§ I. Principal Tenets of Socialism Incompatible with Religion

After what has been said above (p. 120 sqq.) anent the materialistic conception of history there can be no doubt that “scientific” socialism is essentially irreligious or even openly hostile to religion. The socialist theory implies first of all the negation of any dualism of spirit and matter. “The real unity of the world,” Engels tells us, “is in its materiality.” According to socialist doctrine there is no spirit, there -is but matter and motion. Consequently there can be neither God nor divine Providence; man is devoid of an immortal soul no less than the brute animal from which he has been evolved; all hope for a better future in a life to come is idle folly.

1. Whatever heretofore was looked upon as belonging to the ideal, intellectual order is set down by Marx and Engels as the product of economic conditions in any given epoch. “The economic structure of society always forms the real foundation, according to which the whole superstructure of ethical and political institutions as well as the religious, philosophical, and other views of every historical period are ultimately to be explained.”¹ “Religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in the brains of men of those powers by whom their daily existence is dominated, a reflection in which natural forces assume supernatural forms.”¹ Religion is a “costume”² or a “mask.”³ On that account it need not be abolished by force, it will “die off” and disappear, as soon as there are no more objects to be reflected.⁴ Also Kautsky informs us that in the ranks of the socialist party there is growing up a new system of morals and philosophy. He does not speak of a new religion, because forsooth there will be no more fantastic reflections.

¹ Engels, Dühring’s Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, p. 11.

¹ Ibid., p. 304.

² Engels, Feuerbach, p. 65.

³ Neue Zeit, 1894, p. 5.

⁴ Engels, Feuerbach, p. 305.

Socialist leaders never tire of repeating that the materialistic conception of history is the foundation principle of modern “scientific” socialism; it is called by an American socialist⁵ “the central thing in socialism.” He says, “it is to history and social science what the law of gravitation is to physics.” Now, if all this is true, and if on the other hand the very essence of this historical materialism is incompatible with, or rather subversive of all true religion, then the attitude of socialism toward religion is sufficiently characterized.

⁵ Charles H. Kerr, What to Read on Socialism, p. x.

To a socialist conscious of his aims and purpose and fully imbued with the doctrine he is propagating it must seem ridiculous to see any one trying to prove that socialism and religion are incompatible. As a faithful adept of historical materialism, he knows that he cannot have any religion; and if all men were to turn socialists, religion would indeed disappear without the application of violent measures.

2. The hostile attitude of socialism toward religion is shown further in its purely natural, earthly con- “206 - The Other Fundamental Tenets of Socialism. ception of human life. Or could, perhaps, a system which proceeds from the supposition that man is created by God for eternity, and is placed here on earth to merit heaven by the fulfilment of the divine will—could such a system set up material production as the highest standard of society, and allow a share of earthly goods only to those who take an actual part in production? Could such a system regard religion as a matter of indifference or put it aside as a thing not worth caring for? Thus we see that the fundamental idea of socialism is in contradiction not only with Christianity, but with every form of religion. The decalogue of socialism are the supposed rights of men; its god is the democratic, socialistic state; its last end is earthly enjoyment for all; the object of its worship is production.

3. Also the first demand of socialism is tacitly based upon atheism. It demands perfect equality of rights and of the conditions of life for all, and that in every regard, but chiefly in social life. Every inequality in social life is characterized by socialism as an unbearable fraud and oppression. Although reason and revelation teach that the servant should be subject to his master, the inferior to his superior, the wife to her husband, and the child to the parent, and that for conscience’ sake, because it is the will of God, yet socialism considers all this as a violation of the equal rights and duties of all. According to socialistic views, each one has the right to submit only to those laws and that authority which he himself has acknowledged and approved. Thus the principle of authority, as coming from God and requiring obedience for conscience’ sake, is subverted. That socialism dissolves the marriage union, not only in the Christian sense, but also in the juridical sense, we shall have occasion to see when we treat of the relation of socialism to the family.

4. Socialism is no less in contradiction with Christian teaching on the rights of property. Christ no more emphatically condemns the immoderate quest of riches, and no more forcibly recommends poverty of spirit as a higher degree of perfection, than He clearly acknowledges the justice of private property, also in the materials of labor, and that not only for His own times and nation but for all places and all ages to come. He has not abolished the moral precepts of the Old Law as laid down in the Decalogue: nay, He has enforced them anew. In the New Testament as well as in the Old, it is a breach of the divine law even to covet our neighbor’s field, house, or oxen. To the rich youth who asked to be instructed on the way to salvation Christ answered that he should keep the commandments of the Decalogue; and He added the counsel: “If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor,... and come, follow Me.” Could Christ speak thus if He considered private property, to which certainly belong houses and lands, as unjust? To Ananias St. Peter answered he might have kept his land if he chose. Among the first followers of Christ and the apostles there were many who possessed private property (e.g., Martha, Joseph of Arimathea, Philemon). Like Christ Himself and His apostles, the Church at all times acknowledged the right of private property in the materials of labor (lands, tenements, produce, etc.). It is therefore contrary to the teaching of Christianity to condemn all such private property as unjust or to brand it as “theft,” as socialism actually does.

5. Christianity forbids revolution—that is, a violent subversion of the lawfully existing social order. But socialism is, according to the acknowledgment of its own leaders and representatives, an essentially revolutionary movement. True, when this reproach is made to social democrats they take refuge in the ambiguity of the word “revolution;” they say that there are also peaceful and constitutional revolutions. However, this answer is but beating about the bush. Of course, we do not assert that socialists engage in secret conspiracies, in deep-laid plots and schemes, in placing mines and throwing bombs in true anarchist style. Their ringleaders have sense enough to understand that nowadays attempts of this nature must necessarily prove abortive, and end with a fearful massacre of the insurgents.

Socialists are rather intent on spreading their ideas, thus preparing the ground and gaining possession of political power. But when their strength has reached ample proportions and the time seems to be ripe for the execution of their plans, they will not shrink from resorting to brute force. A revolutionary dictatorship will crush with its iron heel whoso dares to resist, and with fire and sword it will usher in the dawn of the communist order of society.

Or are, perhaps, the learned and cultured leaders of the social democratic party so simple as to believe that all private owners would freely surrender their possessions to the community, that the Church would freely renounce its institutions and its possessions, that monarchs would freely descend from their thrones, that the nobility would readily sacrifice their inherited rights, and the peasantry abandon the lands tilled by their forefathers?

Fortunately for ourselves we need not be content with general speculations on this point. The leading champions of socialism have time and again revealed their heart of hearts with most commendable sincerity.

Already in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels declare ‘that their purposes can be attained only by a violent subversion of the existing order. Let the ruling classes tremble at the communist revolution.” Not less openly Marx declared at the congress of The Hague in 1872: “In most countries of Europe violence must be the lever of our social reform. We must finally have recourse to violence in order to establish the rule of labor... . The revolution must be universal, and we find a conspicuous example in the Commune of Paris, which has failed because in other capitals—Berlin and Madrid—a simultaneous revolutionary movement did not break out in connection with this mighty upheaval of the proletariat in Paris.” These words require no comment.

Also in his “Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Programms” he confesses openly that the transition from capitalist to communist society can be effected only under the rule of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Bebel, commenting in the German Reichstag upon occurrences in Paris, says: “These events are but a slight skirmish in the war which the proletariat is prepared to wage against all palaces.” On another occasion he declared that this reform cannot be brought about by sprinkling rose-water. In one of his works, “Unsere Ziele,” p. 44, he writes as follows on the application of violence: “We must not shudder at the thought of the possible employment of violence; we must not raise an alarm-cry at the suppression of ‘existing rights,’ at violent expropriation, etc. History teaches that at all times new ideas, as a rule, were realized by a violent conflict with the defenders of the past, and that the combatants for new ideas struck blows as deadly as possible at the defenders of antiquity. Not without reason does Karl Marx, in his work on ‘Capital,’ exclaim: Violence is the obstetrician that waits on every ancient society which is about to give birth to a new one; violence is in itself a social factor.”

At the socialist convention of Ghent (1877) Liebknecht exclaimed: ‘The army will after all consist of sons of the people, whom we are gaining over by our revolutionary propaganda. . . . When the day shall have arrived, rifles and cannons will of their own accord face about to prostrate the foes of the socialist people.”

After Hirsch Lekuch, convicted of a murderous attempt on the governor of Vilna, had been executed June 10, 1902, the Vorwärts (n. 28), under the heading: A Martyr of Oppression, remarks: “The executed man has been enrolled forever in the history of the downtrodden Russian people, which is a history of dreadful sufferings no less than a history of dauntless heroism.” Is this not open commendation of political murder?

From all this it appears to evidence that socialism and Christianity are no less opposed to each other than darkness and light, and that whoever knows what socialism is, and what it aims at, can join its ranks only at the sacrifice of Christianity and religion in general.