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

  • Sabbo [it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    There is ethical Marxism. By applying Marxist analysis to the field of biology Peter Kropotikin discovered the phenomenon of mutual aid, which he proposed in his book by the same name. Essentially, he observed that creatures that help each other are better off than those that don’t. This school of Marxism became known as anarcho-communism. Eventually this would merge with black anarchism and Maoism to become communalism (Modern anarchism)

    If you’re interested in this you should read Post Scarcity Anarchism or The Conquest of Bread.