If marxism-leninism doesn't have any moral values attached, why does every marxist-leninist I see seem to be rooting for communism? Where are the MLs who treat the revolution as an inevitable but lamentable doomsday?
marxism-leninism isn't About moralism or morality, and it doesn't Need it. that said, morality isn't Wrong To Do Or Have. it's just not analytically relevant.
and we're rooting for communism because it rocks, and revolution is awesome, and it's not an inevitable but lamentable doomsday, it's awesome rad sicknasty epic swag, and it is the herald of an age where human beings are respected instead of ground into a fine paste to be sold as food.
also i think it can be useful at times to distinguish between Marxism The Political Ideology and Marxism The Social Science.
as a social science, marxism is purely concerned with describing the material facts of how social systems function and evolve and change over time. this includes describing how an ethical system created by one class will be supplanted by an ethical system created by another class when the latter class takes the place of the former as the ruling class of society.
however, as a political ideology, marxism isn't just describing these processes, it's engaging in them- specifically marxism as a political ideology is heavily involved in the process of creating a proletarian morality which will supplant bourgeoisie morality.
from the scientific standpoint, proletarian morality is just the next stage in development of society. it's not some absolute truth, and it too will someday be supplanted in the future by a new system of morality.
but from a political standpoint, proletarian morality is everything. it is the radiant guiding light of the revolution. the sun that never sets.
valuable and appreciated addition, thank you!
Scientific Socialism, as established by Marx and Engels, combined into a harmonious unity two things which from the bourgeois point of view appeared to be irreconcilable opposites: on the one hand dispassionate objectivity, science indifferent to ideals, and on the other hand the passionately sought subjective ideal of a better society. Those who do not take the point of view of scientific Socialism believe that an ideal, that is to say, something, which we desire, can never be a subject matter of science, and that, conversely, passionate desire must be a hindrance to objective truth. To the alleged objective science of society they give the name of sociology; and the sterility, the lack of results which is everywhere in evidence in the countless books of these "sociologists," furnishes the best refutation of their contention that social truth is born of dry book-learning, rather than of participation in the social struggles. A social ideal, on the contrary, they know only as Utopianism — as the conception and propaganda of a better or best social system — which has nothing to do with the science of society, even though its advocates maintain that they are able to prove "scientifically" the excellence of their new system.
Scientific Socialism has overcome this contradiction through the discovery of the economic basis of social evolution. It has taught us that with the continuous improvement in the technical methods of labor and the social organs and organizations necessary to their operation, the entire social order undergoes an uninterrupted transformation, including the opinions and ideals of mankind. Man must continually adapt his ideas and opinions of possible and desirable institutions and organizations, to the progress of the productive forces; in other words, he follows ever new social ideals. Therefore, such a social ideal does not signify the construction of a faultless social system, but it is a mental picture of a subsequent, more highly developed social system, in which the disadvantages of the preceding system have been overcome, and which is adapted to that development of the forces of production which has just been attained. Since everything which man does must first exist in his mind as purpose and will, therefore every new social order, before it becomes a reality, must first exist as a more or less adequate, conscious ideal.
Thus in the youth of capitalism, when the new inventions of the steam engine by James Watt and the spinning machine by Arkwright opened up boundless possibilities to industrial development, the natural social ideal was: unconfined freedom of private production and of competition, the sweeping away of all feudal and guild obstacles. So now, when capitalistic appropriation stands in the way of the full employment and development of the forces of production, when the gigantic establishments and trusts have shown the possibility of a well-devised organization of labor, the natural social ideal is: the socialization of the means of production. And this social ideal forms the chief demand in the programs of the Socialist parties of all countries.
Consequently, if we Socialists are asked: "What order of society do you recommend as the best?" we answer: "None at all." We do not extol any system of society as the most perfect or the only good one, in comparison with which all others are objectionable. Various social orders are necessary, hence advantageous, according to the height of technical and economic development; upon a certain plane of development, an order, which previously was necessary, becomes injurious and unbearable, as is now the case with capitalism. Hence all our struggling and striving is now directed toward the next step, and toward the removal of the obstacles which stand in the way of the acquisition by society of the means of production. These obstacles are mainly two: the political supremacy of the capitalists and the defective organization and discipline of the working class; therefore, our most immediate aims are the organization and training of the workers and, by means of these, the conquest of political power.
-Anton Pannekoek, Socialism and Anarchism
