Imagine no possessions

One of the websites I visit regularly had an impromptu debate concerning atheists and religionists, mostly Christians. It started with a “This should be posted to a group rather than the general Forum” type of statement, but eventually became a “stop picking on us” and “you think you’re so smart” fest of comments. I published a reaction to one piece there in my site blog. As I was contemplating whether to publish it here, I realised that often the terms debated aren’t properly defined. As I tried to define them for my own purposes, I discovered my knowledge wasn’t quite up to par. I don’t mind that someone disagrees with me. But, when I’m blatantly wrong on something I should know, it really bothers me.

In this case, the terms were atheist and communist. Not all atheists are communists, but it’s always assumed that all communists are atheists. I certainly assumed as much before examining the matter more closely. In its simplest form, communism simply means a classless and stateless society in which all property is communally owned. In its modern Marxist manifestation, communism has not been stateless, and property, or at least the means for the production of goods and wealth, was owned by the State. While it could be argued the State is the People, the dictatorial nature of the governments would indicate otherwise.

Societies organised according to communist principles have existed since the earliest times. Communist theorist Karl Marx himself saw the hunter and gatherer society as communistic. Early Christians are said to have lived in such a way that all was shared, and other religious groups have also lived according to communal ownership of land and other resources.

Communist thought of a more modern bent can be traced back to Thomas More, who wrote about common ownership of property in his treatise Utopia in 1516. In the 18th century, communism began to take on a dimension of political doctrine following the French Revolution. Non-state-sponsored communistic communities continued to be formed, but while those that came before had been formed mainly for religious reasons, those of the 19th century were based mainly on social reform.

By the late 19th century, Friedrich Engels had made enough of an impression on Karl Marx that he, too, became a communist. Marx and Engels were convinced that just as feudalism had given way to capitalism, capitalism would give way to communism, where the means of production would be owned by all, and all would benefit from the production. All that was needed was for the factory workers and other members of the oppressed class to unite and throw off their shackles.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, or opium of the People, depending on how you wish to translate the original German. His pronouncements on religion aren’t quite as stark in The Communist Manifesto, which he coauthored with Engels and published in 1848. I’ve gone through the Manifesto quickly, perhaps too quickly. But my impression is the Manifesto doesn’t actually preach the ousting of religion, though it is critical of it. Rather, it sees religion as a tool of the ruling class to lull people into a state of complacency, and calls for the people to be free from religion. It’s hard to tell whether Marx and Engels believe people will have to free themselves of religion before the communist revolution or that religion will simply cease to exist once the classless society has been established. But communism, as described in the Manifesto, rather than calling for the end of religion, is predicting its eventual demise or at least the end of its hold over the masses. Atheism wasn’t supposed to be imposed. It was to occur more or less naturally at a certain stage of the working class struggle against the ruling class.

In that sense, I wonder if the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is even close to what Marx and Engels envisioned. The ordinary workers were supposed to take power from the ruling class. In the end, one ruling class was replaced by a different ruling class. While this had been more or less anticipated, Marx and Engels believed the end of classes would bring about the end of political power per se. Obviously, this never happened.

That may be Marxist communism’s Achilles heel. Communism needs a ruling class to take down. But the result is supposed to be a society without class. As long as there must be a State, there will always be a ruling class, an institution called government, though its members may be there only temporary.

Instead of a traditional revolution, it may be better for the working class to eventually reach economic autonomy through a quiet revolution already in progress. As more and more people can work from home through a computer, and perhaps just a cell phone, it may be starting to happen. In the end, we may not have common property of all production resources, but if they’re widely available at a fair price, even the poorest of wage-earners may win that struggle.