[Author’s note: For those interested in a comparison between Marxism and Christianity, view this essay. Originally, the two essays were written as one piece, but I broke them apart to be concise. For that reason, some paragraphs in the two essays will be identical. While “Marxism as Anti-Christian” focuses on the religious implications of Marxism and how it opposes Christian orthodoxy, “Shattering Marxism” focuses on the political fallacy in Marx’s theory on dialectical materialism, which is the foundation for Marxian economics.]
There are already many books and articles that attack Marxian economics as impractical and impossible to implement, but there is less attention on the fallacy of dialectical materialism, which is the foundation of Marxism. If the capitalist West wishes to vanquish any legacy of Karl Marx, it must attack the foundation he built on. If his underlying assumptions are thwarted, the entire socialist dogma will crumble. But that will only happen if socialism is recognized as not only impractical but also deeply immoral and if its foundation is shattered.
Contrary to popular belief, Marxism is not merely any policy that promotes the redistribution of property or promotes taxing the rich. Conservatives will often use the term Marxism as a pejorative to attack progressive policies, but while those policies are often immoral and usually unconstitutional—and therefore illegal—that does not make them inherently Marxist.
To be Marxist, a policy must promote State control of the modes of production on behalf of the proletariat, typically by violent, revolutionary means.1 Marx believed there was a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that struggle would continue until eventually the proletariat won the decisive battle and overthrew capitalism. Under the proletarian regime, all modes of production (factories, supply chains, farms, etc.) would be controlled by the State on behalf of the oppressed workers of the world.
Marx’s French student Georges Sorel took Marxism even further and fleshed out one of its key discrepancies: socialist inevitability. Rather than say socialism was inevitable but also required violent revolution like Marx, Sorel threw out any notions of inevitability and full-heartedly carried the banner of socialism through violent revolution—and revolution alone.2 From a political perspective, that strategy worked remarkably well—his foremost students being Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler—and Sorel’s views became the standard Marxist position.
The issue with Marxism is that it falsely presumes that ideological, religious, and political stances are only the result or “superstructure” of economic circumstances. But this notion is wrong and completely inverts the way society has always functioned. Ideology, worldview, and religion dictate how people live their lives and evaluate governmental policies, not vice versa.
This fact ran counter to Marx’s teachings on dialectical materialism. He believed that land, labor, and machinery were the foundation of a person’s belief—what he called the “material factors of production”—and all religious, ethical, and political conclusions were the result of those economic circumstances. They were what he called the “superstructure.”
In other words, people and their political and religious opinions were not dictated by their moral compass, they were dictated by their class. Thus a proletarian would inherently think like a proletarian, not because of his worldview, but because of his economic condition. Similarly, the bourgeoisie could not possibly ever arrive at a socialist answer because his economic circumstances put him in a class that benefited from capitalism.
The irony is that Marx himself was a beneficiary of capitalism, receiving financial support from Engels’ father, who was a wealthy textile manufacturer. So from Marx’s own logic, he and Engels should have supported capitalism on an ideological level because of their economic circumstances. Yet they were one of socialism’s greatest champions. That is only possible if moral assumptions precede political conclusions; it was Marx’s ideology that shaped his views, not his economic circumstances.
On the other hand, for any government to run smoothly—whether it be a democracy, a republic, or a monarchy—it needs popular support. It may not be unanimous support. In fact, in most cases, policies will never have supermajority support. But in a world where the people are strong, equipped with arms, and united against their superiors, no government can stand without popular support. It may stand for a long time, but its demise is imminent.
Just look at the old monarchs of feudal Europe. Although they were arrayed in splendor and majesty as kings and queens, there was always the looming threat of dissatisfied nobles. Charles I and John I were two English monarchs who suffered from that threat. Similarly, the nobles themselves were threatened by a coup d’etat among their vassals.
And when a government official, a federal representative, or a lesser magistrate does not threaten the governmental power above him, the mob itself does. Consider the tumultuous revolutions in France: the French Revolution of 1789, the Revolution of 1830, and the Revolution of 1848. Repeatedly, governments within the nation were overthrown because of dissatisfaction.
A crafty politician may be capable of holding onto power for a time—even a long time—through Machiavellian tactics, but that is only temporary. Because all nations are dependent on cooperative labor to function, if people refuse to participate, even in the most brutal police state, the economy will stagnate, and the government will crumble. Thus for governments to run smoothly, they need popular support, and that is especially true in the constitutional West.
Robert Higgs’ scholarship insightfully points out that where governmental bureaucracy has expanded, it has had ideological backing from the people.3 And that comes from the historically free-market, small-government United States. Many times, the government shrouds its true actions in ambiguity and mischaracterizes its policies to receive public support—but they receive public support nonetheless.
To quote Higgs, “Ideologies, hoping to attract those who lack the time or capacity for extended reflection, encapsulate their messages in pithy slogans, mottoes, and self-enobilizing descriptions. … The secret of their success lies partly in their evocative moral appeal and partly in their ambiguity and vagueness, which allow each person to hear them as lyrics suited to his own music.”4 There is no denying that governments will frequently employ deceit, manipulation, and fraud to achieve their ends. Often that includes appealing to the moral ideology of the people. Their success comes from framing political issues as inherently moral issues. Whether the corporate tax rate should be 21% or 25% is uninteresting to the majority of Americans; but when asked whether the government should let the elderly die or provide for them through social security, then the public responds with resounding support—because it appeals to their ideological positions. That only works if ideology, ethics, and religion dictate political and economic opinion. Yet that simple truth alone dismantles Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism, which is the basis of Marxism.
Conclusion
Although Marxism is often conflated with socialism, the two are not entirely synonymous. Socialism is seen as the intermediary period between capitalism and communism, where the State owns the means of production and controls every aspect of a society’s economy on behalf of the proletariat. Marxism is somewhat distinct from this centralized State that redistributes wealth in that Marx considered his socialist predecessors illogical for thinking there would ever be an era where capitalists were won over to adopt socialism through logic. As the direct beneficiaries of a capitalist system, they would always support it, because, in his mind, economic circumstances and the means of production are the foundation of religious and ideological beliefs. For that reason, violent overthrow—revolution—was the only means to socialism. Yet his presumption that all people in an economic class think the same way is absurd based on observation, and it is backwards to assume that class dictates ideology. On the contrary, ideology and religion dictate one’s political stances, not wealth or class. As elementary as this common-sense premise may be, Marx somehow missed it. But without his theory on dialectical materialism—without his belief that class dictates ideology and politics—there is no Marxism.
On the other hand, when religion and ideology are used as the foundation for answering political and economic questions, one arrives at an answer directly opposed to Marxism. Throughout the Old and New Testament, the Bible does not speak of forced redistribution of wealth or of taking the fruits of another man’s labor or for the so-called “betterment of society.” Rather, the Bible speaks of dominion and private property as being, not only divinely justified but divinely ordained. Similarly, all men are called to work diligently for their bread, and all wealth is seen as the direct blessing of God for “hard work, thrift, and foresight.”5
- Dr. Gary North, “Ignore Anyone Who Says Marxism Is A Threat,” (Dallas, Georgia: Gary North’s Specific Answers, 2020) ↩︎
- Ludwig von Mises, Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction, (New York, New York: Foundation for Economic Education, 2006), web. https://cdn.mises.org/marxism_unmasked.pdf, Lec. 4
↩︎ - Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, (Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 2012), pp. 15-17, 35-56 ↩︎
- Ibid, p. 49 ↩︎
- Pastor Joe Morecraft III, “Prosperity and Faithfulness: Genesis 26,” (Heritage Presbyterian Church, Cumming, Georgia: Sermon Audio, July 16, 2023), ts. 20:28-21:02 ↩︎
Asher Sisneros 