[Xmca-l] Re: If economics is immune from ethics, why should exploitation be a topic of discussion in economics?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Wed Jul 18 18:57:30 PDT 2018
Yes. The 1844 Manuscripts contain more obviously ethical
language and ideas than /Capital/ does at first sight, but
we still have the same contradiction that wherever Marx
addresses Ethics he dismisses it. In the later works he
seems to be advocating a "scientific objectivism" which is
not so much the case with 1844. I neglected to mention in
responding to Harshad, that Marx also rejected with
justified contempt "emotivist" approaches to Ethics, i.e.,
the reduction of Ethics to feelings and preferences, which
became very fashionable in the decades after his death. As
you could see from that link I posted, the Social Democracy
made a lot of efforts to fill this gap, but this was all
swept away with the Russian Revolution and the Third
International. I think it is only via Hegel that a Marxist
Ethics can be recovered, but it is challenging.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 19/07/2018 11:12 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
> Sorry, I misread your post Andy. Don't think my question
> really makes sense in light of your meaning. (I assume
> that you'd agree with the sentiment of my question...).
> -greg
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Andy, that's very interesting/informative.
> Would you say that this is true for his 1844 economic
> and philosophical manuscripts as well? I'm thinking of
> the notion of "species being" as an ethical concept.
>
> This is all well over my head, but I thought I'd try
> the question.
> -greg
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> Harshad,
>
> According to Marx, "exploitation," as he uses the
> concept in /Capital/, is not an ethical concept at
> all; it simply means making a gain by utilising an
> affordance, as in "exploiting natural resources."
> Many "Marxist economists" today adhere to this
> view. However, I am one of those that hold a
> different view. And the legacy of Stalinism is
> evidence of some deficit in the legacy of Marx's
> writing - it was so easy for Stalin to dismiss
> ethics as just so much nonsense and claim the
> mantel of Marxism!
>
> Much as I admire Marx, he was wrong on Ethics. He
> was a creature of his times in this respect, or
> rather in endeavouring to /not/ be a creature of
> his times, he made an opposite error. He held all
> ethics in contempt as if religion had a monopoly
> on this topic, and it were nothing more than some
> kind of confidence trick to fool the masses. (Many
> today share this view.) In fact, contrary to his
> own self-consciousness, /Capital/ is a seminal
> work of ethics.
>
> The problem stems from Hegel and from Marx's
> efforts to make a positive critique of Hegel. As
> fine a work of Ethics as Hegel's /Philosophy of
> Right/ is, it had certain problems which Marx had
> to overcome. These included Hegel's insistence
> that the state alone could determine right and
> wrong (the state could of course make errors, but
> in the long run there is no extramundane source of
> Right beyond the state). This was something
> impossible for Marx to accept. And yet Hegel's
> idea of Ethics as something objective, contained
> in the evolving forms of life (rather than Pure
> Reason inherent in every individual as Kant held,
> or from God via His agents on Earth, the
> priesthood), Marx wished to embrace and continue.
>
> So the situation is very complex. The foremost
> work on Ethics was authored by a person who did
> not believe they wrote about Ethics at all.
>
> Here is a page with lots of resources on this
> question:
> https://www.marxists.org/subject/ethics/index.htm
> <https://www.marxists.org/subject/ethics/index.htm>
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> On 18/07/2018 2:54 PM, Harshad Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why do we discuss on exploitation?
>>
>> As per Marx's views, ethics has no influence on
>> economic processes. Does exploitation have no
>> link with ethical feelings? The sense of
>> exploitation is absolutely linked with our
>> ethical feelings. If economics is immune from
>> influence of ethics and sense of /*exploitation*/
>> is founded on our ethical evaluation, then
>> discussion on /*exploitation*/ should not find
>> place in the topics of economics/political economics.
>> Harshad Dave
>> hhdave15@gmail.com <mailto:hhdave15@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Harshad Dave
>> hhdave15@gmail.com <mailto:hhdave15@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180719/c7aae553/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list