they were the moral things to do?

Because history is not the product of moral perogatives. It's a process of class subjects asserting their conclusive interests; interests at first entirely consequent of the conditions they find themselves in and nothing more than what that builds into.

Idiocy, we can discuss it and dismiss any tradition. You're just chosing to see morality as a dogmatic approach, which is something that only religious people do. You guys have a completely skewed view of what the philosophical study of morality has been in the last 1000 years: namely, you literally think that philosophers follow bilindly a set of rules, to bad that this is NOT the common stance.

So here's the result of this thread: I've posed as an example an act that I deem as obviously immoral, I've asked for arguments about it and I've got none. Someone tried to tell me that it is is not immoral because people in the past have done so, yet they could not tell me why, nor they could tell me wether their reasons were coherent: they could just tell me that it happened, which, as far as I'm concerned, has no moral significance in itself

I'd say most middle class or bourgeois Socialists became one because they saw how horrible Capitalism is to those less muh privileged. Che Guevara didn't become a Leftist because his cozy middle-class future doctor life was too shitty, but because he saw how others lived.
You're pretending that people are purely egocentric materialistic beings and can't find situations that don't directly affect him unbearable. When an empathetic person sees people suffering, they try to think of a solution, and Socialism is the only rational solution.
It depends on how the person thinks. Whether they're primarily self-serving and aren't concerned with lofty ideals, or whether they're an empathetic idealist that wants a better world for everyone. You're acting like everyone is the first therefor idealistic or moral arguments have no value.

…Why can't you appeal to both?

Bullshit. Both utilitarianism and deontology follow rules. You could try to make a case for virtue ethics, but that shit gets BTFO by relativism which works more like an anthropological tool than a system of morality. Maybe you have some unique consequentialism that does not rely on any kind of rules, but that is not any kind of prevailing theory of morality.

yes

I'm pretty sure Marx really did have seething hatred for Capitalism and especially how it treated its workers, he just didn't want to seem like a moralfag and gave a objective non-moral answer of how and why Capitalism works and how it will be overthrown

when u see an unmassaged neck

Sure, but moral arguments are not without merit. The reality is that capitalism IS a a fucking evil thing the way it dehumanizes us and when reality are esposed to this reality face-to-face they can get angry about this ineradicable certainly of human wrong - something has to change.