Briefly on What is Marxist Ethics? - Getting stuck on bourgeois and petty bourgeois ethics

Moral beliefs associated with ethics are understandings related to the relations of production which determine and produce them. These beliefs vary from society to society based on the economic and political structure of any given society. What is ethical what is not, is determined in relation to  the ownership of the means  of production and based on the relations of production - circulation of production.

In a class divided society, whether it be a feudal or capitalist, the framework of ideological beliefs creates ethical beliefs for the justification of relations of production and promotes it for the ratification in the interests of the owners of means of production. These beliefs become universally valid ethical "knowledge" accepted and followed by the members of that society and by the believers of that ideology. In some cases, it becomes so universal,  those ethics are considered valid and followed by even those who are against that given society and to the ideology.

Living in a class-divided society for long time, person becomes the victim of spontaneous "false consciousness" where men believe such ethics justifying the class division and relations is, and must be a universal ethical value to be practiced. These ethical values, either be imposed or preferential, are in fact ideological traditional values not acquired by free choice but through false consciousness.

If we briefly summarize; concept of what is right and wrong is not independent of the relations of production. On every society good and bad differ and relative to the society one lives in, and his/her relation to the means of production.

Marx establishes his position, as an essential aspect of materialist philosophy, that there is no good or bad. The opposition of good and bad is not a dialectic, he says, but only a "mystery" of bourgeois morality.

Marx criticizes and mocks Proudhon on his Poverty of Philosophy, as having merely modified the Hegel's Dialectic;

""For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides –one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history…… The good side and the bad side, the advantages and the drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category. The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.

“Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery [!]. .”

"The value of slavery is not in any good inherent in the abstract concept of its thesis - we have left aside its 'bad' side -- and it seems that the 'good' side is good only relative to whether you think that it is 'good' to have a system built upon slavery at all"

As we have witnessed in numerous cases, bourgeois does not go by its own ethics, but redefines it as it fits;

It is "ethical" to glorify the war, and bourgeois media show nothing about the cruelness of the war, yet, it is "unethical" to show the real face of the war.

It is "ethical" to broadcast and print the government propaganda materials as "news", yet it is "unethical" to broadcast and print any anti-government material with the pretext that they are propaganda..

It is ethical to consider a general or an embedded journalist as an “independent”, “impartial”, “reliable” source for a news, yet it is “unethical” to consider the “victim” or “witnesses who contradicts” the ‘reliable source”, as a reliable source..

What is good, what is bad, what is reliable, what is not, what is within the “ethics” what is “unethical‘, -as far as the “truth” (manipulated or not) is concerned, and whose interests the “truth” serves - are all relative to “which side” you are on.

There is always  only one truth, the truth itself. In any given event, the “event itself” is the only truth. Anything related to the event; (who, why, when, how,) can be manipulated and always differs depending on the sides involved in, affected by the event and the ideology of sides. Thus, they are not “truth”, per say, but merely “comments” on the events by two opposing sides, ideologies involved in.

At the same token, Marxist approach to the question of what is ethical, what is not,  cannot be based on what is suggested , thought, and admitted as "Gods commandments"  in a bourgeois society.

""very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue … instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they (bourgeoisie) based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God's commandments. ```` Lenin on the Tasks of The Youth Leagues

More often quoted Kautsky on the subject, suggests ethics is more biological than sociological. However, contradictory, and in most cases, antagonistic ethical understanding in various parts of the world, defies his suggestion. Where there is life and human beings, there always will be ethical understandings, but those will be shaped by the dominant ideology at that given period. Ethical believes stem from the class relations and thus, it  is ideological.

If not all, most bourgeois, even feudal ethical understandings are in some way or another related to "ownership", "property", "meta relationships", "product relationship", "authority relationship" etc. It is not a value of a person but of a social, economic, political relationship. These relationships shape individuals ethical perspective in reference to what is moral what is not. Dominant classes through its control of means of mental production, as well as means of production, instills the dominant ethics and attitudes in a given society.

Dominant ethical values in a class divided society serve for  the justification and ratification of social relations. They reflect the ideology of dominant class. The relation of production, the inherent opposition between proletariat and bourgeoisie, determines all other activities and shapes the world outlook , especially that of "ethics".

Thus,  as a question,  for Marxist Leninist, ethics is a question of  eliminating the class divided society where the ethics will not be imposed on, but developed by the people through their relations to and with each other as human beings. Creation of a new society where the conditions will empower them to exercise real freedom and real freedom of choice, including the choice of what is right what is wrong. .

Struggle to build such a society, in fact has the fundamental ethical principle of  being against  exploitation of man by man. Marxist ethics are derived from political struggle, because ethical question is inseparably linked to the questions of ideology and class, to the ideological and class struggle.

“The  working classes have no fixed and perfect utopias to introduce…they have no ideals to realise; they have only to set at liberty  the elements of the new society  which have already  been developed in the womb of the collapsing bourgeois  society”.: Karl Marx, 1871 , The Civil War in France,

For Marxist Leninist, any ethic must first be seen as an ethic of struggle and resistance. Ethics are derived from political practice, and the fundamental production of difference means that the politics is particular to each class and segmented within each, because ethical question is inseparably linked to the questions of ideology and class, to the ideological and class struggle.

As far as the class struggle is concerned, any bourgeois ethics,  somehow adhered to, in reality, serves as the justification for bourgeois morality – which does not exist, but imposed on.

“”””We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists. “” Lenin on the Tasks of The Youth Leagues

Marx in The Manifesto of the three Zürichers clearly states that when one joins the proletarian party, "the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, or petty bourgeois etc., prejudices with them."  Bourgeois ethic is such one, because as Marx points out, “it is not predicated on emancipation”.

Lenin asks the question; 

”But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. "" Lenin's words on the Tasks of The Youth Leagues set the foundation of Marxist Ethics;

 “”`We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.” 

Marxists do not limit the class struggle within the boundaries drawn by the bourgeoisie, and do not wage ideological struggle with  bourgeois ethical rules and within the bourgeois ethical boundaries. 

Gramsci, on his Maximalism and Extremism says , " (maximalist) also believes that it would be pointless to act and struggle day after day; he is only waiting for the great day. The masses – he says – cannot but come to us, because the objective situation is driving them to the revolution. And so let’s wait....(..) Comrade Lenin has taught us that in order to defeat our class enemy, who is strong, who has many means and reserves at his disposal, we must exploit every crack in his front""..

Marxists can not wage an ideological struggle against those -who have every means of mental production in its disposal - within the boundaries of their ethical rules by which they themselves do not abide, but expect others to do so. 

Gramsci, on his War is War article states ; 

""Understanding and knowing how to accurately assess one’s enemy, means possessing a necessary condition for victory. Understanding and knowing how to assess one’s own forces, and their position on the battlefield, means possessing another very important condition for victory.""

An ideological class struggle within the boundaries of bourgeois ethical rules, without the assessment and considering the concrete balance of power at any given time, can only be defined as Maximalist not a Marxist Leninist one.

The question is not a struggle over "ethics", ethics are derived from the practice of class struggle and justifies the ideology of dominant class. The question is class struggle - and the inseparable ideological struggle.

Repeating Lenin's words  ”`our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat”. 

Marxists should get rid of, especially, the ethical rules derive from and related to the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois concepts like "my", "mine", "ownership" ,"property", "competition", "credit" etc., while waging ideological struggle - and (to answer the subject question ) making the Marxist Leninist sources easily accessible and available to the masses for socialist education. Either let people rely on abundant bourgeois sources, wait, and expect them to find "needle in the haystack" and educate themselves, or try every day to increase the number of "needles in haystack" .

Erdogan A
December 25, 2017