The ethical basis for Marxism?

[Schumpeter]

I've lately been reading political philosophy and I was wondering upon which ethical basis one could justify Marxism. To an extent Utilitarianism can justify state intervention, however Utilitarianism owes no allegiance to political left or right as the debate centres itself around the consequences of market intervention (or nationalization) instead of taking a principled approach to laissez faire or interventionism itself. Obviously Libertarianism with it's principle of people owning themselves, thus it is coercion to take the fruits of their labour, implying that you are entitled to their labour itself, thus forced labour = slavery, does not fit at all with left wing ideals. Which brings me on to 'Kantianism', Kantianism is often said to be the political philosophy on which Marxism is built (with a few tweaks here and there), however many on the right have also invoked Kantianism to support their posistions.

Or is there no ethical basis for Marxism as Marxism is free from judgements of value "The theory of Marxism, as well as its practice,’ he wrote in 1910,[3] ‘is free from judgments of value" (Hilferding).

[Sabot Cat]

I think you are operating under a false dichotomy. Many communists do not want state intervention or nationalization, they want workers to own the means of production through councils, communes, industrial unions, etc. Utilitarianism, if applied consistently, will lead one to support democracy, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism for reasons I alluded to in a reply to one of your posts in another thread (accountable authorities are always preferable to unaccountable authorities).

[Rafiq]

Marxism has no ethical basis. Ethics is a question with relevance after our struggle for state conquest is over.

A proletarian morality, a communist morality is not devised, it is shaped through direct struggle, it becomes our own language, a weapon of which we use to bring to it's knees the forces of bourgeois ideology.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Which brings me on to 'Kantianism', Kantianism is often said to be the political philosophy on which Marxism is built (with a few tweaks here and there) Where on earth did you hear that?

[Michael22]

Capitalism thrives on optimism and pride. Excessive pride and worshiping wealth are sins and any politician who does not at the very least try and combat it in some way is behaving unethically.

A democratically controlled economy is not more ethical than a social democracy with responsible capitalism which is why Marxists argue using science and reason , rather than just morality.

Fascism and libertarianism are wholly unethical and immoral because they explicity condone pride. Fascism with pride in the superior race, and free market libertarianism with pride in the Darwinist superior individual.

[motion denied]

If ethics is taken to be, on the one hand, the negation of bourgeois ideology and morality and, on the other, as the intellectual and practical anticipation of the humanist values which are to govern relations among individuals in a world community freed from today’s dominant alienating institutions (economic, political, ideological, etc.), then the work of Karl Marx may consequently be understood as an ethical act.As such, this work is one of the most important contributions to a radical transformation of mankind’s destiny: to humanity’s passage from the pre-human to the human stage, from human prehistory to history made by man.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1982/marx-ethics.htm

[Schumpeter]

Capitalism thrives on optimism and pride. Excessive pride and worshiping wealth are sins and any politician who does not at the very least try and combat it in some way is behaving unethically.

A democratically controlled economy is not more ethical than a social democracy with responsible capitalism which is why Marxists argue using science and reason , rather than just morality.

Fascism and libertarianism are wholly unethical and immoral because they explicity condone pride. Fascism with pride in the superior race, and free market libertarianism with pride in the Darwinist superior individual.

You say "Excessive pride" initially and then you say "condone pride", so which is it. Are you in principle against pride (and optimism :confused:) or merely when its 'excessive', I mean everything is bad in excess is it not?

[Schumpeter]

Marxism has no ethical basis. Ethics is a question with relevance after our struggle for state conquest is over.

A proletarian morality, a communist morality is not devised, it is shaped through direct struggle, it becomes our own language, a weapon of which we use to bring to it's knees the forces of bourgeois ideology.

You're hardly selling Marxism to me, by telling me its completely devoid of ethics.

[Schumpeter]

Where on earth did you hear that?

I was talking to my uncle (a member of the Scottish socialist party) who said that Hegel's interpretation of Kantianism was the ethical basis of Marxism.

[Niccolo]

Morality is based in the material relations of production and has a necessary class bias. "Morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the working people around the proletariat, which is building up a new, a communist society." (Lenin, 1920 Speech at 3rd Komsomol Congress)

The morality of the proletariat is destined to become the universal morality as the proletariat are the universal class of humanity and its class rule will universalise all human relations. In other words, the liquidation of bourgeois morality with the tumbling of bourgeois society will signal the ushering of a new code of morality, deviating from every morality that has come before it: namely the principle of exploitation.

[Schumpeter]

Morality is based in the material relations of production and has a necessary class bias. "Morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the working people around the proletariat, which is building up a new, a communist society." (Lenin, 1920 Speech at 3rd Komsomol Congress)

The morality of the proletariat is destined to become the universal morality as the proletariat are the universal class of humanity and its class rule will universalise all human relations. In other words, the liquidation of bourgeois morality with the tumbling of bourgeois society will signal the ushering of a new code of morality, deviating from every morality that has come before it: namely the principle of exploitation.

So Marxism is immoral, is that your answer?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

according to some peoples' ideas of morality, almost certainly :P I can't speak for others, but I generally don't employ moral arguments when it comes to advocating a communist society for precisely that reason - morality is not absolute and universal. It's possible to make convincing "moral" arguments for and against nearly anything and to debate it until the cows have come home, heard you talking about morality and fucked off again. It's not an avenue that I feel is particularly productive in that regard.

In regards to morality there is one aspect in which I think I can broadly speak for the revolutionary left - we all reject bourgeois/liberal morality since it is fundamentally based on exploitative, capitalist relations, so I suppose if you must you can generally define us (to whatever extent there is an "us") in terms of our opposition to that.

[Schumpeter]

according to some peoples' ideas of morality, almost certainly :P I can't speak for others, but I generally don't employ moral arguments when it comes to advocating a communist society for precisely that reason - morality is not absolute and universal. It's possible to make convincing "moral" arguments for and against nearly anything and to debate it until the cows have come home, heard you talking about morality and fucked off again. It's not an avenue that I feel is particularly productive in that regard.

In regards to morality there is one aspect in which I think I can broadly speak for the revolutionary left - we all reject bourgeois/liberal morality since it is fundamentally based on exploitative, capitalist relations, so I suppose if you must you can generally define us (to whatever extent there is an "us") in terms of our opposition to that.

Is this not merely an ad hominem attack upon which you are founding your argument. You are attacking the proponents of the opposition and not the opposition arguments themselves.

Also can you clarify how, utilitarianism or kantianism is founded on 'exploitative capitalist principles'?

I'm not sure how you can repeatedly tell me that Marxism has no ethical grounding, whilst still espousing Marxist views, that is double think of the highest order!

[G4b3n]

You're hardly selling Marxism to me, by telling me its completely devoid of ethics.

It is not devoid of ethics, it simply has a different, i.e, revolutionary ethical basis. Meaning that Marxism realizes that different classes have different interests and it is the task of the oppressed to combat the oppressors.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Is this not merely an ad hominem attack upon which you are founding your argument. You are attacking the proponents of the opposition and not the opposition arguments themselves.

Also can you clarify how, utilitarianism or kantianism is founded on 'exploitative capitalist principles'?

I'm not sure how you can repeatedly tell me that Marxism has no ethical grounding, whilst still espousing Marxist views, that is double think of the highest order!

eh, I suppose i could and should have been clearer, I was being lazy, sorry.

We oppose those forms of morality that are founded on exploitation and capitalist relations. Generally speaking, I would say that referring to moral or ethical arguments isn't particularly useful when advocating the overthrow of capitalism - sticking to material explainations is usually the way to go. The reason for this is that moral arguments are usually subjective to some degree, and it is as easy to argue that it is morally right to struggle for communism from one perspective as it is to argue that we should reinstate kings and queens from another point of view*. I suppose that as far as current systems of morality go utilitarianism and kantian ethics have a lot in common with many communist principles, so if for whatever reason I did want to go for a "moral basis of marxism" those would be sensible things to resort to.

However, like a lot of people in this thread have said, a proletarian, communist revolution is not rooted in the same kind of principles as capitalist society. It is a far-reaching revolutionary movement which will involve a lot of fundamental changes to the functions of society. As such, a moral code (or perhaps moral codes, I imagine people won't stop debating what is right and wrong regardless of their conditions ;)) that will deal with the conditions of a revolutionary and post-revolutionary world will have to evolve in those kinds of situations so as to meet the needs of those conditions. To try and think of a concrete one now would be akin to someone a few hundred years ago thinking of a comprehensive moral code for the digital age - at best, literature will be produced :P

I suppose what i'm trying to say is that a moral code for a revolutionary, communist society will necessarily have to be born and grow up with that very same society.



*interestingly you actually deal with this issue in your opening post "Kantianism is often said to be the political philosophy on which Marxism is built (with a few tweaks here and there), however many on the right have also invoked Kantianism to support their posistions." Two fundamentally opposing groups can use the same (or at least very similar) moral arguments and formulas to back up their conflicting points of view.

[Schumpeter]

eh, I suppose i could and should have been clearer, I was being lazy, sorry.

We oppose those forms of morality that are founded on exploitation and capitalist relations. Generally speaking, I would say that referring to moral or ethical arguments isn't particularly useful when advocating the overthrow of capitalism - sticking to material explainations is usually the way to go. The reason for this is that moral arguments are usually subjective to some degree, and it is as easy to argue that it is morally right to struggle for communism from one perspective as it is to argue that we should reinstate kings and queens from another point of view*. I suppose that as far as current systems of morality go utilitarianism and kantian ethics have a lot in common with many communist principles, so if for whatever reason I did want to go for a "moral basis of marxism" those would be sensible things to resort to.

However, like a lot of people in this thread have said, a proletarian, communist revolution is not rooted in the same kind of principles as capitalist society. It is a far-reaching revolutionary movement which will involve a lot of fundamental changes to the functions of society. As such, a moral code (or perhaps moral codes, I imagine people won't stop debating what is right and wrong regardless of their conditions ;)) that will deal with the conditions of a revolutionary and post-revolutionary world will have to evolve in those kinds of situations so as to meet the needs of those conditions. To try and think of a concrete one now would be akin to someone a few hundred years ago thinking of a comprehensive moral code for the digital age - at best, literature will be produced :P

I suppose what i'm trying to say is that a moral code for a revolutionary, communist society will necessarily have to be born and grow up with that very same society.



*interestingly you actually deal with this issue in your opening post "Kantianism is often said to be the political philosophy on which Marxism is built (with a few tweaks here and there), however many on the right have also invoked Kantianism to support their posistions." Two fundamentally opposing groups can use the same (or at least very similar) moral arguments and formulas to back up their conflicting points of view.


Why can't it be brought up in a socialist society? If things will be so different go to Venezuela and whilst you que up for you bread ration philosophize the basis of your political philosophy there.

This seems like a massive red herring, you refuse to address the issue and seem content with merely shoehorning your revolution through, is what we are doing ethical? Ah we'll cross that bridge when we come to it! It seems like you cannot mount a defence of Marxism on an ethical basis and anyone who isn't already a Marxist is going to be severely put off your ideology as a result.

[Schumpeter]

It is not devoid of ethics, it simply has a different, i.e, revolutionary ethical basis. Meaning that Marxism realizes that different classes have different interests and it is the task of the oppressed to combat the oppressors.

So how does that apply to Utilitarianism then? Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that they are not guided by the same human principles of pain and pleasure that form the bedrock of utilitarian logic. People are all people and we all have this basic commonality.

[IBleedRed]

I've lately been reading political philosophy and I was wondering upon which ethical basis one could justify Marxism. To an extent Utilitarianism can justify state intervention, however Utilitarianism owes no allegiance to political left or right as the debate centres itself around the consequences of market intervention (or nationalization) instead of taking a principled approach to laissez faire or interventionism itself. Obviously Libertarianism with it's principle of people owning themselves, thus it is coercion to take the fruits of their labour, implying that you are entitled to their labour itself, thus forced labour = slavery, does not fit at all with left wing ideals. Which brings me on to 'Kantianism', Kantianism is often said to be the political philosophy on which Marxism is built (with a few tweaks here and there), however many on the right have also invoked Kantianism to support their posistions.

Or is there no ethical basis for Marxism as Marxism is free from judgements of value "The theory of Marxism, as well as its practice,’ he wrote in 1910,[3] ‘is free from judgments of value" (Hilferding).

If you promote the notion that "everyone is entitled to the fruits of his or her labor", then you might be a Marxist: workers produce all value through the sweat of their brow, but capitalists, by virtue of ownership of the means of production, seize the lion's share of that value.

As others have said, I try to avoid moral arguments for socialism because they are never definitive; on the other hand, material arguments for the Marxist school of thought and socialism are rock solid. If you insist upon a moral principle, however, then I say "Everyone is entitled to the fruits of his or her brow" is a good one in support of socialism.

[Schumpeter]

If you promote the notion that "everyone is entitled to the fruits of his or her labor", then you might be a Marxist: workers produce all value through the sweat of their brow, but capitalists, by virtue of ownership of the means of production, seize the lion's share of that value.

As others have said, I try to avoid moral arguments for socialism because they are never definitive; on the other hand, material arguments for the Marxist school of thought and socialism are rock solid. If you insist upon a moral principle, however, then I say "Everyone is entitled to the fruits of his or her brow" is a good one in support of socialism.

When you work for someone you sign a contract consenting the terms to your employer, individuals do not consent to taxation as they are merely one in a sea of hundreds of millions in some cases billions. Consent is key, as without consent force is initiated via coercion.

I'm not a libertarian however.

[IBleedRed]

When you work for someone you sign a contract consenting the terms to your employer, individuals do not consent to taxation as they are merely one in a sea of hundreds of millions in some cases billions. Consent is key, as without consent force is initiated via coercion.

I'm not a libertarian however.
You can sign a contract "consenting" to something, but that doesn't mean your decision wasn't influenced by your desperate material conditions.

In the American South after the Civil War, blacks who had been slaves were legally free. Many of these freedmen, however, ended up working for their former masters as sharecroppers and severely underpaid and abused farmhands. They were legally free, it's true, but they were not actually free according to their material conditions.

Capitalism was very much at the root of the problem. Many blacks had hoped for land ownership after the end of the Civil War. Their reasoning: if we don't own the land, we can't truly be free because we cannot be self-sufficient. Ownership over land, or any productive resource, constitutes economic power, e.g., leverage.

So, while people might legally agree of their own volition to work as maids and garment factory workers getting paid 10 cents an hour, they are making that decision from desperation and employers know this and utilize this fully. Consent is only possible between two free and equal adults (that is, equal in that neither one wields economic power over the other).

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Why can't it be brought up in a socialist society? If things will be so different go to Venezuela and whilst you que up for you bread ration philosophize the basis of your political philosophy there.

This seems like a massive red herring, you refuse to address the issue and seem content with merely shoehorning your revolution through, is what we are doing ethical? Ah we'll cross that bridge when we come to it! It seems like you cannot mount a defence of Marxism on an ethical basis and anyone who isn't already a Marxist is going to be severely put off your ideology as a result.

Why would I go to venezuela? I suppose spending a few hours queuing for things might give me plenty of time to mull things over but I find it easier to think in quiet places and I already live opposite a park - which is much closer than south america :P

Maybe i still wan't being clear enough earlier - if you really want, justify marxism with any ethical system you want - you can probably manage it with most of them if you're clever enough about it, and I reckon you probably are. As far as any marxist basis for revolution and communism goes, it is based in class antagonism, not ethics - workers are in conflict with their employers, and cannot help but be - their interests are contradictary. The labourer is no more moral for being a labourer than the boss is immoral for being the boss. The conflict is at its most basic is between the interests of the capitalists (or whatever you want to call them) and the workers (likewise.) A society without classes (which entails, of course, a society without the factors which contribute to the creation of classes) is therefore what is required to end that conflict (which depending on how you look at it could be fairly close to a moral maxim of sorts if you really wanted it to be?) and allow humanity (or at least a very much greater portion of humanity) to reach its creative potential. That's sort of what I was getting at when I said whatever a "marxian morality" might be it would have to evolve with that kind of society - in much the same way that our current systems of morality have evolved alongside capitalist society.

[TiberiusGracchus]

I've lately been reading political philosophy and I was wondering upon which ethical basis one could justify Marxism.

If we by morality think a set of universally applicable general norms, such as kantian duty based ethics or bourgeoise philosophy of rights, then Marx did not preach any morality. And neither if we think morality in the utalitarian sense, where actions (or rules) are judged efter their contribution to the sum of human utlity or pleasuer.

Marx did on many occations attack this sort of morality, see for example his critique of the Gotha Program where he claimed thet equal rights are always a right of inequality, because it doesn't heed to the (different) specific needs of humans and because it reflects the current class relations. And as well in The German Ideology as in Capital Marx is very polemical against the utilitarians because they in a bourgeoise manner reduces the multitude of different qualitative human relations and values to a single principle of utility.

Still it's obvious that there runs a strong ethical vein straight through the works of Marx that rages against that which frustrate needs and prevents the realization of our human potential. So if Marx is far from moral philosophers such as Locke, Kant, Mill and Bentham he is much closer to the likes of Aristotele. They both agree that the task of society should to further the good lives of it's members and that good life is about developing your positive human potential (rather than maximizing pleasure).

Of course there's differences between Marx and Aristoteles, not the least in that Aristotele viewed some human abilities such as theoretical contemplation as higher than others and only suited for an elite whose flourishing then should build upon the hard work of others. Marx rather holds it as ideal to develop many sides of yourself and he wanted to bridge the gap between theory and practice, mental labour and physical labour. The exploitation of class society and it's division of humanity into hierarchically ordered and distinct functions are for him a fact that prevents human flourishing.

I also want's to point out that Marx often upholds various ethical virtues such as solidarity and heroism (i.e. his praise of the communards in his works on the Paris Commune) and immanent in his vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat lies also classic civil virtues of the active, political citizen and the good cooperation.

So I think we can say that Marx was a very ethical thinker, though not a preacher of morality - if we make that distinction.


And personally I believe that we need to develop revolutionary ethics much further, because it provides the revolutionary discipline necessary for success. I too find Aristotele valuable here, and other thinkers in this tradition, not the least - to my own surprice - Thomas Aquinas. The revolution must be led by the ideal of love not hate, despite the necessity of using violence to fight the enemy.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Whenever 'morality' is used as a counter arguement by pro-capitalists, I find it's usually got a religious underpinning. The fact that nudity, sexuality, gender and reproductive rights are so hotly debated are due to the 'moral' outcry from people who think God / Gods have an opinion on what we should or should not be doing with our bodies ('Who has told you you are naked?', pro-lifers, 'think of the children!!')
So I view Marxist / leftist morality as being more favourable to reason, science and the material conditions surrounding the working class.
Also, to address the thread title question directly,what exactly is the ethical / moral basis of capitalism? Could it ever be construed to be morally right for a minority of private interests to hold the majority of the wealth and power in the world?

[Sea]

I was talking to my uncle (a member of the Scottish socialist party) who said that Hegel's interpretation of Kantianism was the ethical basis of Marxism.At least bother to become familiar with one of those thinkers before posting daft bullshit like this.

[Michael22]

You say "Excessive pride" initially and then you say "condone pride", so which is it. Are you in principle against pride (and optimism :confused:) or merely when its 'excessive', I mean everything is bad in excess is it not?

Do you not believe that pride comes before a fall?

Adam Smith said that we expect our dinner not from benevolence, but from their regard to their own self interest. Weird Lolbertarians and neo-liberal careerist types take this too far and say that greed is good for example and that private pleasures = public virtues illuminating the fatc that they don't actually believe in (or perhaps understand) the rule of law and justice.

Classical liberalism is an ideology of bankers and big business. Banks don't like governments or democracy. It is purely commercial, has no basis in ethics and justice (similar to fascism.), and it is successful because of violence and class war. Alternatively social democracy (responsible capitalism) and Communism is social justice.

The bourgeoisie oppress the working class because the political will for ethics and social justice has been violently suppressed, not because there is a problem with the morality and ethical realism. With original Jewish law, Judeo-Christian ethics and the enlightenment we are more than equipped to realise democracy, justice and equality. It is just a matter of political will, not a problem with morality itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can this thread me moved to o.i.? Hen the op could respond, and the "philosophical" aspects of this argument are more o.i. Oriented anyway.


I've lately been reading political philosophy and I was wondering upon which ethical basis one could justify Marxism.what justifies to "rightness" of Marxism? Human liberation. Marxism developed out of class struggle on the one hand, but also the enlightenment ideals of the bourgeoise revolutions. Why couldn't these revolutions deliver universal liberation, what held them back? This is what a lot of different viewpoints sought to answer and part of Marxism comes from that post French Revolution world.


To an extent Utilitarianism can justify state intervention, however Utilitarianism owes no allegiance to political left or right as the debate centres itself around the consequences of market intervention (or nationalization) instead of taking a principled approach to laissez faire or interventionism itself. i think this is an abstract notion of utilitarianism and "the state" and "intervention". Marxists believe that society is divided into classes with opposing interests and so utility is empty: utility to do what for whom? I think might always makes "right" but if this is a good thing, ethical, or not depends on the viewer's position in society as well as the ones enacting x policy. What's good for business is good for The us: for capitalists and our rulers this is true and is used to justify many things, but for oppressed people, workers, people being bombed or exploited, then this is not "ethical" or even true for them.

State intervention or non-intervention is also likewise an abstract concept. The state? What state, whose state, run by who and in whose interests to accomplish what? A feudal state where a king intervenes in a dispute among aristocrats? A capitalist state where the navy is brought in to defend or open up trade routes? A capitalist state where popular reforms are won from below? A capitalist state which initiate reforms itself to calm the population? A capitalist state that intervenes through managing austerity?


Or is there no ethical basis for Marxism as Marxism is free from judgements of value "The theory of Marxism, as well as its practice,’ he wrote in 1910,[3] ‘is free from judgments of value" (Hilferding).as for myself, as a Marxist, I try and base what I think is right or wrong on if it is right or wrong in regards to working class self-emancipation. So this means that it would be ethically wrong for me to knowingly lie about u.s. Policy or capitalism, or whatnot to workers at my job or who I'm organizing with even if the end result of the lie helps agitate people or convinces them of something I want to try and argue. It's not unethical to lie in the abstract, it's unethical as a Marxist because tricking workers does not help enable people to come to their own conclusions... It's manipulation, not self-activity. But if my boss asked me if my coworkers were planning to strike, I would have no ethical qualms about deceiving them if it helped protect organizing efforts.

I'm not much into philosophy and so I don't know how this fits into established terms or concepts (it sounds like utilitarianism to me, but with the caveat of not being an abstract "utility" but one based in an understanding of society as it exists now).

[Niccolo]

Morality is based in the material relations of production and has a necessary class bias. "Morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the working people around the proletariat, which is building up a new, a communist society." (Lenin, 1920 Speech at 3rd Komsomol Congress)

The morality of the proletariat is destined to become the universal morality as the proletariat are the universal class of humanity and its class rule will universalise all human relations. In other words, the liquidation of bourgeois morality with the tumbling of bourgeois society will signal the ushering of a new code of morality, deviating from every morality that has come before it: namely the principle of exploitation.

So Marxism is immoral, is that your answer?

According to bourgeois morality, yes. I don't see that as a problem though. Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. (Engels, The Principles of Communism) Marxism is merely its theoretical component using a materialist conception of history and a dialectical view of social change. Morality, if you followed Marxist theory, is merely an outgrowth of the material conditions of a society - rooted in its mode of production. Feudal morality greatly differed from bourgeois morality in capitalist societies -- morality is by no means a fixed, universal principle and saying such is absurd.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

"much closer to the likes of Aristotele"
So he believed that slavery was justified?
Because Aristotele said and I quote:
those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned

[Ritzy Cat]

I don't know why there has to be an "ethical basis"... maybe I am misunderstanding the question. Does a clock need an ethical basis? or a cell phone charger ??

Wouldn't Marxism's ethical basis be in itself ?? :crying:

[Michael22]

Also, to address the thread title question directly,what exactly is the ethical / moral basis of capitalism? Could it ever be construed to be morally right for a minority of private interests to hold the majority of the wealth and power in the world?

Of course not, capitalism is a chutzpah and it is anarchy. It used to be a gentle anarchy, tamed by a religious culture and later in Europe by social democracy, and it was ended completely in Russia and China. Now it is stronger than ever, a complete anarchy that is destroying the planet.

For me, one of the main differences between economic liberalism and all other ideologies, namely conservatism, socialism, social democracy, Communism, and even nationalism, is that all these ideologies are politically moral to a certain extent and differing in that extent. Conservatism and Nationalism are merely operating at the furthest end of the spectrum with regard to how legalistic they are with ethics and social justice, and perhaps they argue that a gentle anarchy and being deliberately immoral and irrational to an extent is actually morally "good." For example, in theory conservatives and nationalists idealisation of the petty bourgeoisie and condemnation of big business is grounded in the same principle that social democrats and communist believe - that exploitation is principally wrong - however conservatives and nationalists are just less legalistic politically. Therefore the difference between a conservative and socialist is a matter of political will and legalism, yet they share essentially the same principle of justice and moral rightness.

Whereas laissez faire capitalism is extremely radical indeed because it is a complete departure from that moral "spectrum", and is therefore a departure from justice and law itself, erecting materialism into a "moral" principle, it denies amelioration. It is an ideology that is completely mad to the core.

[Ocean Seal]

There is no ethical basis in the formal sense. We don't require one to exist. Marxism is the expression of the workers self-interest, and intervention and violence on the part of the state are as arbitrary as the expressions of ownership in capitalism and the right to express violence on account of ownership of property.

[Rafiq]

You're hardly selling Marxism to me, by telling me its completely devoid of ethics.

I don't care, Marxism is an understanding of objective truth, not an ideology which demands followers to prattle behind.

[Niccolo]

Any way, the OP is clearly confused. Marxism cannot be "immoral" even in the bourgeois sense of the word - simply because it's a methodology, a method to understand society.

The fact is that the liberation of the proletariat will obviously come into conflict with bourgeois morality as the latter is destined to precisely stifle said liberation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To the OP - not all ethical questions can be reduced to the dilemma "utilitarianism vs deontology". The proletariat would not want to adopt wholesale the ethics of the utilitarian or the deontologist. To oversimplify it greatly, the deontologist protects property (stealing is wrong as a universal maxim for Kant) while the utilitarian takes a top down bureaucratic approach in trying to calculate happiness. I think Marx would want the working class to find a basis for ethical behavior beyond either the harm principle or some abstract idea of universalizable maxims

To whoever said Marx adopts Kant's thinking - there's some truth to the idea that Kant influences Marx through Hegel, but it's way too simplistic to say that Marx has a "Kantian" ethics as a consequence (I guess communism implies that all people are "ends" as Kant does but that's a pretty weak parallel)


"much closer to the likes of Aristotele"
So he believed that slavery was justified?
Because Aristotele said and I quote:
those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned

Philosophers don't have to adopt the ideas of another wholesale. Aristotle is concerned with the development of good character as opposed to always living within some abstract norms. Marx and Engels both used material analysis to explain why certain populations deemed by the ruling class to be "immoral" were only "immoral" because the social conditions created that.

Aristotle did believe in "natural" slaves but that very argument is related to the parallels between Aristotle and Marx - both sought out naturalistic or material explanations for the moral qualities of people as opposed to simply laying blame for people's failure to live up to some kind of pre-ordained code.

[G4b3n]

When you work for someone you sign a contract consenting the terms to your employer, individuals do not consent to taxation as they are merely one in a sea of hundreds of millions in some cases billions. Consent is key, as without consent force is initiated via coercion.

When a robber points a gun at you and asks you to hand over your belongings, do you consent to doing so when you comply with his request? Note that the robber is a metaphor for the material conditions in which the worker finds him or herself. If you find this to be less then accurate perhaps you should ponder why people who exist in more pillaged conditions are not lining up to sell their labor and livelihood to the highest bidder.


I'm not a libertarian however.

Well that is obvious, if you are the side of capital you are inherently in favor of the state and its actions by which it holds the relationship between capital and labor together. Only those on the side of labor can be libertarians in the traditional as well as rational sense of the word.