> What's the difference, really?
> Sometimes I think that Marx's
> hostility towards moral or
> ethical judgments comes from
> contempt for the admittedly
> sentimental positions of utopians
> and a desire instead to be
> scientific. But if you don't
> have some moral or ethical
> objection to exploitation, why
> do you have a problem with
> capitalism?
I'd say "of course," but I haven't follow the entire thread. And I imagine that these are precisely the points in dispute.
Marx's economic critique of capitalism is not meant to exclude the natural moral indignation that capitalism arises. It's supposed to provide that moral indignation with a sound basis. No moral indignation, no struggle. Shifts in moral mass consciousness -- as Engels noted in a famous posthumous preface to one of Marx's works (can't remember which one now) -- is required for old social structures (e.g. slavery) to be dissolved and new ones to be built.
(By the way, Marx had in great esteem Engels' descriptive study of the condition of industrial workers in England. One of merits of Engels' book, which Marx held in high regard, was -- as Marx wrote somewhere -- that it showed the *moral* degradation that capitalism caused on the direct producers. The moral condition of workers, their ability to passionately reject the status quo, Marx deemed crucial in the workers' struggle to emancipate themselves.)
As an individual, Marx did have a moral compass. For the reasons noted by Doug, he wasn't inclined to rub that on people's faces. And his moral sensibility did evolve through his (critical) engagement with religion, as a young man. And for Marx, "critique" wasn't mere rejection, but sublation as well.
* * *
"But the chief guide which must direct us in the choice of a profession is the welfare of mankind and our own perfection. It should not be thought that these two interests could be in conflict, that one would have to destroy the other; on the contrary, man's nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only by working for the perfection, for the good, of his fellow men.
"If he works only for himself, he may perhaps become a famous man of learning, a great sage, an excellent poet, but he can never be a perfect, truly great man.
"History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy; religion itself teaches us that the ideal being whom all strive to copy sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, and who would dare to set at nought such judgments?
"If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people."
Marx (1835) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/marx/1835-ref.htm
* * *
"The internal difficulties seem to be almost greater than the external obstacles. For although no doubt exists on the question of "Whence," all the greater confusion prevails on the question of "Whither." Not only has a state of general anarchy set in among the reformers, but everyone will have to admit to himself that he has no exact idea what the future ought to be. On the other hand, it is precisely the advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old one. Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally. But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx (1843) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
* * *
"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But for man the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that it proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved forsaken, despicable being...."
Marx (1844) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm