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

  • Salah [ey/em]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    Moralism disguises the power struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist and ruling classes. If you frame class struggle as a moral issue, it makes room for difference in opinion. By shifting the conversation to a material analysis, you remove any room for disagreement because you can just show that it is in the interest of every proletarian to organize towards socialism and communism.

    Liberalism has shifted all conversation and education about politics towards moralism instead of power struggle, which is probably why it comes more natural to you and many others to look at politics through a moralist framework. That’s what you’ve learned to do and have been doing most of your life. Political education is important to change the frame through which you engage with politics to one based on dialectical materialism.