Can someone explain Marxist critique of moralizing to me?

Can someone explain Marxist critique of moralizing to me?

Is moralism and a Marxist materialistic worldview seen as incompatible or is the issue where one should derive his morals from?

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-08-17#toc24
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

i'm just gonna say this: it's basically impossible to agree with marx and be without morals, because a capitalist's duty is to not be "moral". that is their job. they're taught to be parasitic.

now some edgy young anons might spout about how you don't have to have morals and it's all 'identity politics' but leftism is about standing up for the disenfranchised. simple as that

"Moral values" and "social norms" are not seen as sacrosanct ideas. Depending on circumstances they might change.

This doesn't mean that good and evil don't exist.

Better put a good definition of the word here.

I'm not saying i personally lack morals, but if i realize that my position in capitalist society is that of the exploited and that the best way to topple the exploiters, since i'll never be able to become one of them, is through collective struggle together with everyone else who is also exploited then how is it necessary for me to have morals when i'm acting solely in accordance with my self-interest?

Bullshit. Its standing up for yourself.

Marx said that as long as classes exist, there will be antagonism. If a few cross over between classes, they will take on the role of the other class in the antagonism.

As such, as a proletarian, to ensure your continues control over the means of production, socialism is your best bet, as becoming a capitalist is hard/impossible. Even if you manage to become a capitalist, there is a thousand other workers who can't so they will try and establish socialism, thus socialism will be the outcome, simply due to the numbers.

It has nothing to do with standing up for "the disenfranchised", its almost entirely self interest of the worker class as a group.

so why even bother with theory or anything in that case, why not just go full illegalism?

Well for one because it will most likely, based on empirical evidence, not lead to the toppling of the ruling class but instead incarceration or death by the strong repressive aparatus of contemporary capitalist society.

Because I will get arrested, which is not in my self interest, you idiot. By working together with the rest of society my labour can produce greater results without me being at risk of being arrested or cornered for fucking over others.

but is the excitement of the risk in your self-interest or not?

Im not an adrenaline junkie so no.

but if you were then would illegalism be in your self-interest?

Possibly, but I would think jumping off of buildings with a parachute would give me more.

what if there's some worker who enjoys being subordinated? is interest just about preferences or is it some economic thing?

Yes, and most people in society want to give their opinion and have agency over themselves and their work.

This. If you don't have some kind of moral/ethical axioms, then there's no reason to support communism over capitalism. In fact, without some moral/ethical axioms, it's impossible to describe anything as good or bad. Things just are.

nice spooks nerd

That's what you took away from reading my post? What the fuck?

You can't logically derive ethics from nothing. You need some kind of basic axioms. "Don't cause suffering" is one example, and it doesn't matter whether it comes from a religious text or from innate compassion.

Do a bit of rational introspection before continuing this argument.

Moralism is the position that the human mind has the ability to discover moral truths and implement them. It's related to humanism in the sense that its adherents believe that all humans throughout history possess that same "essence".

An antimoralist would argue that the human mind, being a product of biology and historical conditions, is not able to develop a system of morals that has universal applicability.

We don't want to abolish capitalism because it's a "bad" system; we want to because we want more power/control over our daily lives and socialism is a means to achieve that goal.

But why do you want that?
I can keep asking "why", over and over again, until eventually you reach some kind of basic axiom(s) defining how you want the world to be.

Technically one could argue that personal preferences encompass more than just ethics, but it seems silly to make much of a distinction between how you want your personal experience of the world to be and how you want the world in general to be. It's all just subconscious preference in the end.

Read stirner.

It's possible to have a system of ethics or morals which you personally believe should apply universally without actually believing that there is any absolute universal system of ethics enforced by the laws of physics. Your system can still be subjectively the best even if there's no objective way to rank such systems.

It's on my to do list. I might get round to it before I die. If you want me to change my mind sooner than that, summarize his argument yourself or link me to a summary.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-08-17#toc24

Right, so you're basically saying that the word "ethics" (or morality) only refers to how you think other people should be treated, and not giving a fuck how others are treated constitutes an absence of ethics or morality?

Back to my original point, if you're actually an egoist you should just embrace capitalism and try to get rich by fucking others over. Communism won't reach a remotely stable state within your lifetime. We're the generation who will be getting shot to pieces in fights over food as unemployment skyrockets.

Also, why would any sane egoist participate in a revolution? Just like voting, your individual decision will have almost zero influence on the outcome. Why not just sit back and enjoy the result?

Basically egoists are cunts.

Before I respond any further, I should probably clarify my definition of morals contra my definition of ethics. I'm an antimoralist, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's possible to have a society without ethics.

Ethics, to me, are standards set by an agency with the power to implement sanctions against those who violate them. These standards have a theory and structure behind them. Whereas morals exist in the realm of ideology, don't necessarily have theoretical structure behind (X is evil and Y is good because X is evil as Y is good), and instead of being answerable to an agency your moral behavior is answerable to a big Other.

Now these two terms can easily overlap, as morality can be codified into ethics (just think of sodomy statutes) but I'd obviously prefer an ethical system with that and other moral elements swept away.

i acknowledge my definitions are a tad idiosyncratic, but pls no bully