44
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Sator_is_Tense@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

i am so incredibly used to defending good things by explaining how they help people and make their lives better because, yeah obviously that's why good things are good and people with empathy would want that. i get that modern Western bourgeois "morality" is fucked, but if you tell people that they just think you are amoral or don't think morals are good or just don't care about them.

i'm so used to describing things and "good" and "bad" and the fact that Marxist theory just doesn't seem to bother with that throws me for a loop. and then comes the question of "well REALLY what IS morality" and whether its objective (which i dont think it possibly could be? i'm a hard atheist) and its just kind of a mess in my brain as i'm trying to parse it all out.

edit: i get that the immorality of exploitation is apparent in Marxist analysis and should be to anybody, i'm more talking about how the argument isn't framed as a moral one, because then you can get really annoying people in there trying to facts-and-logic their way out of it, if that makes sense

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Juice@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago

Right so, Marxism replaces objective morality with subject/object concretion. This does not mean removing people from the equation, on the contrary, it is a more comprehensive way of adding humans to "objective" analysis.

Where morality fails, is really well described by Nietzsche in "On the Genealogy of Morals." Nietzsche is a really frustrating author and I really don't recommend him as a philosopher (I do like his writing though), but he makes a really good point that objective morality ends up creating two moralities, one for the exploiter and one for the exploited. Like a shared set of principles that have different meanings based on who you are. This idea in the abstract maps pretty cleanly onto capitalist class antagonisms. Marx said that "in every era, the dominant ideology is the ideology by of the ruling class." What a particular moral axiom means is determined by power, via hegemony, regardless of what we as leftists and workers want it to mean.

Marxism, rather than turning society and free will into abstractions, demands us to be not just teachers of conditions, but students. The Ricardian labor theory of value finds its truth in the way it centers people in every part of the economy, Marx expands on this by defining people not only as abstract parts of society, but thinking, feeling, experiencing subjects that change the world based in their experiences in it. The Marxist doesn't tell people what is good and bad, the Marxist organizes people to go into the areas where oppression occurs and do the work of helping people understand our shared conditions. We organize people on the basis of their shared experiences, where capitalism alienates and isolates people from each other, from nature, from themselves.

Only when we understand how to organize our local conditions, can we organize localities and particular industries into regional and national delegations, who share experiences and coordinate action on the basis of class interests. Regional and national organizing is able to organize internationally, to achieve victories that local organizing can never accomplish. And we do it all by centering people and their experiences of oppression and exploitation.

Morality is cultural, and culture is part of the superstructure. We have an imperative to create counter hegemonies, which may include culture and morality, but achieving a "moral" society is not the strategy. We have to understand our place in society, as individuals who create society through our actions, that our actions are influenced by ideas, which are developed through our experiences in contemplation and in our lives. Morals are static, Marxism is dynamic. Morals hide contradiction, the world and people are inherently contradictory. The world can change because people can change. But people won't change if we don't first try to relate to them and understand how their experiences are, in fact, objective truth, even if the way they understand those experiences is backward and sometimes reactionary.

The fact is, we Marxists often have some weird ideas too, until we get involved in practical work. While hiding contradiction, morality creates new contradictions! If we are to commit to revolution we must commit to the truth. Not peoples idea of what the truth is, or "should be".

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
44 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8634 readers
318 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS