It's not a matter of choosing one over the other. It's a matter of recognizing differences between them.
Social theory doesn't substitute for morality, nor does morality substitute for social theory.
Morality comes first. Say, you are morally outraged by an aspect of capitalism -- racism, sexism, heterosexism, dehumanization of the disabled, international debt, poor standards of workplace safety, paucity of free time, or whatever. Then, you might become interested in searching for social theory that explains what causes what morally outrages you, in the hope that explanation of its causes will help you abolish them.
The Marxist concept of exploitation under capitalism is counter-intuitive to those who think, according to common sense, that lower-wage workers are by definition more exploited than higher-wage ones. The reason is that the Marxist concept of exploitation is not designed to describe who suffers the most under capitalism. Marxism as social theory is interested in explaining what makes capitalism what it is, unlike other modes of production, and what tendencies operate under it. Hence its interest in different manners in which surplus values are extracted, etc. At best, Marxism can help clarify a given historical conjuncture and may even point to the most pressing and promising tasks presented by it.
Kamal wrote in another thread:
>[lbo-talk] Nothing to Discuss? was Re: (no subject)
>Kamal S. southakj at mpowernet.com
>Wed Aug 18 16:37:59 PDT 2004
<snip>
>Or a systematic critique of the very notion of modern finance and
>banking itself, the underpinnings of capitalism in the form that we
>know it, usury and the system of money creation...
>
>What *are* the roots of this system that we all seem to be "anti"?
>What are its dependencies? Points of weakness and stress? Its
>"joints" so to speak?
Social theory that seeks to address such questions as Kamal raised, however, is unnecessary for those who are content to campaign for one of the presidential candidates pre-approved by the ruling class, on the basis of purely empirical comparison between the two. "Breaking with the Dems," as Shane Mage says, "is the condition sine qua non for the possibility of a long-term strategy" in the United States, for which social theory is necessary.
>[lbo-talk] Nothing to Discuss? was Re: (no subject)
>snit snat snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com
>Wed Aug 18 16:51:01 PDT 2004
<snip>
>Why you and Yoshie think it takes an army is beyond me. Moveon
>started with two guys and very little money!
MoveOn's centralist one-way communication is perfect for its political purpose: raise money for advertising campaigns for the Democratic Party and elect John Kerry. Its blatant lack of democracy makes it an unsuitable model for those who are interested in creating a movement that envisions "life after capitalism." -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>