An Discrimination and Defence —— The Exploration of the “Amoralism” of Marxism〔*〕

Lv Liangshan,Sun Ning

(School of Philosophy and Public AdministrationLiaoning University, Shenyang Liaoning 110136)

Around the relationship between Marxism and morality,Anglo-American scholars who devoted in Marxism have launched a series of arguments since the 1980s,one of which is whether there is a paradox in Marx’s morality.On the one hand,in Mars’s works,we can explicitly find his rejection of morality.On the other hand,we also find that Marx’s writings are full of moral criticism of capitalism.Marx,Engels and other Marxists have condemned the oppression and inhumanity of capitalism.They sometimes talked about what human dignity and socialist obligation required in correspondence and what a real person’s society might be.Marx was highly critical of workers’ in human treatments resulting from alienation in The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 andThe German Ideology,and exploitation of workers in Capital,which no doubt belongs to moral contents.All these show that Marx’s critique of capitalism implies some kind of moral principles or ideals which the defects of capitalism violate essentially.

However,since morality is seen by Marx as serving the interests of particular class,full of beguiling and fraudulent ideas,it is opposed as theoretical basis of criticizing capitalism.But his writings are full of moral criticism of capitalism which is based on certain moral principles.Then,what is the nature in the principles?It seems to constitute a paradox in Marxism,which is a serious challenge to Marxism.If it were not solved fundamentally,all moral judgments,principles,theories and norms,even the moral discourse itself should be abandoned or removed from the Marxist worldview.For Marxist,Capitalism could not be condemned for its making persistent human poverty,war and obstructing the process of a true human community and self-realization,while socialism and communism would not be exalted for eradicating poverty,war,expanding human freedom and realizing possibility of self-realization.Neither is the basis for condemnation or praise.What is more serious is that the Marxism will reduce or even lose its own persuasion due to the fatal paradox.Therefore,in order to resolve this contradiction,it is of great practical significance to set forth the relationship between Marxism and morality.Thus,we need to clarify two points,initially,why Marx’s critique of capitalism is not based on moral principles;additionally,is Marx an amoralist in morality or in what sense Marx is an amoralist?The two issues might be resolved only in the context of Marx’s historical materialism.I will try to clarify the two issues,expound the relationship between Marxism and morality,and then,solve the so-called paradoxical phenomena presented in Marxist morality.

Ⅰ.The fundamental opposition of theoretical basis between historical materialism and traditional morality

We know that German classical philosophy was inherited critically by Marx.He proposed a radical different judgment on the source of human consciousness through the critique of German classical philosophy,which has been the cornerstoneof historical materialism,constituting the foundation of Marxist morality.The ancient Greek philosopher Plato emphasized that “justice” was the ultimate criteria of social politics.From “State or Justice”,the subtitle ofRepublic,it can be seen that he regarded justice as the most important and necessary thing which was the principle of building a moral utopia.Thus,it has been widely shared in western traditional thoughts that the political theory,lack of moral foundations should be questioned,reaching the consensus that the basic political concepts are fundamentally moral concepts.Later philosophers have take this perspective as epistemological principle to criticize political theories of different ideas,that is to say，they oppose on epolitical conclusion by exposing its unreasonable and even absurd moral principles of a certain political theory;Then,if a theorist does not have a clear morality,he is unqualified for his political theory.The premise which is implicit in this perspective is that we all have the moral principles or moral ideas that are universally acknowledged.However,if a person who has strong moral convictions,raises doubts about traditional moral theories,opposes the theoretical basis of traditional morality,and then refuses to abide by and accept this moral theory as the presupposition axiom of his political theory,in this way his stance is clearly beyond the range of accepted critical weapons.Marx is just the person who criticized Young Hegelians and Feuerbach’s viewpoints about notions of human beings and the root of consciousness，upon which we can find the basis of his objection to the theoretical foundation of traditional morality.It is based on this historical materialism that Marx rejects traditional moral theories.

In the landmark work, The German Ideology,the creation of historical materialism,through criticizing Young Hegelians and Feuerbach’s viewpoints,Marx reveals that “political,juridical,moral and other conceptions” is “under the category of religious or theological conceptions”,and a completely wrong-headed idea that “…political,juridical,moral consciousness” is throughout merely a question of dogmas.〔1〕

Marx criticizes that the kernel fault of Young Hegelians is that they insisted the respective role of thoughts,ideas and consciousness of an era could be explained or determined by an all-encompassing,dialectical super consciousness.This explanation ignores “…the connection of German philosophy with German reality,the connection of their criticism (that’s their own interpretation) with their own material surroundings.”〔2〕The absurdity of this explanation is to isolate the practical foundation,by making a complete separation of the way of people’s self-cognition from that of actual behavior,not exploring the source of men’s thoughts and ideas from men’s practical social interaction and the physical world,but from the abstract and absolute spirit.Marx refutes that“the production of ideas,of conceptions,of consciousness,is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men-the language of real life.Conceiving,thinking,the mental intercourse of men at this stage still appear as the direct efflux of their material behavior.The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of the politics,laws,morality,religion,metaphysics,etc.,that is,real active men,as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these,up to its furthest forms,Consciousness (das Bewusstsein) can never be anything else than conscious being (das bewusste Sein),and the being of men is their actual life-process.”〔3〕The radical flaw of the Young Hegelians is that they excluded the real life process and promoted the absolute morality.So Marx points out sharply “The communists do not preach morality at all,as Stirner does so extensively.They do not put to people the moral demand:love one another,do not be egoists,etc.;on the contrary,they are very well aware that egoism,just as much as selflessness,is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals.”〔4〕

Feuerbach’s materialism was once used for Marx’s criticizing the Young Hegelian’s concepts,but his mechanical,reductionist materialismis criticized as well for Marx.In Marx’s view,it is undoubtedly true for Feuerbach that the interpretation of human thoughts and social consciousness were based on matters of fact.However,Feuerbach posited “Man” instead of “real historical man”,〔5〕a purely physiological or mechanical“Man”.〔6〕The young Hegelians ignored the “real” socio-economic realities,so did Feuerbach ignorehuman’s fundamentally social interaction.Marx concludes that “this mode of production must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals.Rather it is definite form of activity of these individuals,a definite form of expressing their life,a definite mode of life on their part.As individuals express their life,so they are.What they are,therefore,coincides with their production,both with what they produce and with how they produce.Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production.”〔7〕That is,the relationship between man and his production and living world is the source of perceptions.During his changing nature in order to meet the needs,knowledge of this productive activity is generated.Through changing the way,he looks at his relationship with nature,he changes themselves.Thereby,moral concepts and theories can’t be regarded as an independent phenomenon,independent of a specific social,economic,historical environment,but we can say that it derives from the productive practice of basic human activities.The basis and criteria for judging whether a behavior is morally desirable or encouraging can only come from the era of making such judgments and its social reality with its main mark of mode of production.

Above Marx’s critique makes us realize the young Hegelians and Feuerbach’s fundamental error in the world outlook and dangers in epistemologywhich makes us clear the fundamentally contrasting Marx’s world outlook and the traditional philosophy,and Marx’s opposition and expression to morality due to the fundamental opposition of theoretical basis between historical materialism and traditional morality.The ideas of the young Hegelians and Feuerbach were,in Marx’s view,an ideology or “religion”.Its consequences were that the only reasonable solution to people’s dissatisfaction with their living conditions was to change their understanding of society.Because,since it seems to the young Hegelians that human consciousness determined their life,the solutions to living issues could only be found in the change of the human consciousness itself.According to this logic,the economic conditions of exploitation and the interests of the power of the ruling class would keep intact while the exploited could appease themselves only by their new religion and German idealism.God is replaced by the spirit of the era,and the true root of exploitation is disguised.Similarly,Feuerbach’s exposition is essentially the same as the young Hegelians.If our life is not what we think it should be,it is an anomaly of its unreformable essence of nature.Since the root of social problems lies in the nature itself,it is a fact that cannot be changed and the only reasonable action is inaction.There is no doubt that this understanding will hinder the will and faith of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.In Marx’s view,there is no Kant’s eternal supreme moral principle,just as there are no eternal moral precepts and prohibitions.Any morality is generated from the social relations of a certain age,and from the interest appeals between people by such social relations.Marx’s critique of capitalism is fundamentally based on the scientific analysis of the essential rule of capitalism,that is,the historical materialism and the labor theory of value.The brutal competition of capitalism and its exploitation of workers both have embodied its moral forgery and depravity,which is caused by the capitalist system and its production relations and superstructure.That is to say,the moral degradation of capitalism is the result of the fundamental contradiction between the unreasonableness of capitalist production relations and its superstructure and the development of productive forces.Therefore,Marx’s critique of capitalism is not based on moral criticism,but on the scientific analysis of the historical materialism and labor theory of value to the capitalist mode of production.

Ⅱ.In what sense Marx is an”amoralist“?

If we want to criticize or disagree with a certain kind of moral view or theory,our disagreement or criticism will often be expressed in two meanings.The first,directly proving a certain moral view or theory is wrong.For example,we question or find that the premise of this view or theory exists logical fault,i.e.the false inference;believe that the arguments of this view or theory is not sufficient;ague that this view or theory does not correspond with our social reality,etc.The judgment is either logical or epistemological to directly judge a view or theory,which requires that we should have the right standard or measure to evaluate or criticize the view or theory itself.In Marx’s works,however,there is criticism of the traditional moral theory in the second sense,i.e.do not directly question the correctness of a moral view or theory，but criticize it through clarifying the misuse,abuse,or unrealistic fantasy of it,whose justification or basis is often reflected in the question of the social role of it.This criticism does not directly show or identify that there is a mistake in logic and epistemology of a certain moral theory itself but argue that it,when applied to specific social and historical background,will produce a harmful consequence due to abuse or misuse.Marx’s critique of Kant’s moral law and utilitarianism is much embodied in this sense.He did not raise questions about the authenticity or validity of these theories in the first sense on the analysis of Kant and utilitarian moral theory in his own time,but was particularly skeptical about the social function of these theories and practice.In The German Ideology,Marx has regarded Kant’s basic concept of “good will” as a fantasy in the political and economic reality of Germany，and thought that “Kant was satisfied with ‘good will’ alone,even if it remained entirely without result,and he transferred the realization of this good will,the harmony between it and the needs and impulses of individuals,to the world beyond.”〔8〕For utilitarianism,Marx is based on the economic fact that “in modern bourgeois society all relations are subordinated in practice to the one fore with monetary-commercial relation” in order to show “the apparent absurdity of merging all the manifold relationships of people in the one relation of usefulness.”〔9〕In Capital,Marx has sneered at Bentham’s utilitarianism as “Insipid,pedantic,leathe-tongued oracle of the ordinary bourgeois intelligence of the 19th century”.〔10〕Kant,as “the whitewashing spokesman” of German middle class constructed a moral theory based on aconcept of will which was “pure”,i.e.transcending self-interest only to elevate moral intentions “into purely ideological conceptual determinations and moral postulates.”〔11〕The utilitarian as the ingenious high Priests of bourgeois ideologyhave succeeded in “concealing” the facts that “I derive benefit for myself by doing harm to someone else”〔12〕in the background of market relations.Marx asserts that these classical moral theories led to “confusing”because of misuse or impractical abuse in the social realities of that time,which hindered the formation of practical moral principles and theories.In this sense does he think that these moral theories constituted ideology.George E.Panichas thinks that “Both as ideologies create concepts of right which either (as in Kant) make doing what is right a matter which would be irrelevant to altering the conditions which maintain exploitation,or (as in Utilitarianism) make doing what is right a matter of accepting a system of economic relationships which maximize utilities for a few while holding out a false hope for the maximization of utilities for all.Morality as ideology functions to aid the powerful while rendering the powerless utterly impotent.”〔13〕“For if the implications of a theory function so as to obscure or render unattainable precisely those facts (in this case,moral facts) which it is intended to explain,this is surely a reason for thinking the theory is wrong.”〔14〕This understanding is consistent with Marx’s explanation of historical materialism on social history.According to the basic principles of historical materialism,the standards and principles in terms of which we recognize and evaluate things must be suited to the age’s decision-making,in other words,this standards and principles are restricted by the social reality and basic contradictions of an era,and there is no moral principles and standards of super-class and trans-history.Otherwise,these moral evaluations are not only meaningless,but also lead to the abuse of ideology in practice.This is actually the Marxist historical materialism on the principle of the consistency of logic and history.For Marx,the classical moral theories tend to have a complete system and seemingly rigorous logical argument,according to which the moral evaluation or criticism should have contributed to the improvement of man’s conditions of an era,however,it is not.For example,in the capitalism,it actually encourages people to recognize the results of exploitation,which is actually an ideological abuse out of history and reality.Bourgeois enlightenment thinkers put forward the concepts of liberty,equality,fraternity,etc.,these ideas are undoubtedly the universal value concepts concluded by humans in the pursuit of their own development and practice of happiness.But the crux of this problem is that different times,different classes and thinkers have different understandings of these values.In Marx’s opinion,the realization of these values is limited by specific social and historical conditions,detached from which,these values could only be empty abstract words.The system of exploiting society itself determines that these values cannot be realized or fundamentally realized.In this system,it is emphasizing the values of freedom and equality,propagating its important values in society that become the ideology of defending the interests of the ruling class.Therefore,Marx,as a revolutionary,is bound to reject this moral principle or theory.“Where one withholds one’s evaluations when such evaluations could function to undermine their own purpose.”〔15〕Thus,Marx is not against freedom and equality as the basic moral value,but against the morality detached from social conditions with the abuse of ideology,that is,Marx is not against the moral concept or theory but against the abuse of it,i.e.the morality of bourgeois ideology is opposed by Marx,rather than all the moralities.The self-determination as the expression of man’s real freedom is weakened or even lost because of the existence of classes resulting from the division of labor,“as long as activity is not voluntarily,but naturally,divided,man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him,which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him.”〔16〕So,“the practical struggle of these particular interests,which actually constantly run counter to the common and illusory common interests,necessitates practical intervention and restraint by the illusory ‘general’ interest in the form of the state.”〔17〕The existence of classes in capitalist society fundamentally causes the loss of man’s real freedom,therefore,it is necessary to eliminate the basis of the existence of this class-capitalist mode of production.“Since human liberation is the goal of the revolutionary,it follows that what Marx should encourage are the policies which could bring about such an abolition — what he should discourage are policies which might inhibit such a result.And since moral ‘preaching’ can inhibit such a result (given its proclivity to ideological abuse) it should be discouraged.”〔18〕Based on the scientific understanding of the system of capitalism which is the cause of suppression of man’s freedom,as well as the outlook for historical possibility of real emancipation,Marx does not regard morality as the basis of criticizing capitalism.In fact,morality itself is not negated but the moralization and the abuse of it.In Marx’s view,the moral theory with “ideology” attribute prevailing in the capitalist era should be rejected.Marx criticizes the morality of young Hegelians and Feuerbach,as well as the moral theory of Kant and utilitarianism whose ideas or theories is a kind of ideology,i.e.,these theories are not the real ones with the block to the correct understanding of them,but is a kind of ideology,as the power of ruling class,which have suppression effect.

Admittedly,Marx does a lot of moral condemnations to capitalist system from the perspective of the practice of revolutionary capitalist system,but in his view,it is making the working class aware of the profound opposition between the interests of its own and bourgeoisie,rather than instilling moral condemnation directly against bourgeoisie to the working class that makes significance.Therefore,a proletarian revolutionary should know the roadmaps of steps and that in what sense law,morality and religion which lurk in the interests of the bourgeoisie in capitalist society is a kind of bourgeois prejudices.The construction of any ideal society and its concepts has been impacted by the relations of existing social classes,which cannot be complete beyond one’s times in thoughts.Under the condition of the dominant capitalist mode of production and bourgeois ideology,criticizing capitalist on the basis of morality or constructing a socialist moral principle,will mislead the practice,especially the proletarian revolution,which can only stay on the utopian concepts.For this reason,Marx has sharply criticized Proudhon’s principle of fair exchange as the basis of the critique of capitalist private ownership,the distribution of justice and fairness as the lasalite’s guiding principle of socialism movement that every worker gets his “real work income.”He urges that using this abstract sense of morality to change the world was absolutely a utopia，in which we put our faith dangerously.This is why Marx described Owen,Fourier,Saint-Simon et al.as“utopian socialists”.〔19〕Thus,Marx is an amoralist on the sense that he does not take the abstract morality as the guiding principle of criticizing capitalism.

We have made clear that in what sense Marx is an amoralist,and he is not against the morality itself but against taking morality as the basis of criticizing capitalism under the capitalist regime.Furthermore,Marx is not against the moral realm of values,such as fairness,equality and freedom while he is full of indignation that the “fairness” and “equality” capitalism preached has made the proletariat exploited and oppressed.In fact,it is the realm of freedom — the communist society,trumping all the concepts of capitalism in terms of equality and fairness,that Marx has struggled for throughout his life.

Imprisoned by the “left”deviation for a long time in our country,the specific moral category has often been criticized as the deceptive ideology of bourgeoisie,such as freedom,equality and fraternity etc.It seems that these moral categories only belong to the bourgeoisie and the capitalist society.People either disdain or do not dare to talk about these moral categories confidently and even,pursue these values.The values such as equality and freedom,have always been the important category for philosophers to probe，and in practice are the target for people with lofty ideals to struggle with tireless efforts through ages,which has been given prior position in Marx’s theory.Freedom is not only seen by Marx as the prescription of human nature,but as the fundamental goal in his assumption of communism.For instance,communist is “an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.〔20〕It can be seen that the concept of equality and freedom is the fundamental value pursuit in Marxist’s morality,which has gradually become the essential content of the“socialist core value” in our country.

〔1〕〔2〕〔3〕〔4〕〔5〕〔6〕〔7〕〔8〕〔9〕〔10〕〔11〕〔12〕〔16〕〔17〕 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Collected Works,New York:international Publishers 1975—,Vol.5,pp.29,30(The words in brackets are added by the author),36,247,39,39-40,31-32,193,409,195,409,47,47.

〔13〕〔14〕〔15〕〔18〕George Panichas, Marx’s Moral Skepticism,Marx and Morality,Edited by Kai Nielsen and Steven Patten,pp.57,57,60,61.

〔19〕Peffer, Marxism,Morality and Social Justice,Oxford:Princeton University Press,1990,pp.284-285.

〔20〕 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Collected Works,New York:international Publishers 1975—,Vol.6,p.506.