'... Morality is a bourgeois construct, and if you're complaining about all the dead people under Stalin you're engaging in moralism. Yes, Stalin murdered, and that was a good thing. My only complaint was that he did not murder enough.'

Marx himself seemed to give a lot of ethical arguments, like exploitation and alienation.

I think these are both fairly bad examples, because either of these meanings can have effectively value neutral usages and for the most part, Marx uses them in that fashion. "Exploitation" often carries ethical implications in a variety of contexts but it also can simply just mean "deriving benefit from a resource." Which is directly tied to what Marx is arguing - capitalist production is based on deriving a profit from the labour force.

Understanding him as using exploitation in terms of its ethical implications also runs into the problem that he often actually praises capitalist production as a historically progressive tendency.

"Alienation" as a term that also can similarly convey an ethically neutral meaning, as something closer to estrangement or separation. We can talk about the separation between the producer and the commodity they produce in a relatively neutral fashion - surely this is simply a descriptive fact of how capitalist exchange works.

Now, Marx often doesn't talk about these things in a neutral fashion - exploitation is often related to theft, or alienation ends up relating to concerns of self-actualisation - but I don't think that's an inherent quality of those two words themselves.

/r/badphilosophy Thread Parent Link - np.reddit.com