To mark his 200th birthday, the self-styled “young person’s guide to saving the world,” Teen Vogue,wrote an article on Karl Marx—“the Anti-Capitalist Scholar.” The article is worth reading, not necessarily because it is a work of serious scholarship, but because it represents a perfect example of the propaganda that many young people are fed regarding Marxism. Avoiding the inconvenient truth that his ideology led to deaths in the neighborhood of 150 million people (according to The Black Book of Communism) and focusing instead on the abuses of capitalism that it allegedly rectifies, Marx is presented and an underappreciated genius. This marks the latest in a long line of attempts to paint the intellectual founder of Communism and his theories in a positive light. Of course this is a favorite tactic of Lenin himself who thought that targeting the minds of the young and teaching them to love Marx, hate any authority and label anyone whose ideas differ from theirs as haters (notice how “bosses”, “rich people” and even Donald Trump end up in their sights) they could be won over to Communism. The rest of the general public, living in a post-Cold War world, remains wholly ignorant to the tenets of Marxism, let alone its inherent dangers.
In his scathing condemnation of Communism (he calls it a “satanic scourge”), Divini Redemptoris, Pope Pius XI said that Communism spread so rapidly because “too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises…Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system” (Divini Redemptoris, 15). His assessment of Communism remains to this day one of the best overall and succinct descriptions of the goals and errors of Marxism. It should appear on every Catholic’s reading list, especially those who view Marxism as something relegated to the dustbin of history. It is still very much alive in places like Cuba and North Korea and in its cultural form in many countries (including our own).
Marxism and Conflict
Rather than focusing in this essay on each of these errors, there is one particular aspect that draws our attention. In the last paragraph of the Teen Vogue article, the author says “While you may not necessarily identify as a Marxist, socialist, or communist, you can still use Karl Marx’s ideas to use history and class struggles to better understand how the current sociopolitical climate in America came to be.” This plea for open-mindedness towards Marxism is really a thinly veiled attempt to promote it. It rests on an important assumption attached to Marx’s philosophy that paves the way for the whole package—his dialectical and historical materialism.
Marx’s interpretation of history is simple; it is a process that is driven inevitably forward by the law of dialectics. In this vision of history, all social change comes about through class conflicts produced by economic causes. As Marx put it, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1 ). This growth occurs according to the pattern of the dialectic. Thesis generates its own antithesis and from this conflict a synthesis emerges. This synthesis becomes the new thesis and the process continues until it reaches its end—the Communist society. For Marx, the rise of Capitalism had reduced society to only two classes, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. What he proposed was a single world-wide revolution that abolishes the Bourgeoisie and puts an end to class conflict forever under the “dictatorship of the Proletariat.”
To organize the young around the view that all of history is oppression is the key to the spread of the Marxist revolution (or any revolution for that matter). This is also at the heart of the challenge by cultural Marxism that we face. The dialectic of oppression is the predominant social vernacular of our day. The rich oppress the poor, men oppress women, white men oppress black men, religious majority oppress the sexual libertines and on and on. We must see this for what it is—something the Holy Father warned about, “The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions” (DR, 15).
Marx’s vision of history is not historical but religious instead. He offers no evidence to support his claim that all of history is conflict and accepts no explanation to the contrary. In fact, if we look at history then there are plenty of examples of cooperative societies (including the family and apprentice/master relationships) that were not in perpetual conflict. The Christian High Middle Ages were not a period of economic conflict either. Historian Christopher Dawson has shown conclusively that history has been moved not by economic factors, but religious ones. Of course there is some truth to the fact that when the cooperative elements broke down, conflict ensued. But still that can hardly be the lens through which we view all history.
One could refute Marx based on his unproven assumption, but there is a more important anthropological assumption that needs to be challenged. For Marx the goal is the perfection of society and thus each individual exists for the sake of the whole. Each man becomes a cog in the machine of society and thus is expendable, leaving him without any true rights. In the Christian conception of man, society exists for the individual; not in the liberalist sense of individualism couched in a social contract, but because each man only finds his individual perfection by contributing to the whole. Man is social by nature because He is made in the image of God, Who, as a communion of Person, is social by nature too.
Conflict and Complementarity
This is ultimately why the conflict theory of history doesn’t fly. Society is formed by men who are all made in God’s image, thus giving them a certain equality. But this equality does not mean we are destined for a classless society. The message is not one of conflict but complementarity in which each man and woman finds and is satisfied with their own station in life. They are fulfilled only by finding this station and living out of it. This place is predetermined only in the sense that it is part of God’s providential plan and not based upon the preconceived ideas of other men and women. Richer and poorer depend equally upon each other for their own personal fulfillment. Men and women, black and white, likewise are the same. When done well without social agitation from cultural Marxists, this can become a reality.
Perhaps this sounds more utopian than Marxism itself. This vision will not put an end to oppression because the problem is not in the social structure but in the human heart. “The poor you will always have with you” because there will always be Original Sin and its accompanying oppression. But it is not a social revolution that will put an end to that but a revolution of each man against himself. But this revolution will never come about unless we live out of the truth. The exterior must support the interior. The revolutionary language of oppression will never bring about this revolution but only further alienates us from each other and from ourselves. It’s time we pull the mask off Marxism and call it when we see it.