Marxist Morality

'Now, I have the word "capitalism" in quotation marks because it was originated by a communist, and we shouldn't allow enemies of the good to define the vocabulary of the debate. I prefer to call the mostly free market in question a "natural economy," as it is what naturally occurs when people are afforded economic freedom; they will buy, produce, sell and compete. In contrast, communism (in the real world, not in the stateless utopia of textbook fantasies) requires a large, intrusive, freedom-squelching government to micromanage people's endeavors and quash the yearnings of man's spirit. And because the Natural Economy does allow people the most freedom practical (we still must have courts to enforce contracts, for instance), it is infinitely morally superior to Marxism.

Having said this, the Natural Economy doesn't have "moral ethics"; it just is. It is, again, what naturally occurs when man is permitted to spread his wings. And it will be as moral as the average people who operate within it.

In contrast, Marxism will be as immoral as the worst people who operate within it. This is because, while the Natural Economy is governed by those hundreds of millions of consumer votes called the market, communism is ruled by the unscrupulous few who can claw their way to the top in an inevitably corrupt political system.

But while Marxism is morally inferior, it cannot be said to have "moral ethics" any more than the Natural Economy does -- not in the true sense of the term. This is because it is atheistic. And morality, properly understood, implies God.

Why? Because what we call "morality" can originate with only one of two possible sources: Man or something outside of him. If it's something outside of and infinitely superior to him (i.e., God) -- if "Absolute Truth" exists, in other words -- then we can say that morality has an existence unto itself and is, therefore, real. But what if, as wanting Greek philosopher Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things"? Then morality doesn't really exist; the word is then just a confusing redundancy, a water-muddying term that we apply to what is nothing but man's consensus tastes. After all, we wouldn't say that chocolate ice cream was "bad" or "wrong" and vanilla "good" or "right" simply because we found out that the greater mass of humanity preferred the latter, would we? Yet is it any more logical to proclaim murder bad or wrong if the only basis for doing so is that the vast majority of the world prefers that we not kill in a way labeled unjust? If, as with ice cream, our attitude toward murder is just a matter of man's collective preference, then it lies in the same realm: taste. This is, by the way, what people of faith mean when they equate atheism with amorality. Secularists such as Christopher Hitchens take umbrage at this, but they misunderstand the concepts involved; no one is saying that an atheist cannot act morally -- only that atheism cannot, logically, involve "morality." '

- Selwyn Duke, 'Dalai Lama: I am a Marxist.'


Popular Posts