Vulgata: Communism

Communism
We have not here a lasting city

Neil Patterson

Originally published in Issue VII of Vulgata, May 2002.

The Popes, going back to Leo XIII, have repeatedly upheld the teaching that no Christian can subscribe to Communist ideology, even if it is in the form of moderate socialism. Indeed the Church does not condemn so loudly any political system with the exception of Nazism. This is because, like Nazism, Communism isn't just another political or economic theory, but a developed and complete worldview that touches on all aspects of human existence. The Church does not condemn Communism because the Pope happens to disagree with Marxist economics, but because the Communist worldview is irreconcilable with that of the Church.

The Errors of Communism

What follows is a crash course in Communist thought and the Church's response to it.

a) The Class Struggle

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1871 as the policy document for the Paris-based League of Communists. It was the first coherent socialist programme to be published and remains today necessary reading in the study of socialist thought. In it Marx explains his class interpretation of history and how this analysis is to be done in a modern context. He opens his chapter describing the class struggle like this:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on a now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

Marx recalls that the old feudal Medieval order was overthrown by a new revolutionary class of merchants. Nowhere was this more evident than in post-revolutionary France. These merchants were later to be called capitalists, or, to use Marxist terminology, the Bourgeoisie. These Bourgeois businessmen became the new ruling class because they now controlled the measure of power in capitalist society: productive capital, the means of production. Economists will tell you that this means three things: Land, Labour and (physical) Capital (that is, machinery, buildings etc.). With money one can buy and own Land and Capital, but what about labour? Economically speaking, labour is a commodity that can be bought and sold just like any other. So in a capitalist society all people who do not own Capital or Land can only participate in the economy by selling their labour to the Bourgeoisie. Marx called this class the Proletariat and describes them as,

"A class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, 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."

According to Marx, there is an oppressive relationship at work here, not different in kind from that of a slave owner to a slave. The interests of the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat are fundamentally opposed. The capitalist will make labour conditions as oppressive as possible (insofar as it is cheaper for him) and pay his workers as little as he can. Since in a labour market, supply almost always outstrips demand, the natural market price of labour is low.

Marx was writing in a time when child labour was legal and labour unions were not. Many of his criticisms of the socio-economic order of Europe were valid and shared by many socially conscientious members of society at the time.

In his encyclical Laborem Exercens written in 1981. Pope John Paul II acknowledged this problem of exploitative work. He writes,

"the danger of treating work as a special kind of 'merchandise,' or as an impersonal 'force' needed for production (the expression 'work force' is, in fact, in common use), always exists, especially when the whole way of looking at the question of economics is marked by the premises of materialistic economism."

Particularly since the end of World War II, democratic capitalist states have attempted to alleviate the open exploitation of workers by allowing labour unions and implementing legislation to make wage labour less offensive to the dignity of man. These victories of working people have lessened the popularity of Communism. Modern Marxist thinkers, such as the policy makers at the Communist Party of Canada, are quick to point out that these partial gains were

"widely implemented during the prolonged post-WWII economic boom to stabilize capitalist economies, weaken and deflect the militancy and internationalism of working class movements and weaken the powerful attraction of the socialist alternative.... [They] submerged the capitalist state in staggering public debt, the servicing costs of which were borne primarily by working people." (CPC Programme, www.communistparty.ca)

They also point out that the current trend is away from the welfare state and a return to liberal capitalism and that the concerns of working people are not considered in global economic agreements such as NAFTA. Nor do workers enjoy the same rights in less-developed countries than they do in Europe or North America. While the latter problems with global capitalist institutions are acknowledged by the Vatican today, the idea that different economic classes are necessarily in conflict has no place within the Church's social teaching. In Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII taught that capital and labour must co-exist in harmony and any opposition between them is disordered. John Paul II has developed this idea further in his writings on what he calls "The Gospel of Work".

The error that both capitalism and communism make is that the subject of work, the worker, is less important than the object of work, the products of that worker's labour. The Church teaches against this idea. John Paul II teaches in Laborem Exercens that,

"this awareness is extinguished within him in a system of excessive bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel that he is just a cog in a huge machine moved from above, that he is for more reasons than one a mere production instrument rather than a true subject of work with an initiative of his own. The Church’s teaching has always expressed the strong and deep conviction that man’s work concerns not only the economy but also, and especially, personal values."

One of the Church's primary concerns is the social inequalities that exist within the global economic order. On this point Communists and Catholics agree. However, the Pope teaches further that

"from the same point of view, these many deeply desired reforms cannot be achieved by an a priori elimination of private ownership of the means of production. For it must be noted that merely taking these means of production (capital) out of the hands of their private owners is not enough to ensure their satisfactory socialization."

Instead the poor must look at their work with the dignity that is inherent within it, no matter how hard the labour may be. Pius XI taught in his 1931 encyclical, Divini Redemptoris that "our workmen will remember that the Savior of the world has given them an example not only of toil but of self immolation." He further teaches that

"the poor too, in their turn, while engaged, according to the laws of charity and justice, in acquiring the necessities of life and also in bettering their condition, should always remain 'poor in spirit,' (Matt. 5:3) and hold spiritual goods in higher esteem than earthly property and pleasures. Let them remember that the world will never be able to rid itself of misery, sorrow and tribulation, which are the portion even of those who seem most prosperous. Patience, therefore, is the need of all, that Christian patience which comforts the heart with the divine assurance of eternal happiness."

b) The Revolution

Marx proposed, and his modern followers maintain, that there are fundamental contradictions within capitalism that will lead eventually to its downfall. For a capitalist enterprise to survive, it has to continually revolutionize its method of production, constantly increasing production while diminishing its per unit expenditure of productive capital. This basic truth about capitalism, in the eyes of Communists, makes any gains made by the working class a thin veil that hides the true exploitative nature of the system. Because of this, Communism has always had, and necessarily must have a revolutionary quality. Marx ends the Communist Manifesto with these words.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions. 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!"

Modern Communists fall into two camps on this issue. The first group openly advocates armed revolution while the later believes that revolutionary change can be brought about with minimal violence. The Communist Party of Canada -- not to be confused with the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) - belongs to the second camp, but even they will talk vaguely of "extra-parliamentary action" and the party's right to counter any "un-democratic and illegal assaults on people's power".

It can seem curious that anyone could seriously believe that an armed revolution could happen in Canada or any other well-established capitalist democracy, but, to Communists, the revolution is inevitable. Marx argues with some degree of validity that the Capitalist system is not sustainable. He further argues with a socio-economic fatalism that the natural and inevitable next era of mankind is Communism. Communist society is characterized by an end to class struggle, which necessarily means collective ownership of productive capital, a lack of separation between people and state and true democracy. One of the principle criticisms of communist ideology is that no Communist society that has ever existed has achieved any of these ideals. Again, Communists fall into two camps. The moderates will try and distance themselves from what they call abuses of Communist ideology while the radicals will openly declare their support for just about any group of people who claims to be working in the interests of the working class. I can remember having a two and a half hour argument with a high-level member of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) - who wasn't speaking for the party at the time - who talked fondly of Stalin as a true democrat and supported his "comrades in North Korea".

No matter which sort of Communism is at issue, the revolution necessarily means what Marx called "the dictatorship of the Proletariat". In practice what this means is that the revolutionary government forcibly imposes Communism on the nation. Leo XIII teaches that

"neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people's possessions. Most true it is that by far the larger part of the workers prefer to better themselves by honest labor rather than by doing any wrong to others."

The right of property has been upheld by the Church for centuries. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Theologica about how the right of property can be reconciled with Apostolic poverty and the anti-materialist teachings of Christianity. He wrote that "it is lawful for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.... Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need."

I like to compare the Communist belief in the revolution to the Christian idea of the Second Coming. Christians believe that one day God will come and reconcile the world to Him for all time. Communists believe that the impersonal march of history and dialectic class struggle will bring about the final age of mankind: a classless earthly utopia. This desire for a better world has been deep within the human conscious since the fall and is reminiscent of the promise of Christ in Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things new." Marx called his system of analysis "scientific socialism". To Communists, Communism isn't a theory, it is scientific fact. Nevertheless, because of the fall of man, and our sinful nature a paradise on Earth is not possible until all creation is redeemed at the end of time. In a precursor to John Paul II's theology of work, Leo XIII reminds us that,

"to suffer and to endure, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently - who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment - they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present."

As St. Paul reminds the Hebrews (8:14), "we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come"

c) Atheistic Humanism

In the Communistic worldview, there is no room for God. However, Communist thinkers will rarely concern themselves with any kind of metaphysical considerations, but answer the question of the existence of God through the lens of the dialectic analysis of history, which I described above. The Communist position of God is better stated as "God is an outdated idea" rather than "God does not exist." Engels, in his essay On Morality, describes this kind of analysis as it applies to an absolute God-given moral law.

"[Communists] maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has [...] justified the dominion and the interests of the ruling class."

Engels goes on further to say that there will be a new "really human morality", which can only arise after the revolution. This morality will not be based on class as previous ones had been.

In practice, Communistic atheism has meant the oppression of religious groups. Many Communist nations and parties will declare that people have religious freedom as a human right, but because religion has no place in a socialist society, this religious freedom means, at best, that civil authorities do nothing to support religion and don't provide parents opportunities to give their children a religious education and at worst the violent suppression of all religious expression. In China, being a Catholic is illegal, not because Chinese citizens don't have "religious freedom", but because being a Catholic involves being loyal to Rome above Beijing.

The precise relationship between Church and State is never easy, especially in a pluralistic society. However, if pluralism means secularism, we must well heed the warnings of the psalmist, "unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain" (Ps. 126). Pius XI wrote in Divini Redeptoris that neither force, however well organized it be, nor earthly ideals however lofty or noble, can control a movement whose roots lie in the excessive esteem for the goods of this world." This same principle applies to all materialist worldviews, whether capitalist or communist. The fact that American capitalism buried Soviet communism under a mountain of consumer goods does not prove the superiority of our system in any sphere except economics. As Pius XI wrote in the same encyclical, "it can surprise no one that the Communistic fallacy should be spreading in a world already to a large extent de-Christianized."

d) Feminism and the Destruction of the Family

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.... The Bourgeois family will vanish as a mater of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

Marx wrote the above in The Communist Manifesto. He believed that all family relations were based on capital and private gain. This seems hard to believe, but Marx came to this conclusion in an era when the family had begun to weaken and child labour was pandemic. Marx was also a proto-feminist. He believed that marriage was a microcosm of the class antagonisms within society. To the modern Communist, these ideas have led to the desire to "emancipate" women from the home. Children are to be raised by society, with no choice of schooling for the parents. Women are to join the workforce and have equal participation of all sectors of the economy. As you would also expect, all modern Communist parties openly support abortion and homosexuality.

There is no recognition that the family is the basic social unit and that women's work in the home is of great dignity and value. There is a movement within the field of socialist economics to count the work of women in the home in national output figures. While such economists claim to want to show the value of women's work, they are really demeaning it (using some rather shady economic theorizing) by bringing the dignified role of women into the sphere of materialist economics.

Communism as a Social Force

Communism is much more than a political movement. To those in the movement it is a complete worldview and a programme for the salvation of mankind. There is an evangelical spirit amongst Communists which is not present in virtually any other political movement. They believe that the world will not become a better place until the international socialist dream is realized. Having spent years of my life working towards this goal, I can tell you my zeal to preach the Gospel now occupies the same place in my heart as spreading the message of a global worker's paradise. As I now read the Bible, I once read Marx; as I now picket abortion clinics, I once picketed the fortresses of global capital.

Reds from the old school like I was are becoming less and less common, even in the factionalist developing world. However, the socialist ideal of a heaven on earth is not dead. At the risk of sounding like an inquisitor for the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, a bloody red hue can be detected even in the pink fluffiness of the New Democratic Party or in the atheistic sexual ethic of Planned Parenthood, and even if the name Communism is taboo, it is not difficult to find any of the above errors in isolation. Also, I take seriously the warnings of my former comrades that capitalism, if it continues on its destructive path will lead many of the poor to take up the banner of socialism. The Twentieth Century was a battle between the two sides of Caesar's coin. Communism and Capitalism. Both of these systems in the form in which they have flourished, are natural and even predictable philosophies in the secularized, modern world. Neither are particularly desirable because both are worldviews based on material existence to the exclusion of the spiritual. We must guard against both. It is because of this that the Church presents a social teaching that, while acknowledging the role of the market and the right of property, is neither Communist nor truly Capitalist.