Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:04:42.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can a Christian be a Marxist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper I defend a ‘strong compatibility’ thesis. According to this thesis Marxism is not only not inconsistent with Christianity; Christianity is compatible only with Marxism. I further argue that for Marxists to accept this proposition on the grounds that they have no reason to object to the personal combination of Marxism and Christianity is to miss the point both of Christianity and of their own Marxism. This concession is, from the point of view of the Marxist, quite unprincipled. It is to misconstrue both the true nature of the Marxist critique of religion and the true nature of the religion of which Marxism is the critique. But more about this in due course.

First, though, what sort of reasons are invoked against the ‘compatibility’ thesis? They seem to fall, generally, into two categories. First, there are objections to the Christian belief system itself. Secondly, there are objections to the social and historical role of the set of institutions which has espoused that belief-system.

To the belief-system of Christianity on almost any account of what it maintains, defenders of the incompatibility thesis have a form of objection which I shall call ‘ontological’. This objection, taken on its own is, it seems to me, both the most widely canvassed and the weakest. It is roughly this : Christians believe that the universe is peopled with entities and agencies and activities and events—a God, an act of creation, an act of redemption, souls, grace, post-mortem survival and all the rest—all of which the Marxist is, as a Marxist, committed to the denial of. Christians are, thus, ontologically theists, spiritualists and mentalists; Marxists, on the other hand are ontologically materialists. Since ontological immaterialism and ontological materialism cannot both be true, one cannot consistently hold both.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 This is a reduced version of a paper which was first read to a Staff Socialist Group Seminar in University College, Dublin. It owes so much of its inspiration–and indeed of its arguments–to the work of Herbert McCabe OP that it would be as pedantic as impossible to note every point where this influence has made itself felt. Nonetheless, obviously, it cannot be assumed that he would agree to the use I have made of his material.

2 Conversation with Thomas Bell, reported in The Worker's Republic, Selection from the Writings of James Connolly, ed. D. Ryan, Dublin (1951), p. 61, n. 2.

3 See, for example, Maclntyre, A., Secularisation and Moral Change, Oxford (1967)Google Scholar, for a discussion of this point in relation to nineteenth century English socialism.

4 If most Marxists are and have been ontological materialists this materialism really is, relative to their Marxism, just a ‘private’ i.e. logically independent, and anyway false set of beliefs, one to which they are in no way committed by their Marxism.

5 For an account of the historical significance in the seventeenth century English revolution of the Protestant version of the ‘overdeterministic’ theology of history, see Hill, Christopher, God's Englishman, Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, London (1971), pp. 219250Google Scholar.

6 Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, trans. T. B. Botto‐more, London (1963), pp. 50–51. The remark was made a propos of German philosophy but is equally apposite to religion.

7 See Revelations, 21, v. 22.

8 I consciously echo McCabe here, see Law, Love and Language, London (1968), p. 142‐3Google Scholar.

9 Marx, op. cit., p. 53.