More'as moral

 I go beyond and also critique morality . I either (1) do a moral nihilist critique of morality/reified values/moralism. Or (2) I take a subjective ethics of ambiguity viewpoint. Or (3) I talk of morality from an entirely different foundation.

Morality is a system of reified, abstract values, values which are taken out of any context, set in stone, and then converted into unquestionable beliefs to be applied regardless of a someone’s true desires, thoughts or goals, regardless of the situation in which a person finds themself in. 

Moralism is the practice of reducing living values to reified morals, and also of considering oneself better than others because that person has subjected himself or herself to morality (self-righteousness), and of proselytizing for the adoption of morality as a social change tool.

When a person’s eyes are opened by scandals or disillusionment and they begin to dig down below the ideological surface and they received ideas that they have taken for granted their whole lives, the apparent coherence and power of this new answer that they find (whether in religion, leftism or even anarchism) can lead them to believe that they have now found the Truth (Truth with a capital ‘T’). 

Once this starts to occur people too often turn onto the path of moralism, with its attendant problems of elitism and ideology. 

Once people give in to the illusion that they have found the one Truth that could fix everything — if only enough other people also understood this Truth, the temptation for them is then to view this one Truth as the solution to the implied Problem surrounding everything that must be theorized

This leads them to build an absolute value system in defense of their magic Solution to the Problem that this Truth leads them to. At this point moralism takes over the place of critical thinking.

The main issue with Moralism is that people are exploited or dominated by capitalists (or alienated from society or from the productive process. etc.). 

The Truth is that the People must take control of the Economy and/or Society into their own control.

The biggest hurdle to this is the Ownership and Control of the Means of Production by the Capitalist Class which is backed up by its monopoly over the use of legal violence through its control of the political State. 

To overcome this people must be approached with an evangelical fervor to influence them to reject all forms, ideas and values of Capitalism and to adopt the culture, ideas and values of an idealized notion of the Working Class in order to take over the Means of Production by abolishing the Capitalist Class power and constituting the Working class power (or its institutions that are represented, or even their Central Committees or its Supreme Leader) over all of Society

This tends to lead to some type of Workerism (usually including adopting the dominant image of the working class culture i.e the working-class lifestyles), a belief in (more often than not Scientific) Organizational Salvation, belief in the Science of (the victory of the Proletariat in) Class Struggle, etc. 

Also tactics that are consistent with building the fetishized One True Organization of the Working Class to contest for Economic and Political Power. 

A whole wage value system that is built around a particular, very oversimplified conception of the world, and moral categories of good and evil are substituted for critical evaluation in individual and communal subjectivity terms

The spiral into moralism is never an automatic process. It is a tendency which naturally shows itself whenever people start down the path of reified social critique. 

Morality always involves stalling the development of a consistent critical theory of self and society. 

It short-circuits the developing strategy and tactics that are appropriate for this critical theory, and it encourages an emphasis on personal and collective salvation through living up to the ideals of this said morality, by idealizing a lifestyle or culture as virtuous and sublime. 

In the process this demonizes everything else as being either evil perversions or evil temptation

One natural emphasis of this then becomes the petty, continuing attempt to enforce the boundaries of virtue and evil by policing the lives of any person who claims to be a member of the in-group sect, while self righteously denouncing out-groups. 

Like, in the workerist milieu, this means attacking any person who doesn’t sing the praises of the virtues of the working class (or one true form) organization or to the virtues of the overbearing image of the Working Class culture or lifestyles (like beer drinking as opposed to drinking wine, rejecting hip subcultures, or driving a Nissan instead of a BMW). 

The goal, is to maintain the lines of inclusion and exclusion that are between the in-group and the out-group (the out-group is variously portrayed in highly industrialized countries to be the Middle and Upper Classes [Petty Bourgeois and Bourgeois], or the Managers and Capitalists big and small).

Living up to the standards of morality means sacrificing specific desires and temptations (regardless of the your situation that you may find yourself in) in favor of virtue rewards 

Don’t ever eat meat. Don’t be against (insert Democrat/Liberal 2.0 pet cause here), Don’t ever drive SUVs. Don’t ever work a 9–5 job. Don’t ever scab. Don’t ever vote. Don’t ever talk to a Right winger. Don’t ever take money from the government. Don’t ever pay your taxes. Don’t ever etc., etc. 

Not a very appealing way to go about living your life for any person that is interested in critically thinking about the world and evaluating what to do for oneself.

Going beyond and critiquing Morality involves constructing a critical theory of a person’s self and society (always self-critical, provisional and never totalistic) in which a defined goal of ending a person’s social alienation is never mixed up with reified partial goals. 

It involves emphasizing what we have to gain from radical critique and solidarity rather than what we must sacrifice or give up in order to live virtuous lives of politically correct morality.

Hard Atheism and the Ethics of Desire: An Alternative to Morality by Joel Marks may provide some alternatives for morality

I support a prideful sense of self empowerment while going beyond morality as I mentioned above

Morality is just popular opinion (not necessarily majority opinion). If people believe that whiteness is real and bad, then anti-racism becomes the law of the land. 

If people believe that whiteness is not real and or is good, then pro whiteness or whiteness neutral policies become or remain the law of the land. 

This pertains to all things from pushing for more women CEOs, women fighting on the front lines in the military, same sex marriage, transgender rights etc. Good and bad, right or wrong,  morality is simply group opinion. Always has been that way and as is so currently like that

When Noam Chomsky critiques US imperialism and warmongering (‘foreign policy’), he doesn't spend too much of his time on the question of ”Do policy planners sincerely believe their own b.s about human rights or building democracy?” or the question of “Are they really only fully cynical and self-serving?”.  

Chomsky seeks the objective outcome of their actions, and the wider systemic forces that power up people who make those types of decisions, without regards to their internal motivation. If anything, Chomsky is more scared of the true believers than he is of the corrupt cynics.

We aren't Saint Peter. We aren't in a place to judge what people truly have in their hearts. We want to try to build more efficient social movements and to empower people in poverty and in the working class

We have to look at what is working and not throw too much time away psychoanalyzing people in an attempt to answer unanswerable questions about what people have going on inside of their head.

This further helps us express a stronger argument. If we could show proof that a given policy is terrible, even if the intention behind said policy is pure and nice, we can come up with better policies to create. If we must show proof that someone is a bad faith actor, we end up clashing over personalities. 

We will too, inevitably, be alleged to be acting in bad faith, leading us to the virtual circular firing squad. use it has to wipe away our ability to talk and strengthen movements. We don't have to do that to obtain victory... and be on guard of the persons who claim that violence is a solution each and every time. Throughout the history of the world, violence has ruined a heck of a lot more movements than it has lead to victory.

However my conscious, me supporting some aspects of Common good Constitutionalism and my religion views on morality balances this out to where I am Left wing on morality

My take on good and evil is this. For Marxists and Marxians like myself, there isn’t any sort of "purest form" of humanity. Humanity is a construct that is shaped by the material conditions that it is surround by. 

Our understanding of the world is not existential in a kind of pure and proper state, and then warped away from that. Our existential state is a by product of the conditions which exist underneath us.

The wealthy bourgeois are heavily incapable of understating or existing in a society that doesn’t elevate them, as it has done so far. 

In their existences, there is no guilty voice in the back of their heads saying to them "this cannot be right" since they do not experience injustices of their own in the same way we might see such a thing -- they see the actions that they do as good and needed and righteous, because if they don’t do said actions it would be a chaotic world filled with disorder and discontinuity, and only due to their 'righting' of the world (in their viewpoint) will the world become alleviated from this catastrophe. 

They can only literally see themselves as the job creators and benefactors of the humans they deem as ‘lesser’ existing underneath themselves.

Karl Marx was concerned with social structure and historical causality, not taking into account every human idea. Marx was a historical materialist, while Georg Hegel was a historical idealist. 

Georg Hegel understood historical movement to have originated in the unfolding of a collective consciousness, while Karl Marx placed it within the changes in humanity’s material conditions of productive life. And so, it's truly the struggle between the classes that's animated history, it is not some grand pronouncements made about human progress and betterment or whatever else is claimed.

How idealism is wrong is not that ideas can’t have influence or be powerful, but that ideas are not likely to take root if the material conditions for them are not amenable. 

Now, we are not "vulgar Marxists/Marxians" who believe that the economic situation leads to everything in the realm of ideas. Marxism does not imply that the ideas that make up the collective consciousness at a given time were in some way causally generated from material conditions. 

As Karl Marx stated, people (as agents who have free will) do build the world, but they don't start from chosen circumstances. To use a more current choice of words, you might say that things are "overdetermined" by numerous factors, which includes material conditions and ideas.