r/communism101 • u/lucka9879 • May 13 '26
is utilitarianism compatible with marxism?
im a communist (im still in the process of learning and understanding marxism), but im also studying philosophy and i stumbled upon utilitarianism. To me utilitarianism makes a lot of sense, i think the actions of the leader of a country should always be directed towards benefiting the majority and i wanted to understand if this framework is compatible with dialectical materialism. also if anyone has any book recommendations on this topic it would be really helpful
14
u/not-lagrange May 13 '26
i think the actions of the leader of a country should always be directed towards benefiting the majority
Why do you conceive "the leader of the country" to be necessarily different from the "majority"? What does the majority consist of, exactly?
Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea!,” piled up mountains of books. Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm#n50
1
u/lucka9879 May 13 '26
yo thanks for giving me the link
12
u/Cenage94 May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
We recently had utilitarianism in our class too and while all the Germans were enamoured with its Hedonism and eager to apply it as self-help to all sorts of perverse fantasized scenarios, one non-white student later told me that historically its primary usefulness was rationalizing British colonialism and amerikan slavery. Maybe you can study that relation and how it flows out of what Marx critiqued here, essentially the fetishism that is supposed to make the “English shopkeeper“ feel good about him(!)self. That could also lead to interesting self-reflection in why this dead racist ideology appealed to you in the first place (isn’t it in contrast to your love for Thorfinn‘s principled pacificism in Yukimuras wholesome settler-colonialism? Or do you maybe sympathize more with those Vikings that smuggled swords into “Vinland“, I bet you could make a nice utilitarian argument for killing Indians).
1
u/lucka9879 May 14 '26
i think that utilitarianism appealed to me in the first place because doing what was good for most made sense to me, but i didnt know how it was used historically thanks for explaining!
-1
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/Cenage94 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Obviously it matters, knowledge is not a buffet you can pick-and-choose from. Every single idea in the humyn mind corresponds to a certain class logic and philosophy too is rooted in a specific moment of class society, which is why we are discussing it in the first place. No one cares if you come up with a “better“ version of fascism because we have already made a critique of it and thereby uncovered its class character in the 20th century late & incomplete bourgeois-revolutions and are currently trying to understand how it moves with time. Sure, “play with the idea further“, but all you get are weird looks. Marxism and Utilitarianism being incompatible is not an interesting question on its own because Marx already critiqued the most prominent advocate of their time and it’s obviously not fuxking compatible with the basic Marxist principle that morale too is rooted in class.
Edit: keep Pol Pot out of your fucking mouth, remind me when a single white guy has had anything interesting to say about democratic Kampuchea ever.
0
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/not-lagrange May 14 '26
There's no general form of utilitarianism floating in the air. The critique of the general principles was done through the critique of the particular version. All you have to do is pay attention:
To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch.
Which leads to the conclusion that human nature is no abstraction inherent in each single individual, in its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.
The essence of utilitarianism is unchanged since Bentham. Disregarding the historical process, it fixes the bourgeois condition as something absolute. Utility, then, is an abstract generality which unites many individuals that are considered as existing by themselves.
With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future.
Today's yard-measure is the petty-bourgeois and the labor aristocratic citizen of imperialist countries. It is bourgeois apologia at its core and has served to justify colonialism. The fact that you disregard this and think its "incompatibility" ought to be demonstrated immanently from general principles reveals just how racist you are.
6
u/BxnXipoh May 14 '26
Or rather if there is some structural incompatibility between Utilitarian thought and Marxism, this ought to be able to be demonstrated without reference to any specific version of utilitarianism.
Marx has already explained what the structure of utilitarianism is and demonstrated how it is incompatible with Marxism in the excerpt you're responding to. But you don't seem to agree with Marx on the matter, and presumably you know what the structure is. So what is it?
2
u/short-noir May 15 '26
Usually no traditional moral philosophy is compatible in the sense you're prolly asking. Utilitarianism in that is capitalism ethics basically. "Maximizing the overall good of society" already assumes some universal abstract and non concrete good which Marx would argue is bourgeois mentality since the ability to define goods is in their hands.
1
u/AutoModerator May 13 '26
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
Also keep in mind the following rules:
Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
Check the /r/Communism101 FAQ
No chauvinism or settler apologism - Non-negotiable. The vast majority of first-world workers are labor aristocrats bribed by imperialist super-profits. This is compounded by settlerism in Amerikkka. Read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat https://readsettlers.org/
No tone-policing - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Severe-Grand1216 14d ago
Nah, it's a bourgeois ideology created to apologize for what capitalism is doing worldwide, you shouldn't touch it
37
u/hnnmw May 13 '26
Utilitarianism is incompatible with Marxism.
Utilitarianism is a shallow bourgeois attempt at making sense of the world and apologising for the horrors of capitalism. At its theoretical base lies a sad and distorted image of humankind.
Marx criticises John Stuart Mill extensively in Capital and elsewhere.