>>120221The point is that he/she/they often uses moral argumentation of the type of "X is true because if you believe otherwise youre bad person" (usually in threads about gender). My post refers to the fact that morality isnt absolute, it is 100% artificially constructed by the currently existing system, and is thus irrelevant to other systems such as the one that we seek to replace the current with. And thus that kind of argumentation based on liberal morality, often used by that anon, is entirely worthless. This is spread out through M&E's writings on topics of historical materialism, which is why i referenced it.
Everything i just wrote was already said or clearly implied in the post you replied to.
The fact that you didnt understand that, nor do you understand the relationship to Marx and Engels, is very telling. Consider going back where you came from.
I didnt quote because this is so basic and so spread out throughout marxist work that it amazed me you unironically demand it. Well here you go, an example out of many possible (Anti-Duhring):
>If it were such an easy business there would certainly be no dispute at all over good and evil; everyone would know what was good and what was bad. But how do things stand today? What morality is preached to us today? There is first Christian-feudal morality, inherited from earlier religious times; and this is divided, essentially, into a Catholic and a Protestant morality, each of which has no lack of subdivisions, from the Jesuit-Catholic and Orthodox-Protestant to loose “enlightened” moralities. Alongside these we find the modern-bourgeois morality and beside it also the proletarian morality of the future, so that in the most advanced European countries alone the past, present and future provide three great groups of moral theories which are in force simultaneously and alongside each other. Which, then, is the true one?(…)
>But nevertheless there is great deal which the three moral theories mentioned above have in common — is this not at least a portion of a morality which is fixed once and for all? — These moral theories represent three different stages of the same historical development, have therefore a common historical background, and for that reason alone they necessarily have much in common. Even more. At similar or approximately similar stages of economic development moral theories must of necessity be more or less in agreement. From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. [Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19. — Ed.] Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!(…)
<We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. In case you care, I'm for abolishing concept of gender, as gender roles and gender identity in the first place were created by old societies for division of labour and therefore will be obsolete. Anon is against because (anon believes) gender categorization is real and its mean and intolerant to trans people who self-identify through these gender identities (MtF etc).
BTW you forgot to call me rightwing this time, smoothbrain.