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
It’s a bit of a shock at first, but then you realize that Marxism not needing morality at all for its arguments does not at all mean you cannot fight for what you believe is morally correct based on Marxist understanding. Supporting Palestine is absolutely the morally correct position, and Marxism supports it even if you throw morality out the window.
It becomes a strength for rhetoric.
The dialectic of mutual aid and later the dialectic of social ecology both address these.
If you would like to read about these from a Marxist perspective I recommend checking out Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution by Peter Kropotikin. You could also learn about social ecology by reading Bookchin… but he’s a massive asshole.