> Actually, three. It's also that classical Marxist insistence on being
> "scientific," which is one of Marxism's less fortunate aspects. I'm as
> hostile to the moralizing, Amy Goodman style of left politics as the
> next guy, but to deny any appeal to morality comes off as ludicrous.
>
> Doug
The Ollman chapter that Carrol mentioned earlier in the thread is helpful here (online at http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/a_ch04.php). The claim that we should use abstract, universal principles to judge specific acts is capitalist ideology through and through. Just as appeals to abstract, univeral human nature ("human beings are naturally selfish and competitive") obscure the actual social relations by which capitalism creates selfish and competitive people, the notion that acts of condemnation and approval must be based on some universal standards "floating above" human relations encourages us to glorify reifications rather than the sensuous human social activity that in fact makes possible those social standards.
--Another analogy: Marx's critique of religion. Social relations and activities literally create a God that is then granted divine authority over those who created Him! Again, the incredible constitutive power of social activity is obscured and replaced with an abstraction.
Thus the "appeal to morality" is in fact a rhetorical and political strategy that reinforces capitalist ideology. Sure, the notion that acts of condemnation should be based on universal moral standards is common in our society, but so are many other aspects of capitalist ideology (e.g., attributing poverty to laziness and stupidity). To argue that we must "appeal to morality" to justify our political goals is exactly analogous to arguing that we must attribute poverty to individual characteristics to justify our political goals. In each case, we're perpetuating ideology that reinforces the social system we're trying to overthrow.
One further point. Ollman notes, as Doug has before, that Marx repeatedly condemned capitalism and approved of communist social relations (cue Ted W). However, those acts of condemnation and approval are not logical inferences from some pre-existing universal standards of morality that Marx advocates; rather, they are contingent products of the social relations in which those acts are embedded. (See Ollman for an explication of this.) --So: does Marx engage in "appeals to morality"? If you mean "does he approve of some things and condemn others?", sure, in this trivial sense, Marx is a moralist. If you mean "does he approve of some things and condemn others based on abstract moral principles?", Marx is clearly not a moralist.
Miles