Marxism and Morality

by Steven Lukes

It is reported that the moment anyone talked to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter. Yet, plainly, he was fired by outrage and a burning desire for a better world. This paradox is the starting point for Marxism and Morality . Discussing the positions taken by Marx, Engels, and
their descendants in relation to certain moral issues, Steven Lukes addresses the questions on which Marxist thinkers and actors have taken a number of characteristic stands as well as other questions--personal relations and the moral virtues of the individual, for example--on which Marxism falls
silent. A provocative exploration of the gray area where Marxism and morality meet, this book argues that Marxism makes a number of major moral claims and that its appeal has always been, in large part, a moral one.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics

180 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1985

About the author

Steven Michael Lukes is a political and social theorist. Currently he is a professor of politics and sociology at New York University. He was formerly a professor at the University of Siena, the European University Institute (Florence) and the London School of Economics.

Reviews

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steven Lukes offers us a pretty interesting read into Marxism and Morality. The book opens with a rather skeptical attitude toward the subject, and ends with a skeptical attitude toward Marxism post October Revolution, and a positive note regarding Marx's philosophy.

Anyone that has read a lot of Marx and anybody that knows anything has read a lot of Marx knows that clarifying a morality out of Marx's work is nearly impossible. And if not impossible, bordering on the contradictory. In some passages it's painfully clear that Marx believes the bourgeoisie are conducting a practice that is nefarious, and if not them, then society has organized itself around a heinous mode of production. But in other passages he talks about their being no such thing as moral ideals, and that appealing to morality in the class conflict, or struggle for socialism, is futile. Moreover, sometimes Marx will talk about justice being completely socially embedded, and not timeless. But then he'll say thing that imply an injustice has occurred (e.g. the capitalist steals value from the worker).

These seeming confusions have led numerous scholars all kinds of tortuous conclusions, some seemingly better than others, about what Marx really meant, or what we as socialist ought to mean.

Lukes navigates the reader through all these debates, from judgement, to emancipation (from alienation and capitalist exploitation), to means and ends. Along the way there are ethical philosophies put forward by Rosa Luxembburg, Karl Kautsky, my main man Lukacs, Trotsky, Sartre, and Merleau Ponty.

The author concludes stating that Marxism is right to reject grand ethical ideals, but simultaneously it needs to be less ambiguous and condescending of morals, to avoid the crimes committed in its name.

[Kevin K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book. Marxism is generally approached from an economic perspective, but it's hard to grasp it from that angle. Economics is such a complicated, disputed discipline — you're bound to get tangled up the branches, quibbling over minutiae. Equations flying, conflicting "experts" etc. etc.

Morality is a much better entry point. It cuts at a cross-section down low, near the root, so you can see how Marxism actually works. The key feature of Marxism from a moral standpoint is its extreme consequentialism. In short, the end justifies virtually any means. Like Bentham and other utilitarians, Marxists rejected the idea of universal human rights. First, because Marxism has a quasi-tribal moral system according to which (as Trotsky put it) one should not "apply the self-same moral norms to the oppressors and the oppressed." To put it bluntly, oppressors are disqualified by their behavior from being fully human. Second, because Marxism rejects bourgeois rights like the "right to private property" as a phony facade for protecting bourgeois interests.

Like other consequentialist schemes, Marxism is plagued by its inability to predict the future. That is, we can't have a workable moral system which judges the "goodness" of options today based on their consequences tomorrow (or fifty years from now) if we can't make reliable predictions. Marxism massaged this problem by: a) declaring the absolute certainty of a shining communist future (thanks to Marx's "science" of history), while b) avoiding any clear specification or debate about that future as "utopian." This was the germ of a perfect storm of moral nihilism.

It was interesting to learn that in 1937 John Dewey, the American Pragmatist, spent two weeks conducting hearings and speaking with Trotsky at his fortified villa in Mexico City. Dewey's diagnosis was this: if we are to justify the means by the ends, the ends can't merely be an intent. If that were the case, then any act could be justified by a sincere do-gooder. The means must be justified by the actual objective results. And that's where Marxism went wrong. Rather than establishing a clearly specified endpoint, and carefully examining the merits of different means of reaching that endpoint, Marxism failed to set any endpoint at all (aside from glittering generalities) and asserted that only class struggle could get the job done. Lukes writes:

In short, the whole case was prejudged; it was as though a biologist were to 'assert that a certain law of biology which he accepts is so related to the end of health that the means of aiming at health — the only means — can be deduced from it, so that no further examination of biological phenomenon is needed.'"

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Again, I will repeat this ad nauseum until all have acquiesced to my view: the system of awarding stars out of 5 is a dud. What do you give a useful, interesting book that you can find no fault with? If you give such book 5 stars, then timeless classics will get the same. This book is highly useful and interesting - I would even say important - but its text is less than 150 pages and one can read it briskly. I recommend it highly.

Essentially, the author has pored through the Marxist literature in order to fill an intellectual void in many people's thinking about Marxism. Since Marxism purports to be 'scientific,' it does not generally deal with how state or society should be organized to provide for things like respect for human rights, dignity of the individual, etc. In fact, Marx himself used to burst out in uproarious laughter whenever anyone asked him about morality. So the question naturally arises: is there morality in Marxism?

Very well worth reading. Like many of the best books, it is apparently out of print. A new copy on Amazon will costs about $500. I got mine from a university library. It is due back in mid-February.

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting book, one that should be much more widely read than it is. Lukes, with the goal of socialist free-thought, examines the widely varying and seemingly paradoxical conceptions of morality that have existed within the marxist tradition. Looking at the non-compatibility of many conceptions of morality with the marxian idea of liberation, he argues the idea of ends justifying the means is implicit in marxist morality. That contradiction of working towards human liberation, while simultaneously pursuing any means necessary, can ultimately lead to a disregarding of the fate of real human beings. He argues that this contradictory conception would philosophically justify what would become Stalinism. He does also show how there is much truth in the marxist critiques of bourgeois morality and ethics. In the end, as a socialist that is very sympathetic to marxism, I think this book made a very strong argument; it is certainly worth reading and grappling with.

[Qin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish there's more case analysis in relations to his theories and that if he could use simple/simpler language. Theories per se are interesting and well argued but didn't really probe the origin or the history of such power that comes into place.