What is wrong with having an ethical opposition to capitalism?

[Revolution starts with U]

If morals are subjective, then you can find a way to justify any action.

If morals are absolute you can do the same, if you frame absolute morality in your favor. This is the basis of class rule ideology.

Better than having some exploit and murder others. Being a good person is more important than being wealthy or living well.

Says you. The point being that "good" could mean anything. Just look at the recent debates in OI with Fabian...

Would you sacrifice a man if it means everybody else in the world would be eternally happy?

Yes

Utilitarianism would say so. Moral relativism would find some way to justify it. Only moral absolutism would tell you this is an incorrect, unjust action.

So? What's so great about letting everyone live in misery just so they live up to some insane ideal standard that only exists in your mind?

Utilitarianism is a morally absolutist principle, as well, actually; but since it is based solely on the principle of maximizing results ("happiness") it would no doubt justify actions such as the sacrifice.

Tyrants must be sacrificed for liberty to exist.

We need established principles that can be regarded as universally and objectively true and good.

We need something we will never find?

The bourgeoisie are mistaken

Says you.

Again, that means you can find a way to justify just about anything.

So? Does that stop communities from establishing an inter-subjective ethics?

Qualities such as fairness, justice, love, compassion - these are objectively and universally good. What promotes these is therefore good; what is against these is therefore evil.

Why are they universally good, other than you say so?
Is fairness to the bourgeoisie good? Justice in the name of property owners is good? Compassion for slave drivers?

[eric922]

But the idea of what is good has always reflected the interests of the ruling class. In WWI it was "good" to be nationalistic, nowadays it's "good" not to do illegal drugs, during the medieval ages it was "good" to listen to God and your Lord/King, etc.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." - Karl Marx

I'm not necessary arguing against that, I'm arguing against Rafiq's post that ethics are an inherently bourgeois concept. That is simply false. If they were an inherently bourgeois concept, they could not predate capitalism by thousands of years, which they of course do.

[Anarpest]

The problem with most 'ethical' criticisms of capitalism is that they take 'ethics' as something given and hence basically leave the basis of the views untouched, making them at basis emotional reactions, and inherently subjective. So long as the basis of our views is not looked at, they remain basically subjective because we presuppose a certain set of axioms or way of looking at things without actually justifying this over any competing set. Conversely, a purely 'ethical' critique of capitalism can only work if you view ethics and its justification as being purely a matter of ethics, in other words view ethics as an absolutely independent field which bases itself upon only itself. In that case only could we, arguing only through ethics, come to establish the foundations for our ethical critique of capitalism. Of course, for Marxists, who take the view that fields like philosophy, ethics, etc., have no independent development, that thought is founded not upon itself but upon material reality, this is not sufficient. While I may not be a Marxist, I don't think that we can disregard their criticisms on this issue, or revert to a purely 'ethical' anti-capitalism.

[Manic Impressive]

I find it kind of funny that many of these ethical socialists turn out to be Marxist-Leninists. How do you morally defend the soviet union, Albania, PRNK, PRC, etc, etc

[eric922]

I find it kind of funny that many of these ethical socialists turn out to be Marxist-Leninists. How do you morally defend the soviet union, Albania, PRNK, PRC, etc, etc

I'm not a Marxist-Leninist at all. As my tendency says I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

[Sea]

First of all, let me say that I do accept the Marxist scientific critique of capitalism and view it as a very accurate description of how capitalism works.

However, before I even read Marx I opposed capitalism on ethical grounds and my opposition to capitalism still is partly an ethical one. I view any system that allows one person who contributes nothing to society to live in luxury while allowing another to spend their entire life working just to survive, to be an unethical system and I view it as unjust as the concept of nobility. Children should not be made to starve simply because it benefits some company's bottom line.

My question, is, what is wrong with this ethical opposition? I, ask, because I've seen some people say that you shouldn't have an ethical opposition to capitalism, only a scientific one.

I think this is a misunderstanding more than anything; not giving regard to the difference between morals and ethics. It's mostly one of connotation, ethics being associated with reasoning and philosophy, and morals an abstract, less reasonable concept of right and wrong.

I don't think many people would have an objection to you saying that capitalism is wrong because of the things you point out in your OP. This is an ethical objection of yours that is soundly based in fact.

The problem would be if you said capitalism is morally wrong just because, and couldn't back it up.

[Rafiq]

Edit: Brb.

For now: Eagle Syr, you're an apologist of Sexism, a sympathizer of Ron Paul, a Nationalist, a self proclaimed Idealist, a Moralist, and you're soft on Fascism. Why are you here?

If you're a socialist only for moral reasons, then you're a disgrace to all three of those Marxists in your profile picture. Ethical Socialists existed before Marx, and they're called Utopians. He wasn't a big fan.

We (Marxists) oppose capitalism, on basis, because we understand it's systemic contradictions, and it's inevitable destruction. If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it.

[black magick hustla]

of course there is an ethical dimension to class war/social war and ultimately communism. the world doesn't work by "ethics" but in the microcosm, people get inspired by things like comradeship, solidarity, magnanimity, bravery, friendship, human kinship, and love. the whole idea that "ethics is subjective," misses the whole point. The ethical dimension of our lives and our struggles is not something you systematize, or you reduce into verbal rules, but it is something that reveals itself in the actions of people and in our everyday lives. The stupid, pseudo-marxist nihilism and claptrap that "ethics is subjective" is alien to marx's deep humanism.

[Rafiq]

is alien to marx's deep humanism.

Of course. Young Humanist Marx wasn't a scientist or a materialist. We do indeed oppose him. Without Engels, in some ways, Marx is obsolete.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Also bmh, I like how you tell us to treat morals objectively, and the reason: Because it's a "moral" thing to do.

You said we shouldn't systemetize ethics. You didn't provide scientific reasoning for such, just that we "should" (a moral).

I mean the cheap romanticism is sounding to the ears (not really) but it amounts to garbage if it's to be taken seriously just because "it would be better". Either way, regardless of how we treat ethics, they are subjective and social constructs which exist in accordance to material conditions.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[black magick hustla]

Also bmh, I like how you tell us to treat morals objectively, and the reason: Because it's a "moral" thing to do.

You said we shouldn't systemetize ethics. You didn't provide scientific reasoning for such, just that we "should" (a moral).

I mean the cheap romanticism is sounding to the ears (not really) but it amounts to garbage if it's to be taken seriously just because "it would be better". Either way, regardless of how we treat ethics, they are subjective and social constructs which exist in accordance to material conditions.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

First, I am talking about ethics, not morality.

There is no such thing as a "science of ethics". Science can't tell you what to do. Science says things as they are. You can't derive what you "ought to do" from a criticism of capitalism either. However, the choice to revolt, has a deep ethical dimension. The choosing of sides is deeply ethical. Whatever are the psychological and historical reasons why someone makes "ethical choices" the fact is that you ultimately have to do them, doesn't matter if you have a bird eye of them or not. Whether there is a material reason we find "bullying" awful, there is no reason to not assert that bullying is awful and we must act against it.

[Le Socialiste]

I know I'm just echoing what's already been said, but ethical opposition to capitalism (while fine) makes for poor debate. Moralism is and can be highly subjective, rendering it useless in one's approach and analysis. People will more readily understand our position if it's based on a firm scientific approach to how and why capitalism is unsustainable and inherently exploitative. If we reduce our arguments to the "evils of the corporation" we may still win sympathy, but our opposition can (and will) be more easily picked apart by individuals moralizing about "taking the money out of politics" and "electing more 'progressive' representatives." Marx and Engels correctly approached the matter from a socioeconomic and political perspective, delving into the inner contradictions that best explained capital's development, expansion, and historical trajectory. They based their analyses in the material, and while I'm sure they and many others opposed the system on some moral level, they understood the importance of looking at capitalism from a position that best reflected its inner development and impact.

[GPDP]

There isn't anything actually wrong about having an ethical opposition to capitalism IMO. However, I believe one must be careful in not basing that opposition solely on ethical or moral grounds, or primarily for that matter. It is, however, a fine way to supplement a critique of capitalism grounded in the material realm, especially when dealing with sympathetic petit-bourgeois types who may not immediately be confronted with the realities of capitalism as workers are.

[black magick hustla]

There isn't anything actually wrong about having an ethical opposition to capitalism IMO. However, I believe one must be careful in not basing that opposition solely on ethical or moral grounds, or primarily for that matter. It is, however, a fine way to supplement a critique of capitalism grounded in the material realm, especially when dealing with sympathetic petit-bourgeois types who may not immediately be confronted with the realities of capitalism as workers are.

Except, that regardless of class, "to revolt" is an ethical choice. Class struggle happens, regardless of what we think of it, but to be a "communist" is definitely an ethical choice. Choosing sides in the class struggle is an ethical choice. There are better things you could do with your time that could objectively help your emotional and material position, than to be a "communist", which comes with all sorts of emotional and material disadvantages.

[Hit The North]

I believe that moral principles should always come first, so I agree with you that a moral aversion to capitalism is a good basis for fighting it.

Capitalism is inherently immoral. This alone justifies our fight against it.
Not to mention, scientifically and economically unsustainable. But to me, that is secondary.

Utilitarianism is not a good way to look at the world.

But the starting-point of utilitarianism is ethical as it depends on an assessment of the greater good or the greatest happiness and happiness is considered to be the most ethical outcome of human action.

I also think that your objection that capitalism is inherently immoral is based on a utilitarian assumption - that it produces good outcomes for only a minority rather than the majority.

That aside, the problem with ethical denunciations of capitalism is that they don't tell us why capitalism is "inherently immoral". For that we need scientific investigation to uncover the exploitative relations at the heart of capitalist accumulation. Only then can we discover what we need to do to move forward. This is the essence of Marx's critique of utopian socialism.

Finally, the problem with arguing for the existence of an objective morality is, firstly, this implies that morality is built into nature, that we exist in a moral universe and, secondly, it is impossible for us as human beings to occupy an objective position that would allow us to identify what is objectively moral. This is why arguments for objective morality have to introduce an extra-human arbiter, typically in the form of a god.

[black magick hustla]

I think the talk of "objective/subjective" ethics is a bit silly and is just obfuscation. The issue here at stake is ethics.

I guess what bothers me of this thread is not so much the idea that there needs to be a scientific approach underlying the analysis of capital, but that some try to shy away of admitting that what they are doing has an ethical dimension. It is silly because i've seen people doing mental gymnastics to try to deny that they are doing an ethical choice, and instead give some boring talk about "self interest" or whatever. Of course partisanship for the liberation of humanity is an ethical choice, anyone outside marxist nerd circles would clearly understand this. Fighting for your own freedom also is an ethical choice. I guess I can see what people mean about moralizing though. i do hate the bullshit talk about corporations are evil, etc. Doesn't mean a scientific analysis rejects an ethical approach to the issue at hand though. I don't want women to have abortions on demand because of some bullshit about "working class solidarity", but because it is what is correct, and ethical. Nobody here is antiracist because of "working class self-interest", that is some hipster, nihilist posing bullshit.

One of the reasons why I am starting to like tiqqun, is because they talk about the ethical dimensions of this issues (in a non patronizing way), and the ethics of what they call, the "global civil war", which frankly, I think is more interesting than the weird mental gymnastics "marxists" do to not address the issue.

[Tim Cornelis]

But the idea of what is good has always reflected the interests of the ruling class.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." - Karl Marx

That is just plain ridiculous. Anti-Vietnam war protesters were convinced that what they were doing was right and good, hardly a reflection of the interests of the ruling class.

I know I'm just echoing what's already been said, but ethical opposition to capitalism (while fine) makes for poor debate. Moralism is and can be highly subjective, rendering it useless in one's approach and analysis. People will more readily understand our position if it's based on a firm scientific approach to how and why capitalism is unsustainable and inherently exploitative. If we reduce our arguments to the "evils of the corporation" we may still win sympathy, but our opposition can (and will) be more easily picked apart by individuals moralizing about "taking the money out of politics" and "electing more 'progressive' representatives." Marx and Engels correctly approached the matter from a socioeconomic and political perspective, delving into the inner contradictions that best explained capital's development, expansion, and historical trajectory. They based their analyses in the material, and while I'm sure they and many others opposed the system on some moral level, they understood the importance of looking at capitalism from a position that best reflected its inner development and impact.

Not necessarily. I always work from the assumption that a person already values freedom and democracy to some degree. If he does not (for example, an ultra-conservative or fascist) I don't bother arguing given that we are too subjectively apart.

If we can use a right-wing libertarian's logic and reasoning into an anti-capitalist critique, it's highly efficient. Likewise, not everyone can easily comprehend a complex, sophisticated, critique of capitalism.

If you walk up to a worker, I doubt anyone would lecture about a falling rate of profit, historical materialism, and the labour theory of value. Rather, one would argue that socialism would guarantee healthcare, eliminate poverty and unemployment, etc.

Incidentally, saying that capitalism is "inherently exploitative" is in itself anti-scientific as it subjective. A capitalist, even agreeing with Marx' critique, would still contend wage-labour voluntary exchange.

There are things universally regarded as wrong by everybody. Murdering an old lady walking down the street, for example.

So no old lady has ever been killed by anyone in the history of humanity? I find that hard to believe.

We still all nonetheless invoke these qualities because we can universally agree that they are good. Morality is based on reason and feeling. The feeling reminds us that it is there, and reason is used to discover what it means to be compassionate, to be fair, to be just.

And is feeling not highly subjective?

Morality isn't invented, it is innate. Your interpretation of morality is subjective, yes, but morality itself exists innately.

Where does innate, objective morality exist? How does it exist? Who invented it?

The only way one can argue in favour of objective morality is to believe in some deity.

[Ostrinski]

There does exist a proletarian morality, as does there exist a bourgeois morality. The problem is that there is no concrete way of measuring which is objective, because as ideas they were given rise to by different conditions. Like all other ideas, they are only as legitimate as their historical and social context can permit them.

And as we've seen throughout the history of class society, the channeling of mere ideas into socially enforced ideology represents these ideas being employed in the name of class interest (ideology is merely a political weapon). So bourgeois morality is not objective, for it can only exist in relation to the bourgeoisie. Take the bourgeoisie out of the picture and bourgeois morality has no function. The same for proletarian morality and the proletariat.

So a moral argument against capitalism is important because it can resonate with people, but not because we are arrogant enough to think that we have the moral high ground. But at the same time, we understand that we have nothing in common with the bourgeoisie, and so do not wish to ideologically compromise with them, but instead crush the existence of their ideology and the circumstances that make it relevant.

[Thirsty Crow]

We (Marxists) oppose capitalism, on basis, because we understand it's systemic contradictions, and it's inevitable destruction.

All teleology should be purged from Marxism. There is nothing about the destruction of capitalism that is "inevitable" (or do you think, in a magnificently scientific way, that history is on a predetermined course?)

If capitalism could support Free Healthcare, Social welfare, Jobs and housing for all, etc., if it could "work", we wouldn't oppose it.

Okay, but then, let me ask you this: why do you find these worthy of bringing about the opposition to capitalism? What's so terrible in the absence of free healthcare, social welfare, in unemployment? On what basis do you conclude that these social problems should be taken as a justification of an oppositon to capitalism?

[Tim Cornelis]

All teleology should be purged from Marxism. There is nothing about the destruction of capitalism that is "inevitable" (or do you think, in a magnificently scientific way, that history is on a predetermined course?)

Indeed, a consistent economic determinist should not advocate socialism at all. After all, materially, neo-feudalism could be succeed capitalism as well (if capitalism destroys resources to such a degree that the productive forces collapse). Economic determinists should not favour socialism over neo-feudalism. They should not make normative claims but be open to any alternative mode of production that could follow capitalism.