Was Christ a Marxist?

Karl Marx changed the landscape of human thought forever when he published his radical political philosophy, otherwise known as ‘communism’. Ever since numerous activists, thinkers and rulers have pledged allegiance to the Marxist tradition, attempting to implement the revolution required to liberate the poor. An even more influential man is Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian religion, with estimates projecting almost two billion people today following the teachings of this faith. In the last century, some people have suggested that Christ was a Marxist before Marx, his teachings merely reflecting the truth of communism and that the heavenly kingdom he speaks of is the same as the ideal community Marx described. In this article, I will argue that Christ was not a Marxist, nor is Marxism a palatable philosophy. I shall do this by first pointing out a number of the flaws of Marxism, which Christian ethics does not have. Then, an analysis of what would constitute the ‘heavenly kingdom’ shall ensue, which will rebut the notion that God’s kingdom is Marxist in nature. In short, I agree with Hampson that 'communism has neither as good means nor as good an end as the Christian worldview.'

As this article is already lengthy, I shall not myself offer expositions of Marxism or what Christian ethics constitutes. Rather, if you are not clear on what these terms are taken to mean, you can click on the links for broad guides to these doctrines:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/

http://www.request.org.uk/issues/topics/ethics/ethics01.htm

The first challenge Marxism faces is that if propounds the ‘Promethean Illusion’ (Niebuhr). Christian Realists argue that human beings are insecure, because we are ‘dependent and finite’, relying on God as the source of our continued existence. The ‘noble faith’ recognises are immediate predicament and places all hope and trust in Christ, who has shown his unconditional, unique love for us as the ‘suffering God’, dying on a cross in Judea for the rebel creation (Moltmann). However, out of ‘pride’, humanity often tried to turn its ‘weaknesses into strengths’, attempting to gain security (Niebuhr). Such behaviour leads to power and injustice, oppressing others to secure one’s own safety. It is in ‘trying to transcend our creaturliness’ we not only ‘offend God’ but creation’s harmony and balance. All our attempts are futile in the face of suffering and death, for no act of humanity can eradicate the finite and limited nature we possess. This is the mark of false prophecy: offering security to humans as long as they do such and such. All utopianism, which is trademark of enlightenment thinking, falls into the snare of imagining human volition can reorder the cosmos around us. It is only in recognising we will face immediate perils in that uphold the majesty of the divine.

Communism upholds false prophecy because it suggests alienation and suffering can be significantly minimised if we instigate revolution, a collective human action. Through the will of the many, humanity can reconfigure social structures to rid humanity of the ailments of capitalism. However, the projected Marxist state can solve none of our deepest yearnings. It offers no answers to the intrinsic dependence and vulnerability as part of a cosmic existence. It cannot provide any solution to gaping jaws of death. Worst of all, it actively purports that human action alone can save humanity. Communism presents the illusion that if social relations are corrected, then immediate security will ensue. This pride in human ability is itself the source of moral evil, and not only upholds falsity but encourages dangerous actions of self-righteousness. Without belief in God, hope in humanity’s future is only procured by thinking that humans can change the cosmic order, which is absurd. Perhaps it is out of wish fulfilment that Marxism holds to a utopian future (Feurbach).

By contrast, Christianity openly accepts that suffering and hardship will ensue, no matter the course of human action taken. Indeed, ‘A Christian is someone who shares the sufferings of God in the world.’ (Bonhoeffer) as is alluded to multiple times in Scripture. 1 Peter 4:12–13: ‘Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.’ Clearly, the Christian worldview does not propound a vision of reality where faith removes suffering or evil. Rather, it is the hope and trust in the love of God and the promise of immortality which sustains the faith of the disciple in immediate pain. It is in the realisation of our powerlessness that we begin to undercut the source of moral evil, which Marxism seeks to uphold.

A second problem is that the Marxist holds that one can make a desirable society without the people within that social setup being moral. Communists believe that if private property is abolished, the means of production returned to the proletariat, that if society is structured as a commune, then alienation and other ailments will dissipate. However, this seems to presuppose that living in such a system will configure just people. Yet this seems thesis commits the same fallacious move that many other political philosophies do, that a community can be just without the people being just. If individuals within a system are not good and seek only their self-interest, then it does not matter what their relations are to other people: they will still exploit and damage other people’s livelihoods. If individuals are not virtuous, then it does not matter how they are socially arranged. Moral evil will continue to ensue, taking different forms. Rather, focus should be on the ethical regeneration of individuals, building moral character through loving relationships. Changing social structures has been done before and achieved nothing, for without the people in the system being modified, the system will always be unjust.

The implication of this is that all social constructs, whether it is communist, capatilist, theocracy, feudalist, socialist and even potentially fascist social structures can all be just provided the people within them are just. For example, take Bournville in Birmingham. This area was owned by the Cadbury family, who were the innovators behind the famous Cadbury’s Chocolate. Being Quakers (a Christian denomination), the Cadbury’s believed it was their responsibility to look after the wellbeing of their employees. Thus, they provided homes, health, education and leisure for their labourers, creating a vibrant and happy community. It was this act of kindness, in a capitalist system, which helped make the people of the area just, for the owners used their time and money to improve the welfare of their society. Thus, Bournville was known for its gracious community spirit, always willing to lend a hand in times of need. So clearly, there can be a just community within a framework which is not Marxist, because it is the people, not the system, which determine the goodness of a society.

Jesus recognised that it is people, not social systems, which matter in political and ethical discourse. Thus, when he founded his new community (the Church) it was a ‘distinct community with a deviant set of values’ (Yoder). These values consisted in: 1) it was ‘voluntary’ – one only becomes a Christian if one wants to be a Christian as no one can force you to trust in Jesus; 2) it was of ‘generic composition’ – it was not just the poor, or the rich, or one race or another. It was a society which allowed all groups, the margianlised and the popular, regardless of those things one is born with. 3) It had a ‘new set of values’ – the people in this group put love, faith and hope at the centre of their worldview, using it to direct their actions in every way. It was the commands of Christ to love God with all your ‘heart, mind and soul’ and to love your neighbour as yourself which drove their ethical decision making, reforming their predispositions and enabled Christians to gain a reputation of peaceful and moral folk. Christian society was grounded in sanctification of the individual, a recognition that God’s kingdom could only be on earth when everyone loves one another. Thus, Christianity is once more superior to Marxism, as it recognises that it is people, not social relations, which need to be transformed to make a society just.

Thirdly, Marxism supports the use of violence and conflict to achieve its ends, which is entirely unjustified. Communists are concerned with writing ‘metanarratives’, reshaping the course of history around their political goals (Hauerwas). They want to change the traditions and attitudes of a society, making deep structural alterations which mould a communities past in a new light. They want to redefine and interpret the past in light of a communist society. This is not uncommon for groups who aspire to political revolution: the French Revolutionaries created a new calendar, a new way dividing up time and a new religion. In his ‘Clean Slate Thesis’, Toumlin conjectures such an approach can only lead to ‘rivers of blood’. To overthrow the present narrative, one must remove those who are identified with the current system. This will lead to violence and death, the killing of individuals in order to tinker with history. However, that which endangers life should be ‘oppressed’ (Aquinas), for it is the most apparent truth in nature that life is precious and should not be threatened at any cost. The Marxist violates the natural right to life in order to implement a communist society, which is morally wrong and commits the same crime the bourgeoisie also uphold. The problem is, such ‘zealotry… changes too little’ (Yoder), for the sword still rules and the ‘self-righteousness of the mighty is upheld’. Removing one group by force simply leads to vengeance and injustice, for revolutionaries have used a means of acquiring power which was the same means the previous rulers used, and thus, all they have done is continue the cycle of suffering.

On the other hand, Christianity has a long history of supporting non-violence. Jesus taught to ‘love your enemy’ and to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of oppression. In 1 Peter, the author states we should ‘repay evil with a blessing’. Marx describes this as ‘despicable rubbish’, yet the willingness to forgive and embrace the persecutor is at the heart of Jesus’ ‘Original Revolution’ (Yoder). When violence is met with love, the cycle of suffering comes to an end, with injustice countered with a much more powerful warmth and affection which can change human hearts. This approach can help build relationships anew, start diplomatic negotiations and mend schisms amongst warring peoples. Yet it is only if one refuses to ‘define themselves by their enemies who can bless them’ (Volf). The Christian identity is that of being ‘reborn into a living hope’, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. His love forms the centre of a Christian life, and one’s self-understanding should start from Him. This is a positive identity, independent of other people. By contrast, the Marxist defines herself as an opposition to the current world order, for their identity is moulded around a mission to displace those currently in power to change social structures. Thus, they will always be in conflict with capitalists and fascists, pushing them away at every turn. As such, only violence can ensue, once more upholding the existing values of oppression. Therefore, the Marxist identity not only encourages violence but fails to solve the oppression of others by using conflict as a means of revolution, in stark contrast to Jesus’ teachings.

An example of this regards the recent attacks on Muslims in light of last week’s terrorist attack. To counter the EDL, a number of groups, such as UAF, had organised counter demonstrations to voice their opposition. However, these protests actually invigorate groups like the EDL, who thrive on violence and conflict. Forming large groups to challenge them in an aggressive way is exactly what they want, and does little to dissuade those who are fascist from being fascist. By contrast, the actions of a Muslim community in York were far more successful without resorting to violence. Rather than defend their Mosque from the oncoming attackers, they went out to the volatile crowd and offered them tea and biscuits. The EDL gladly accepted, spoke with the Muslims, and then went on their way peacefully, having received the kindness of a group they had sought to attack. This put a stop to the violence in that area, and was a powerful act. It is a testament to the teaching which Christ advocated, that non-violent public witness is a far greater alternative to violent upheaval, as Marxism supports.

So Marxism would seem to endorse a false sense of immediate security, uphold the doctrine states can be just without the people being in them being just and violent methods of usurpation, which Christianity rightly does not claim. As such, Jesus could not have been a Marxist. However, some Christians may argue that whilst Christ is not strictly a Marxist, the communist society is like God’s heavenly kingdom. Marx did not get everything right, but like other secular philosophers, he identified certain truths about reality. Just as he pictured the ideal community as being classless, without private property and arranged on a needs basis, so too the divine society can be thought of in such a way. Since thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, whilst not in entire agreement with Christian doctrine, the essence of what they taught has been thought of as drawing out truths, so too Marx may be seen in the same way. However, in the following passage, I shall argue that in fact the heavenly kingdom cannot be Marxist.

Communism purports that the ideal society is composed of entirely equal members. No one has more rights or property of power than anyone else. All people just take what they need from the commune and contribute the rest to allow others to take what they need. However, this incompatible with Christianity because it would mean the Triune God would be equal with humanity. As the ‘greatest conceivable being’ (Anselm) only God can be Lord, and as the creator of the world, all creation is His property. Thus, Christians believe all things are owned by God, and we are subjects to His rule. The divine community is one composed of individuals who recognise Christ’s Lordship, His superiority and right to use as He sees fit. This is directly opposed to Marxism, which has to have no Lordship or class within its social relations. Therefore, God’s heavenly kingdom cannot be Marxist, for Jesus would have to be equal with humans, which ontologically is absurd.

Furthermore, violence would be the natural result of a Marxist community. Often, thinkers have associated violent behaviour with power. However Arendt has persuasively argued that power comes from the collective will and does not need violence to achieve any of its goals, since voluntary compliance takes its place. This would be the Christian kingdom, where God’s sovereign power over those who conform to His rule. By contrast, violence arises from the absence of power. Marxism envisions a society with the ‘rule by no one’, and as such in the absence of legitimate authority individuals will impose their will on others. With no power base, people will be forced towards violent means to achieve their ends. Yet this is in direct contrast with the peaceful place we think of heaven as being. Thus, Christian society cannot be Marxist.

Drawing the threads of the article together, I have argued that Jesus was not a Marxist in any respect. Firstly, I argued that Christian teachings are superior to Marxist theory because Marxism promotes the ‘Promethian Illusion’, endorses the view that the state can be just without its inhabitants being just and allows for the violation of the right to life, all which Christ rejected. Furthermore, I claimed the heavenly kingdom is not communist, for God stands in a superior position to humans, and the Marxist community would result in violence. Therefore, I conclude Christian ethics is not only not the same as Marxism, but superior to Karl Marx’s philosophy.