If Marx rejected humanism and the soul, then socialism is nothing but normative bullshit based on nothing. Human beings are no more entitled to the fruits of their labor than cows and washing machines are.
>>366770
Cool story bro
"Normative" is one of those words that never seems to mean nor add anything when it's used.
How about reading Marx instead of listening to useless fucks on /b/
Marx has NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER FOR DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. At best, he is a sufficientarian.
Marx's primary concern is the impact that the detailed division of labour has on our social creativity and our ability to satisfy the ends of others, through our labour.
>>366790
9 times out of 10 you're correct, but every 10th time it's interchangeable with "applied" and you come off looking like an asshole for using "normative" instead of "applied".
>>366770
>If Marx rejected humanism and the soul, then socialism is nothing but normative bullshit based on nothing.
You aren't even wrong, you're worse. You're incoherent and nonsensical.
>>366770
Indeed, which is why socialism isn't achieved by convincing the bourgeoisie that you hold the moral high ground, but by defeating them in class struggle.
>>366790
It's useful in philosophy to distinguish between normative and descriptive propositions, when talking about Hume's is/ought problem and whatnot. I have no idea what OP is trying to say, though, if anything.
>>366883
So it's basically just an extension of the liberal principle of "rational self-interest"?
>>366940
Yeah, just not the self-interest of the individual, but the self-interest of the class, which, in the case of the proletariat, coincides with the self-interest of mankind, as it aims at overcoming the division of the species into classes.
>>366973
>just not the self-interest of the individual
How do you make this appeal without ethics?
>>366940
yup
except in the case of the proletariat rational self interest becomes in the interest of all mankind once the capitalists are removed
>>366991
So basically the same bullshit appeal made by capitalists? If everyone is maximum selfish, things will be better for everyone?
>>367023
except being maximum selfish isn't inherently in someone's rational self interest. That's just one of those neoliberal stupidities.
>>367065
Ah, so it is a correction of liberalism not being a truly devout cult of reason?
>>367080
sort of
I mean Marx's entire project was trying to answer the question. Why didn't the french revolution truly bring Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity? In a way his work was entirely trying to bring an evolution of liberalism and better bring forth it's stated ideals.
>>367099
Is that why people like John Milbank and Polyani thought Marx was liberal, despite both being socialist?
>>367117
I'm not familiar with either but if I were to guess, yes probably. Marx's creation and coining of Scientific Socialism was entirely because he felt the Utopians were awful in their theory and method. He was a major fan of the French revolution and praised liberalism and Capitalism for the positives it did bring with it to humanity. He wanted to take the positives further while stripping away the negatives he really didn't like that developed after Capitalism became the dominant mode of production within the western world.
>>366770
>If Marx rejected humanism and the soul, then socialism is nothing but normative bullshit based on nothing.
You don't seem to understand what "normative" means, or Marx's negative contribution to socialist theory through a critique of capital rather than a utopian programme.
>Human beings are no more entitled to the fruits of their labor than cows and washing machines are.
Marx specifically argues against "entitlement to products of labour."
Go read Marx. You should read Capital but you seem currently incapable.
>>366983
Power, read Foucault for an example.
>>366780
Nice contribution bro
