marxism, labor, and the failed critique of religion

7/28/2019 Marxism, Labor, and the Failed Critique of Religion

1/30

S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Marxism, Labor, and the Failed Critique of ReligionAuthor(s): Alexander SaxtonSource: Science & Society, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Jul., 2006), pp. 308-336Published by: Guilford PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404838 .

Accessed: 30/05/2013 19:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 99.120.121.245 on Thu, 30 May 2013 19:01:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilfordhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40404838?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40404838?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford


2/30

Science Society,ol. 70,No. 3,July 006,308-336

/'V

Marxism, abor,and theFailedCritique fReligion*

ALEXANDER SAXTONABSTRACT: arxismnheritedrom heLeft nlightenmenthetask f nterpretinguman istoryn materialisterms.uch ninterpretation,obecredible,ould eed obegroundedn ma-terialistccountfreligion'sriginsndpower.Marx ndEngels,beforeallingor roletarianevolutionnd ong efore olumeI ofCapital,pecifiedhat riticismfreligionmust recede llcriticism.etneitherheynor aterMarxists)eveloped cleardefinition,or pelled utthe ssumedelationshipetween is-belief ndworking-classiberation.ince throughouthe o-calledEra of Secularismroughly,romheEnlightenmentoWorldWarI) - workinglasses ave endedobe more eligiousthanmiddle lasses,he problem"freligionemainednob-stacle oMarxianolitics.hus he ailuref heMarxistritiquenot nlyeft his roblemnresolved,ut,moremportantly,eftsecularismtselfntellectuallyisarmedgainstheresurgencefreligiouselief hat ollowedhe econdWorldWar.

CULTUREANDPOLITICSthroughhe ate19thandfirstalf f he 0th enturiesrovidedhe uttingdgefor he nti-religiouseritagef heEnlightenment.henMarx hoseforhisdoctoralhesis comparisonftwo lassicalma-* An earlier ersion f this ssaywaspresentednOctober 003as a discussionaper tthe aborHistoryeminar irectedy rofessor arcus edikerttheUniversityfPitts-burgh. omments,riticismsndsuggestions adeduring he discussion avebeenhelpfulo me n ater evisions.amgratefuloProfessor ediker ndfacultynd stu-dents articipatingn the eminaror heirnterestndassistance.orreadingst vari-ous tagesndcriticaluggestionsalsowantothankwighturrow, ichael uttnauer,Jonathan cLeod, ohnRaines, avidRoediger,obert ydell,harlesellers ndJackWeston.

308

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 309terialistsDemocritusndEpicurus), ewasdeclaring is ndepen-dencefrom egeliandealism. nd est here eany oubt stohisviews nreligion,e includednhisforeword1841)a romanticn-vocationf Prometheus:Philosophyakes osecret f t.Prometheus'dmission:In ooth llgodsI hate" Aeschylus,rometheusnbound]s ts wn dmission,ts wnmottoagainstllgods,heavenlyndearthly,hodo notacknowledgehecon-sciousness fman s the upreme eity.. . Prometheuss thenoblest fsaints ndmartyrsnthe alendar fphilosophy.ME,1964, 3-4.)Threeyearsater,n a criticalssay nHegel,Marxwrote hat riti-cism freligionis hepremisef llcriticism,"ndwent nto char-acterize eligions "theopiumofthepeople"(41-2).Allthiswas20years eforehefirstolume fDasKapitaln1867 nd four earsbeforeMarx nd Friedrichngels, owpartners,ssued heir amouschallengen the Communistanifesto:Theproletariansavenoth-ing o osebut heir hains. . .Workingmenf llcountries,nite!"(ME,1998, 7). Thesequotationsnd titles re wellknown; hatneed o tressstheirhronology.riticismf eligionreceded oththecallforproletarianevolt nd theanalysisf ndustrialapital-ism.The order fpriorityonveyed sensethat ocialistheorysdeveloped yMarx ndEngelsbeganfrom,nd remained eeplygroundedn,therejectionfreligion.Ifsuchwere hecase,one would xpect o find eligion learlydefinednd tsnegation entrallyocatedwithinhedialectic f lassconflict.hat ndeedhas beenawidelyeld ssumption,ut lmostcertainly istaken.he fact s that eligions nowhere learly e-finedn Marxian ritings,or s therelation etween isbeliefndworking-classevolutionullypelled ut.Religionsgenerallyinkednegativelyo deology,he atter nderstoods false onsciousnesspromotedy herulinglass Seliger,977, 0-1,notes 0,21); butwhethereligionimplyormsart f deology,rnecessarilyxistedprioro t, emainsnexplained.his ack fprecisionntheorizingreligion as will rguenwhat ollows hamperedMarxianrac-tical oliticshroughouthe19th nd20th enturies;nd, t ongerrange, ndercuthedominantecularismf themodern ra,thusleavingheway penfor heresurgencefreligiouselief ollowingtheSecondWorldWar.



4/30

310 SCIENCE ? SOCIETY1. From euerbacho theManifesto

Marx ndEngels ell s that heir reak rom egeliandealism(andpresumablyromeligionswell)wasnspiredy udwigeuer-bach'sEssencefChristianity1841).Feuerbach adproposed ma-terialistccount f eligion:umansnprimevalimesmagined odsintheir wnmage,hen rojectedndworshippedhose amegods;as theyamegraduallyo realize hegodswere eflectionsfthem-selves,othey ould raduallyecognizehedivine ssence f heirhumanity. arx ndEngels dopted similar utno lessambigu-ous formulation.rometheusn Marx's octoral hesisppears ro-foundlyeuerbachian,sdoes thefuzzinessf heboundaryrawnthere etween uman nd divine.1Wellversed houghhewas nGreekmythology knowinghatPrometheus,ornofgodsandtitans, ad to be a god- Marxnonethelessssigned imhumanstatus:noblest f aints ndmartyrsnthe alendar fphilosophy."WasMarxpeakingirectlyrmetaphorically?fdivinitys a propertyof hehumanpeciesmusttnot lsobeinherentnthe osmos? adFeuerbachimplyubstitutedSpinozean antheismor hristianity'sorthodoxheism?Israel, 001,159-74).AndMarx ndEngels on-currednthis? hey oon distancedhemselvesromeuerbach,etthey ouldnothesitateo mpose nproletarianshegod-likeasksofPrometheus.Despite hese mbivalencesf onceptnddefinition,arx ndEngels hemselvesemained on-believersndfoesof nstitutionalreligion.hisheritageromheLeft nlightenmenthey owerfullyimpressedn their ollowers,hushelping o nsure hatMarxismthroughhenext enturynd a halfwould erve s a primeargetorreligion'smultitudinousefenders.tthe ametime more hanany ther 9th-centuryendencyfradical nti-capitalismMarx-ismremained pen to laborunionismndworking-classolitics.Marxianctivistsrovednfluentialeaders n both hese nterprises.Itmaynotbe irrelevant,herefore,o askhow uccessfulheywereinpursuinghepartyineonreligion,ndwhethertprovedn asset1 Asaccuratelyenderinghis fuzziness,"quote commentyRichard ichtmantasymposiumn"MarxismndChristianity"rganizedyHerbertpthekern1968: Feuer-bach's reduction'freligion. .must otbemisunderstood.. . Theprocesss oneofexaltationor he ntentions not o ower odandreligiono merenthropology,ut oraiseman o the evel fthedivine"Aptheker,968, 5).Forreferenceovaryingon-cepts freligioneldbyMarx ndEngels,ee note ,below.



5/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 311or a hindrancenorganizingorkers;orto nquirewhyMarx ndEngels hose to make riticismfreligionhe"premise"or heirprojectnrevolutionaryoliticalconomy.Obviouslymypurposesn this ssay reglobal, lthough hedegree owhich canfill hem utremainsmodest. tmost, cansketch ontoursf he uestionsustposed whichormeat east renewones),andsuggestentativenswers. willbeginwith he astquestionirst.n ppraisalfhowMarx ndEngels ositionedhem-selveswith espectoreligiontthemiddle fthe19th entury,ndwhyheyook he tance hey id,pointsmore r ess ogicallyo anexaminationfhow hat tanceworked ut ater or heir ollowers.The researchequired or uch n examinationn anynationallet loneglobal scale s mmense.ome f thas lreadyeendone.In theU. S. field, owever, hich rovidesoundaries ormost fmy resentation,fmuchhas beendone havenotyet ncounteredit.Consequently,will e speaking entativelysomemight ay va-sively)n themiddle ortions:hats, willmove s quicklyspos-sible o the20th enturynd talkmore boutpersonalxperiencesinthe abormovementhan bout rchivaliscoveries.Finally,eneed o sk and thiswill ringmetothe oncludingsection whyursueuch uestionst all?Forme, s formost fmyacademicolleagues ithin5yearsrso ofmy ge, god alk" talkabout eligion seemed oth selessnddistasteful.ad wenot eenraised uringheEraofSecularism?hat asreligionodo with hehistoryfmodern imes?We were orgettinghat he o-called ra ofSecularismtself as historyhat eganwith heEnlightenmentndendedust fterhe econdWorldWar.2ince henthasbeen nself-destructingode.To bring s into ur ownpost-secularra, etmequote contemporarycholarfreligion horecentlydited nan-thologyearinghe itle, arx nReligion.Inthe wenty-firstentury,"hewrites,religionromisesobea major istoricalorce or he irsttimenfour undred ears... In this ew enturyhevaluesMarxfoughtor . .may indheirmostffectivedvocatenworldeligions."While hefirstart fthis tatementeems irectlyccurate,he astpart thinkemains ubiousRaines,002, 2-13).2 There s an immenseiteraturensecularismndreligiousevival.orpresenturposesreferenceoMatthewrnold'sDover each" 1867)and Newman's pologiaroVitaua(1947, 23, 81, 21-2, 36);then hapley,960; ox, 965;McLoughlinndBellah, 968;Cox,1995will e sufficient.



6/30

3 12 SCIENCE f SOCIETYNow: oMarx, ngels ndthe ineonreligion.We need to notethat heir areers allwithinheopening en-turyf theEraof Secularism. on-belief,or hefirstimenmorethan ifteenundredyears,asbecomingntellectuallyeven o omeextentocially tolerable. rthodoxeligionists,rotestantrCatho-lic, till ontrolled ostmajornstitutionsuch scitynd state ov-ernmentsnduniversitieshroughout esternurope,yetfacedincreasinglyrticulateesistanceromducated pponentsmong

theupper lasses. hus, or xample,when ohn tuartMill n En-glanddeclared hat he whole f theprevalent etaphysicsf thepresententury"omprises "tissue fsubornedvidencenfavorofreligion"Mill, 969, 2),he was ayingpproximatelyhatMarxandEngelswere aying,ndtargetinghe ameGermandealistmeta-physicsheywere ebellinggainst.While orMillthemain nemywasKant,twas f ourse egelforMarx ndEngels. ifferenthoughthe ystemsf hese hilosophersere,twouldnotbeinaccurateodescribe oth s idealistonstructionsesignedoprotecteligion.Protecttagainstwhat?Againstheoncoming ra of Secularism:againsthe ise f kepticalationalism;gainstumulativeisillusion-mentsttached othememoryfreligious ars hat adraged crossEuropefor lmost 00years; gainstheencroachmentsfempiri-cal sciencentoorthodox elief.Marx ndEngels n all these on-troversialreas tood nsolidground o the xtent hat heir eersinclass tatusndeducationwere ikelyoremain olerantowardcriticismsfreligionwhichmany f them lreadyhared Carver,1989,1-59).

Yetnosuch mmunityould ttach oradical riticismsfclasshierarchy.heHegelian ialecticna broad ensehad dealized hecosmos s ongoing piritualrocess.Morenarrowly,hat ortionfitparallelingumanhistoryould be analogized oChristian oc-trine.God'sdecision ocreate world opulated y reaturesin-cluding umans) stablishedhe ntithesis.onflicttemmed romthewilled ctofhuman reaturesouse theirGod-givenibertyorrebelliongainst heCreator. esolution,ftermany urns fthedialectic, ustwait he dvent fChrist,egottenutofmortalleshbydivine pirit,ndthusprovidinghe ynthesisithin hich heopposites mortal nddivine, reatorndcreated will t ast erejoined. ccordingothefamousegend,Marxhadarrivedthisclass nterpretationfhumanhistoryy n intellectualour eforce,



7/30

MARXISMAND RELIGION 313thatsby ranslatingegel's dealist ialecticnto materialistne.Insteadfpushinghenarrativehroughprogressionfmetaphysi-calabstractions,hedialectic ouldnowbe madetoconveyumanclass trugglesnthe anguage fhistoricalealism.A full-dressresentationf hematerialistialectic ccursntheCommunistanifesto1848). There are somebafflingonceptualproblemsbout his ransformation,fwhich willmentionatthispoint)only ne. Ifhistoryomprises series fstrugglesn whichexploitedthereforentithetical)lasses verpowerne anotheroestablishach n turn ts wndominance,herewould eemnopos-sible scapefrom his epetitionnless classformationccurredwhichomehow ad thepowerorlackofpower!) o break ut ofthecycle. ecallingheoriginalmodel thats,theHegelian ia-lectichatymbolicallynactedheChristiantory it s obvious hecrucial olebelongedoChrist,ho yhis acrificialeath erminatesthe ongchainof contradictionsetweenreator nd created. etwhen his dealist ialecticsturned psidedown ndall the ctorsbecome real, ctivemen, s theyre conditionedy definitee-velopmentf their roductiveorces," hat ort f classformationcouldbe expectedoplay comparableole? ME,1970, 7). "Theidea- fundamentalorMarx rom hen n- "writesheMarxianhistorian,ricHobsbawm,thathe roletariatas classwhich ouldnot iberatetself ithoutherebyiberatingocietys a whole, irstappears s 'a philosophicaleduction ather han productf ob-servation'.. . 'theproletariat akes tsfirstppearancen Marx'writingss thesocialforceneededto realize heaimsof Germanphilosophy. .'" Needed, hats,to materializehe dealized igureofPrometheusHobsbawm,998, 2-3).2. PrometheansoProletarians

Did Hobsbawmaydeduction?e did.Marx ndEngels lwaysinsisted n theirocialistheorys scientificather hanChristianrUtopian. cience,howeveratleast s understoodn the 19th en-tury)rests otondeductionromlleged niversais,ut nductionsfrommpiricalbservation.ngels,n TheConditionf heWorkingClass nEngland1845),hadprovidedn empiricalndshatteringportrayalfthebeginningsfcapitalistmanufacturing.is workundoubtedlyontributedo thepredictiveccuracyfCapital,n



8/30

314 SCIENCE& SOCIETYwhich the two authors later collaborated; yet it hardlyoffersmuchevidence forthe Promethean (or Christ-like)role assigned to prole-tariansn The Communistanifesto.A horde fraggedwomennd childrenwarmbouthere, sfilthys theswine hat hriveponthegarbage eaps. . . Therace thativesntheseruinousottages. . must eally ave eached he owesttage fhumanity.. . .Theneglectowhichhegreatmass fworkingmen'shildrenrecon-demned . .bringshe nfeeblementf hewhole ace. . .Liquor salmosttheirnlyource fpleasure... As nevitablys a great umberfworkingmenfallprey odrink,ustso inevitablyoes t manifesttsruinousnflu-enceuponthebody ndmind f ts ictims.Engels, 987, 8,132-3.)

How could a "race"so reduced in vitalenergy nd self-esteemfind ourage to breakfreefrom eligious uperstitionnd raisethebannerofrevolt?ngels,no lessan enthusiasthanMarx,did hisbestto discover mpirical nswers othis uestion. Faultyducation,"hespeculated,saves thenewproletarian]rom eligious repossessions,he ... knowsnothingof thefanaticismhatholds thebourgeoisiebound . . ." (151). ForEngels,raised n a hardshellCalvinistmilieu(Carver, 989,1-30), anyestrangementrom eligion,ven f rrivedatbydefault, as a positive actor;ndhe foundhope also inthefirstflickeringsf class consciousness.TheEnglishworkingmanhocanscarcely ead and stillesswrite, everthelessnows ery ellwherehisown nterest nd thatof the nation ies" (Engels,1987,141). "Theybegintoperceive hat, hough eeble s individuals,hey orm powerunited. . . The consciousnessfoppressionwakens . . theworkersattain ocial and political mportance"148). Entries uchas thesere-mainfew nnumber, autious nd tentativentone,whereas heover-whelming hrust fEngels' book is on despairand degradationdisease,malnutrition,retchednessf heworkers,ufferingnd deathof theirwomenand children.Yetonly hreeyearsater,whenthese ameproletarianseappearinthe Communistanifesto,hey ave taken new ease on life.Akeypassagedescribingheir condition" andannouncing heir istoricmission runsas follows:. . . modernndustrialabour,modernubjectionocapital, he ame nEngland s inFrance,n America s inGermany,asstripped im theproletarian]f veryrace fnational haracter.aw,morality,eligion,re



9/30

MARXISM NDRELIGION 31to him so manybourgeoisprejudices, ehind which urk n ambushust asmany ourgeois nterests. . .Allprevioushistoricalmovements eremove-mentsofminorities. . . The proletarianmovement s theself-conscious,independentmovement f the immensemajority,n the interest f theimmensemajority. he proletariat, he lowest tratum four present o-ciety . . cannot raise tself p,without he wholesuperincumbenttrata fofficialociety eingsprung nto the air. (ME, 1998,48-9.)What contrast!heindustrialorker,eborn,ranscendsotonlybourgeois ationalism,utbourgeoisaw,morality,eligionswell;andnotbydefault ut as a result fpurposefulhought. econ-structinghemysteriesf deology,heproletariannergizestheimmensemajority"fhumankindthere sno empiricalvidencewhatevernEngels'booktosupporthis ssertion), hose atenowrestsnthe ntegrityfworking-classonsciousness.ere s a trans-formationomparableothe astmovementfBeethoven's inthSymphony,nd we need to understandheyhare omeofthe ameingredients.he newproletarianisesup as culture ero for heworkersf theworld, evealingothem he"self-evidentruths"ftheirondition,hich like he xioms fEuclidean eometrynwhichheyre modeled compel otal cceptancendactions hataccord herewithEngels, 987, 0,65).Yet thinktcanbe shown(as I will ryodo inthenext ection) hatmany fthedifficultiesMarxndEngelsncountered difficultiesndemic oworking-classpoliticshroughouthe next enturynda half stem romhismismatchetweenhe dealized roletariannd a Marxianommit-ment o stand t an empiricalevelwith herealworld.3. Dialectics ftheWelfaretate

TwomistakesfMarx ndEngelsnthe1840swere heirntici-pation fmmediateevolutionndtheir elief hat roletariansustnecessarilyeject eligion64,151, 43).On both oints,ngels adpushed eyond hat is bservationsf nglish orking-classife ouldsustain,ndMarxwent longwith his. ogether,hey evelopedhistoricalrgumentuilding pwardromeasant evoltsnthe17thcentury,hroughhe reat evolutionsf he18th ndChartismn the19th allsecurelynchored ithineal empirical) istory then,however,eapingo n magineduturensurrectionedby ngland's



10/30

31 SCIENCE& SOCIETYproletarianshichwould ngulfhenationsf heworldME,1970,66-88).Revolution,ngelswroten1845, oon "must reak ut . .incomparisonith hich he rench evolution. . will roveohavebeenchild's lay"Engels, 987, 4). Then cametherevolutionsf1848,whichheyupportedEngelsnmilitaryctionn theRhine-land);butviewed s bourgeoisnd constitutionalistCarver,989,80,86) - merely reliminaryo theproletariannsurrectionheywere redictingKiernan,987, 2).Many earsater, laming im-self or heir ailed rophecy,ngels scribedt to"youthfulrdor"(Engels, 987, 8,46). I amconcerned erewithMarxismtself,otwithpportioningredits nddemeritsetweentsfounders.sup-poseMarx o havebeen no lessyouthfullyrdent han ngels; heywere arelywo ears partnage;bothwere ripped y xpectationsthat erhapsed them otranscend orat eastgo beyond whatthe mpiricalvidencewarranted.Moreover,speciallyithespectoreligion,hey ere amperedbymisperceptionsnherentntheir lass ackground.ecularism,sI noted arlier, ad,by heearly 9th entury,ecome olerableneducatedmiddle-classircles. ut hiswasnot he aseforower-classcultures.ngels cknowledgedhatmost fwhat eknew boutre-ligion n the milltowns amefrom eports fparliamentaryndgovernmentalommitteesEngels, 987, 28,157-8).ConservativeswereAnglican,iberalsikelyobe Unitarian;ach had their wnagendas opush.Bothwould esuspiciousfMethodisthapels ndhostile oradical ectariesuch s thosedescribedyE. P. Thomp-son(1993),or (for nearlier eriod)Christopherill 1975).Themills lreadywererecruitingrishmmigrantsEngels, 987,123-6) somedoubtlessroughtheir atholic aith, hich oAnglicansaswell sUnitariansould eemworsehan one tall. suspecthatEngels, ithespectoreligion, issed gooddeal ofwhatwasgoingonaroundhim nManchesterndBirmingham.Inpart,hen, ue totheirncarnationfPrometheus,arx ndEngelsweremistakenoth ntheir redictionfrevolutionndtheirbeliefhatndustrialorkersould eject eligion.he attereemedcrucial,t eastduringhe1840s, ecause hey elieved ossofreli-gionnecessaryor hat otal lienationrom ourgeois alueswhichthey xpected ouldaunch heproletariansnto evolutionaryrbit.Itwasnon-occurrencefthis evolutionhat stablishedhepoliti-cal andscape ithin hichMarxismndreligiousaithursuedheir



11/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 317complex elationshipshroughouthe19th ndearly0th enturies.Since hepoliticalconomyf hatandscape asalreadyeen thor-oughlymapped, will implyote omeof tsmainfeaturesnd setthem sidefor eference.ndustrialapitalismurgeonednWest-ernEurope ndNorthAmerica. o also did the ndustrialorkingclass. ecause ndustrialistsequiredomedegree fwillingoopera-tion rom heir orkorce, symbioticelationshiphich enow allwelfare-stateapitalismevelopedetweenhe wo.Welfare-stateapi-talismpread apidlynEurope, lowlyndpainfullyn theUnitedStates.ts ogicpointed oworking-classartnership:ubjects ouldbe called itizensndgrantedenefitshat aised hempresumably)above he evel hat revailedutside heir ationaloundaries.rudg-ingly,heold-styleraftnionsmaderoom ornew non-skilled"n-dustrialorkers;apidlynEurope, lowlyndpainfullyntheUnitedStates.nEurope,aborpartiesroliferated,anywith ocialistro-grams;n theUnited tates, here niversalmale) uffrageadpre-ceded ndustrialization,orkersook artsvotersseldoms eaders)in the wo-partyystem.Thekeystonefwelfare-stateapitalismas ndustrialrowth.hebiggerhepie,the argerts ndividuallices.Growth adepossiblemaintenance sometimesvenmprovementofworking-classiv-ing tandards ithoutequiringhangesnthehierarchicaltructureof ociety.hus tmitigatedlass onflictndprovidedbuffergainstrevolution. elfaretates aced utward.oth idescapitalnd abor)stroveoupgradehe nterprisetthe xpense fother ations,n-cludingimilarlytructuredelfaretates.We know yhindsighthatworld arwould e the ventualutcome,ut uch rimcenarioserenotyet eadilyisibleuringhe19th ndearly0th enturies.aborradicalism,nside achwelfaretate,horn frevolution,roducedpseudo-middlelassoftrade nionofficialsnd socialdemocraticpoliticiansho erved heir onstituentssspokesmenndmediators.Continuingcross uccessiveifepans,hese ircumstancesenerateda class onsciousnesshatwasunique o the abor orce f ndustrialcapitalism.lthough arx ndEngels ouldhardlyaveperceivedtas totallymancipatory,tproved rotectivendserviceable ithinnationaloundaries,olong s economic rowthontinued ore rlessuninterrupted.hat fcoursewas big if."Outwardlyunctionings partnerships,elfare tatesworkedinwardlyscontrolledrenas fclass onflict.lthoughhe onflict



12/30

318 SCIENCE f SOCIETYwasbasicallyhat f abor gainst apital,oth ides labor specially)remainednternallyivided.AWeberianmageofthis pparatuswould ook ike seesawwith he ocialist orkerst one end andreligious orkersn the ther. hecapitalist-controlledovernmentinthemiddle ives ccasional udges hisway rthat or ine un-ing.We are nowdeep nto heEra ofSecularism,hich s we knowpenetratedorkinglassesess han ther evels f ociety. lthoughdetails bviouslyifferrom ation o nation nd time otime,heseesawmageremainspproximatelyn target,think,orwelfarestateshroughouthewestern orld. hesocialrelationshipstpor-traysntail everalmportantorollaries.Marxianaboractivists,whateverheir wn lassorigins, illnecessarilyursue heir ctivi-tiesnworking-classommunitieshat re ikelyo be more eligiousthan henorm or he ocietyt arge.Vulnerable o accusationsfteaching isbeliefnd corruptinghristianmorality,heywillbehamperedndefendinghemselvesince heyre knownlreadysmembers fa movement,rparty,hat eniesreligion.heir ogi-cal counter-moveillbe a class-solidarityppealchargingeligion(orwhateverranch freligion ominates hecommunity)ithbetrayingheworkersy upportingheir mployers.uch ndict-ments,ontainingnough mpiricalealityomake hem ersuasive,nonethelessntroducedubtle hiftsnthe riginal arxisttance nreligion shifts,hats,fromritiquesfreligiontselfoformsfanticlericalismhat ometimeseemedmore oncerned ith urify-ingreligionhan riticizingt.4. In theVanguardf heWorkinglassI argued arlierhat heMarxianoncept ftheproletariataspartly eligiousnorigin,incethePrometheusywhicht was n-spired nticipateshe ublimated hrist fHegel'sdialectic,s re-convertedyFeuerbachnto human eings . . productsfnature"(ME,1964, 24).Thenotion f nelite, estinedytsknowledgendcourageosave he emainderf he ribe,rcommunity,rspecies-at-largeromts wn owardicend gnorance,shardly new dea,andhistoricalxamplesrebyno means nly eligious.ispensingesoteric,aving nowledgeasalwaysroved source fpowerndpublic steemPagels, 981, 68,176). fproletarians,y ettinglipthe evolutionaryoment,howedhemselvesess han romethean,



13/30

MARXISMAND RELIGION 3 1membersf he ariousMarxistartieshat ame fterwardsere otaverse oassuminghat ole. twas, think,ukcswhocoined heterm imputedonsciousness"Lukcs, 971,xviii-xix,1-2,344-5) to xpress hat orking-classersons ould ethinkingnddoingifthey houghtnd did as theirmoreadvanced)Marxistellowworkersdmonished hemSeliger, 977, 8-9, 61, 86,91). Work-ersofcoursehad to havebeencreated qualintheEnlightenmentsense,yetdivergentevels fdisciplinend theoreticalerspectivediddevelop mong hem. o while heparty'sank nd file arriedthe onsciousness-raisingurden ithespectofellow orkersutsidetheparty,adres fpresumablyore xperiencedeaders ursuedcomparableasksnside. his ivisionf abor eneratedonflict.ocalactivistsushinghort-termssuesollidedwith ationaleadersryingtopreserver reformulateong-rangeocialistbjectives.ne sidechargedhe therwith avingorgottenhe ealitiesfworking-classlife; heother esponded ith ccusationsf economism"nd "vul-garMarxism." eitherouldprevail,incetheir ealproblemse-mained nsoluble.The epithet vulgar"speciallyonveyedn elitism hat ftenattachedopartyeadership.tsignalednsensitivityo actual ondi-tions nderwhich ealpeople ivedanddied) Moreover andhereI think egettotheheart f thematter itmadedifferencese-tweeno-calledpure" nd"vulgar"endencieseem ikefactionaldivisions,hereasctually heyweremore ike lternatingercep-tions frealitynside he ame ndividualsstheyaced he ngoingroutinesf ndustrialabor ndpartyrganization.nce therevolu-tion ailed ohappen, here adto existnevery arxian onscious-ness nagonizingerceptionhathemore ffectivelynecopedwithday-to-dayeedsofkeeping neselfnd one's comrades live, helongerwould epostponedny inal eckoningithapitalistxploi-tation. hismightedescribeds thedialecticfwelfareapitalism.The welfaretate,ortsMarxistnmates,ametobe like omethingout ofDante'sPurgatory.I sometimesmaginedenin rganizingrevolutionnPurgatory,or tocallupB.Travensfamousitle servingspoliticalommis-sarfor heRebellionf he anged. onfrontingworld lreadymoreappallinghan hat fMarx ndEngels, enin ttemptedhatmayhave been the final fforto checkmatendustrialapitalism yratchetingpPrometheantylesforganization.hus he ubliminal



14/30

320 SCIENCE f SOCIETYreligiousonnectionsf hePromethean etaphor ergednto,ndreinforced,hepractical ecessitiesf radical artyuildingnthe20th entury. hen oinedtheCommunistartynChicagontheearly 940s rememberxperiencingwarm low fpride thavingassumedmy esponsibilitynthe vanguardf heworkinglass." ndI rememberearingnAmerican ommunistf German escentwhohad visited hehomeland uringheWeimar egime,escribetherevolutionarinessfGermanworking-classadicals:Yes!Wearefor he evolution! eprepare ort!Weeducate ur hildrenort!Butustdon't ettheRevolutionappen n Sunday. undays ourdaywith he hildrenothe eashore,hemountains,he ports ark,music .." Spoken ronicallyutwith itternessHitlerwasthen ttheheight fhispower) the peech onveyedn elitist ebuke ysuggestinghat ealproletariansould ave eenoutpreparingheirpoliticalandphysical)efenses as no doubtmany fthem ctu-allywere.Yet fter aitinghundred ears or heRevolution,hen oesitcometime or day nthepark?MembersfMarxistarties erelikelyo be ambivalentbout he eadershipoles havebeen char-acterizingsPromethean,r Leninist. hesehave ndeed nleashedworld-shatteringeroes fmodern imes. need mentionnly wotomore hanmakemy oint: ugeneDebs,Che Guevara. couldcitehalf dozenothers,ar essfamous,rom ersonal nowledge.Suchpeople ndeedwere and are) Promethean;lthough thinkthis ught obe attributedore o theironsciousnessf hemselvesashumanshan s heroes f gnosticanguard.et he ame tyleforganization,nother ircumstances,rovedlitist,brasive,ivisive,self-serving.tcontributedofailuresf ocial emocraticartiesndthedisastersftheSoviet nion nd Soviet locnations. referredto tearlier n a contextf rony,utthat s toogentle. hestylesdestructive,aradoxical,aralyzing.Itsparadoxsthat t laims ivine,rtranscendental,anctionorpropositionshat re (merely!) uman nductionsrommpiricalobservation.ell, es:Marx ndEngels idknow rometheusasgod,but hatwasbackyondernGreekmythology.hat hey antedfor heir wn imes as mythbouthuman eingswhobecameodsbydiscoveringor hemselvesow o make ire;nd doscienceME,1970, 7).So,yes: hey ere opingouse the ertaintyf nabstractidea-systemscientificaws?) ounderwritehevast ncertaintiesf



15/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 321class trugglendsocialist evolution.ngels n lateryears egangathering aterial orwhatwastohavebeen a majorwork itledDialecticsfNatureHaldane, 940, ii-xvi)Hewas earching,think,for ome cosmicmachineryhatwould ause thenon-teleologicalunfoldingfmaterialequencesomovena "progressive"irection.He left hat roject nfinished. e canonly uesswhatMarxwouldhave houghtf tsincehe died a decade earlier.5. Religion mongheVanguardistsMarx ndEngelsmade clear hat heywerenotadvocatinge-pressionfreligionyforce. ocialist nd Communistarties avealwaysntheoryisavowedorcibleepression,lthoughctual rac-tice t certainimes ndplaceswasdoubtless ifferent.he SovietUnionpermittedtself state-sponsoredrogramorpropagationofthe anti-religious)aith ndI presume oviet loc nations idlikewise.hus heforewordo a volume f electionsitledMarx ndEngelsnReligionssued y heMoscow oreign anguages ublish-ingHouse n1957containshefollowingdmonition:. . greatmportancettacheso thedirectionsiven y he lassics fMarxismhat he trugglegainsteligionustot epursuedy dminis-trativenterferencen the ffairsfreligiouseople ut y rofoundndsystematiccientifictheistropaganda.ME, 957, 0.)The forewordas igned y he"Institutef Marxism-LeninismfC.C.[Centralommittee]PSU."Marx ndEngels ad eenno needfor pecial ducation utassumed hatwhen hematerial ase ofreligion class xploitation wasfinallybolished yproletarianrevolution,eligion ould adefrom onsciousness.ven nsociet-ies that ctually xperienced ommunistevolutions,owever,osuchfading way ccurred;nd Marxistsouldnothave xpectedtto occurncapitalistelfaretates here he materialase" ontin-uedrampant.Whatwas he tance owardeligion,hen, fSocial-Democraticand Communistarties uringhewelfaretate ra?Didtheymake^conversionn issueofparty iscipline,rsimplyeave ttoper-sonal hoice as for xamplenselecting trade, rchoosing e-tweenmonogamistndpluralistic odes f exuality?inceneither



16/30

322 SCIENCE & SOCIETYMarxistheoryor, o far s know,he esearchesf aborhistorians,hascomeupwithnydefinitivenswero this uestion,will urnheretopersonal xperiencendmy wnnot-altogether-empiricalobservations.ndividualsttractedntellectuallyo Marxisthoughtweregenerallyt the ame ime eparatinghemselvesrom heisticbeliefs nd denominationalffiliations.hiswasmy wnroute ndprobably astypicalorpeopleofmiddle-classackgroundntheUnited tatesndWesternurope,whose ulturalocializationevennowadays) tillreflectshegreat weepof Enlightenmentnti-clericalism.utthat fcoursewasnottheonly oute fentry,spe-cially orworking eople nperiods fsharp lass truggleuch stheGreat epression. adicalized orkers,ttractedy hemilitancyofMarxist-ledrganizations,ere hen ikelyo be turnedway ythehostilityf those ameorganizationsoreligion.n theUnitedStates,hese atternsemainedypical,speciallyorAfrican meri-cans Kelley,990)and Irishworking-classommunities.ndoubt-edly hishwartedarty rowth.artyegulars,ager or ew ecruitsand mindfulfwarningsgainst repression,"ight ryosoftpedalreligiousuestions;etna milieu hereas nmost artylubs) tudyof the"classics" as lwaysn theagenda, hatwasnoteasy odo.The resultwouldbe either hat he newrecruit roppedout,ordropped eligion theformereing hemoreprobable utcome(Saxton, 997,144-9).Marxists,hen howeverhey ad arrivedttheir ersuasion- usuallyescribed hemselvess atheistsrnon-believers,lthoughtheyeldompushed n anti-religiousineaggressively.uringmyyearsntheCommunistartytwasnotunusual o be involvedngroup iscussions,ometimesndividualrillings,imed t uncover-ing nderadicatingraces fwhite acism r male hauvinism;utcannot ecallhavingverheardof such n inquiry ith espectoreligion.he facts,religion asnotmuch alked bout ndI sus-pectthatwasthecase nother adical roups ndorganizationsswell.Forthis herewere wo ompellingeasons, hich ave,how-ever, pposite lants.Among adicals knew uringmyyears s ahistory rofessor,eligion tayed n the back burner ecause tseemeduninterestingndirrelevant.omeof us- iffor xamplewe wereworkingnpolitical istory might ecidethat utheranpietism adplayed majorrole nthevoting ehavior fsecond



17/30

MARXISMAND RELIGION 323generationermansntheMidwest;utfor s,now,nour mmedi-ate ives,hiswould eem how hallwesay t academic.Inyounger ays, owever, hen was a seaman, onstructionworkernd aborunionist,hereason or voiding eligiousalkwasthattwasdivisivendpotentiallyangerous.he Era ofSeculariza-tion, salreadyeveralimes oted, ad ess mpactnworkinglasscommunitieshannothers;nd the ra tselfnded oon after heSecondWorldWar.Thismeans hat adicals,Marxists,arty ork-ers, abor rganizers,ften ound hemselvesttemptingooperateincommunitieshere eligion aswidelyeld ndpowerfullynsti-tutionalized.ometimeshis irtuallyrecluded rganizationalctiv-ity; t other imes, owever thanksothecatastrophicature findustrialapitalismwhich asgrown orse, otbetter,inceMarxandEngels crutinizedt) - workersnd their amilies ouldbepushed owardadicalismy he tringencyr njusticeftheirco-nomic ircumstances.heymighthenbeginto break way romreligiousnstitutionsr more arely) ush he nstitutionslongwiththem.n eitherase,religionecame stormenter fconflictndtension. psurgesfreligionoulddestroyaboriouslyonstructednetworksfconfidence;heyncreasedhevulnerabilityoth for-ganizersndorganized.Many Marxistrganizeroubtless ished(as occasionallydid) thatMarx ndEngelshadkept heirmouthsshut boutreligion.To studyabor onflictsromnside hegardensf cademiaasI havebeenprivilegedodo sincebecoming historian)s to besheltered,artially,rom hehostilitieshey ngender.While nonehandthismakes esearchmovemore asily,n theother t softens(anddistorts)hehard ite freality.want ocallupfromersonalexperiencewo pisodes,ividlyemembered,hich ighlightormethe bsolute elevancendimmediacyf thereligious roblemnlabor onflict.6. Sheep nd Shepherds

When wasgoing oseaduringheSecondWorldWar some-timeswrote rticlesor heNewMasses escribingonditionsn At-lantic ndMediterraneanortsvisited.knew everalf he ditorsand when was n NewYork,on thebeach," hey ould akemeto



18/30

324 SCIENCE f SOCIETYlunchn ieuofpaymentor he rticles.heNewMasses ad ts f-fice nthefamous ld loft uildingn 12th r 13th treet,astofBroadway,hichlso housed heCommunistartyndDailyWorker.Even nthosedays guard t theelevator atecheckedyour usi-ness nd friskedoufor oncealedweapons. swewaited,my ditorintroduced e totheman head ofus,who urned utto beLouisBudenz,managingditor ftheDailyWorker.had notmetBudenzand never awhim gain;but see himthereyet, stocky,ired-lookingmiddlegedman nhisnot-very-newvercoatNew ork anbebitter old nFebruary) aitingisturn or heup-elevator.Born nthe1890s nIndianapoliso a staunchlyatholic,mar-ginallymiddle-classamily,udenz, fterworkingor he CatholicYoungMen's nstitute,ovedeftward,ervings a statemanagernLaFollette's924presidentialampaign,ndwith he nset fdepres-sion hrew imselfnto hemovementor ndustrialnionism herehebecame laborournalists well s a courageousndof enailedstrikeeader. oiningheCommunistartyn1935, udenzworkedslabor ditor ftheDailyWorker.e went oChicago osetupa new(but hort-lived)artyaper,hen ack oNew orkn1940 othe oppost ttheDailyWorkerPacker,962, 21-77).Approximatelyt thetime methim, ehad determinedoreturno the aithfhis hild-hood.Hewas ayinglanswith ishop ulton .Sheen, he elebratedCatholic ead-hunterndsavior-of-souls,o conduct his ransforma-tion na mannerhat ould rovesdamagingspossibleotheCom-munistartynwhich,meanwhile,udenz ontinuedofunctions aleadingmember.At heDailyWorker,"erecalled,I criticizedopy,madeproposalsndrevisionsnpieces oback he party]ine andfingeredrosarynmy ocketsI didso" Budenz, 947, 46).Bishop heenwaswell onnectedor hepublic elationsf oul-saving,is thermost ewsworthyonquest eingClareBooth uce,wife fHenryuce,who nturnwasCEO ofTime/Life,ndself-styledinventorftheterm,theAmerican entury."heenarrangedorBudenz ndhis ill-then-common-lawife obeproperlynited na"secret"eremonytStPatrick'sathedralleaked othe ressheadof ime)Budenz henssued statementeaturedynewspapersndradio tationsllover hewesternorldnwhich eannounced hat"byGod'sgrace"hehadreturnedfullyo thefaith fmy athers,"andendedbydeclaringhatCommunismndCatholicismere r-reconcilable.Communism.. is nunendingonflict ith eligion



19/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 325andtrue reedom"349).The datewasOctober, 945.TheUnitedNationshad concluded tsfoundingonventionnSan Franciscothreemonthsarlier. udenzoinedthegraduate acultytFordhamin 1946.He becamevirtuallyfull-timeonsultanto theFBIandvariousongressionaln-Americanctivitiesommittees.ccordingtoHarvey lehr's iographicalketchnAmericanationaliography,Budenz estifiednat east 0trials,earingsnddeportationasesandappeared s a governmentitnessn thefirstommunistartySmith ct rialKlehr, 999, :872-3;Packer, 962,121-4).InOctober 945, wason a ship oadedwithmmunitionrigi-nallyntendedor he nvasion fJapan,which ad been renderedunnecessary,othe tory ent, y he tomic ombingfHiroshimaandNagasaki.twasJanuary946before gothome homebeingnowSanFrancisco, heremywife ad moved arlierwith ur twochildren. y irsthore-sideobwasworkingorHarryridges,resi-dent ftheWest oastLongshoremen'snion ILWU).My askwasnottoorganizeongshoremenwhowere lreadyrganized) uttotakepart nwhat eemed marvelouslyromisingnterprise,heCommitteeorMaritimenityCMU).Maritimend hore-sideork-ers nthose aysandstill oday,othe xtentheyreorganizedtall) weredividedmong enor twelveld craftnions, onstantlyfeudingmong hemselvesndsabotagingne another'sargainingandorganizationalfforts.he twoargestandnewest)f heseweretheWestCoastLongshoremen'snion ndtheNationalMaritimeUnion NMU) basedmainlynAtlanticndGulf orts. achof heseunions adcome ogetheruringheDepressionhrougherociousstrikesndintensewaterfrontarfare.othhadadoptedpartiallyindustrialrganizationalorms;othhad oinedtheCIO; bothhadbeenconstructedyMarxist-orientedctivists;nd now 1946)bothbrought orwards chieftainsough, harismaticigures ho haddistinguishedhemselvesnearliertrugglesy heir ourage, on-estynd radicalism.ounterpartoBridges as oseph urran,resi-dent ftheNationalMaritimenion.ConstructingheCommitteeorMaritime nity anrathersmoothly. orkersnderstoodndapprovedtspurpose. he oldhard-lineraftnions Harry undberg'sailors'Unionof thePa-cificspecially) aintainednangrypposition,ut noughmiddleand eft rientednions ignedntomake nationwidetrikeiable.In the ummerf1946 wentwith ridgesnd other MU staffers



20/30

326 SCIENCE f SOCIETYtoChicago or trategyeetings ith urran nd CMUpeoplefromtheEast.BridgesndCurran, ell-acquaintedromreviousncoun-ters, orkedogetherfficiently,fnot eryordially,iguringuthowtheCMUwouldnegotiateor andcontrol) hemultiplenions fwhich twascomposed;nd how oorganize he triketself,ince,as everyonenew, egotiationsith he hippingndlongshoringassociationsere ertain o deadlock. hat hey id.The CMU thenshut own henation's orts n all three eacoasts. icketinesweresolid;noeffort asmade to break hem;withinbout weeknego-tiations ere nderwaygainwhichedtofairlyubstantialage ains(againstheescalating ostwarrice nflation)nd a scatteringfother enefitsor heparticipatingnions.This trike ad been hort, ell-organizedespitehe normousspan f ts perations,eaceful,ndmoderatelyuccessful;nemightdescribet as a textbookmodelof thekind fstrikenion eadershopefor utdon'toften et. testablishedhepre-eminenceftheLongshoremen'snion nd NationalMaritime nion nthemari-timendustry.t stood nprominentontrasto setbacksnd violentoppositionaborhadbeenencounteringn 1946.Only fewmonthsearlier residentruman ad broken railroad trikey hreaten-ingtodrafttrikersnto themilitary,nd actually ushed uch ameasurenCongress,herebyavingheway or heTaft-Hartleyct(1947)whichy omparisonouldeemmild.nretrospect,t sclearthategmentsfAmerica'sndustrialapitaliststablishmenteagerto rollback oncessionsnwillinglyade owelfaretate-ismuringtheDepression werenow xploitinghe nxieties fpostware-conversionoreduce rganizedabor, speciallytsmilitantndus-trialwing,opaper igers. any igns ointednthat irection.heCMUstrikeepresentedsmall ut ignificantignpointingothepossibilityfa differentgenda.Earlyn1947Curran esignedsco-chairf heCMU, ccompa-nying isresignationith denunciationftheCommunistarty,the pparentmplicationseing, irst,hat heCMU was Commu-nist ront,nd, econd, hat ts ffortsounifyhemaritimeorkingclass ervedhe nterestsftheSoviet nion.Curran, Catholic rex-Catholic,ad beenunderpressureincetheearly 940sby heAssociationfCatholic radeUnionistsACTU) to breakhis ongalliancewith adicaleftwingersndCommunistshohadplayedcrucial art nbuildingheunion.TheCatholic radeUnionists,



21/30

MARXISMAND RELIGION 327increasinglynfluentialfter hewar,hadpreviouslylwaysemon-izedCurran ndsoughtodefeat im nelections.heynow raisedhim,nd nhisnext un or e-election1949)stood mong is tron-gest upporters.urran'sesignationf ourse orpedoedheCMU.It alsoproved evastatingo hisownunion, ince t eftmany ftheNMU'smostmilitantndexperienced embersefenselessot nlyagainstheACTU,but lsoagainst aft-Hartleyrosecutions,epor-tation roceedings,ttacksy ocal andcongressionaled-huntingcommittees;bove ll toblacklistingy heCoastGuard,whichon-trolledhe ssuance f CoastGuardpasses, ssentialoevery ork-ing eaman Seaton, 981, 63, 156-8, 08,218,231-2,note55).7. IdeologyrUtopia?

LouisBudenzwrotenhis utobiographyhat hemost ecisiveofhisseveral ncounters ithBishopSheenoccurred ineyearsbefore e reachedhis owndecision o eavetheCommunistartyandreturno Catholicism.uring hefirstear f theCommunistParty'so-called opular ront eriod 1937),Budenz,havingusttaken ver heDailyWorkerditorship,adopeneda public ebatewith heen. hedebate eganwith ostile eclarationsn both ides,butBudenz,pursuingheconciliatoryine of thePopularFront,hoped tmightmove omoreharmoniousevels.When heen ug-gested heymeetfor unch,Budenz ccepted, nd"inan obscurecorner" fa midtownotelgrill oom hetwomentalked fornhournearnest,uiet ones."He wasnotdisposedocontradict einourface-to-faceiscussion,"udenz ecalled f heir onversation."What edid, nstead,ookmetotallyy urprise."Monsignorentforwardnd exclaimed:Letus now alk f theBlessedVirgin!"orthosewho rebeyondhebounds fbelief,his ncident illhave ittleignificance.heywillnot omprehendhatwent ninmyoulat thosewords.. . "Very ell,"said implyoMonsignor.e saw hat wasdeeplymoved.And o he spoke ftheMotherf God. .. Ofall the pi-sodesthat ave rowdedmy aried areer,hismemento oMarywasthemost lectric,hemost we-inspiring.. . (Budenz, 947, 55-64.)Whetherrnot neconcurs ith udenz's iew fwho he oodguysandbadguysnthisnarrativere,theresnodoubt he torytselfconveyshe enormousnfluencefreligionngoverninguman



22/30

328 SCIENCE & SOCIETYbehavior,ven orespecially)nder ircumstancesf ntense lassconflict. owcan weexplain his ower? he answermayeem asyandobvious or elieversikeBishop heen ndthe x-CommunistLouisBudenz, utbafflinglyifficultor ecularistsikemyself. yown deasabouthistory,lass onflictndindustrialapitalismrepredominantlyarxist; ut do not thinkwhatMarx ndEngelswroteboutreligionrovidesnadequate xplanationf tspower.Let mebegin asMarxdidwithHegel)by urningheBudenzepisode pside own.We can call t thoughtxperiment.ot ongbefore e oined the Communistarty,udenzhad been a strikeleader t Auto-LitenToledo,Ohio. The issuewas ndustrialnion-ism.Auto-Lite's anagementroughtntheNational uard,whichshot everaltrikingorkers,illingwo. upposewe magine owthat ne oftheCEOs atAuto-Literranged clandestine eetingwith udenz ndoffered im facultyppointmentt Fordhamfhewoulddenounce ther nion eaders s Communistupes ndtestifygainsthem nchargesf ncitementoviolence. udenz sksfor day othink his ver.He then onsultsis piritualdviser. headviser,owever,s notFulton .Sheenbut omeonemore ikeDor-othy ay, or xample,f heCatholic orkerSeaton, 981, 5). "Letus talknow bout heVirginMary,"ays he dviserthis uotationofcourse simaginary)"Mary, other fGod,gaveher on to dieon thecross o liberate he world's ppressed nd downtroddenmasses.How couldyoueven hinkfbetrayingertrusty ellingout theworkers horely nyou?"Day,1952, 20-1).Issuch scenarioonceivable?nemighthinkt ouldnothavebeen forMarx ndEngels,ince t makes eligioniberatingatherthan ppressive.et omeoftheirwritingsoint othat onclusion."Religiousistress,"arxwrote n1844, is . . theexpressionfrealdistressndthe rotestgainstealdistress. .the igh f he ppressedcreature.." (ME,1964, 2,vii-xiv).ngels ttributedhristianity'sspectacularise n the RomanEmpire o enslaved nd exploitedpopulations3ndhe representedhe Hussites ndAnabaptistssreligiouslynspiredebels ightingo iberate easants rom eudal-ism Raines, 002,203-37).Whymight otreligionhen nspireworking-classebels gainstndustrialapitalism?hefact s ithas3 ThatEngelswasmistakens to the ocialmilieu f arly hristianitynowgenerallyo-cated mong rban rtisansnd trades eople Meeks, 983, assim) does not nvali-datehis ttributionf ometimesiberatingotentialsoreligion.



23/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 329done so- a dramaticandrelativelyecent) xample eing hat fLiberationheologynLatinAmerica.While tmay e true hatmostsuchmovementsavebeen crushedy heir espectiveulinglassesanddominantlergies,hat an be explained ynotinghat eligiongenerated rivilegedierarchieshich suallymergednto he xist-ing ulinglass. hese ausal onnectionsighte seen scontingent(asMarx ndEngels pparentlyerceivedhem); r asresultingec-essarilyromhe ocialpowerhat eligion laced nthehands f tsprofessionals.axWeber nd KarlMannheimlong fterMarx ndEngels) ttributedoreligious ovementsmaturationrocesshatwouldmakehemutopian"Mannheim,936)or harismaticWeber,1963, xxiii-xxxv,,46-79),duringheir arlierhases consequentlyopento iberationistolitics); ut fterwardsefensiver"ideologi-cal,"hence t the ervicefreactionaryolitics.8. TheFailedCritique

Marx ndEngels,s I noted arlier, erebyno means lear ntheirdeason the riginsfreligion.hey enerallybutnot lways)characterizedeligionsreactionaryecause f ts ustomarylliancewith uling lass deologies.deologywastreated egatively,s ob-scurantismntendedo conceal lass xploitation.hey ometimesspoke freligionnd deologys identical,r oftheone (religion)as contained ithinhe ther. hey ven uggestedhat eligionadbeen nventedordeological urposes.hese xplanationsll hareda common roblemfplacing eligion'startingoint atenhumanculture,ince heyllbeganby nclosing eligion ithindeology;and deologyunderstoodntheMarxianystems a by-productfgendernd class xploitation) ust ave riginatedith hedivisionof abor.But thateft anglinghequestion fwhethereligiont-self xisted efore lass ociety.4Feuerbach,y ontrast who raced eligionack othebegin-nings f human ulture had describedt as "man's arliest nd4 Over he pan f heir ritingsarx ndEngelsried utvariousonceptsfreligion.he

majorhemesrecovered, think,y he ollowingitations:E,1970, 7,51;ME, 1998,48,58;Marx, .d. c. 1936), 1-2;ME, 1964, 47-8. ngelsn 1876 ummarizedhatwasprobablyheir ollectiveiew t thatatedate: Tribes evelopedntonationsnd states.Law ndpoliticsrose,ndwith hemhat antasticeflectionfhumanhingsn he umanmind religion."eligionhen ecame he oreof the dealistic orld utlook" hichsince ncient imes ad "dominated en'sminds"Engels, 972, 58-9).



24/30

330 SCIENCE f SOCIETYalso ndirectorm f elf-knowledge";eligionpitomizedthe hild-like onditionfhumanity"Feuerbach,957, 3).What emainedsignificantlyifferentetween heMarxistnd Feuerbachianaria-tionswas hatwhereasne ocked eligionnto uling-classdeology,the ther penedpossibilitiesor inks o ower-classovementsuchasLiberationheologyrAnabaptism.iven heirssumptionhatall deologiesmust eexploitive,arx ndEngels enerallyavoredtheir wnversionver heFeuerbachianEngels, 941,18,24-5).Yet hey ere t the ame ime ard-pressedor materialistccountofreligionhat ouldfree hem romhe dealistpistemologieshatdominated ermanandmost ther hilosophy)n the 19th en-tury.heir nitialnthusiasmorFeuerbach's ssencefChristianitywaspreciselyor hisreason.Thusthey ncriticallyorrowed isdefinitionhich aside from eing ncompatible ith heir wnviews n ideology wasnotreally definitiontall,buta loose-limbed, omantically-inclinedescription.o incorporatehis ntotheir wnwritingsad the effectf nhibiting orefar-reachingmaterialistnvestigations,hethery hemselvesr their ollowers(Carver, 989,126).Reinhold iebuhr,nanimpressiventroductiono a collectionofMarx ndEngels n religion1964),accused hem fmakingmajor rror y wrongly"ssuminghatmpiricalpistemologyustnecessarilyoint omaterialistypothesesNiebuhr,964, ii-ix).suspecttmayhavebeen theotherway round: hat aving lreadydeterminednmaterialististory,heywere ooking or compat-ibleepistemologyo ntroducet.Niebuhr'sriticism,owever,ar-ries revealingorollary.n this olden geof cience, e issaying,we areobligatedowork rommpiricalpistemologies,et emainfree opursuehypotheses includingausalexplanationsf reli-gion idealist rmaterialist,s the mpiricalvidence eems owar-rant.Although remain npersuaded yNiebuhr'sssurance hatany inal ypothesisust e idealisti.e., eligious), isobservationhelps o xplainhe ontinuingiabilityfmaterialisthoughto apseinto scapistdealisms.9. Causes (and Consequences)fthe ailedCritiqueThematerialistnterpretationfhistoryasalwaystood t thecenter fMarxian ffortsoconstructthought-systemboutthe



25/30

MARXISMAND RELIGION 331human ondition. o materialistnterpretation,owever,ould om-mandpersuasiveower nless tweregroundedna materialistx-planationf eligiontself.hat, s Marx nsistedrom he eginning,had to be the tartingoint, heopening premisefall criticism."Yettoreinterpretistorynmaterialistermss a terrifyingnder-taking. ven such bold travelerss Marxand Engelssometimesbacked ff. o,after heir ransitionrom egeliandealism o his-toricalmaterialism feeling bligated,pparently,oprovide is-tory ith "progressive"nner ompass they ad installed heirworld-liftingolefor heproletariat.asthis temporaryailurefnerve?ngels, riting any earsater1888) na retrospectiveum-maryf heir elationsoFeuerbach,uggestsonthe ontrary)hatitexpressedn outlookong hared yhimselfnd Marx:All uccessiveistoricalystemsreonly ransitorytagesnthe ndlessourseofdevelopmentfhumanocietyrom he ower o thehigher.achstageisnecessary,nd thereforeustifiedor he ime nd conditionsowhichtowes ts rigin.ME,1964, 18.)I agreewith iebuhrhat o nvoke"necessary"rogressromlowertohigher"mountso anessentiallydealistnd unsubstantiatedn-trusionntowhat ad beenprojecteds a materialistendering.ofar s internalogic sconcerned,hatwould ufficeodiscreditt;and f o thiswe add the onceptualroblemseferredo earlierlackofcleardefinition,ncertaintyn when and how)religionenteredulture,uzzinesss to tsrelationshipo deology,nd,fi-nally,heirwn ontradictorypinionsf tsrevolutionaryotential- wewill eobligedo onclude hatMarxismasdevelopedyMarxandEngels)did notentail necessaryejectionfreligiouselief.To have pelled his ut npublic iscourse ould ave trength-enedtheMarxian ause.Althoughtcouldhardly ave ltered hebasicbalance fpower since apitalism'sntirepparatusackedby evealed nd nstitutionalizedormsfreligiontood n the therside- itwouldhaveeased theway orworking-classnticlericsosupportocialistolitics,ndmight averaised hetoleranceevelwithin arxistartiesor hilosophersike rnst lochHudson, 982,1-20), ndfor omeoftheFrankfurtchool cholarsJay,973, 6-7) whowere ryingo reconcilematerialististoryithpiritualrpantheistotionsfthe osmos. ertainlytwouldhave ncouraged



26/30

332 SCIENCE ? SOCIETYresearchntohistoricalircumstancesnderwhich eligiouseliefsactuallyad acted s liberatingorces;nd,mostmportantly,ouldhavepushed erious heorizingfmeans ywhich elieversndnon-believerswithoutmutual eception)might ollaborate or om-monly eld even f imited) bjectives.The difficultieseferredoabove whichmight avebeenpar-tiallyesolvedymoreopendiscussion all involvednconsisten-cies nthepartyine nreligion.eyondhese, owever,ie themoreimplacable emands fcredibilityn therealworld. eligion,s inthe Budenzepisodeabove, xerts ontrols verhumanbehaviorwhich eem o transcend aterialistxplication. hence omes hiscapacityfclerical ierarchieso mpose cquiescencenbeliefys-tems hat efend nd egitimateuling-classxploitation?heques-tion oses choice f lternatives:o seek ranscendentalnswerssNiebuhralongwithmost f urpolitical-culturalstablishment)asdone;or,as Marx ndEngels ttempted,o constructn effectivesecular xplanation.heir ailurenthis atterndeavor asdueinpart o over-reliancenFeuerbach;lthoughtwould emore ccu-rate osay heir eliance n Feuerbachwasdue to certainssump-tions heyharedwith euerbach nd never uite eft ehind venafterheyeft euerbach ehind. euerbach adpopulated eavenand earthwithandyaints ndsugar lum ngels.Marx ndEngels,operatingn a scale fargrander utno less nthropomorphic,e-lieved hat omewhereuttherenthecosmos eethoven'shorusfromheNinth ould till esinginghe Ode toJoy."am of oursemis-speakingyselfnsayingheybelieved."don'tknowwhat heybelieved; utwhen heyscribed orld-liftingowersoproletariansorcosmic ranscendenceotheDialectic fNature,t eems heymusthavebeenholdingosomethingike his.KarlBarthwrotencriticismfFeuerbach hat e did notknowdeath.Barth elieved eathwaspart freligionFeuerbach,957,vii, -xxxii).Materialistsouldwant o add that eathmust e partofany ecularxplanationfreligion. secular xplanationf reli-gionwouldbe comparableoa non-ideologicalccount f deology.Such an accountwouldderive he deologicalonstructionsfanyparticularlassfrom ealhistoricalircumstancesf that lass; ndso also tocompletehis omparison an effectiveecular xpla-nation freligion ouldbe one that roundedheconstructionfreligiouselief nreal,historicalircumstancesf thehuman pe-



27/30

MARXISM AND RELIGION 333cies.Part fthedifficulty,fcourse, esidesnthefact hat eligiousoriginsongprecede istoricalvidence bout hehuman ondition.Any xplanationhereforeust e npart ypothetical,lthoughhisshould ardlyavedeterred arx ndEngels, hohadoften hownthemselvesapableof boldhypotheses.n any asetheywerewellaware hat llmodern cience emains,nprinciple, ypothetical.Bothmen dmired arwinCarver,987, 38-9).By he 1860sthey eganusingDarwinianonceptsoexplain herelationshipfconsciousnesso abor.Thus, lready,heywere rguinghatwhenbiological volution rrivedtthat evelofcomplexityecall con-sciousness,uman nimals or hefirst imewouldfind hemselvescapable fconsciouslyurposefulabor that eing,ntheMarxianview, hat rincipallyistinguishesumans romthernimalsEngels,1972,243-64).Pursuit f a similarine ofthought ith espect oreligion ould ave ointedohypotheticalxplanationsell eyondwhatheyad nheritedromeuerbach.ketchyndtenuoushoughsuch xplanations ust till avebeenatthat ime,implyhe ffortto constructhemwouldhavedemonstratedconvictionhat eli-gion like ther lementsfthehuman ondition must ooneror ater rove ccessibleosecular,materialisteasoning.hustheycouldhavefocused ttentionn theneed for uch breakthroughas a crucialtep ntheMarxiangenda.5Doubtlessherewere easonswhyhiswasnotdone.Marx ndEngelswere ommittedotheirnalysisf ndustrialapitalism.heywere ettinglder.Marxwasnpoorhealth. heir inancialesources5 Howfar ould hey avegonebeyond euerbach?rior o the cientificdvances fourown ra,most evelopmentshat ontributedo"going-beyond-Feuerbach"adalreadyhappenedwhileMarx ndEngelswere till live.AmonghesewereDarwinismtself,whichheyook o mmediately;ndtheworkf arlynthropologists,speciallydwardTylor, ith homhey ere ertainlycquaintedMcLellan,987, 7).Tylor'sefinition("beliefnSpiritual eings") ouldhave ervedMarx ndEngels ery ell.Thedefini-tionhas continuedoreappearn secular ccounts freligionTylor, 958 1871],8;Radin, 957, -9;Shapley,960, i;Wilson, 002, 4-5),which suallynchor belief opsychologicalausationterrorfdeath) a linkaget east s ancients Greek ndRomanclassicsAtran,002, 3,67,269).Marx,chooledn the lassics,oubtlessadread heRoman oet, ublius tatius, howrote,uringhefirstenturyfourso-called hris-tian ra: Fear,irstf ll,produced odsntheworld"Burkert,996, 1;Lucretius,951,158).Thesevariousomponentsere eadilyvailablen the ast 0or 30yearsftheirlives.Why idthey otput hem ouse?Thequestion robablysunanswerable;ettmay eworth ecallinghat ngels pparentlyerceived o connection etween headventfhuman onsciousnessndterrorfdeath; nd thatMarx, hen,savery oungman, e determinedobeginhisdoctoral hesisy ejectingeligion,hose or hat ur-posetheupbeatmessagefPrometheusather hen hegrim ealismfPublius tatius.



28/30

334 SCIENCE f SOCIETYweremeager. o complete asKapital,heyaced gainsthedimin-ishingime ndenergyftheir ives.How couldone demandmorethanthat?As to their ollowers,trivingverthe decades to winworking-classupport or ocialist olitics,heyweremore ikelyobeevading eligiousonflictshan romotingecularthereforeon-troversial)heoriesbout heorigin freligion.Nonetheless,thinkt a pityMarx ndEngels, r ater enera-tions fSocialistsndCommunists,idnotpushbeyond euerbach.To havedone so wouldhave stablished solidground or heen-tireMarxianystem,epaying,npart,ts ebt o theRadical nlight-enment,nd inkingtforwardonceptuallynd deologicallyothosescientificreakthroughshichby he ndof he 0th entury)ouldbe expandinghepotential copeofmaterialistxplanation. sIsuggestedt theoutset,Marxian ulture ndpolitics rovidedhecuttingdgeofanti-religioushoughthroughoutheEra of Secu-larism. o this an nowbe added,byway fconclusion,hat ailuretocompleteheMarxianritiqueeft ecularismtselfsolated,ndintellectuallyisarmed,gainsthe esurgencefreligiouselief hatfollowedheSecondWorldWar.DepartmentfHistoryUniversityfCaliforniaLosAngeles,A [email protected]

REFERENCESAptheker, erbert. 968.MarxismndChristianity:Symposium.ewYork:Humani-ties Press.Arnold,Matthew. 942 (1867). "Dover Beach." In Louis Untermeyer,d., A Trea-sury fGreat oems, nglishnd American.ew York:Simon 8cSchuster.Atran, cott. 002. n GodsWeTrust: he volutionaryandscape fReligion. ewYork:OxfordUniversityress.Budenz,Louis Francis.1947. This sMy Story. ew York:Whittleseyouse.Burkert,Walter.1996.Creationf he acred:TracksfBiologynEarlyReligions.am-bridge,Massachuetts:HarvardUniversityress.Carver, errell. 1989.Friedrichngels:His Life nd Thought.ondon: Macmillan.Day,Dorothy. 952. TheLongLoneliness. ewYork:Harper.Cox, Harvey.1965. TheSecularCity: ecularizationnd Urbanizationn TheologicalPerspective.ewYork:Macmillan.. 1995. Fire rom eaven:TheRiseof piritualitynd theReshaping fReligionntheTwenty-Firstentury.eading,Massacusetts: ddisonWesley.



29/30

MARXISMAND RELIGION 335Engels,Friedrich. 987 (1845). TheConditionf heWorkinglass nEngland. on-don: Penguin.. 1940 (1927). DialecticsfNature.New York: nternational ublishers.. 1972 1876) "ThePartPlayedbyLaborin theTransition romApetoMan."In F. Engels, TheOrigin fthe amily, rivate ropertynd the tate.NewYork:International ublishers.Feuerbach,Ludwig. 1957 (1841). The Essence fChristianity.ewYork:HarperTorchbooks.Haldane,J.B. S. 1940.Preface, o F. Engels,DialecticsfNature. ew York: nterna-tionalPublishers.Hill,Christopher. 975. TheWorld urnedUpside own.London: Penguin.Hobsbawm,Eric. 1998. "Introduction." he Communistanifesto: Moderndition.London: Verso.Hudson,Wayne.1982. TheMarxist hilosophyfErnstBlock London: Macmillan.Israel,Jonathan. 001. RadicalEnlightenment:hilosophynd theMaking fModernity,1650-1750.New York: OxfordUniversityress.Jay,Martin.1973. TheDialecticalmagination: Historyf he rankfurtchool nd theInstitutefSocialResearch,923-1950.Berkeley, alifornia:Universityf Cali-forniaPress.Kelley,Robin. 1990.Hammernd Hoe:AlabamaCommunistsuring heGreat epres-

sion.Chapel Hill,NorthCarolina:Universityf NorthCarolinaPress.Kiernan,Victor.1987. "Foreword,"o F. Engels,TheConditionf heWorkinglassinEngland. ondon, Penguin.Klehr,Harvey.1999. "Budenz." Pp. 872-3 in American ationalBiography,ol. 3.NewYork: OxfordUniversityress.Luckwood,Lewis.2003. "BeethovenBeyondClassicism."New York eviewfBooks(July 7), 27-9.Lucretius.1994. On theNature f heUniverse.ondon: Penguin.Lukacs,Georg. 1971 (1922). Historynd ClassConsciousness:tudiesn Marxist ia-lectics. ambridge,Massachusetts:MIT Press.McLellan,David. 1969. TheYoungHegelians ndKarl Marx.London: Macmillan.. 1987. MarxismndReligion: Descriptionnd AssessmentftheMarxist ri-tique fReligion. ew York:HarperRow.McLoughlin,WilliamG., and RobertBellah, eds. 1968. Religionn America.ym-posium,AmericanAcademyofArts and Sciences. Boston,Massachusetts:HoughtonMifflin.Mannheim,Karl.n.d. (1922). Ideologynd Utopia:An Introductionothe ociologyfKnowledge.ewYork: HarvestBooks.Marx,Karl.n.d. (1867). Capital.NewYork:ModernLibrary.ME. Karl Marx and FriedrichEngels. 1970 (1965). TheGermandeology. artOne with Selections fromPartsTwo and Three. New York: InternationalPublishers.. 1998 (1848). The Communistanifesto: Modern dition. ondon: Verso.. 1957.MarxandEngels nReligion. oscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse.. 1964.Marx ndEngelsnReligion.d. ReinholdNiebuhr.NewYork: chocken.



30/30

336 SCIENCE f SOCIETY[Identical o the 1957 Moscowedition xceptthat he "Foreword" ythe nsti-tuteof Marxism-Leninisms replaced byNiebuhr's Introduction."]Meeks,WayneA. 1983. TheFirstUrban hristians:he ocial Worldf heApostleaul.NewHaven,Connecticut: ale Universityress.Mill,JohnStuart.1969 (1869). Nature, heUtilityfReligionnd Theism. ondon:Longmans reen.Newman, ohn Henry.1947 (1864). Apologia roVita ua: Being HistoryfHis Re-ligiousOpinions. ewYork:LongmansGreen.Niebuhr,Reinhold. 1964. "Introduction."Marx andEngels nReligion. ewYork:Schocken.Packer,HerbertL. 1962. "Budenz."Pp. 121-77 in Packer,Ex-Communistitnesses,Four n FactFinding. tanford, alifornia: tanfordUniversityress.Pagels,Elaine. 1981. The Gnostic ospels. ewYork:Vintage.Radin,Paul. 1957 (1937). Primitiveeligion:tsNaturendOrigins. ewYork:Dover.Raines,John.2002. MarxonReligion. hiladelphia,Pennsylvania: emple Univer-sity ress.Saxton,Alexander. 1997 (1948). TheGreatMidland.Urbana, llinois:UniversityfIllinois Press.Seaton,Douglas P. 1981. TheAssociationfCatholic radeUnionistsnd theAmericanLaborMovementrom epressiono Cold War. ewisburg, ennsylvania: ucknellUniversityress.Seliger,Martin.1977. TheMarxist onceptionf deology: Criticalssay.NewYork:Cambridge Universityress.Shapley,Harlow,ed. 1960. Science onders eligion. ewYork:AppletonCenturyCrofts.Thompson,E. P. 1993. Witnessgainst heBeast:William lake nd theMoralLaw.New York: NewPress.Tylor, dwardBurnett. 958 (1871). ReligionnPrimitiveulture. ewYork:Harpers.Weber,Max. 1963 (1922). TheSociologyfReligion.oston,Massachusetts: eacon.Williams,Raymond.1976. Keywords: VocabularyfCulture nd Society.ew York:OxfordUniversityress.Wilson,David Sloan. 2002.Darwin'sCathedral:eligionnd theNature f ociety.hi-cago, Illinois:UniversityfChicago Press.

marxism, labor, and the failed critique of religion

Documents