[lbo-talk] religion and marxism

Eubulides paraconsistent at comcast.net
Thu Nov 20 20:29:15 PST 2008


James Heartfield wrote:
> Carrol
> 'between Marx & xtianity,the sharpest contrast: there are no "ethical precepts" in Marx. He doesn't even condemn capitalism morally:
> it is not evil, it's history.'
>
> Yes, broadly I would agree with that, though there is a moral goal, just not one that takes the form of an abstract imperative. The moral goal in Marxism is human development. He thinks that social organisation ought to promote the widest possible human development. The case against capitalism is, as Carrol says, that it has outlived its usefulness, it has become a barrier to human development. The difference between Marx's morality and the moral imperative is that it is relative to the possibilities of the given stage of development. It is well captured by Engels, when he says that even (ancient) slavery was an advance over what went before (killing of prisoners), though at a higher stage of development, of course, persisting in slavery is depraved.

==============

Of course, one could gerrymander through KM's corpus and make the argument that the collective habituation to varieties of vocabularies called "moral" were themselves overcomeable fetters on human development; that aesthetics would displace the desire to speak moralese with all the attendant coercions involved....Moral discourse misanalyzes and misprescribes social behavior and creates ever more constraints on the "free development of each..." when what is desirable is all that stuff Ted writes about when he's lucid.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list