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
the moral argument inside marxism is that exploitation is bad (and human free time good). but it doesn’t do microlevel moral arguments, trolleys and whatever else, so you can fit anything you like under there. (it’s treated as self evident, but you can only watch so much politicians getting elected on tightening the belts/removing holidays/moving retirement age/increasing working hours to realize that significant portion of population doesn’t see anything wrong with working more to receive less)
you can be utilitarian marxist or deontological marxist or just vaguely catholic do unto others marxist or whatever else, the moral arguments marxists are dismissive of are from laws as they currently as morality core of anything (killing bad is self obvious, not so much that using solar power without local electricity company approval is bad)