There’s a venerable socialist tradition of dismissing the need for moral philosophy. That’s a mistake — we need to think rigorously about the moral choices involved in building a new society.
Fully agree; this an issue I've put a lot of thought to recently. Another point in addition to the ones you've already brought up is that the labor movement already uses a lot of moral rhetoric because people are more responsive when you couch things both in terms of interest *and* in terms of justice: workers aren't just fighting for their interests, they are fighting for what they deserve. Organizing in the work-place is risky, and more often than not, people decide that the risks don't outweigh the concerns if they're looking at it from solely an economical self-interested viewpoint. On the other hand, feelings of injustice or the perception that things aren't fair at work is a huge motivation for work-place organizing.
About potential ethical theories to complement a Marxist analysis, I think relational egalitarianism is a promising avenue. Although she's more of a social democrat and not a Marxist, I've really liked Elizabeth Anderson's stuff and I think it's very suitable to be modified from a more Democratic Socialist and Marxist perspective.
Yeah, the use of moral rhetoric in organizing contexts is a good way into thinking about this question. You *could* say that people are either confused or insincere when they make claims about justice, fairness, etc. But that feels like special pleading. And if e.g. labor organizers' moral claims are cogent and sincere, then socialist ought to be interested in whether and how those claims can be rationally defended.
Agree with you on the promise of relational egalitarian thought too; hope to write about that soon. I think that part of what makes class domination objectionable is that it inherently involves relations of subordination of the kind that Anderson is worried about.
Fully agree; this an issue I've put a lot of thought to recently. Another point in addition to the ones you've already brought up is that the labor movement already uses a lot of moral rhetoric because people are more responsive when you couch things both in terms of interest *and* in terms of justice: workers aren't just fighting for their interests, they are fighting for what they deserve. Organizing in the work-place is risky, and more often than not, people decide that the risks don't outweigh the concerns if they're looking at it from solely an economical self-interested viewpoint. On the other hand, feelings of injustice or the perception that things aren't fair at work is a huge motivation for work-place organizing.
About potential ethical theories to complement a Marxist analysis, I think relational egalitarianism is a promising avenue. Although she's more of a social democrat and not a Marxist, I've really liked Elizabeth Anderson's stuff and I think it's very suitable to be modified from a more Democratic Socialist and Marxist perspective.
Yeah, the use of moral rhetoric in organizing contexts is a good way into thinking about this question. You *could* say that people are either confused or insincere when they make claims about justice, fairness, etc. But that feels like special pleading. And if e.g. labor organizers' moral claims are cogent and sincere, then socialist ought to be interested in whether and how those claims can be rationally defended.
Agree with you on the promise of relational egalitarian thought too; hope to write about that soon. I think that part of what makes class domination objectionable is that it inherently involves relations of subordination of the kind that Anderson is worried about.
"...we don’t have a ready-made blueprint for what a feasible and desirable socialist system would look like." Really? You haven't read Pat Devine or David Laibman? Suggested reading: https://www.academia.edu/52835283/Mature_Socialism_Design_Prerequisites_Transitions