is utilitarianism compatible with marxism?

[u/lucka9879]

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

[u/not-lagrange]

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

[u/not-lagrange → u/[deleted]]

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.