Communism & Christian Faith

By Lester DeKoster

"The best anti-Communism will come not only out of a determined opposition to all that Communism stands for, but it will come, even more so, out of the best dedication to the goals of freedom, of justice, of equity, of brotherhood, of the Christian life."
—Lester DeKoster

A century has passed since the Russian Revolution, and many in the current generation regard even the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe as ancient history. But Karl Marx’s ideological legacy remains strong. While the specter of this nineteenth-century thinker perhaps loomed largest in the twentieth century, today Marx’s ideas continue to fall on fertile soil—even among Christians. In Communism & Christian Faith, written at the height of the Cold War, Lester DeKoster offers a concise and incisive guide to the fundamentals of Marxism and draws a clear contrast between Communism and Christianity. While deeply critical of Communism, DeKoster reads Communist sources with care, avoids caricatures, and recognizes that Communism’s attention to problems of suffering, exploitation, and injustice calls for a clear and positive Christian social vision.

Includes a new introduction by Pavel Hanes

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian's Library Press
• Release date: Mar 18, 2018
• ISBN: 9781942503743

Book preview

Introduction

Pavel Hanes*

There is no shortage of books that critique Communism and Marxism—DeKoster uses these terms synonymously—from political, economic, and philosophical standpoints. There are also quite a few that do so from the standpoint of Christian theology. What is special about DeKoster’s book that it deserves republication more than sixty years after its original publication?

Let me start by recounting my personal experience. I grew up in the Communist Czechoslovakia and during my school years I heard countless propaganda speeches on all kinds of public occasions—everything public was also political in those times. In school I had to study the Marxist rendering of history and the Communist interpretation of everything under the sun. (Studies in Communist doctrines were an unavoidable experience for all—whatever the age, nationality, or social position. Even the prisoners studied the history of Bolshevism, the history of the international workers’ movement, and dialectical materialism.) At home I was taught evangelical Christianity. I sincerely believed the teachings of the Bible, and I became a member of a Baptist church. This led to an inner struggle, and I had to fight hard to defend my faith from the onslaughts of the so-called scientific atheism. After the revolutions of 1989 I seriously expected some sort of public deconstruction of the grand propagandist political schemes preached under the defunct totalitarian regime—but no such thing happened. Democracy was installed simply by introducing new political and economic institutions. Of course, the economic failure of the Communist planned economy, in a sense, was the best of all possible refutations. But Marxism was much more than economics!

After a couple of years passed, I decided to write a Christian critique of the Marxist system myself to help with what I called demarxification. The idea was that there were (and I think there still are) many attitudes and ideas lingering in people’s minds that had been hammered into them by the official, omnipresent propaganda. Looking for authors and books critiquing Marxism in the quite limited post-revolution conditions, I came across several in-depth analyses and refutations of the Marxist system, such as Michael Novak’s analysis of liberation theology,[1] Klaus Bockmuehl’s balanced discussion of Marxist-Leninist doctrines,[2] and David McLellan’s exposition of Marxist dealings with religion.[3] Looking back I wish I had had DeKoster’s Communism & Christian Faith because of the way DeKoster focuses on the few really crucial Marxist doctrines and gives a theologically thoughtful, but not unreservedly pro-capitalist, Christian alternative.

In the following I will try to reason out why we still need to pay attention to the Communist ideology despite the fact that it suffered such a big debacle at the end of the last century.

Do We Really Need to Discuss Communism Again?

The Cold War between the East and the West is—thankfully—over, and we face the challenges of postmodernism in philosophy and neoliberalism in political economy today. So, do we really need to discuss Communism again?

First of all, not everything is great and wonderful in the post-Communist capitalist paradise after, according to Fukuyama’s End of History,[4] the best possible social order has come out victoriously from the protracted battle with the world Communist movement. Fukuyama may be right, for he is using the word history in the Hegelian-Marxist sense, but for others Marxism still remains the only norm that should be applied for the analysis and judgment of contemporary capitalist economic and political developments. This means that even the disintegration of the existing Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Bloc countries has not led to a complete burial of Marx’s theories and expectations of a Communist utopia. Marxism is still considered the most theoretically rich, the most searching, rigorous, comprehensive, and politically uncompromising critique of capitalism.[5]

It is true that there are those who are persuaded that the specter of Communism has been cast out and capitalism has no competitor to be afraid of. It has emerged triumphant and its achievements cannot be surpassed and transcended. This opinion is shared even by some thinkers on the Left. According to them there is simply no alternative. But it seems to me that those who hold to this opinion tend to think of Communism and Marxism only in terms of the Cold War’s opposing forces, and they forget the endless varieties and ways Marxist thought is present in today’s humanities and political and economic theories.

Curiously enough, there are theologians who think that Marxism of the classic Marx (as his views are found in his earlier works) is consistent with the Christian understanding of justice and equity. They use his categories as hermeneutical tools to interpret the Bible, and in their opinion, without the Marxist analysis we are unable to decipher the biblical text. This stems from the fresh reading of the writings of the young Marx and from preferring his more purely philosophical views to the politico-economic doctrines of Das Kapital.

What Is This Thing Called Marxism?

Leszek Kołakowski, in addition to what is called orthodox Marxism, gives the basic tenets of several other forms of Marxist isms in his three-volume magnum opus, Main Currents of Marxism.[6] In addition to the orthodox, revisionist, and Soviet Marxism, he lists further forms under names like hedonist, jansenist, anarchist, open, ethical, Austro-Marxism, Polish, and Russian. He also briefly describes Chinese Marxism (Maoism). This revealing list of varieties of Marxism reminds us not to be too sure we have the same thing in our minds when we talk about Marxism as Marxists do. This is one of the reasons why it is important to focus on the essentials that are common to all Marxist thought.

Probably the most influential Marxist movement today, especially in the West, is critical theory, also called cultural Marxism, which is based on Marx’s conceptual apparatus but no longer looks to the proletariat’s revolutionary consciousness for the norms of truth. Though it is definitely not orthodox Communist, nevertheless it is Marxist because of the way it uses Marx’s categories in its critique and in its program for the transformation of society. Through cultural Marxism, Marx (one of the three masters of suspicion—Freud and Nietzsche being the other two)[7] is present in modern sociological and political theories. Critical theory purports to enlighten and emancipate those who apply its analysis by disclosing the hidden sources of feelings and behavior through what could be called sociological and psychological suspicion.

In conclusion to this short list of various Marxisms, it can be said that the official, politically sanctioned Marxism was dull and insipid while the unofficial Marxism, focusing on analysis and criticism of the existing social order, feels avant-garde and has a powerful philosophical bite that is very attractive especially in the academy.

Residual Marxism

The official ideology of the Soviet Bloc countries was Marxism-Leninism. This variety of Marxist doctrine was simplified into easily understood slogans of propaganda that appealed to the masses. Only later, as it was clear that the promised ideal Communist society was not coming, it became a tool of totalitarian brainwashing focusing on the more immediate advantages of life under the Communist political system. The remains of this watered-down Marxist ideology are still present in public opinion as residual Marxism.

Residual Marxism is still considerably influential in eastern European society. It usually consists of subliminal Marxist attitudes disguised in general non-Marxist terms. It can be divided into three groups of worldview positions: first, the materialist, militantly atheistic explanation of all existence; second, the irreconcileable class opposition between the employer and employee leading inevitably to violent revolutions; and third, the absolute authority of natural science to explain both nature and society. These philosophical positions overlap with the contemporary non-Marxist secularist worldview of naturalism, evolutionism, and scientism, which means it is often quite difficult to distinguish between those public attitudes that have the Communist ideology as their source and those that are simply expressions of modern secularism. Here again DeKoster’s exposition of the Marxist essentials can be very helpful.

The Continued Appeal of Marxism

The original appeal of Marxism lay above all in its assurance that the world was going the way socialists hoped, and the emotional satisfaction it provided of participating in a struggle of classes, which, Marxists insisted, must end in violent revolution.[8] But how do we understand its continued appeal?

For a Christian critique of Marxism it is important to understand the parallels between the Marxist philosophy and Christian theology, because much of Marxism’s attraction today has its sources in those parallels. Marx himself insisted that an atheistic state predicted in his philosophy would be a perfect realization of the essence of Christianity.[9] There is a view of Marxism that interprets it as a Christian heresy. Klaus Bockmuehl gives the following doctrines that correspond with Christianity: the dialectic of nature and labor (the creation), the division of labor (the original sin), revolution (salvation), the proletariat (the savior), the Party (the church), classless Communist society (eschatology).[10] Bockmuehl also describes Marxism as an alternative to the Christian faith that is centered on the dominion of man.[11] It uses several concepts and words taken over from Christianity but, because of its atheism and materialism, they prove to be empty as soon as Marxism comes to power. David Lyon, in his biography of Karl Marx, compares Marx’s world-picture to flowers that obscure the chains of human bondage to sin and sinful life-patterns.[12]

The Marxist Indignant Compassion

Marx used emotionally loaded words to describe the situation of the underprivileged and oppressed classes. This emotional description always generates an intense emotional response and a desire for radical action. He also used the strongest words with a poetical acuteness and a prophetic indignation that make opponents tremble inside and that are difficult to oppose with a cool mindset. DeKoster speaks of the profundity of Marx’s analysis of the misery of the proletariat. Those who have nothing to call their own beyond the means of bare subsistence are deprived of much that is instrumental to personal development and religious life.[13] In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels describe the plight of the proletariat as a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.[14] The underlying problem here is not so much poverty as the dehumanization of the worker in the capitalist economic system. From this it is easy to see how Marxism can captivate anybody who finds himself or herself on the have-not side of the capitalist divide. And he or she may not be really very poor after all.

The concept of alienation, which Marx uses to characterize the human condition, is another emotionally strong idea that resembles aspects of Christian anthropology. Only with Marx, who took it over from Hegel, it is neither alienation from God, nor from human essential nature, but it is alienation from the product of one’s labor by the capitalist or employer. In this way the deepest spiritual and psychological tensions of human existence are related to property relations and economics. Transcendence that formerly was an attribute of God, or an inaccessible reality beyond human reach, is replaced in Marxism by property relations and becomes just a question of ownership. No wonder Marxism is very popular with the masses and is constantly reinterpreted by intellectuals.

The Marxist Utopian Justice

Marxism is not just an explanation of the world’s problems, it is also a call to arms: Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite![15] says The Communist Manifesto. Marx famously expressed the need for changing the world in the eleventh thesis of his Theses on Feuerbach: The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.[16] This is probably the best known saying of Marx, and a Christian cannot but agree with it. But Marxist justice is utopian. It means that for a Marxist nothing short of the complete fulfillment of all human dreams here and now is good enough. DeKoster calls it a Marxist trick to judge society as though it could be perfect on this side of eternity.[17] In this way the Marxist critique achieves an aura of radicalism and generosity unattainable by the more realistic programs for the transformation of society.

The Marxist Prophesied Revolution

Marxists integrate all dimensions of society into one theoretical construction at the base of which are economic and productive relations. So, to transform the society and to solve literally all of its problems, it is imperative to begin with changing the property relations and economic structures. Marxists disagree on the question of whether it has to be a violent revolution with an armed uprising or whether it could be an outcome of peaceful, progressive, and parliamentary reforms. But in whatever way, the result is historically inevitable: the abolition of private property, a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the ensuing classless society.

This is nothing less than a secular prophecy. But it was proclaimed with the certainty of experimental natural science. If the state takes care of the socio-economic determinants, the political and cultural phenomena will somehow take care of themselves. This was believed with religious fervor, and it is a known fact that under Communism, Marxism had the characteristics of a religion, and deviations from its dogmas were severely persecuted.

The continued appeal of Marxism under changed political circumstances should not be underestimated, though. For human beings it is impossible to flourish without hope for the future, without a sense of dignity, and without the certainty of true knowledge. Marxism has no basis for these values, but offers them as an alternative, this-worldly gospel. Kołakowski recognizes three powerful motifs in Marxism: (1) Romanticism as the dream of a return to perfect harmony, (2) Prometheanism as the faith in the human being’s unlimited powers as self-creator, and (3) deterministic enlightenment as the laws of social life that operate in the same inexorable way as the laws of nature.[18]

Let us hear the warning from Francis Schaeffer: Materialism, the philosophic base for Marxist-Leninism, gives no basis for the dignity or rights of man. Where Marxist-Leninism is not in power it attracts and converts by talking much of dignity and rights, but its materialistic base gives no basis for the dignity or rights of man. Yet it attracts by its constant talk of idealism.[19]

A Christian Response to Marxism Today

Taking Marxism Seriously

The most dangerous Christian attitude toward Marxism is complacency. Has not Communism been proven false and finally defeated?! But, as we have seen, there are avatars of Marxism that are waiting to be tried out in practice. The Marxist case against the dehumanizing conditions under consumerist and unfettered capitalism is still getting positive responses even among some Christian theologians. As somebody said: Marx is not only unknown, he is undead!

Marx was very ambiguous in describing how the future classless society will come about. So it is very possible to insist that he has been misunderstood and that his doctrines have been distorted both by his opponents and his friends. Contemporary interest in Marxism makes an important issue of distinguishing between what is genuinely Marx’s philosophy and Marxism (Marx himself once said, I am no Marxist).[20] The first Marxist, in the commonly accepted political sense of the word, was Engels, who modified Marx’s teachings into a deterministic system that imitated the methods of the natural sciences.

For a Christian theologian this should be a challenge to get well acquainted with the real Marx and to be familiar with the historical ways his philosophy developed into its main political, economic, and ideological forms.

Knowing the Facts

DeKoster puts great stress on the demand for scrupulous accuracy and respect for the truth on the part of Christian anti-Communism. This should be a matter of course, but unfortunately Christians often attack a straw man instead of the real thing. Sixty years since the first publication of DeKoster’s work we know more about the failures of Marxism than DeKoster could possibly have known at the time when he was writing. We surely need to know more than just general facts about the Communist debacle at the end of the twentieth century if we want to argue against the diverse interpretations of Marxist thought today.

It is also very helpful to understand the difference between the German concept of speculative science (Wissenschaft) in the nineteenth century and the contemporary definition of science developed under the influence of the natural sciences. DeKoster indirectly touches on this problem when he says that the Marxist assumption that matter acts dialectically is not validated by a study of atomic physics. Dialectic is applicable only to mental processes.[21]

Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 we have seen a century of Marxist experiments in several parts of the world and we have observed how the abolition of private property works in practice. (The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property, says The Communist Manifesto.[22]) It is very illuminating to study some concrete facts of this so-called liberation and what followed each expropriation of bourgeois property.

Preparing for Powerful Emotions

Despite the fact that Karl Marx detested emotionalism of every kind and avoided any appeal to idealistic feelings, his teachings are full of anger, revenge, denunciation, and complaint. His philosophy parades as the great defender and liberator of the poor and oppressed, and so to dispute the validity of its doctrines means almost automatically to be numbered as one of the oppressors. Since for the Marxists there are only two antagonistic classes in society, a Christian struggles to avoid being emotionally blackmailed and to stay outside of both camps as defined by Marxism. The Christian will be held morally responsible for all social evil because he or she is prepared to justify neither violence and expropriation of the rich in order to help the poor, nor greed and so-called economic laws in order to please the rich and the powerful.

DeKoster speaks to the Christian conscience when he calls anti-Communists to self examination. He says, Observe that Calvin does not propose that we turn first of all to a scrutiny of someone else. We are not first to bemoan the worldliness of our neighbors.… After the beam is out of our own eye, only then our Lord told us, are we to deal with the speck in someone else’s.[23] Examining oneself should lead to a sober appraisal of the situation as it is viewed by the word of God.

It is emotionally difficult