Lesson 4: Karl Marx’s "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our fourth meeting.

Synopsis of Week 4 Meeting:

The entire meeting was devoted to discussing Karl Marx’s Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, in which religion is described as “the opiate of the people.” The following individual quotes actually run together, but I’ve broken them up for “translation” and explanation. It would be wise after this to read the entirety of that manuscript for context and continuity.

“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.” Translation: Religion is for those who are immature or weak-minded, who have either not broken past religion or else returned to it in failure.

Notice that Marx uses philosophy to open many of his gambits. This type of self-absorption is supposedly the antithesis of Marxism. However, one can immediately see the structure by which he intends to discredit the individuality of human experience. Specifically, the opportunity to fail in society is meant to be addressed. This is the start of the victim-oppressor mindset which we have discussed mightily in Week 3. This is Hegelian reasoning coming at you. It is under the pretense of caring that Marx proposes systems shall be destroyed and rebuilt.

“But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.” Translation: You are not an animal.

Thank you, o great Marx. Without you I would not know my own humanity. This pap appeals to those who are hopeless. It is a bumper-sticker salute to those who have given up. Whereas Marx complains in his prior statement that religion acts as a surrogate for self-esteem, he now extends his own hand as that which he claims to reject! In other words, Marxism shall be your religion.

“Man is the world of man—state, society.” Translation: Mankind is egotistical. Individuality is the problem. The state and society built on this individualism is destined for ruin.

“This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.” Translation: The frailty and danger of society built on individual freedom produces the need for a haven. It is not religion’s fault, Marx asserts, but the fault of the ideology on which free society rests. Religion is only mirroring the carnage outside its walls. The world outside the chapel is itself upside down.

This is only one of many pithy witticisms with which Marx intends to pummel the pliable soul. Sweet-sounding metrics deliver the most wretched messages. Here, it is that religion itself is a victim of the oppressor society. Now, having earned our knowledge from prior weeks’ study, we can say with some certainty that Marx is hammering stakes to provide a Christian “shelter” from Judaism. For as we have already learned, Marx believed that capitalism, a free and individualistic society filled with creativity, private property and wealth, is a mere invention of the Jews. This is putrid not only from our long view of history but also because it invalidates the human ability to make best choices. It never occurs to Marx that humans should be free to screw up their surroundings, only that some avenue must be established to correct corruption. Admirable... but misguided. Before Marx was Jesus, and before Jesus (the Word made flesh) was Torah (the Word itself). We have preexisting tenets, both for obedience and repentance. What is Marx doing? Setting up for himself a messianic palace.

“Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.” Translation: Religion is the basis for the ordered world of humans, its intelligent recourse, its focus for honor, its conscience. Religion provides humans with a serious view of life, but also makes room to console the mourners and to allow rectification of grievous wrongs, i.e., sins.

Marx is a clever panderer. He intersperses his passive-aggressive digs against religion with high compliments for it. However, he is merely, as we shall see, setting up the greater fall.

“It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.” Translation: If you dig religion, you’re kidding yourself.

Bumper-sticker cliché masquerading as wisdom. This is an assumption based on philosophy and subjective observation. It is important to understand that Marxism prides itself on the “scientific” approach, so this is even hypocrisy piled on top of self-absorbed fraud.

“The struggle against religion is, therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.” Translation: Religion isn’t the true enemy; the true enemy is the idea that religion does any good.

It really doesn’t matter from which end you approach this, it’s the same message. You are now experiencing the Hegelian dialectic which you hopefully recognize. Have you not heard this before? It’s called double-talk. It’s also called lying, deliberate deceit, and disingenuousness (if we’re being kind). For whether you think it is religion which is dangerous or society which is perilous, Marx has you captured. The main point is, You are a victim and it’s not your fault. Religion and society is a setup from the day you were born. You can’t win. But Marx will lead you out of the wilderness to the promised land. This is Marx channeling the future, acting in advance like a post-Wilsonian welfare-state American politician (that is, a progressive).

“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.” Translation: You’re a sucker.

When Marx says that religious suffering is “real” suffering, he isn’t being generous with his compassion. To the contrary, it is an indictment of religion. And when Marx says that religious suffering is a “protest” against itself, it is yet another assumption, and furthermore a contemptible assignment of himself as god and savior. We are to thank Marx for pointing out that we suffer under bondage to religion, and bow to his understanding that we yet rebel against that to which we do not wish to be rebellious. In other words, he sees the strain of religion as a burden, not a responsibility. He thinks of religious thought as a shackle. He loses sleep that countless persons pray and do not get relief from their pain. On this latter statement, I am naturally being sarcastic. Marx cared not a whit for anyone but himself, and his personal life is littered with that truth. The fact that he was able to construct a mythical utopia does nothing to overturn that disaster.

One might argue that Christianity is just as bad as Marxism, but that is besides the point. There is no reward to relinquishing Christianity for Marxism if they are equally destructive. In fact, if these two are to be compared, it must not be for ultimate goals (that is, salvation) but for journeys. The journey of Christianity is foundationally repentance for sins, change of attitude from negative to positive, involvement in helping others, and so forth. The journey of Marxism, on the other hand, is infiltration of organizations, seeding discontent by painting some as victims and others as oppressors, and leading often-violent revolution against the powers-that-be. I leave it to the reader to decide if this is both correct and clear, and which pathway is best.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Translation: Alas, poor you!

Though focused on religion, Marx is actually condemning capitalism and individualism. The “oppressed creature” does not sigh for religion, but for the discomfort not found in the promise of religion. Marx exploits this gap between the advertising and the product. The same is expected from picking out the “heartless world” and the “soulless conditions.” On these latter two points, Marx is not identifying spiritual vacuums but material discrepancies. The “conditions” are not of your heart but of your home. Religion is then, according to Marx, a system through which capitalistic society sends its rejects. The “oppressed” are not only victimized by a dehumanized society that puts dog-eat-dog as its idol, but also denies their happiness by a failed religious experience. It’s double jeopardy for these poor souls, and Marx is only too happy to convert them to his particular brand of cultism. Marx preys on those who are most helpless, offering the disillusioned something too good to be true. And even if it is, he is sure they will never return to that dastardly capitalism. In essence, Marx uses religion against capitalism, even though he previously stated that they were part and parcel of the same immoral fabric! Marx makes religion simultaneously the oppressor and the oppressed! This is Hegel and Marx – say anything as long as it sounds halfway logical and fully attractive, and as long it furthers your agenda. Here, Marx colors capitalist society as covetous, thieving, murderous, idolatrous, blasphemous, dishonorable, and so forth; but the answer is not religion or God. No, no! It is the rejection of religion and God! Aren’t you glad Marx can save you?

“It is the opium of the people.” Translation: “Wake up!”

I agree with Marx to this extent: Religion which is lazy has no place in society. Organized religion which permits sinners to occupy pews, which does not actively pursue transparent and worthy charity, which does not provide guidance at a high level, which does not teach God’s Law – these are useless. If one is to be a patriot, one must know his Constitution. If one is to be godly, one must know his Torah. Faith in country and God is essential, but without proper authority and limitations, both of which contractually derive from Law, the religious follower is merely “winging it.” So, yes, wake up!

Marx, however, means something very different. He means to wake up and walk out. He means to go on strike against the oppressive “boss” of the pulpit. Marx is pretending to be Jesus in the Temple, overturning tables; but he has no such standing. How can a man who teaches against God’s Law, against God, tell you in which godly manner to behave? Marx is teaching against God’s Law (the tool of the oppressor), and therefore he is to be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Marx is an antichrist.

Whether or not you are religious, Marx’s views on religion are also irrelevant, for no simpler reason than he flips off religion. It is not that religion should be respected (this is up to the individual) but that religion is personal, and it is not up to one man to say in which manner religion should collectively be conducted. This admonishment applies to Marx, to Congress, and to your clergyman. Individual freedom of religion is not meant to be a safe and antiseptic experience but a road of challenge and victory through overcoming. No one has the right or ability to say that religious experience, and therefore religion, must be eradicated for its sorrows and scrapes. Where it concerns Marx, his interference is especially from the height of arrogance, for Marxism, the supposed correct prism, is all about disappointment and misery.

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Translation: Just what it sounds like.

If you read Marxian philosophy without attendant translation and explanation, you will have come to this point perhaps agreeing with Marx. But having looked deeply into his platitudes it is clear that the strategy in play is to gain friendship with the afflicted by way of sympathy and offering solutions. The Hegelian dialectic is in high gear, specifying two straw men (religion and anti-religion) as the choices by which society either progresses or stagnates, and demanding through crocodile tears the “better” choice for all concerned. This, of course, is in opposition to those many who actually gain some profit from religion, organized or otherwise. But this is exactly the point: Religion is “unfair” in its solace and comfort. While some prosper in God’s love, others are left stranded in front of that proverbial brass wall. Marx’s solution is not to leave each to their individual destinies but to take away, by force if necessary, the spiritual wealth accrued by the fortunate. Sound familiar? It should. It is the same analysis provided for the intrinsic disparity within capitalistic economic structure. It is the same mindset used in youth sports leagues where “everyone is a winner” (that is, no one is a winner). It is the “compassion” of Marx which thwarts the “wickedness” of competition, individuality, and success.

This is a disease which must be combated and eventually cured. Practically speaking, we must participate fully and cannot avoid the confrontations sure to come. Therefore, if someone asks (for example), “You want clean air and water, don’t you?” - your answer as a free being ought to be, “Not if it means you control the type of car I drive, the type of energy I use, the type of light bulb I can burn, the type of toilet paper I can buy...” – and so forth. Their Hegelian dialectic sustains the Overton Window mentality which sets up two falsities: (1) the Earth will suffer if we continue your (capitalist) way, (2) humanity will benefit for countless generations if we do it our (Marxist) way. Your response avoids their frame of reference, and decimates their assumptions and arguments. Your answer is: “I choose freedom, not slavery to fairness, compassion, political correctness, social justice, and other trigger words meant to corral my individuality, openness, and rejection of Marxism.” It is not necessary to give power to collectivists for everyone to prosper. In fact, that is not even possible. Instead, it is necessary to give autonomy and sovereignty to individuals who will succeed or fail on their own, without government intervention.

This stance will create enemies for you. If not on their team, or at least not open to hearing them, you will be attacked, smeared, vilified, ostracized, isolated, insulted, and worse. That is the price you pay for being a free being. People congregate to security, and freedom causes insecurity. You are therefore a threat to the many who have and will fail. And, as the world careens into worse sloth, greed, and covetousness, you will make actual and more enemies. The government is weakening daily to collectivism, worse than we ever imagined. Be prepared to defend your rights.

“To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.” Translation: We may have to forcibly tear religion from those who like or need it.

While Marx’s Hegelian dialectic sounds paternal and non-committal, it’s actually very strenuous and quite clear. Marx concludes that religion is an illusion, promising, but not delivering to all, security and happiness. He is Captain Obvious, isn’t he? But somehow this message has filtered widely and successfully through the 150 years since it’s been pitched. The key is that the young can be reached through the freedom of press and public libraries. While older folks are set in their ways, restless adolescence can be shaped in its dissatisfaction. The broken promises from childhood church-going are harvested by propaganda which promises disappointed idealistic energy a utopian place to dwell. Whether you like it or not, it’s like giving a hungry man bread. Reach the children, mold the future.

Those who continue with Marxism into adulthood may possibly take power, and this probability is accentuated by the fact that Marxists greatly push “civic duty.” To compound matters, Marxism takes advantage of a weak people by demanding that “racist” civics (read: true civics) be dropped from school curricula. Thereby, those uneducated in our Constitution may be indoctrinated into the concepts of “living documents” and legislation for the “greater good” rather than in firm principles and limited government. Those left over, who don’t participate in politics per se, can be enlisted to protest, even riot, in the name of “compassion” and “equal rights.”

It’s really not their fault. Kids are at heart dreamers, and all it takes is a Willie Wonka of the wrong variety to hand them a delightful chocolate, and they are hooked to it. It is euphoria for the young to think thoughts of wrongs righted. More so, it is a sense of power that they can change the world. Marxism exploits this lingering angst as much as it waters the sprout of anger in the workplace and the welfare state.

“The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.” Translation: Religion cannot protect you from capitalistic life because religion is capitalistic life.

Clearly, Marx had a messianic complex. First, he identifies “the problem.” Who can argue that religion has not caused much pain? But who can argue that religion has not brought much comfort? It is the height of self-righteousness to claim judgment on the behavior of billions of people. Second, he claims to have “the solution.” This idea that one can “save the world” by the removal of religion is obviously as filled with faith as any religion! You must have belief of steel to buy this. Not only that, but it is religious to think in terms of “saving” humanity, and therefore Marx was just as superstitious and more hypocritical than those he despised. Hitler took this Marxian faith to its ultimate end, claiming he was the messiah of the master race and would purge first the evil of the Jews.

You must understand how very serious this is. The communist has counted for 150 years on the anti-Semitic history of mankind to continue unabated and with less mercy than ever. The communist perpetuates myths about Jews while clinging to his own myths. The communist pretends to be a friend of the Christian against the Jew. The communist also pretends to side with Islam over America, calling America a Zionist nation. These things are not accidental. This is a coordinated effort to brainwash by repetition anti-Judaism so that the Law of God can eventually be extinguished. For it is that at the conclusion the only competition communism will truly have is God’s Law. It is not capitalism that will defeat communism unless it is godly (lawful) capitalism. It is not armaments which will defeat communism unless they are used for godly (Torah) purposes. If you understand this as superstition, you may be already brainwashed.

The communist will argue that, at the core, I am incorrect simply because I spout philosophy, and that Marxism does not use philosophy but science. This is incorrect. Marx’s own Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) is a philosophical document, decommissioned by communists as too humanist and too liberal, that is, too bourgeoisie, but it does exist. In it, Marx speaks of the alienation of a man from his own human nature by the system of capitalism. Feuerbach had previously in 1841 written about man’s alienation from his human nature by the idea of God, and Stirner would further the idea by saying that man is alienated from himself by “humanity.” If that isn’t philosophy, what is? But I expect no more from communists (and their progressive-liberal ilk) than this double standard, where something is OK for you but not for me.

But not only is Marxism a philosophy, even its arguments and “mathematics” are faulty. Marx’s work is based on erroneous assumptions which, frankly, were already becoming archaic by the boom in the Industrial Revolution. It may be stated fairly that Marx is like a broken clock, always ringing the same time and therefore right twice a day, but this is a poor excuse to follow it.

The freer is a society, the more likely it is that such conditions as Marx describes (and hopes for) will never come to be. The fact that this alienation of man delineated by Marx exists today in America is not due to capitalism but to government intervention in markets and in people’s lives. The bailouts to shore up criminal banks and whining automakers are a dangerous example. By this, a message is sent that businesses and financiers may break the rules of monetary physics without culpability or repercussion. This is the behavior of an oligarchy more than of a democracy or republic. But let’s not kid ourselves: Marx was NOT asserting Jefferson or Franklin, that freedom must be guarded vigilantly; but rather that capitalist freedom is an illusion and that the capitalists, that is, the Jews, will eventually watch it all fall down while they count their money. It is this feeling of hopelessness and hatred which Marx hope to capture, the revolution in his head to be fulfilled in the reality of darkness.