strange happenings

Robert Paul Wolff is a retired philosopher who has written a couple of books about Marx. At his blog he proclaims himself a Marxist (in economics) and an atheist (in religion). He has also written a book about Kant, among other things. (Indeed, he's written a good number of things including a well-known book about anarchism; and I encourage anyone who is interested to take a look at his blog.)

Recently I made a few remarks at his blog, and I rather suspect he didn't find my comments useful. Therefore, I stopped.

However, I do have a few things to add. I believe the problem here is that I'm assuming (and not defending or fully articulating) what I think I learned about early Plato (Socrates) from Terry Penner.

To mention one very controversial thesis that I am presupposing: acting well is a matter of knowledge, and achieving a good end.  --Not "morally good" as philosphers say, but good, as in producing more good things in the lives of people---not products or commodities, but the really good things which lead to happiness. And what are those? Well, I suppose justice is a good thing, and justice means having decent relations with other people. And if modern technologies allow us to influence more people than ever before, then justice means international justice.

But the big thought here is that you can't get happy at the price of someone else's misery.
Now, Socrates believed that, and I'm not sure he really gave an adequate defense of it.
However, it is certainly the key thing for this discussion.

But, right now, I just want to add a point of clarification that follows on from my rather inadequate remarks at Robert Paul Wolff's blog.

Should a Marxist care about individual psychology?
That question is not identical with: should a Marxist care about the morality of individuals?
(I think that Robert Paul Wolff jumped from one to the other.)

And, even if a Marxist needn't care, is there a real question here?  Is there a question here worth asking?--Maybe there's a real question here even if Marxists can ignore it.

Imagine our capitalist, engaged in the pursuit of profit. How does he organize his mind? Well, if he's a capitalist, his goal is profit. (Otherwise he would cease to be a capitalist.)

And, to the extent that such an over-arching goal dominates his life, other sub-goals must become weaker.

So, for example, I would predict that certain emotional capacities would inevitably become weaker. More flamboyantly put, the fellow becomes weaker emotionally, cramped emotionally, and, one suspects, less capable of full friendships.

Objection: mightn't the capitalist manage to have rich and full emotions with a small group of friends? 
Answer: I doubt it. I suggest that the habit of emotional dumbing down becomes a habit, and thus it's not so easy to shut off.

However, what I really need is an argument to show the two at odds: What if the emotional needs of my friend conflict with my profit motive? What if my best friend comes to see that the source of my profits lies in the misery of other people? If the capitalist is to so much as continue, then he's got, somehow to reject and /or trivialize that claim.  Should he cease the friendship, or should he refuse to talk about it?  Or what?

If the friend comes to believe that, it's not a trivial thing, and cannot just be ignored by the friend.

Notice:  I assume that what Marxists say they believe (that capitalism is not just) is true, and I assume it is rather a robust fact.  I mean by 'robust' that once we know it, it impacts upon us fully, in all of our being, both thinking and feeling---something all good truths should do once they are understood.

(One part of me wants to say:  the issue is whether, as Socrates put it in the "Protagoras",  knowledge is something strong.)

So, suppose the best friend of the capitalist has discovered and been convinced by/learned from Marxism.  What does the capitalist do? Does he argue with the friend? Does the capitalist attempt to justify his life? Of course, he can try; perhaps he even invents neo-classical economics. (But I would say, if this is a real friendship, then he's got to justify his life to his friend.)

But, if the Marxist is correct, in any honest discussion the capitalist will lose.  If the capitalist is to continue, he's got to avoid reaching that conclusion.

And, at some point, his defense of profits may overhwhelm his act of acquiring them; so, he hires an economist to do his dirty work.  And, so he's back to the business of emotional stultification.

Notice, if it's true that capitalism is unjust, then the capitalist has to devote mental energy to ignoring the fact.  (Question:  What must I be assuming about our psychologies, about our emotional capacities?)

Unstated assumption: ignoring the truth has consequences for your psychology, your emotional life, the way your thoughts and feelings are organized.

So, again, emotional dumbing-down results.

Thus far we have: To be a capitalist means to sacrifice one's emotional life.

But maybe it's a price worth paying? Nothing here, please notice, about morality..............but lots about self-interest and quality of life.

Oh, you fool! (someone  might say) 
Of course those who profit from technology companies are happy!  That's why their lives are celebrated in countless books!

  I don't know; I've never met such a person.

QUESTION
In the above do I assume that justice is an objective and independent thing, present in our minds, and not something dependent upon human activities (language, culture, whatever)?

  It seems to me that what I have just written does make an assumption like that---  It assumes that justice is something we have present to our minds (unavoidably but not clearly) if we are human at all.