Ahmadi Perspectives on Marxism

The Argument of Morality

Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra extends his argument even further from the predetermination that Dialectical Materialism rejects god. He concludes Marx is forced to reject morality when rejecting god.

"How could he [Marx] ever envision the smooth and flawless working of any system without morality? He was far too intelligent to miss the point, but he was also intelligent enough to be able to perceive the link between morality and God. Man by nature is not a moral animal. On the contrary he is the most corrupt animal under the firmament of heaven. All attempts to make man moral emanate from a belief in God, but Marx knew full well that belief in God was incompatible with his philosophy. Everything that leads or may lead to God was taboo. He had to choose between the two options: either to promote morality within Communism to safeguard its interest and run the risk of leading the Communist world back to God, or to shun the risk and accept instead the possible threat to the system itself. Perhaps he hoped that the impending terror of punishment would adequately offset the absence of moral training among the custodians of Communist rule."

"Lenin launched a fierce campaign against those who dared to plead the cause of morality albeit within the framework of communism."

"Marx must have deemed it essential to banish morality from human affairs because of its implied potential to lead to God."

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that Marxism is immoral because the philosophy is purely materialistic and has no place for god in the equation of human advancement. Since Marx does not believe in god, that means, by some peculiar logic, there is no morality in his philosophy since "all attempts to make man moral emanate from the belief in god" (Ahmad). Unfortunately Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra is wrong in three accounts. Marx never attempted to make man moral, nor did his personal beliefs integrate into his social theory, nor did he purposely banish morality.

If one were to actually study Marxism, they would find no rejection of morality. In fact Marx neither decided to himself that he will reject morality nor did he deem it essential to do so, nor did his followers attempted to make man moral. Marxism is a philosophy of the history in social organization, and morality is nowhere related in this topic. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra made a statement of assumption, and gladly pounced on it himself. It is true that this particular topic shows a materialist point of view of society, however this view does not depend on blatant rejection of God. This argument completely defiles the definition of Marxism, and turns it into something else. Marx did not want to make man moral, he wanted to point out why man is immoral. Religion attempts to make man moral, and Marxism is no religion.

What exactly is the link with morality and God? Every ethical law human beings have created can be lead back to religious roots. There are many re-interpretations of these ethics into an array with one end created by revealed religion and the other non-religious. For example, ethics can be based off a metaphysical philosophy like Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. It can also be based off a material philosophy such as Lenin's own communist ethics, or Islamic philosophy with divine revelation as driving force. However, the most important type of morality to recognize for this situation is the one that's based off the ruling class. They also have some power and influence over a society's morals. They themselves become God because they have the power to induce cultural hegemony. They attempt to make society moral for their own benefit to stick to their position in society.

Marx believed that what is moral stems from the what the ruling class believes is moral - more precisely what they want the working class to believe is moral. However in a situation of the working class in power to rule themselves, they will decide on their morality with complete autonomy, and religion will most definitely play a role in this. Just because Marx himself was an atheist, it doesn't mean religion will vanish under communist and socialist influence. Marx's problem with religion is that it gives people hope of a better life after death, which pacifies them and further allows their exploitation for the rest of their lives. Marx's opinion, an opinion that the author does not agree with, was that after the working class overthrows the oppressive system, they will decide to simply let go of religion on their own accord, since they do not need a coping mechanism for their suffering. Nowhere does Marx actively tries to wipe out religion from the face of the earth. There was no need for an effort to get rid of religion because Marx hypothesized society will do it on its own. Therefore Marxism does not reject morality. It doesn't directly talk about it at all, because it discusses a completely different topic to begin with. The only time it touches such topic is when it talks about the immorality of capitalist exploitation.

A very important distinction needs to be made between ethical laws and economic laws. Marx cared about economics in human society, not ethics. This is the fundamental difference between religion and Marxism. One is economics, and religion is ethics. As much as these two topics do coincide, the distinction needs to be noticeable. One strand of law is controlled by revelation, the other strand is controlled by other human and material factors. Religion does not discuss economics, nor does it pledge allegiance to any specific laws. It is flexible in all formats of society and this is witnessed throughout history.

Therefore it is wrong to say that religion would have no influence on a society's morals and ethics while it's under a proposed "Marxist" economic system. Society would be much better under such economic system that stresses living within ones means. These socialist economic laws are compatible with religious ethical laws. This is not create a perfect society as Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra implies later on, but to stamp out most of society's problems. People will have complete liberty to practice their religion, and the state must have no affiliation with it. This the separation of Church and State, and interestingly enough it is also something the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community recognizes.

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra also argues that since Marxism has no morality, that means communism has no morality.

"Another dilemma which Marx faces is that morality cannot be defined in partisan terms. A society which is taught and trained in rejecting all moral obligations... is always given to immorality"

"That which communists do openly, the capitalists do with a masterly hypocrisy. Their politics, trade and economics are no less devoid of morality"

"Lenin launched a fierce campaign against those who dared to plead the cause of morality albeit within the framework of communism."

As been elaborated before, Marxism and communism are two separate topics. It doesn't matter if the philosophy is devoid of morality. That wouldn't make the economic system and its people devoid of morality. Since the topic is now switched to communism and morality, in 1920 Lenin said in his famous speech "The Tasks of the Youth Leagues":

"The entire purpose of training, educating and teaching the youth of today should be to imbue them with communist ethics.

But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants.

...

We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat."

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra seems to confuse philosophy with politics. He uses the example of the Soviet Union to show that communists are cold and immoral creatures. True, is was indeed a brutal regime, but not in account for communism, rather for its dictatorship. The Soviet Union was not immoral due to its economics. It was politically immoral due to its totalitarian regime. It wasn't communism that was immoral, it was the political structure. This is will be further discussed later on in the section about Dictatorships and Communist Societies.