[lbo-talk] biz ethics and slavery

[Charles Brown]

Does it make any difference from the perspective of the Engels' critique
that Chuck Grimes said that capitalism has no ethics, which is amoral, not
immoral ? Capitalism is atheistic too. The bourgeoisie qua bourgeoisie are
atheistic. Atheism is an advantage over "believing" from the standpoint of
political strategy in the class struggle.

C

From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>

It seems to me that the argument between Justin & Chuck G overlaps the
argument between Justin & Miles.

I do think it wrong to call capitalism immoral, for reasons analogous to
the reasons Miles has been giving on the other issue. Morality is
history-bound, not transcendent. Hence the charge that capitalism is
immoral or unethical is a claim that the judge is outside history, but
that is the implicit claim in all capitalist ideology.

Hence to call capitalism immoral is to fall victim oneself to capitalist
ideology. Miles had it right when he wrote: "All of this is why moral
philosophy drives me bonkers." Moral judgments (in contrast to judgments
of political incorrectness) invariably generate incoherence -- the
irresolvable clash of opposing metaphysical positions.

But I think Engels saves Chuck from the from Justin's charge of cynicism
when (in his Introduction to the German edition of _Poverty of
Philosophy_) he notes that judgments of the immorality of capitalism
while wrong are indications that capitalism has exhausted its
intellectual resources. My paraphrase, from memory, goes considerably
beyond what Engels himself claims, but I think current posts by Miles,
Justin, & Chuck are illustratory of this bankruptcy -- that is, of the
necessity to achieve a perspective "outside" capitalism _without_
assuming a position "outside" history. Marx's concept of reality =
struggle offers precisely that perspective.

Carrol