"Moralism": Why is it Bad?

In a debate with another member here at RevLeft, I was accused of appealing to "moralism" in arguing against violence, and that this moralism was inherently bourgeois. As I'm a socialist because of my respect for moral values and desire for public virtue, I'm a little confused on why such values are equated with the bourgeoisie and capitalism. Capitalism, in my opinion, seems to be an unvirtuous and immoral system, based on "low" human desires like greed, manipulation, and power-seeking, while socialism seems to be based on "virtuous" values like kindness, community, commitment, and love.

Why is "moralism" (I take that to mean a commitment to strong ethical virtues and moral precepts, especially those said to be "traditional," correct me if I'm wrong) bourgeois? Why must morals be thrown out in a socialist society?

I realize there are a number of perspectives on this issue, so I apologize if this thread seems too vague.

The bourgeoisie and the reformist "socialists" often appeal to morals - to bourgeois morals - in order to suppress proletarian resistance to the existing order. The bourgeoisie and their "social" "democratic" lackeys can destroy entire nations in imperialist wars - of course, that is dulce et decorum, but the moment a revolutionary government dares to shoot bourgeois spies and saboteurs, all these moral gentlemen rise in indignation.

Trotsky had dedicated an entire work to that question.

Moralism basically amounts to raising moral judgements above understanding of existing material relationships and attempting to apply one's own moral conceptions to situations where they have no basis. So for instance if you moralize an issue that isn't really a moral issue, you'll probably be called a moralist. An example of that would be a repudiation of revolutionary violence. It isn't a moral issue because revolutionary violence is a response to the violence of the state, of the bourgeoisie.

So it's something that is determined by material factors, not something we get together and decide to do because we think it's morally acceptable. Attempting to apply your abstract ideals in opposition to the flow of the unfurling of material relations is opportunism, pure and simple.

Well I think all that's true, but it's not universally true. Capitalism is immoral from our perspective as workers, but the emancipation of chattel slaves into wage-slaves was not more immoral than slavery, so there's a case where capitalism could be argued as being "moral". So I think on the one level, I don't like to rely on moral arguments because I think most of the time we can make a political argument which is much more clear and doesn't rely on sort of telling people what it right.

So I think when Leftists talk about something being a moral argument (in a pejorative sense), what they mean is that this morality in an argument is an abstract concept. One can't really say without context if killing is bad: is it immoral for an animal to kill and eat, immoral for a soldier to kill... well I guess that depends on the subjective perspective of the person. Hence morality not being abstract, but dependent on conditions and the perspective of the person and the possible outcomes.

From our perspective killing for empire is "immoral" because the person doing the killing does not gain; the person they killed is just trying to defend their land or is also just ordered to go out and kill; victory through the killing only makes oppression worse for both the conquered and the non-rulers in the victorious country. But from a capitalist's standpoint these things are necessary (and therefore moral) in order to "maintain order" and to them this order is just and justified and they may even believe it's better to have the US empire than to have China or Russia as the dominant capitalist power (or to have a uni-polar world under the US rather than a multi-polar world where the EU and Russia and Brazil and China and US and India are all at eachother's throats).

The other aspect to "bourgeois morals" is that they are presented as being "universal" and this is where problems come up. Because as I said, in a divided society, different people are going to see "morality" as meaning different things, but in presenting bourgoise morality as universal, they are ideologically tieing our views about right and wrong to things that benifit them.

So for a clear example: we would all believe that someone carjacking someone else is "wrong", but many would not believe that it was just as wrong for the banks to do the same thing legally using a repo-man.

Bourgeois morality also has a more specific ideological function of blaming induviduals for social ills. It's implied that when someone does something considered "immoral" that it is a "moral failing" of the individual rather than a larger issue in society. That let's the system off the hook while pointing the fingers at some of the victims: oh you're a poor black kid, well pull your pants up and maybe you won't get targeted by police/maybe if you didn't dress so provocatively, then you wouldn't have been raped.

One final thing regarding morals and the Left specifically is that I think moral arguments don't belong amongst people who are trying to politically convince people to take the world into our own hands democratically. Moral arguements, even when rooted in a left-wing perspective also obscure the political arguments and conditional aspects of class struggle. In a top-down undemocratic type organizing, moral arguments are sometimes used as a way to generate obedience to a political line: you must agree with X otherwise you are not actually down with the revolution. This also happens in any political setting, not just undemocratic ones. In Occupy there was a lot of moralism and people would use this to try and get people to do things when there may have been an underlying political disagreement.

As a marxist, I really don't want people to "follow" us because Leftism is moral and so that's how they should live. I want people to take the world into their own hands and in order to do that they need to be convinced politically, not morally. They have to have precise information and reasonable arguments, not be sort of goaded into action because "it's right".

It's vital to draw a clear distinction between morality, and moralism. Many Radicals make the mistake of conflating the two, leading them to make fuzzy-minded, and paradoxical, if not downright hypocritical, arguments against morality, itself. This thread is a perfect example.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You're not escaping, or 'transcending' morality; you're just calling it something else. It's impossible to make an argument without resorting to morality. Virtually every sentence that includes the word; 'should', is a moral claim. The ultimate objective of Socialism; the emancipation of mankind, is a moral imperative.

I agree with this, and I would go further and say that political questions, ultimately, are moral questions, and that all political theory and practice must begin with examining moral values and a sense of "the good." Morality is the soil from which all politics grows.

Accidentally 'thanked' you when I meant to quote you. Oops.

Politics, and the 'morals' often associated with them, arise out of material conditions - not morality. To claim otherwise is pure idealism.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Politics often, in fact, I would argue usually, arises from moral values and other philosophical ideals rather than material conditions (yes, I think Marx was wrong here).

Consider the three great equality movements of the past century in America: the women's movement, the civil rights movement, and the LGBT movement. Liberal "democratic" capitalism prevailed throughout the time period in which these movements occurred (~1900-today), yet these movements -- which resulted in massive social change -- still happened. Why was this?

Materialism has no answer, as material conditions didn't significantly change during that time period. The only answer lies in ideals: in America, cultural evolution and changes in philosophical thought led to a greater emphasis on equality, which then influenced mass beliefs and led people to start movements pushing for equal rights for the disenfranchised. A materialist explanation fails here, while a moral / cultural explanation succeeds.

So, you could say that "Moralism" is really moral absolutism, meaning position that an action is always good or always bad, independent of circumstances surrounding it?

Not even the most ardent conservative moral realists accept that. The vast majority of people see a difference between, for instance, punching a violent intruder into one's home and punching an old man on the street for no reason.

I´m with George Bernard Shaw when he wrote: "Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."

But where do moral values and philosophical ideals come from? Do they arise out of a vacuum? Are they not defined by the given relations of production, the whole of the economic foundation upon which the legal-political superstructure rests? Is social consciousness not dependent on such developments? Is it a purely independent subject with no relation to its object? No, because it is the ‘mode of production of material life’ that develops, conditions, and contributes to what we’d define as social, political, and intellectual life. Change arises out of the conflict between the material productive forces of society and the existing relations of production. From this springs given instances of the revolutionary epoch, in which changes to the existing economic foundation result in the transformation of the superstructure. Thus it is people’s social existence that determines their consciousness - not the other way around. In essence, social relations are closely tied to productive forces.

These movements were wholly bound to where their participants stood at the point of production, and the social relations resulting therein. Through definite processes of struggle against the existing structural conditions defining these groups’ relations to capital, women, African Americans, and members of the LGBTQ community were compelled to alter the conditions of their exploitation. Women were traditionally relegated to housework and the social reproduction of labor (i.e. birthing and rearing the next generation of laborers). Blacks were confronted daily with legalized (and later institutionalized) racism and the denial of equal access to productive forces and benefits - a crisis that remains an ongoing issue in the U.S.

Private capital has a vested interest in keeping and maintaining the racial divisions that separate and alienate whole sections of society from one another. A unified proletariat that transcends these divisions and recognizes the collective interest of the class is a threat to capital and the bourgeoisie; thus the latter will exacerbate tensions if necessary to impress upon white, black, and brown workers that they have separate interests.

Social classes and the relationships between them arise from and reflect economic and material conditions.

You do know of the materialist conception of history, correct? You must, but you seem to misunderstand what it actually is. Historical materialism lays out the causes of developments and their subsequent changes in human society via how people ‘collectively produce the necessities of life’. The underlying basis of society is materialism, the foundation upon which productive forces and social relations impact and influence human consciousness. These shifts in conditions are the underpinnings of philosophical thought and evolution, that compel people to agitate and struggle against their own disenfranchisement. Morals can’t exist independently of the conditions that surround them. Social progress is driven by similar processes in the material and productive forces of society (think technology, access to capital, etc.) and the struggles of whole sections of the working-class.

Why is moralism bad? Probably because it's rooted in idealism. Just look at the OP. What is capitalism based on? Private property, division of labor, exploitation of labor, etc, etc? No, it's based on "bad" emotions and behavior, greed, selfishness, manipulation, etc. Socialism, like capitalism, has it's base not on anything solid, but on "good" emotions and behavior like kindness and love. It's totally abstract for things that are not abstract at all.

Absolute pacifism (and you're pretty close to that position, if not actually hold it yourself) seems to make exactly that kind of mistake to me.

If by "moral" you mean something that has been judged as "right" or "wrong" then, yes I have a basis for what is right and wrong, but if you mean moral as in something that's universally "right" or "wrong" then that is not correct.

Would you say it's a moral imperative for someone to get a job? Or would you say it's a necessary consideration for survival. I view revolution and class resistance generally as necissary, not because it's "right" in the abstract, but because without it, I don't think there's much of a future for me and any kids I might have or for humanity for that matter. So is self-preservation "moral" - I don't know. But I do not fight for socialism because "it is right". If I did that, then I could just as easily then argue that we should all go live on a commune and live in a moral way right now.

So in this sense I do counter-pose moral and political reasons. But I don't think this is merely re-naming the same thing. Political rationals can be demonstrated through logic, even subjective or conditional logic. The kinds of moral reasoning I think are not useful or helpful, rely on assumptions of universals: that democracy or socialism are the best ways to do things. It makes things ideals rather than practical real considerations. The problem with this is then "the right thing" is applied in the wrong situations or things that are necessary are jettisoned as some moral goal, but maybe not obtainable at the moment.

Yes and as I said in the bit you quoted, I don't want people to be leftists because they "should". I want to them to become leftists because they are politically convinced that this is the best shot we have for survival and decent lives.

Isn't the latter statement is why they "should"?

They "should" not because it is "right" in the absolute, but people should for specific reasons of X, Y, and Z.

Morality when made universal in class society is generally a way to rally people around certain sets of behavior and (particular class) ideas of what is "right" or "wrong" and present them as universal: either decreed by a universal God, or in the case of bourgoise morality, often "natural".

The working class as a majority and non-exploiting class doesn't need to convince people that their "right and wrong" is super-historically moral, but that it is the best option for organizing society for all of humanity when capitalism has shown itself to be destructive and unstable.

If there is universal human morality it doesn't cover much at this point in history other than some very general things. Only a classless society could develop anything that might be considered closer to a universal view of right and wrong for society.

I think it's correct to say that capitalism and socialism corresponds to these different values, but not that they are based on them. The causal relation is rather the opposite; the bad values are promoted through capitalism and the good values are promoted through socialism.

That's why it's not enough to convince others of what's good. We also have to transform society at it's core.


Being ethical is not bourgeoisie. I'm myself profoundly ethical, my values are the foundation of my politics. I can't see it any other way. And socialism will be a very ethically oriented society. We would have to ask us ethical questions all the time when we make political decisions. We can't just like in capitalism calculate some single absolue (like what's most profitable), we must constantly ask ourselves what we want.

But while I would agree with you that non-violence is a good ideal, that it's bad to harm people. We must also concider what is necessary in order to transform society to socialism. In practise you can't just go by a single ideal, you must weight many against each other. Violence is bad, but not resisting oppression is worse.

I do for example support militant antifascism. I think we should use violence if need be to destroy fascist organisations. But I don't think we should enjoy using violence, or percieve it as unproblematic in any way. And I do think it's important to always have some amount respect for even our political enemies as human beings. Smack them in their heads, but don't percieve them as monsters.

Christ. How tedious....

That's not what; 'morality' means. Deontologists believe in absolute morals, certainly. However; I don't think anybody, here, is a deontologist.

Getting the job; signing the forms, etc., is not a moral imperative, deciding to get a job is a moral imperative. Even if they have no dependents, the search for a job rests on the premise that they care about their survival, that that is defined as; good, or right, etc.

I'd certainly be inclined to agree that if the status quo continues for much longer; the implications for the human race are dire, indeed. However; while achieving Socialism might be in the interest of humanity, certainly, in the interest of your class, of course, it probably isn't benefitting you, in the sense of improving your standards of living, and it's entirely possible it never will. If you're primarily concerned with improving your standard of living; diving into Radical politics is probably about the worst way to go about that. If that's what you want; you should be looking for another job, or a higher paying job, or going back to college, or to a technical institute, making smart investments, etc. Those are the kinds of things that would be likely to improve your standard of living. I'm not encouraging you to drop out of Radical politics; quite the contrary. I'm just suggesting you dispel any illusions about pursuing your interests. Second; even if you were pursuing Radical politics purely out of self interest; (Which, as I've said, is extremely unlikely.) you would have to resort to moral arguments to convince anyone else to do the same. Obviously; you don't really believe this. As you say; you're concerned about future generations, etc., etc. That's all very sensible.

Yes, because it's based on the premise that you're existence is good, that you have the right to exist, etc., etc.

Saying something is right is not the same as saying that it is possible. These words are not synonyms.

Again; anything that contains the word; 'should', is a moral claim. All arguments rest on moral foundations. It's unavoidable. I suggest you reconcile yourself with that.

You're mistaken.

This is about as relevant as the barometric pressure in Ontario. Morality can be logical, or illogical. Personally; I would argue for the former. I would argue morality can only be considered binding if it makes sense, for one thing, which is, in itself, a moral claim, one that I find very compelling.

If you don't believe that Socialism ('Socialism' being democratic, by definition.) is the best way of doing things; then there's no sense in being a Socialist. Again; to say that Socialism is right, is not the same thing as saying it is possible. (At present; it is not, and isn't likely to be for quite some time, at least.)

You're contradicting yourself. First of all, again; you can't ask people to do anything without resorting to moral claims. Even if your sole reason for wanting people to become Radicalized was strictly for your emotional gratification, and for no other reason, (Which; obviously, isn't the case.) that would still be a moral argument. Condolences.

Again; we need to be able to distinguish between morality, and; 'moralism.' There are plenty of good arguments against the latter, there aren't any good arguments against the former, (In fact; such a thing is logically impossible because one cannot condemn morality, in general, without resorting to morality.) at least, not categorically.

In a way, the term "moral" and the term "democracy" have a lot in common. Both are good, no? But whose morality? And democracy for whom? Bourgeois democracy is another name for the dictatorship of the capitalists. Bourgeois morality is that which grew out of the rise of possessive individualism during the early days of capitalism. The dialectical materialist view places morals in context and not as immutable absolutes.

In response to the idea that materialism can't explain the reason American ideals have emphasized things like civil rights, it's obviously economic. Civil rights legislation has always been passed by incredibly small margins, with a good portion of the population opposing it on economic grounds. The slave owner opposed abolishing slavery because he benefited from the slave, the poor white man opposed abolishing Jim Crow to avoid competition for jobs, and many Americans simply decided to allow neutral legal language, not civil rights or legal equality, to exist because of the need for portable labor due to interstate economies and larger corporations. The rise of neutral legal language can be explained by the needs of bureaucracy