I say Marxism and not Socialism or Communism because I favor Socialism (as in Social Democracies like in Europe) and oppose Communism (because it is necessarily fascist). But Marxism, as in what Marx believed and wrote, bothers me significantly. And as for Christianity, I mean Biblical Christianity as in most of what the Bible says, and those fundamental, the end is nigh Christians. I have no problem with Christians as a whole, but that's because most of them believe something fairly different from what the Bible says (That's for a different post entirely).
Let's start off easy. The basis of Biblical Christianity is that the world has been corrupted and that God is coming to punish the evil-doers, and that those who have faith in God (who are suffering under the oppression of evil-doers) need only be patient and steadfast in their faith and God will deliever their enemies to doom and bring His people to paradise.
God also sent his Son open the gates to Heaven to those who sinned but wished to repent. This was because, in the New Testament's view of Judaism, repentence was impossible, and faithfulness to the Jewish laws was impossible (because they were so numerous and intricate). Jesus' death and ressurection allowed for those who had sinned to be saved. This also meant those who had done evil did not need to despair their fate, for they could repent (instead of doing one evil deed, realizing they were doomed, and sinning in excess because, well, they could).
Among the sins spelled out, Jesus emphasized heavily on money. I'll list the relevant parables and quotes later on. Before we get too focused on the Bible, let's turn to Marx.
Marx believed that capitalists (by which he meant anyone with money not earned by physical labor) by definition exploited workers. Marx' belief was this: If 1 man made a good and sold it to another, he would be entitled to all that money. If two men made a good together, they would be entitled to shares of that money (based on the amount of and type of labor each did). If 10 men in a factory built something, therefore, they should be entitled to the selling price of every item. But Marx saw that there were managers, who did not work on the factory floor, and these managers made a profit from the goods of the factory that were sold. Marx claimed, because he did no physical work, he did not deserve the money. Therefore, he was stealing the money. Therefore, he was exploiting the workers. Marx also believed the manager would pay as little as possible, and because there is always some unemployment, he can always find others to work for less money, which means he can exploit the workers even more. He also benefits by pitting the workers against each other for a limited number of jobs. All the while, he makes more and more money, while the proletariat make less (both as a whole and individually).
Marx believed at some point the proletariat would realize their situation and stage an international revolt, taking over the factories, and creating a Communist Utopia. It is important to see Marx did not write how one should go about revolting, nor even suggest anyone in particular revolt. He saw it as a historical inevitability: The proletariat would revolt. He also never described how such a Communist Utopia would actually operate, merely that it would be a Utopia.
"How are these two philosophies similar?" You might ask. "Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses. How do his words mirror any religion whatsoever?"
Let's go back to Jesus. Jesus constantly railed against the evils of money. He insisted it tied one down to this life, which contradicted the desire to go to the afterlife (where Paradise was). It was impossible to love God and have money. Early Christians drew a difference between loving money and making enough money so that you not starve, but Jesus was very clear: Money necessarily doomed one to miss the afterlife. Let's look at some parables:
- Luke 12:13-34 A man asks Jesus to settle a dispute about inheritance money. Jesus rebukes the man for being greedy, and then tells this parable of the rich man. There was a very rich man who found he did not have enough room to house his belongings, so he plans to knock down the buildings on his property and replace them with bigger ones. Then God comes down and tells him "Your soul is required of you this very night - who now owns what you have cared for?" Jesus concludes this proves God dispises the rich (or perhaps: the rich cannot properly love God)
- Mark 10:17-30 A man comes to Jesus asking how he can inherit eternal life. He says he has kept all the important commandments. Jesus tells him to sell all his possesions, and the man becomes sad and leaves, for (as the text says), he owned much property (and was apparently attached to it). Jesus then complains to his disciples that it is difficult for the wealthy to go to paradise, and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of God." Jesus then says only those with God can be saved, but that their reward in the afterlife will be a hundred times what they gave up.
- In Matthew 6, during the Summit on the Mount, Jesus warns people to give charity in secret, "not as the sounding of trumpets... for God who sees secrets will repay you." If one has a lot of money, and one wishes to get rid of it (to get into the afterlife), one must do so quietly. Giving to the poor in a loud fashion is, basically, like buying attention. That is not giving away your money, that is using it to boost your Earthly reputation. And any attachment to Earth necessarily conflicts with the love of God.
- Mark 12:12-17 Some enemies of Jesus come to him with a question, meaning to trap him. They ask if one should pay taxes. Jesus asks for a Roman coin, points out that Caesar's head is on the coin, and replies "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." The text says his enemies were amazes by the reply. I've always found this to be a joke. Jesus senses the trap, knows Caesar's head is on the coin, and simply points to the coin and says: "God wants nothing to do with this money, it has Caesar's head," (who was believed to be part of the Roman Divine family tree (At the time of this quote, the Caesar was probably either Tiberius or Caligula, both of which believed in their own Divinity)). It would also be safe to assume that "what is God's" is not money, and as we've seen Jesus thought money was a barrier to God, giving it all to Caesar as tax seemed like a great way to absolve yourself. You don't cheat your ruler, you give him what he desires, and you can enter heaven. Why not?
Just as Marx believed the very relationship between managers and workers was exploitive, Jesus believed money is necessarily evil. Marx coined (no pun intended) the term Capitalist to mean anyone who made money without doing their own physical labor. Marx did not believe managerial skill was worth money, only those labors that created sweat on the brow. And who did the sweat of the brow? Those workers who suffered. And who would be redeemed in the Communist utopia? Those workers who had suffered.
Similarly, who would be suffering in Jesus' (or anyone's) time? The poor. Why were the poor suffering? Because they were not rich. But while the rich enjoyed life now, the poor would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, while the rich would be damned. So while being poor meant suffering, the solution was not to make money but to trust in God for eventual salvation. Similarly, Marx did not believe the proletariat should become managers (for then they would be the evil capitalists), but simply that they would eventually become tired of their condition and revolt. And then everything would be utopian.
Neither Marx nor Jesus explain how their utopia would work, only that it would, and it would redeem those who suffered.
It seems to me Marx and Jesus are preaching the same kind of thing. Life sucks, but something will happen, and then it will be awesome. Problem is, both of them are faith-based beliefs. For Jesus, you need to believe in an afterlife. For Marx, you need to believe in the coming international Proletariat revolution. Neither says what one can do to improve one's life, merely that it will get better after something out of their control occurs.
Their ideologies are also similar in that "the first will be last." Whoever is oppressed will eventually win out. Don't try to better yourself - that only dooms you. Just suck it up and you'll be rewarded.
I'm not sure I need to go into too much detail to explain why there ideologies bother me. First, it strikes me quite a bit of time has passed and neither has happened. Jesus insisted the world would end soon ("Even this generatio will not have passed..." ), and it clearly hasn't. Further, 150 so years have passed since Marx and no revolution has occured, and those that did either corrupted themselves or simply failed. Not to say workers are as bad off as before - indeed they are certainly better, with labor unions and minimum wage and health benefits and the like - but the proletariat revolution as imagined has not happened, and I am sure, never will. Unless you consider the evolution of Social Democracies and the emergence of the Welfare state to be the revolution, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Surely it has benefitted workers and in some cases harmed managers, but it isn't a revolution, and we certainly aren't in a utopia, Communist or other.
But mostly I disagree with this because I feel it takes away the motivation to live well. I see no sin in making money, I see no harm in managing workers, and I think one should enjoy life because, well, why the heck not? Perhaps I'm faithless and will go to hell, or maybe I'm a Capitalist and therefore part of the problem Marx saw, and if so, then I'm OK with that. Surely we should be kind to one another and surely workers shouldn't be exploited or oppressed, but certainly we don't need extreme ideologies to tell us that......... Right?
James Thomas must be disbarred, or made to eat Colorado's disgusting meat, which I'm sure is infected with E. coli and made with a heaping serving of cow manure.
Thanks to this site for providing me with some of the Jesus quotes...
https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/stewardship
Interesting, but I'd highly disagree. You are right that both men were preaching to a particular class/group of people, and offering them an answer. There is one big difference however, and Marx emphasizes this very much in his works (see his Critique of Hegel). For Marx, the problem with religion is the specific fact that it gives man a hiding place, to escape reality and thus he lives in an inverted world. Marx says that criticism of religion is good, but only a first step. Once you have criticized religion, you eliminate the illusions of your condition (i.e. "you are poor now but there's Heaven so don't worry"). Marx says you need to go further than this, and criticize the conditions that NEEDED illusions to begin with. The criticism of heaven must become the criticism of the earth. The criticism of religion, the criticism of law. And the criticism of theology, the criticism of politics.
ReplyDeleteFor him, the reason 'conditions that require illlusion' come about is due to the division of labor of society. Once it becomes a division of mental and physical labor it is a true one, and the fruits of labor are disproportionately distributed. In any such division one class will always be supreme and one must necessarily bear the brunt (be it feudalism, capitalism, etc.). It is held up by the ideology of the ruling class which seeks to show its interests as universal. Each class seeking supremacy must make its interest look universal against an oppressing class. In that way the bourgeoisie made some headway when it kicked out the nobility, and allowed some proletariat to raise itself to the bourgeoisie. But it never fixed the problem since there is still a disenfranchised class (i.e. the bourgeois interests aren't TRULY universal).
The reason Marx says communism is a Utopia therefore, without giving a precise way it would function, is based on the fact that such exploitation is only possible due to the divison of labor, and the fact that there is a ruling class who's interests aren't universal. If the proletariat were to take power, its interests would truly be universal, therefore the division of labor would be transcended and exploitation would not be an inherit part of the system.