[lbo-talk] Progress and Cariucature (Was Re: Catholicism. . . )

[andie nachgeborenen]

Sure, it's just a neutral factual observation, and like the rest of Marx's prophetic condemnations of capitalism, an ad hominem remark noting the inconsistency of bourgeois ethics (which, rejecting all ethics) he doesn't share, with bourgeois reality. Marx's real basis for "condemning" capitalism is not that it is exploitative, oppressive, destroys human flourishing, enslaves workers to the capitalist class, causes mass poverty, leads to war and unspeakable cruel colonialism, or any of the other moral-sounding pronouncement that he makes. 

It is that capitalism is doomed by its own internal dynamics and destined to give way to socialism. Socialism may be internally "justified" by its own morality suited to that mode of production, which does not, of course apply to capitalism nor can it be used to condemn capitalism.  Oops, we can't even say that if we take Carrol's line that Marx doesn't believe in progress. 

This this actually Marx's _official_ line about morality, btw. It makes no sense unless you think that inevitability is a sort of justification because there's no point in criticizing what can't be avoided, but that sort of makes it pointless to criticism, for example the wars and colonialism capitalism generates as long as capitalism is still developing the forces of production. 

That was the late Bill Warren's line on imperialism. Likewise it makes it pointless to criticize capitalism itself as long as capitalism has constructive work to do, inso far as we can characterize "constructive" in value neutral terms (Just try.) That is Lord Desai's current "legal Marxist" take on capitalism. And it is totally at variance with Marx's strongly moralistic language.

 

--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:


> From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Progress and Cariucature (Was Re: Catholicism. . . )
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 10:58 AM
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:21:12 -0500
> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>   
> > So what's behind an outburst like: "If money,
> According to Augier,  
> > 'comes into the world with a congenital
> blood-stain on one cheek,'  
> > capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every
> pore, with blood  
> > and dirt"? Detached scientific observation? 
> 
> Part of his critique of the bourgeoisie's
> self-justification -- 
> that is,*its* attempts to moralize its rule? Just a
> thought. 
> 
> Besides, making allowance for metaphor, the observation 
> is, well, factually correct, isn't it? 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk