this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22763 readers
626 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

aimixin talks about morality and Marxism:

Saying Marxism isn't about morality or excludes morality isn't meant to say Marxists are immoral or amoral. It's sort like, computer science doesn't talk about morality, but that doesn't make computer science immoral, or software developers amoral. They're just separate topics.

Marxism is meant to treat socioeconomic development as a material science. Biology and chemistry can inform doctors on how to make medicine and what medicine to prescribe people. But biology and chemistry themselves do not prescribe anything. Prescriptions require some sort of stated end goal, which is subjective.

Stalin says something similar in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, where he points out that political economy is the study of objective laws of social development which are outside of the control of the government, that the government's policies are not equivalent to political economy as a science but are prescriptions informed by the science.

This is what Marx had to say on the subject.

Communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or in its highflown ideological form; they rather demonstrate its material source, with which it disappears of itself. The Communists do not preach morality at all.

They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much selflessness, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the Communists by no means want to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", selfless man. That is a statement of the imagination.

—Marx, The German Ideology

In some sense, you can argue there is a Marxist morality, but not from the perspective of subjective prescriptions, but merely an attempt to explain an objective origin to already existing morality. Such as, the origin of liberal viewpoints, which are heavily steeped in morality, clearly emanate from the capitalist mode of production. One could also argue a socialist society would produce a different kind of morality, but this would not be a prescription but would have to be demonstrated with evidence.

I don't think there is any reason to try and force morality or ethics into Marxism. Marxism does not need to be some all-encompassing worldview. It's fine to get your beliefs and views from other sources. I am influenced by many writers, many of whom are not Marxist. I don't get all my ideas from one source, I don't feel a need to somehow make Marxism all-encompassing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

morality has never been easy to disentangle from history because everyone interfaces with material changes around them through a lens colored by superstructure. that means that in the application of marxism it's always been impossible to keep them at arms length, and it's counterproductive to try. e.g. here's rosa

Thus, injustice by itself is certainly not an argument with which to overthrow reactionary institutions. If, however, there is a feeling of injustice in large segments of society – says Friedrich Engels, the co-founder of scientific socialism – it is always a sure sign that the economic bases of the society have shifted considerably, that the present conditions contradict the march of development. The present forceful movement of millions of proletarian women who consider their lack of political rights a crying wrong is such an infallible sign, a sign that the social bases of the reigning system are rotten and that its days are numbered.

or lenin

You have to build up a communist society. In many respects half of the work has been done. The old order has been destroyed, just as it deserved, it has been turned into a heap of ruins, just as it deserved. The ground has been cleared, and on this ground the younger communist generation must build a communist society. ...

The entire purpose of training, educating and teaching the youth of today should be to imbue them with communist ethics.

But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is.

or marx himself

Shame is a kind of anger turned in on itself. And if a whole nation were to feel ashamed it would be like a lion recoiling in order to spring.

later marx would be alarmed by this subjectivity and try to set at least his historical method on transhistorical footing, but marxism is more than philosophers interpreting the world; in fact as praxis it aims to repair "the complete rift between books and practical life"

so I see at least a couple of pieces which frustrate attempts to put marxism into a little economic box:

  • nobody is really a material interest maximizing robot, making moral sensibilities a key aspect of class struggle
  • marxism acknowledges and celebrates the human drive for progressive change and expects the proletariat to finally seize "real possibilities of human freedom and happiness" (which necessarily includes building a communist culture that encompasses all spheres of social life)

lastly just to touch on your stalin quote, check out mao's review of that book, he calls stalin's blindness on this issue "almost altogether wrong"