thoughts and ruminations while in exile (1 Pet. 2:11)

Karl Marx
In the world of education students of history learn to tie certain phrases with specific individuals. This helps the students remember key persons with their key phrases. For example, one might tie the phrase “God is dead” with Friedrich Nietzsche, or “God is that than which no greater can be conceived” with Anselm of Canterbury. Just as those axiomatic phrases immediately conjure up in minds the specific individuals with whom the phrases can be associated, so likewise this is the case with Karl Marx. When one hears the phrase, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” one’s mind is quickly drawn to Marx (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 468).

Karl Marx’s name is not only associated with the above phrase, but also with communism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines communism in two ways. The first definition says it is “An economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for common advantage.” The second definition reads: “A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power” (179). For westerners, the idea of “collective ownership of property” is unimaginable. This is due to the fact that, since we worked for our material possessions, we believe they are ours. Indeed, it is this idea of labor that makes an object ours and not someone else’s.

Those up to date with history will immediately see the difference between Karl Marx and John Locke. In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he writes:

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men. (Locke 19)

For Locke, what makes my property mine is the fact that I worked for it. Again, to say something like this to westerners is to state the obvious. One wonders why Marx thought differently. For starters, two philosophers heavily influenced Marx: G. W. F Hegel and Ludwig Feurbach (Sproul 138).

R.C. Sproul notes: “Feurbach had taught that man is not created in the image of God but God is created in the image of man” (Sproul 138). For Feurbach, history is not what God has accomplished, but what man has accomplished. Thus, history is reduced to nothing more than anthropology. It was this philosophy that Marx embraced.

Since, for Marx, history is nothing more than man coming to realize himself, labor is “the primary catalyst for human self-realization” (Sproul 138). During this period of history the Industrial Revolution was underway. Due to this, “mechanized factory production, the use of coal, the steam engine, and the transportation revolution—all became regular features of economic expansion” (Spielvogel 405). While many lauded this economic expansion, “Marx saw the industrial revolution as a serious threat to the well-being of humanity” (Sproul 139). Within capitalist factories workers could form trade unions to fight for better working conditions, but Marx believed the representatives only comprised a small portion of the people. As historian Jackson Spielvogel writes, “In other words, the government of the state reflected and defended the interests of the industrial middle class and its allies” (Spielvogel 405). In another well-known quote by Marx that validates Spielvogel’s assessment he says, “The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469).

Since Marx tied human worth to labor, he saw “[t]he shift from agrarianism to industrialism result[ing] in the worker’s dehumanization” (Sproul 139).

Marx favored agrarianism over industrialism because he believed a capitalistic society resulted in what might be called “legal slavery.” Sproul explains the situation this way: “The laborer, who as a farmer labored for himself, now had to sell his labor to the capitalist, who owned the means of production, the tools.” To summarize, Sproul says, “In this system, whoever owns the tools rules the game” (Sproul 139). Even though in this capitalistic society the farmer would willingly give up his job to work in a factory, Marx did not believe this was a free decision. He believed if the worker sold his labor to another human being, the worker lost his ownership (Sproul 140). In essence, “Even a highly paid worker is . . . merely a highly paid slave” (Sproul 140).

Two other words closely associated with Marx are “Bourgeoisie” and “Proletariat.” The bourgeoisie were the members of the middle class, while the proletariat were those who were forced to sell their labor. Since Marx believed history was nothing more than class struggles, he believed that the clash was bourgeoisie versus proletariat. Due to this struggle, Marx (and Friedrich Engels) believed that the proletariat’s situation would continue to get worse. The situation for the proletariat would get so bad, that they would eventually revolt. After the proletariat had succeeded in overthrowing the bourgeoisie they would institute a dictatorship. This dictatorship, run by the proletariat, would lead to a classless society. Spielvogel says, “a classless society would emerge, and the state—itself an instrument of the bourgeoisie—would wither away, since it no longer represented the interests of a particular class. Class struggles would be over” (Spielvogel 406).

While all of this may seem somewhat speculative to those who do not share Marx’s convictions, he definitely believed in his own ideas. In support of his own assertions, Marx drew upon history. These thoughts are most clearly outlined in the work The Communist Manifesto. In this monumental release, Marx and Engels characterize history as a constant struggle between “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed . . .” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 468). Marx and Engels see this struggle as ending in nothing less than “a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 468).

In addition to the class struggles, Marx and Engels note that throughout history there has been stratification inherent in society. For example, they observe that “In earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank.” To be more specific, they continue, “In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 468). As odd as it may have seemed to those living in Marx’s day, Marx believed there was not much of a difference between ancient Rome and the times in which he lived. For support of this, Marx’s words are to the point: “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 468).

Despite the similarities that Marx and Engels saw between their times and past history, they did see one clear distinction: “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps . . .” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 468). The two camps being bourgeoisie and proletariat. More than anything these two class distinctions was the problem for Marx. He viewed the bourgeoisie as the “have’s,” and the proletariat as the “have nots.” Thus, as market and commerce grows, so does the bourgeoisie. Yet as the bourgeoisie grows, a part of the proletariat is more and more alienated from themselves. They are alienated from themselves, Marx suggests, because human worth is tied to ownership of work.

The term “bourgeoisie” may mostly be tied to Karl Marx, but it is interesting to note that he always believed this class existed. Looking back at history Marx noted that “in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469). Summarizing this concept, Marx and Engels write:

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469)

This quote best describes how Marx and Engels feel about the course of history. All of life consists of “An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469). Remembering that for Marx personal worth is tied to ownership of labor, it is easy to see why he viewed the capitalistic system with so much disdain. He saw capitalism as “resolv[ing] personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible charactered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469).

Marx and Engels launched countless aspersions on the bourgeoisie. One of their harshest statements is the following:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers. (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469)

Furthermore, they believed that the bourgeoisie “has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 469). In the latter quote it is easy to see that Marx believed an agrarian society would be better than one influenced by the Industrial Revolution.

One point not mentioned thus far as to why Marx believed capitalism would be bad for a society is that of greed. This is to say that, the more products humans got into their hands, the more products they would want. This desire for more would eventually lead to an extravagant world market. While Marx had an affinity for agrarianism, he believed that capitalism was not only imposing itself on his own country, but that it was imposing itself on the whole world. He sharply disagreed with the notion that capitalism is what is best for the people. For evidence of this, note these words: “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 470).

In regards to Marx’s thought that capitalism would lend itself to greed, he makes this statement:

In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 470)

In his thought that humans should be satisfied by the productions of the country, one can see his proclivity towards an agrarian society. At this point it may be significant to note some statements that are of warrant in Marx’s critique of capitalism. For instance, it is true that there is greed in many contemporary societies. One does not need to look too far into this. Indeed, the desire to be rich is seen in the business world each day. Often one person’s desire to get rich comes at the expense of another. In some cases, one individual may simply use another person as a means to an end. Thus, Marx’s critique that capitalism causes humans to view each other as commodities may have some merit.

However, the question must be asked, “Is it capitalism that causes humans to view one another as commodities?” That is, it should be asked whether or not capitalism is to blame per se, or is it simply unredeemed human nature? Marx seems to blame capitalism for much of the world’s problems (or at least what he thought would be the world’s downfall in the future). He sees the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. His assumption is that the rich are always getting richer at the expense of the poor. Sproul calls this “Marx’s greatest error” (Sproul 144). Sproul comments, “He assumed the myth that the rich can only get rich at the expense of the poor. One man’s gain must spell another man’s loss” (Sproul 144). Illustrating the point that one man’s gain must spell another man’s loss, Sproul says:

That may be true in a poker game, but not in the real world of business. With the increase of production by better tools, the cost per unit of goods declines (through the law of supply and demand). This makes it easier for people to receive the goods and services, and it raises the poor person’s standard of living. (Sproul 144)

Showing his own view, Sproul believes “No economic system has been as effective as capitalism in raising the human standard of living” (Sproul 144).

The point being stressed in all of this is that just because persons abuse the capitalistic system, this does not necessarily mean that capitalism is to blame. Given Marx’s assumption that an agrarian society would be better for all, one could ask, “Would an agrarian society prevent persons from treating others as commodities?” Continuing on, would agrarianism do away with social stratification? Would agrarianism and/or communism prevent persons from being greedy? One must note that a particular economic system will not destroy human nature. Certain persons will always attempt to “beat the system,” or exploit others and use them to their own advantage. How did Marx not see this? Being that he spurned the biblical accounts and viewed religion as the “opiate of the masses,” it is no wonder that he did not see humans as sinful persons (Marx qtd in Sproul 145). When one views human beings as simply neutral in regards to evil, of course one assumes that persons are basically good. Marx does not seem to have a doctrine of depravity in his theology (if it can be said that he had a theology at all).

Another point put forward by Marx that may seem to have some merit is his belief that those who are for capitalism want to impose this system on the world. Speaking of capitalism, Marx says:

It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 470)

While many at this time viewed increasing commerce and industry as good things, Marx believed this would lead to the downfall of society. One of his last points in the Manifesto is that too much of capitalism is a bad thing. He says if capitalism is allowed to continue then “industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce” (Marx qtd in Emmanuel and Goold 471).

In all of this, Marx’s point is that capitalism may not be the best outlook economically. Since it is not the best, those for capitalism should not impose this form of economics on others. They should not say that other countries which are opposed to capitalism are not truly “civilized.” If Marx stopped there his point could be valid. Countries that are capitalist should not look down upon those that are opposed to it. However, is not Marx doing the same thing with regards to communism? Is he not saying that those who disagree with his economic views are not truly “civilized?” Indeed, he wants to impose communism on all other people! Not only did Marx want to force communism on all people, he said that in order to do this, “in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property . . .” (Marx qtd in Spielvogel 406). In other words, at first despotism is necessary in order to accomplish the classless society, which is to come in the future. The irony is not hard to miss.

From a utilitarian standpoint, one wonders why communism continues to be a viable option for many in higher academia. To be blunt, communism has not worked. Throughout history there certainly has been stratification in society. Whether or not that has led to class struggles is up for debate. While Marx made his case from history, those countries that are currently communistic are anything but a utopia. They are neither a utopia, nor are they classless societies. Those that are in power have not given it up, and thus no classless society has emerged. The only true utopia in the future will be when Jesus Christ reigns supreme.


Works Cited
Emmanuel, Steven and Patrick Goold. Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to
Nietzsche, An Anthology. Blackwell Publishers: Malden, 2002.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by C.B. Macpherson.
Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis, 1980.

Spielvogel, Jackson. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Vol. II: Since 1500.
Third Edition. Thompson Wadsworth: Belmont, 2005.

Sproul, R.C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That
Shaped Our World. Crossway Books: Wheaton, 2000.

The American Heritage Dictionary. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company:
New York, 2004.