[Marxism] why did Marx reject moral?
james.irldaly at ntlworld.com
Sat Oct 8 06:13:45 MDT 2005
such state-doctrines as Che Guevara’s “don’t expect anything but
sacrifices from socialism”, I find at least troubling. Don’t you think
this call was meant to entail acceptance of the “broken eggs” that the
Cuban revolution (for all its good sides) produced?
I was not sufficiently explicit in my use of the famous expression
"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". I meant the
belief that the end justifies the means, which would be contrary to
morality. (In fact it is logically implied by Bentham's
utilitarianism, but that is not adverted to by its popular followers
nowadays). That is why I referred to Machiavellianism, which I was
taking as a logical outcome of any immoralism. You seem to think that
they are not connected, but I would like to hear on what grounds you
think so. -- My belief that the masses would not accept
Machiavellianism is, I suppose, just an educated guess.
On "asceticism": it is Puritan rather than Catholic, and I share
Marx's belief that communism would rather favour a cornucopia of many
sided human development. But the good life and a good time are not
the same thing. Your picture of the walkout by someone whose partner
(rather, sexual object) no longer sexually arouses him/her suggests a
pure hedonism which Marx explicitly rejected.
The heart of your position seems to be an argument derived from Marx's
self defence against Stirner, a theorist whom anarchists still look to
(along with Nietzsche). Stirner, in defence of the idealist bourgeois
possessive [existentialist] individualism of *The Unique One and His
Property*, attacked Feuerbachian humanism as an idolatry of
[essentialist] "Man", a sacred cause demanding devouement or
sacrifice. Marx's [materialist] reply was that bourgeois society
demanded sacrifice -- e.g. thrift -- but that communist society would
be a social structure which both expressed and enabled human caring,
so that human beings need no longer be possessive individualists, but
their natural concern for each other would be released.
During the time of struggle for such community, there is a necessity
for dull drudgery such as Marx endured in the British library, or the
inspiring nobility (Marx's word) of a Che Guevara. When the
revolution comes, we'll celebrate el Che's memory with a Fiesta.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julius Wilm" <jwilm at ruc.dk>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] why did Marx reject moral?
: Dear James.
: I can not follow your argument, that because the a/immoral Marxist
: outlook has not attracted the masses, they hence(?) never will. In
: I cannot see how visions for the future which base themselves on the
: present outlook of the masses, could see anything but conservatism
More information about the Marxism