NOTE: This is an edited and slightly revised version of the final chapter of my larger work, The Human Adventure, which I used as a textbook for my course with the same title. The book was intended to raise questions about the conventional wisdom of careerism, consumerism, and anti-communism, to provide students with necessary facts and concepts, and to encourage them to investigate the vital questions of capitalism and socialism further on their own. When I revised this for the web in the summer of 2003, I decided to remove this final chapter and develop it separately. What you have here, then, is a work in progress.
********************************
Something needs to be said about the relation between the larger Human Adventure of our species and our individual adventures as human beings. People may wish to ignore the larger questions about where we are going as a species and simply pursuing their individual lives devoted to property and consumption. After all, it's a free country, isn't it?
Freedom and Affluence are the central features of the American Way, we are told. But we must question that Way, for perhaps it contains the seeds of its own self-destruction. What sort of freedom is it that must be purchased at the cost of ignoring the plight of the poor, oppressed, and starving? And if we ignore the plight of the oppressed, are we not thereby siding with the oppressors? As the popular saying of the sixties put it, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!"
This leaves open the question of how to become part of the solution. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this question, but any solution must consider the thought of three great teachers, Marx, Lenin, and Jesus.
Marx was clearly the most powerful of these teachers, powerful in the sense of understanding the Human Adventure of our species as a whole. Marx was able to cut through the mysticism and idealism that surrounded earlier discussions of human society and history and place social science on a firm materialist base. Marx not only developed the materialist conception of history, he also developed the precise analytical tools to understand the nature of capitalism, the rise of the proletariat, and the coming triumph of socialism.
But if Marx gave us the clearest picture of the Human Adventure as a whole, Jesus spoke most forcefully about our individual human adventures. Setting aside the mysticism in which gospel accounts surround the life of Jesus, it is clear that the central message of Jesus lay in the moral imperative to deal with our fellow human beings in a responsible and loving manner. And it is also clear that the message of Jesus was profoundly subversive. Even the Roman imperialists did not crucify people simply for preaching love.
And Lenin was the most effective. Lenin, more than any other individual, developed the organizational form, the proletarian vanguard party, through which one third of our species has liberated themselves from world imperialism. This liberation is clearly "Good News" to the poor and oppressed of the world.
Combining Christianity and Marxism-Leninism in this way will no doubt offend both Christians and Marxist-Leninists. Christians do not like to recall that their Savior was executed for political sedition, and Marxists are traditionally staunch atheists. But, "the most incontrovertible of all scientifically certain historical facts is that Jesus died by crucifixion and that crucifixion was the death reserved for political transgressors" (Miranda 1981:69). And, as Machovec has pointed out, Marx's atheism was a response to particular conceptions of God, and not intended to become a dogma itself:
Marx developed his 'atheism' as a critique of the conventional nineteenth-century representations of God, and should these change, then the genuine Marxist would have to revise his critique. Twentieth-century theologians have worked out new and more dynamic models for thinking about God, so that often we Marxists no longer know whether we are still atheists or not in their regard. One thinks of Rahner speaking of God as 'the absolute Future', of Braun who understands God as the question about the ultimate 'Whence' and Whither' of my existence, of Hrom‡dka who sees God as the reason why man can refuse to give in to power, of Buber with his I-Thou relationship. It is difficult to know why we Marxists should feel obligated to reject all these notions. Of course Marx criticised dogmas, including the dogma of the existence of God, but this was to free his followers for their task of radical criticism, not to create a new 'dogma of the non-existence of God' for all eternity. (Machovec 1972:21)
Marxists are quite correct in rejecting conceptions of God which seem to legitimate inequality, injustice, and suffering. Marx's atheism was a radical critique of the establishment theology which oppressed human beings in the spiritual realm as they were oppressed in social life. But the newer liberation theology which is emerging from the struggles of the poor and oppressed of Latin American does not do this. The God of the Bible is no longer the god of the rich and powerful, but rather the God of the poor and the oppressed, a God that is revealed in the historical struggles of the oppressed classes. This radical critique of establishment theology provided by liberation theologians is more powerful than the atheism usually associated with Marx since it is a criticism from within. The God of the Bible is not rejected but affirmed. It is the establishment theologians that have rejected the Bible by misinterpreting it on behalf of the ruling classes.
Marxists, faced with these newer conceptions, are not obligated to be atheists. We are obligated, rather, to take them very seriously, to understand them, and to discover how they might contribute to our own struggles. Christianity, which was justly rejected by nineteenth century Marxism as having been "begun by a dreamer and ended with well-fed parsons," is now, in the twentieth century, providing Marxists with questions which are both interesting and energizing. Is the Kingdom of God a classless society? Was Jesus a communist revolutionary? Was Jesus the Christ?
Marxists can no more afford to reject these new developments in theology than they can ignore the latest developments in physics, biology, or anthropology. We must incorporate these developments within the framework of historical materialism, even if this means re-interpreting historical materialism itself. This is no less than Marx himself would have done. For Marx certainly would not have been offended by anyone viewing the Bible as a record of the class struggles of the ancient Israelites and early Christians.
The Bible, of course, is open to different interpretations. But just as the various paradigms of social science reflect fundamental class forces in society, so different biblical interpretations reflect social forces. As Orlinsky observed in a presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis:
It is not always realized, or kept in mind, that biblical research, no less than any other branch of group activity, is subject to the social forcesÑthe term "social," of course, represents the longer phase and concept: social, economic, political, cultural, religious, and the likeÑat work within the community at large. . . . This principle of social forces, rather than the personal whim of a scholar here and there, being the decisive factor in the shaping of a discipline such as ours, applies of course to every epoch in history, be it the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the demise of feudalism, or the birth of capitalism in Western Europe. (as quoted by Gottwald 1979:9-10)
Just as medieval interpretations served the interests of the feudal ruling classes, so the new interpretations of the Protestant Reformation served the interest of the rising bourgeoisie and capitalism. We are currently witnessing a new Reformation, spearheaded by the poor and oppressed in Latin America. The Bible, originally written by and for the poor, is being recaptured by the poor. In the process, new views of the Bible are being developed which have considerable interest to anyone concerned with peace and social justice (Fiorenza 1984, Gottwald 1979, Machovec 1972, 1971, Miranda 1981, Nolan 1978, Shaull 1984)
We lack both space and expertise to deal adequately with these new views, but some observations are relevant.
According to these newer views, the ancient Israelites were not a people, in the sense of an already formed ethnic group, but rather a class, formed in revolutionary opposition to the dominant feudal society of the times. As summarized by Shaull:
Further
insight into the origin and history of the people of Israel is now being
provided by a group of Old Testament scholars who are making use of
methodologies and perspectives drawn from anthropology and sociology in order
to understand the social structure of Israel. They are engaged in a study of the religion of Israel as a
social phenomenon; they are also giving specific attention to the structures of
political domination, social stratification, and economic exploitation as they
existed in Israel and in the great empires of the ancient Near East. The major work produced thus far in
this field is Norman R. Gottwald's The Tribes of Yahweh.
His research is so thorough and the thesis he develops has such radical
implications for our interpretation of the Old Testament that I want to
summarize his argument at some length.
As I understand it, his thesis, based on his studies of the history of
the Near East from 1250 to 1050 B.B. and of the historical material provided by
the Old Testament itself, is this:
In Canaan the people and the religion of Israel emerged while
marginal groups that had revolted against the dominant feudal system came
together and struggled to create an antiauthoritarian and egalitarian society.
This
hierarchically ordered feudal system was firmly entrenched throughout
Canaan. The pharaohs of Egypt
controlled most of the territory with the collaboration of local dynasts. These dynasts, in turn, ruled their
city-states with the help of a small aristocracy, based in the urban centers,
that exploited the land and the persons under its control. The system was essentially a network of
economic, social, and political dependencies. It served the interests of these various ruling groups but
left the great majority of the population, especially in the rural areas,
bitterly oppressed, economically exploited, and politically powerless. In their number were included not only
the poorest peasants but also the serfs, formerly free persons who had lost the
few advantages they once enjoyed.
This system
produced a large, marginalized underclass composed of peasants, pastoral
nomads, and the ÔapiruÑ bands of
outlaws and mercenaries made up of former slaves and priests, thieves, and
other deprived fugitives from the dominant order. According to Gottwald these diverse groups of marginalized
persons gradually coalesced and revolted against their oppressors. In spite of the fierce opposition of
kings, feudal landlords, merchants, priests, and armies, they succeeded in
carving out their own liberated zones in the more isolated areas and undertook
the construction of a radically different social order.
Their
efforts were greatly strengthened by a small group of invaders from the desert,
the women and men of the exodus from Egypt. Sustained by a religion celebrating their actual deliverance
from sociopolitical bondage and drawing on what they had learned from their
years of wandering in the desert, they made a rich contribution to the
struggle: a vision of a new society and the energy to create it, skills in
social organization, and trained cadres who could provide strong intellectual
and political leadership. As the
Levites were scattered through all the tribes, these resources were made
available to all, and the groups making up the original coalition were more
closely united.
The result
of all this was the emergence of the people of Israel as a new society. This people had succeeded in cracking
open the highly centralized and stratified social order around it and was engaged in the establishment,
in contrast to that social order, of a community dedicated to the pursuit of
social equality and justice.
(Shaull 1984:17-18)
Israel, then, was formed in conscious class struggle against the oppressive feudal system existing in Canaan in the second millennium before Christ. Jewish religion, focusing of Yahweh as the only true God, was a product of that struggle, and thus stands in opposition to all other religions of the early Near East, religions which legitimated hierarchy and served the rich and powerful (Gottwald 1979:701). The origin of Judeo-Christian monotheism, then, must be understood in relationship to the class struggles of the times. As Legrand put it:
Yahwism provided an ideology for that class struggle. Loyalty to Yahweh, the only God, gave a sense of identity to those proletarian revolutionaries and undergirded a value system that focussed on social egalitarianism. (Legrand 1981:186)
Yahweh, the God of the ancient Israelites and of Jesus, thus stood in stark opposition to the many gods of hierarchical feudal systems of the ancient Near East. Since men and women were created by God in God's own image, this meant that men and women were like God in important ways, and were to be valued and treated as such, equally and fairly and not oppressed or maltreated. One could know Yahweh only by practicing justice, by not oppressing one's neighbor, and by helping those who were poor, sick, and oppressed. To go through the motions of worshiping Yahweh while oppressing others, or allowing others to be oppressed, was idolatry, repugnant to the one true God:
I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take
no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings,
I will not
accept them,
and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts
I will not
look upon.
Take away from me the noise of your songs;
to the
melody of your harps I will not listen.
But let justice roll down like waters,
and
righteousness like an everlasting stream.
Amos
6:21-24.
The ancient Israelites, then, were a people formed in revolutionary ferment against the ancient feudal system, a revolution whose aim was the construction of a communist society. Or, more properly, the re-construction of the primitive communism which itself had only recently been overthrown by the feudal rulers. This revolution, moreover, aimed at the overthrow of feudalism itself, not just the particular feudalism of Canaan but feudalism throughout the civilized world:
It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the
mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall
be raised up above the hills;
and peoples shall flow to it,
and many
nations shall come, and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the
house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and we may
walk in his paths."
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall
decided for strong nations afar off;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their
spears into pruning hoods;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither
shall they learn war any more;
but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,
and none
shall make them afraid;
for the
mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.
Micah
4:1-4
The revolution of the ancient Israelites, of course, did not succeed in creating a lasting new society. The religion of Yahweh was insufficient to overcome the powerful tendencies toward inequality and hierarchy which prevail at this stage of the development of social production. Exploitation and oppression emerged anew from the new Israeli society, and the people turned their backs on Yahweh, the God of equality and social justice, and instead demanded kings so that Israel would be like other nations:
When
Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. . . . But his sons did not walk in his
ways. They turned aside after
dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
So all the
elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, "You are old,
and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as
all the other nations have."
But when
they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he
prayed to the Lord. And the Lord
told him: "Listen to all that
the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have
rejected me as their king. As they
have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking
me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know
what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told
all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king
who will reign over you will do.
He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses,
and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and
commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and
still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be
perfumers and cooks and bakers. he
will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them
to his attendants. Your
menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will
take for his own use. He will take
a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out
for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in
that day."
But the
people refused to listen to Samuel.
"No!" they said, "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other
nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our
battles."
When Samuel
heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, "Listen to them
and give them a king." (I
Samuel 8:1-21)
We see here a clear recognition of the process of emerging class rule. Although the political structures of class rule promise security and prosperity, they in fact bring only subjugation and oppression. The rise of new structures of oppression within Israeli society was the object of continued criticism by the great prophets of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah, and Hosea. The words of Jeremiah, frequently quoted by liberation theologians, are representative:
Woe
unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong;
that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his
work;
That saith,
I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows;
and it is cieled with cedar, and painted with vermilion.
Shalt
though reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgement and
justice, and then it was well with him?
He judged
the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to
know me? saith the Lord.
But thine
eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent
blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it....
I spake
unto thee in thy prosperity; but thou saidst, I will not hear. This hath been thy manner from thy
youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice.
The wind
shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely
then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness.
Jeremiah
22:13-22
This condemnation of the oppression of the poor by the rich is linked into a moral imperative to side with the poor in opposition to such oppression. According to Jeremiah, one knows God by doing justice to the poor and needy.
These new views emerging from recent Old Testament scholarship have the profoundest implications for Marxism, for they demonstrate that the history of the Old Testament was in fact, "a history of class struggles," and the God of the Bible is revealed precisely in those class struggles. As Shaull puts it,
this revelation takes place in the struggle of poor and exploited persons to overcome oppression and create a society in which all can share and participate. God appears in history as the One who stands with the poor and against those who work injustice. The revelation of God occurs when the poor are raised up and liberated; God's power is manifest in the welding of a marginalized people into a new nation called to live out this vision and carry out this specific redemptive mission in the world. (Shaull 1984:21)
Abraham and Samuel emerge as peasant revolutionaries, and Moses as the leader of the first great labor walk-out in history. Our struggles did not begin with the Chartists or Utopian Socialists, but rather go back to the dawn of recorded history and are clearly documented in the Old Testament. The God of the Bible is on the side of the poor and the oppressed and, contrary to what establishment theology tells us, not on the side of the oppressive status quo. The values upon which the Judeo-Christian tradition is based are in fact the values of the class struggle of the poor and oppressed against their rich oppressors.
These values did not appear in a vacuum but instead had a clear model in the primitive communism which continued to exist in some parts of the Near East and from which the Old Testament writers were but a few generations removed.
This new view of the Hebrew Bible helps shed light on the New Testament. Jesus was clearly the heir of the Hebrew prophets and shared their concern with social justice. By the time of Jesus, however, not only had the structures of inequality become solidified within Israel, but Israel itself had been subjugated by the Roman Empire.
As Harris (1974:161) points out, one would never know just from reading the Gospels that Jesus lived and taught during one of the fiercest guerilla wars in history, a time when the Jews were struggling for liberation from Roman imperialism. Locating Jesus in this war of national liberation has profound implications for Marxists and Christians alike. For Marxists, it means we must recognize Jesus as one of us, one of the earliest communist revolutionaries. For Christians it raises the question, in Nolan's apt phrase, of putting "Jesus before Christianity" (Nolan 1978). Nolan builds upon the distinction between the historical Jesus, the man who lived, ate, and struggled against the oppressive structures of his time, and the theological Christ, a creation of the followers of Jesus, many of whom were embarrassed by the words and actions of their Savior.
The historical Jesus lived during a time of revolutionary ferment, a time of fierce guerilla warfare for Jewish national liberation for Roman imperialism. As Nolan summarizes the situation:
It was the beginning of direct Roman rule, the beginning of the last and most turbulent epoch of the Jewish nation, the epoch that ended with the almost total destruction of the temple, the city and the nation in A.D. 70, and their final and complete destruction in A.D. 135, the epoch during which Jesus lived and died and during which the first communities of Christians had to find their feet. (Nolan 1978:11-12)
The first uprising began when Jesus was about 12, led by a man named Judas the Galilean. The rebels were known as Zealots by the Jews, but the Romans called them bandits and, after putting down the rebellion, crucified two thousand of the rebels. The liberation movement continued, however, and continued to harass the Roman occupation with sporadic uprisings, guerilla warfare, and even assassinations (performed by an extremist group called the Sicarii). As a young man deeply concerned about his people, Jesus could not have been unaffected by this liberation movement. He allowed himself to be baptized by John the Baptist who, like the earlier Hebrew prophets, spoke out against the injustice of Israel, and was arrested and beheaded for criticizing King Herod (Nolan 1978:14-17). Jesus began his ministry by quoting the words of the prophet Isaiah (61:1-2):
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he
has chosen me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and
recovery of sight to the blind,
to set free the oppressed
and
announce the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luke
4:18-19
The only "Good News" for the poor and oppressed is that they will freed from their poverty and oppression. But what is good news for the poor will seem like bad news for the rich, for they will no longer be able to live by oppressing others.
But while Jesus was no less implacable than the prophets in his demand for social justice, he added something new: an equally implacable demand for compassion and love. While he was clearly sympathetic to the aims of the liberation movement, he also recognized that this movement could not achieve its aims without the reconstruction of Jewish society itself. Unless Israel healed its own wounds, and established justice within its own society, rebellion against the Romans would fail. Consequently, although tempted to do so, Jesus refused to lead a rebellion for its own sake. As Nolan describes the temptation of Jesus:
Jesus was a practical and realistic man. He could see, as most of the Pharisees
and Sadducees could see, that any attempt to seize power from the Romans was
suicidal. To hope for a miraculous
victory was to tempt God (compare Lk 4: 12 par). A war with Rome could only end in a wholesale massacre of
the people. This indeed was the
catastrophe which Jesus feared and which he felt could be averted only by a
widespread change of heart (Lk 13: 1-5).
But this
was surely not the only practical reason why Jesus refused to attempt a coup
d'Žtat. To have
accepted the kingship over a people who had not transferred their allegiance to
the kingdom of God and to lead such people in battle was to play into the hands
of Satan (Mt 4: 8-10 par). It
would have meant accepting power from Satan over a kingdom which was itself
without any loyalty to the kingdom of God and encouraging them to use violence
against another, albeit more godless, kingdom. Nothing could be achieved for God's kingdom in this
way. Israel itself would have to
be converted before anything of this nature could even be contemplated. Jesus would presumably have been
willing to be Messiah-king if Israel had changed its ways and the kingdom of
God had come. Messiahship would
then not have been a title of honour, prestige and power but a form of service,
and the Gentiles would then have been brought into the kingdom not by the power
of the sword but by the power of faith and compassion.
Jesus was
not a pacificist in principle, he was a pacifist in practice, that
is to say, in the concrete circumstances of his time. We do not know what he would have done in other possible
circumstances. But we can surmise
that if there had been no other way of defending
the poor and the oppressed and if there had been no danger of an
escalation of violence, his unlimited compassion might have overflowed
temporarily into violent indignation.
He did tell his disciples to carry swords to defend themselves and he did clear
the Temple courtyard with some measure of violence. However, even in such cases, violence would be a temporary
measure with no other purpose than the prevention of some more serious
violence. (Nolan 1978:110-111)
The message of Jesus, then, must be understood in the context of the times in which Jesus livedÑand Jesus lived in revolutionary times. All of this, of course, has profound significance for our modern revolution. As Nolan concludes his study:
The beginning of faith in Jesus, then, is the attempt to
read the signs of our times as Jesus read the signs of his times. There are similarities but there are
also differences. We cannot merely
repeat what Jesus said; but we can begin to analyse our times in the same
spirit as he analysed his times.É
Searching
for the signs of the times in the spirit of Jesus, then, will mean recognising
all the forces that are working against man as the forces of evil. Is the present world not ruled and
governed by Satan, the enemy of man?
Is the system not the modern equivalent of the kingdom of Satan? Are the powers of evil not dragging us
all along to our destruction, to a hell on earth? We shall have to try to understand the structures of evil in
the world as it is today. How much
have we been basing ourselves upon the worldly values of money, possessions,
prestige, status, privilege, power and upon the group solidarities of family,
race, class, party, religion and nationalism? To make these our supreme values is to have nothing in
common with Jesus.
To believe
in Jesus is to believe that goodness can and will triumph over evil. Despite the system, despite the
magnitude, complexity and apparent insolubility of our problems today, man can
be, and in the end will be, liberated.
Every form of evilÑsin and all the consequences of sin: sickness,
suffering, misery, frustration, fear, oppression and injusticeÑcan be
overcome. Any the only power that
can achieve this is the power of a faith that believes this. For faith is, as we have seen, the
power of goodness and truth, the power of God.
There is a
power than can resist the system and prevent it from destroying us. There is a motive that can replace, and
can be stronger than, the profit motive.
There is an incentive that can mobilise the world, enable the 'haves' to
lower their standard of living and make us only too willing to redistribute the
world's wealth and its population.
It is the same drive and incentive that motivated Jesus: compassion and faith. It has generally been called faith, hope
and love; whatever you choose to call it, you must understand it as the
unleashing of the divine but thoroughly 'natural' power of truth, goodness and
beauty. (Nolan 1978:140-141)
But nearly two thousand years of Christian faith has not brought about the Kingdom of Heaven. The liberation of humanity from the structures of inequality and oppression requires not only faith, but science; not only Jesus, but Marx.
Marx, like Jesus, was of Jewish origin. And no less than Jesus, Marx was heir to the prophetic tradition of Judaism (Miranda 1978). But, also like Jesus, Marx did not simply accept this tradition, he reworked it into something new, original, and highly significant for the modern age. Jesus added the elements of compassion and love, for the poor but also for one's enemies, the rich. Marx combined the Judeo-Christian concern for social justice with a scientific analysis of the structures of injustice and laid the basis for a science of revolution which would free humanity from those structures.
Perhaps, in the process, the elements of compassion and love have been neglected. But they have never been lost. "Che" Guevara remarked that the dominant emotion of a true revolutionary is love, and Bertold Brech complained that "we, who desired only to bring kindness into the world, could not ourselves be kind." Revolution in the modern age is serious business, and probably not even Jesus would advocate compassion and love in response to Nazi imperialism, apartheid, and the death squads of Central America.
Marxists, of course, express themselves in different terms than did Jesus, but the underlying message is the same. Consider the following from the Marxist philosopher, Georg Lukacs:
There is, of course, plenty of darkness around us now, just as there was between the two wars. Those who wish to despair can find cause enough and more in our everyday life. Marxism does not console anyone by playing down difficulties, or minimizing the material and moral darkness which surrounds us human beings today. The difference is onlyÑbut in this "only" lies a whole worldÑthat Marxism has a grasp of the main lines of human development and recognizes its laws. Those who have arrived at such knowledge know, in spite of all temporary darkness, both whence we have come and where we are going. And those who know this find the world changed in their eyes: they see purposeful development where formerly only a blind, senseless confusion surrounded them. Where the philosophy of despair weeps for the collapse of a world and the destruction of culture, there Marxists watch the birth-pangs of a new world and assist in mitigating the pains of labor. (Lukacs 1948:2)
We see here the same faith in human liberation that characterized the thought of Jesus, and the same moral imperative to "assist in mitigating the pains of labor" which accompany the birth of a new world. How we go about this task is complex and difficult, to be sure. One thing is certain, however. Neither Marxist-Leninists nor Christians can sit idly by while the American imperialists use their immense powers of destruction to oppress the forces of liberation in Central America, South Africa, and the Middle East.
It is important to understand the new features of the modern age which make the final liberation of humanity not only possible, but essential. First and most important, the forces of social production unleashed by the bourgeoisie have provided the basis for liberating humanity from hunger, disease, and poverty and for providing a standard of living undreamt of in earlier ages. What would Caesar have given for a Volkswagon, VCR, or personal computer? All of these things are within the reach of the average person in contemporary overdeveloping capitalist nations.
As long as these productive forces are controlled by profit-seekers and war-mongers, however, they will constitute a threat to the well-being and even survival of our species. The creation of a world of peace and social justice, the Kingdom of God of the early Christians, is not only a possibility (which it probably wasn't for early Christianity), it is essential for the survival of our species. We need not only the faith of Jesus, but the science of Marx and Lenin, if we are to not only witness the birth of a new world but also assist in mitigating the pangs of this birth. There are, it seems, several steps which must be taken.
The first step is to understand that existing capitalism, and our own government, are in fact "structures of evil." It may seem extreme to call world capitalism "the kingdom of Satan," as Nolan does, but what else can one say about a system which starves to death millions of children every year, that denies billions of people their most fundamental human rights, and that perpetuates its existence by threatening to destroy the entire world? Capitalism not only does these things, it tempts us as thoroughly as Jesus was ever tempted by SatanÑgood food, comfortable housing, nice cars, the latest electronic gadgetry, vacations at Club Med, perhaps even our own yachts. Capitalism is not only "out there," wreaking such damage on our species, it is also inside of us, thoroughly intermeshed with every aspect of our personal livesÑour jobs, our pleasures, our patterns of consumption, our very structures of thinking. As individuals we may be powerless to stop the social, economic, and political forces that dominate our world, but we can struggle against those forces within ourselves, and deny our allegiance to the Satanic system of world capitalism. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson, we may have been born in capitalism, but we do not need to let capitalism be born in us.
This inner struggle can be strengthened by understanding that, although we as individuals are powerless before the capitalist system, there is a power greater than that of world capitalism: the international working class. Through the world revolutionary process capitalism is in fact being overthrown, and a new world, socialism, is being born. Again, it may sound mystical to identify socialism with the Kingdom of God of Jesus and the early Christians, but how should we describe a world where the hungry will be fed, the poor will be clothed, the sick healed, and those who thirst after justice will at last be satisfied? That the birth of socialism involves incredible suffering for humanity is not the fault of socialists, it is because of the actions of the servants of capitalism attempting to maintain their power and privileges. Death and suffering are inevitable concomitants of capitalism, with or without the struggle of socialists.
In struggling against the capitalism within ourselves, we need to take stock of our own lives. To the extent that we participate in this system, we perpetuate the system. How can we be against war if we work in a nuclear weapons assembly plant, or do research for the "defense" department? The best paying jobs in our systemÑstockbroker, corporation executive, RealtorÑusually provide the least human benefits to society, while socially necessary jobsÑthose who are actually producing our food, clothing, shelter, and electronic gadgetry, those who are actually teaching our children, those who are actually caring for the poor, the sick, and the homelessÑare usually paid very little. Clearly, society needs a new set of values. Equally clearly, we need a new set of values within ourselves.
Not only our jobs, but our life-styles need to be examined. Every time we eat a fast-food hamburger, are we not contributing to the destruction of the tropical rain forests? Every time we drive our car, are we not contributing to air pollution and the "greenhouse effect?" Every time we turn on our TV, are we not feeding ourselves more intellectual garbage? One thinks of the eighteenth century Quaker who refused to ride on coaches because he didn't want to contribute to the subhuman working conditions that existed in the coach industry. If we believe that our productive system is both environmentally destructive and oppressive for the direct producers, how can we continue to enjoy its benefits?
As Bodner points out in her thoughtful book, Taking Charge of Our Lives, changing "long-established patterns of work and material consumption is a step-by-step process" which cannot, and should not, be attempted overnight. She quotes Ghandi:
I cannot tell you with truth that, when this belief came to me, I discarded everything immediately. I must confess to you that progress at first was slow. And now, as I recall those days of struggle, I remember that it was also painful in the beginning. . . . But as days went by, I saw that I had to throw overboard many other things which I used to consider as mine, and a time came when it became a matter of positive joy to give up those things. (as quoted by Bodner 1984:23)
Clearly the process of bringing our patterns of work and consumption into line with our values can be a painful one. The choices are there, however, and must be recognized.
In addition to reducing our involvement with the forces of evil, we must also ally ourselves with the forces working for positive social change, toward peace and social justice. There are a variety of organizations working for disarmament and against military intervention abroad. These organizations deserve our support in terms of both money and volunteered time. This is not quite the same as charity, for in such giving we are attempting to provide people with the means to help themselves.
How much time and money is an open question. The old religious principle of tithing, giving one-tenth of one's income to the Church, may be a good guideline, and we should consider giving one-tenth of our time and money to the movement for peace and social justice. We may also consider the principle, "No pain, no spiritual gain," as set forth by C.S. Lewis:
Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying we ought to produce that kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch us or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them. (Lewis 1943:67)
The other side, however, is that we need to avoid burn-out. We are not, after all, assisting the movement simply for our own inner spiritual gain, but rather in order to provide concrete assistance to the poor and oppressed of the world who are struggling for liberation. This is a long term struggle, and there are few signs that it will be completed in our lifetimes.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, since we understand the necessity to change the system, qua system, we must actively and intelligently participate in that change. Here the task is political, not in the narrow sense of electing this or that politician to office or supporting this or that political party, but in the broader, and truer, sense of class politics. We must actively contribute to the political maturity of the working class, the class which alone can save humanity. Here we must come face to face with Lenin, the man who has done more than anyone else to develop the vanguard party of the proletarian, the only political organization which has been successful in overthrowing the evil empire of capitalism.
This, of course, leads us into a whole complex of new questions and problems, for Leninism is but one of a variety of competing forms of socialism, and there are a variety of organizations espousing Leninism and claiming to be the vanguard party. What are we to make of all this?
The socialist left in the United States, unfortunately, is characterized by dogmatism, sectarianism, and isolation from the working class. However clearly our theory may impel us toward affiliation with a socialist group, the actual practice of socialist groups leaves much to be desired, and how such affiliation can benefit us or further the revolution is by no means clear. For those who recognize an obligation to participate in mitigating the birth-pangs of the new world, there are no easy answers, only difficult questions.
The shortcomings of the U.S. left, however, must be understood in the context of the world revolutionary movement. The political immaturity of the U.S. working class is understandable given its privileged position within the total imperialist system. But that system is, as we have seen, undergoing revolutionary change and the privileges of U.S. workers are under constant threat. The history of the U.S. has been characterized by periods of rapid social changeÑthe American Revolution which abolished colonialism and the Civil War which abolished slavery provide illuminating examples. The political activism of the sixties followed the passivity and conformism of the fifties. Clearly, there is a potential for rapid change within the next few decades, and the baseline for the new wave of radicalism is much broader than what existed in the fifties. A broad movement for peace and social justice has developed strong roots in U.S. churches and a clear Marxist tradition has developed in academic life.
As the present version of this book is being completed in the early weeks of January 1991, we are on the verge of war in the Middle East which, whatever the decsion and the outcome of that decision, will profoundly change the contours of national and world politics. Even before the military buildup in the Persian Gulf, it was recognize that the aftermath to Reaganomics was likely to be a major rearrangement of U.S. politics, comparable to that of the Great Depression and New Deal years. Clearly, just as the stakes of the next decade are high, the potential for meaningful left participation in the political process are great.
Left response to this challenge is problematic, however. But the weakness and disunity of the organized left is not necessarily a permanent disability, and for this reason, some suggestions concerning the needs of the communist movement are in order.
We need an ecumenical communism that recognizes the legitimacy of the various denominations within the working class movement, including Democratic Socialism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, anarchism, feminism, the green movement, and liberation theology. We need also to supplement our scientific communism with the older communist tradition represented in the Old and New Testaments. These were originally written by and for the poor and oppressed and need to be understood as documents of the class struggles of the ancient Israelites and early Christians.
As a revolutionary, Jesus would appear to have been a complete failure. Betrayed by one disciple, denied (three times) by another, rejected by the masses, Jesus saw his movement in complete disarray while he died on the cross. But he must have done something right, for his followers regrouped after his death, and went on to form one of the most influential movements in the history of our species. Clearly, there is something here which Marxists must take seriously indeed.
This ecumenicalism is important since, although we firmly hold to our obligation as communists to seek the truth, we also recognize our limitations. We can never know absolute truth, we can only approach it through study, discussion, and debate. In this dialectical process, an ecumenical spirit toward the different perspectives within the working class movement is important for several reasons.
First, social reality is very complex, and no one formulation can grasp it in all its richness. It is necessary to view society and social processes from a variety of perspectives to understand them more fully.
Second, our knowledge is limited, and we can never know all the relevant factors that contribute to any particular social event. This is especially true of such processes as revolutions and socialist construction. This limitation should make us more open to alternate policy recommendations.
Third, ecumenicalism is important in working effectively with our comrades in other groups. We must respect our comrades who have made a serious commitment to the class struggle, even though our views may differ in some respects. As Gorbachev recently observed,
The thorniest issues have to be discussed with due respect for one another. Even the most extreme viewpoint contains something valuable and rational, for the person who upholds it honestly and who cares for the common cause in his own way reflects some real aspects of life. For us this is not an antagonistic, class struggle; it is a quest, a debate on how we can really get going with the restructuring effort and make our progress solid and irreversible. So I don't see any drama in polemics, in comparing viewpoints. This is normal. (Gorbachev 1987:82)
If the left can come together on the basis of mutual respect and work effectively with the religious movement for peace and social justice, and with the feminist and environmentalist movement, then the prospects for significant social change will be considerable indeed. Each of these seemingly disparate movements has important insights and perspectives to contribute to our coming revolution.
But there must be a revolution. The powers of darkness represented by international capitalism must be overthrown. This will require not only love, but power. How these can be put together in the present context can only be discovered through action, by participating in the struggle for progressive social change.
Perhaps a good way to conclude is by quoting the anonymous tribute to the people of Vietnam with which Gottwald (1979) dedicates his book, Tribes of Yahweh:
Think of them laughing, singing
loving their
people
and
all people who
put love
before
power
then
put love with power
which is
necessary
to
destroy power without love.