What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism and Christianity
Contending that Marxism achieved its unique position in part by adopting the content and functions of Christianity, MacIntyre details the religious attitudes and modes of belief that appear in Marxist doctrine as it developed historically from the philosophies of Hegel and Feuerbach, and as it has been carried on by latter-day interpreters from Rosa Luxemburg and Trotsky to Kautsky and Lukacs. The result is a lucid exposition of Marxism and an incisive account of its persistence and continuing importance.
160 pages, Paperback
First published June 24, 1971
20 people are currently reading
760 people want to read
About the author
Alasdair MacIntyre
78 books517 followersAlasdair Chalmers MacIntyre was a British-American philosopher who contributed to moral and political philosophy as well as history of philosophy and theology. MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) is one of the most important works of Anglophone moral and political philosophy in the 20th century. He was senior research fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Aristotelian Studies in Ethics and Politics (CASEP) at London Metropolitan University, emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and permanent senior distinguished research fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture. During his lengthy academic career, he also taught at Brandeis University, Duke University, Vanderbilt University, and Boston University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
July 10, 2019
MacIntyre's thesis begins with the assertion that "Only one secular doctrine retains the scope of traditional religion in offering an interpretation of human existence by means of which men may situate themselves in the world and direct their actions to ends that transcend those offered by their immediate situation: Marxism" but that Marxism aphoria in relationship to predictive and/or normative capacities leads it to deify secular elements in lieu of answering the question. MacIntyre traces this problem back into Marxism left-Hegelian origins, noticing that the attempt to secularize the eschatology of Christianity was strong in both traditional Hegelianisms and in the left-Hegelian critiques of Hegel, particularly in that of Feuerbach.
Before we get into the particulars of MacIntyre's critique of Marxism and his admiration, it is important to know that MacIntyre, before fully adopting the Thomistic framework of his mature works, was an active Marxist both in the traditional (Marxist-Leninist) CPGB of the 1950s and in several Trotskyist groups in the early 1960s. Traditional Christians, particularly Protestants, will be frustrated with the lack explicit theological critiques of Marxism, even of the Catholic variety, and the reduction of Christianity to its ethical tradition.
In MacIntyre's view, Marx’s revaluation of Hegel incidentally traces of his metaphysics into social science. But Marx cannot be clear if he is transcribing a normative transcendence or predicting the iron laws that will end capitalism. This tension is also in Engel's where the iron laws are stated more clearly but never contradicted by Marx despite his private letters on some of the hesitation. IN the gap, a clear aphoria arises and the liberalized metaphysics of Christian re-emerge and show up as idols when the two dominant modes of reconciling the aphoria on Marxism as a science start to show problems: first, Kautsky's model with makes predictions about capitalism which do not actually happen (particularly agianst Bernstein's whose predictives seem more immediately accurate). Then in Lukacs, which removes not just the predictive elements but also most hard category distinctions, placing in Marxism a methodology and a party which represents the methodology. When the parties refute Lukacs, his theories appear to be self-refuted (even to himself).
MacIntyre critiques Marxism failure to fix this problem and the emergent deifications of history, or party, or Stalin that emerges but also points out, albeit briefly, that liberalism and Christianity criticize Marxism on grounds that they themselves are guilty. Particularly interesting is when MacIntyre walks through the attempts of Trotsky, Bernstein, and Kautsky where moral logic of Marxism is explored and notes that most attempts devolve into modified positions of Kantian deontology (for Bernstein) and utilitarianism but a for a singular class (Trotsky and Kautsky) and both failing prey to the liberal assumptions already existing in those systems.
One flaw many will find in the book is that for the explication of Hegelianism and the development of the problems around Marxism, the discussion of Christianity OR of the content economics is largely missing. The arguments about Christianity are implied mostly because of the early Hegelian relationship to liberalizing Christianity after Protestantism encounter with the Enlightenment, but not entirely stated. The arguments about Marxism are largely about the predictive status of some of the claims and it's the relationship to secularized Christianity more than a political program or economic critique. Yet MacIntyre clearly has a detailed knowledge of both and almost expects the reader to know it already and to read specifics themselves. Thus while I find this to be a clarifying book even if I don't agree with MacIntyre's implied conclusions, without significant prior knowledge one may be frustrated.
Before we get into the particulars of MacIntyre's critique of Marxism and his admiration, it is important to know that MacIntyre, before fully adopting the Thomistic framework of his mature works, was an active Marxist both in the traditional (Marxist-Leninist) CPGB of the 1950s and in several Trotskyist groups in the early 1960s. Traditional Christians, particularly Protestants, will be frustrated with the lack explicit theological critiques of Marxism, even of the Catholic variety, and the reduction of Christianity to its ethical tradition.
In MacIntyre's view, Marx’s revaluation of Hegel incidentally traces of his metaphysics into social science. But Marx cannot be clear if he is transcribing a normative transcendence or predicting the iron laws that will end capitalism. This tension is also in Engel's where the iron laws are stated more clearly but never contradicted by Marx despite his private letters on some of the hesitation. IN the gap, a clear aphoria arises and the liberalized metaphysics of Christian re-emerge and show up as idols when the two dominant modes of reconciling the aphoria on Marxism as a science start to show problems: first, Kautsky's model with makes predictions about capitalism which do not actually happen (particularly agianst Bernstein's whose predictives seem more immediately accurate). Then in Lukacs, which removes not just the predictive elements but also most hard category distinctions, placing in Marxism a methodology and a party which represents the methodology. When the parties refute Lukacs, his theories appear to be self-refuted (even to himself).
MacIntyre critiques Marxism failure to fix this problem and the emergent deifications of history, or party, or Stalin that emerges but also points out, albeit briefly, that liberalism and Christianity criticize Marxism on grounds that they themselves are guilty. Particularly interesting is when MacIntyre walks through the attempts of Trotsky, Bernstein, and Kautsky where moral logic of Marxism is explored and notes that most attempts devolve into modified positions of Kantian deontology (for Bernstein) and utilitarianism but a for a singular class (Trotsky and Kautsky) and both failing prey to the liberal assumptions already existing in those systems.
One flaw many will find in the book is that for the explication of Hegelianism and the development of the problems around Marxism, the discussion of Christianity OR of the content economics is largely missing. The arguments about Christianity are implied mostly because of the early Hegelian relationship to liberalizing Christianity after Protestantism encounter with the Enlightenment, but not entirely stated. The arguments about Marxism are largely about the predictive status of some of the claims and it's the relationship to secularized Christianity more than a political program or economic critique. Yet MacIntyre clearly has a detailed knowledge of both and almost expects the reader to know it already and to read specifics themselves. Thus while I find this to be a clarifying book even if I don't agree with MacIntyre's implied conclusions, without significant prior knowledge one may be frustrated.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 14, 2012
Mostly functions as a very good history of Marxist thought by a superbly analytical mind. The two main points on which he finds comparisons between Marxism and Christianity are at the very beginning, seeing in Marxism, and its predecessor Hegelianism, a secularization of some core elements of Christianity -mainly the Fall of Man and the future promise of Man's rehabilitation- and at the very end, seeing some of the same declines and regressions in Marxism as Marxists diagnosed in religion -reification of the Real. As a general point, he takes both Christianity and Marxism as the only great narrative that can deal effectively with the modern human condition. One can also see some of his future themes emerging: mainly the confusion in moral language for modernists, and for the critics of modernity (Christian and Marxist) who attempt to use the same modernist individualist "moralities".
Here is where one can sense, and from further reading one can also confirm, that when Alasdair MacIntyre speaks about Christianity he is primarily referring to the Thomistic appropriation of Aristotelian ethics. It is not entirely clear to me that this approach is authentically Christian, and why one should take up Christianity rather than Aristotelian ethics alone is a bit of a mystery. I tend to suspect that part of the blame for modernity's individualist confusion of moralities can be laid on the secularization of another Christian feature: the belief in the soul, and that ultimately what matters is the individual soul's choice in relating with God and with others. The emphasis on community and reason and human nature came out much later in Christianity, specifically in Catholicism, when the idea of a fallen nature was pushed further in the background. I tend to agree with Kierkegaard that ultimately Christian morality is only a morality of personal engagement with the Other. It involves not just the community but also God, but ultimately with the subject as the starting point or point of view. Not that this affirms the modernist individualist morality. As the older MacIntyre would say of Marxism, this individualist morality is a form of secularized Christian heresy.
It might be more difficult to surgically divide between this modernist individualist morality and the similar Christian personalist morality, but that's not to say that any other effort such as the rehabilitation of Aristotelian ethics is more authentically Christian. It is also not clear that MacIntyre is concerned with authentic Christianity as much as with the moral utility of its Thomism.
Here is where one can sense, and from further reading one can also confirm, that when Alasdair MacIntyre speaks about Christianity he is primarily referring to the Thomistic appropriation of Aristotelian ethics. It is not entirely clear to me that this approach is authentically Christian, and why one should take up Christianity rather than Aristotelian ethics alone is a bit of a mystery. I tend to suspect that part of the blame for modernity's individualist confusion of moralities can be laid on the secularization of another Christian feature: the belief in the soul, and that ultimately what matters is the individual soul's choice in relating with God and with others. The emphasis on community and reason and human nature came out much later in Christianity, specifically in Catholicism, when the idea of a fallen nature was pushed further in the background. I tend to agree with Kierkegaard that ultimately Christian morality is only a morality of personal engagement with the Other. It involves not just the community but also God, but ultimately with the subject as the starting point or point of view. Not that this affirms the modernist individualist morality. As the older MacIntyre would say of Marxism, this individualist morality is a form of secularized Christian heresy.
It might be more difficult to surgically divide between this modernist individualist morality and the similar Christian personalist morality, but that's not to say that any other effort such as the rehabilitation of Aristotelian ethics is more authentically Christian. It is also not clear that MacIntyre is concerned with authentic Christianity as much as with the moral utility of its Thomism.
May 28, 2024
Somewhat informative, MacIntyre argues that Marxism "humanizes" certain Christian teachings and that Marxism is (in some ways) the historical successor of Christianity. More about Marx and his influences than it is about Christianity and did some interesting (but confusing) summaries of Hegel and Feuerbach .
Didn't move the needle for me as a whole, probably because I did not truly understand its biggest point. But lots of interesting moments, ideas and a generally interesting topic.
Quotes
“Marx brings out both the benefits of political equality and its limitations. The state may grant men equal political rights, but it ignores the basic inequalities of birth, occupation, and property which render men in practice unequal. Thus man as a member of the state, a society of equality, is in contradiction with himself as a member of civil society, a society of inequality. ”
“Both liberals and Christians are too apt to forget that Marxism is the only systematic doctrine in the modern world that has been able to translate to any important degree the hopes men once expressed, and could not but express in religious terms, into the secular project of understanding societies and expressions of human possibility and history as a means of liberating the present from the burdens of the past, and so constructing the future. Liberalism by contrast simply abandons the virtue of hope. For liberals the future has become the present enlarged.”
“Only one secular doctrine retains the scope of traditional religion in offering an interpretation of human existence by means of which men may situate themselves in the world and direct their actions to ends that transcend those offered by their immediate situation: Marxism. ”
Didn't move the needle for me as a whole, probably because I did not truly understand its biggest point. But lots of interesting moments, ideas and a generally interesting topic.
Quotes
“Marx brings out both the benefits of political equality and its limitations. The state may grant men equal political rights, but it ignores the basic inequalities of birth, occupation, and property which render men in practice unequal. Thus man as a member of the state, a society of equality, is in contradiction with himself as a member of civil society, a society of inequality. ”
“Both liberals and Christians are too apt to forget that Marxism is the only systematic doctrine in the modern world that has been able to translate to any important degree the hopes men once expressed, and could not but express in religious terms, into the secular project of understanding societies and expressions of human possibility and history as a means of liberating the present from the burdens of the past, and so constructing the future. Liberalism by contrast simply abandons the virtue of hope. For liberals the future has become the present enlarged.”
“Only one secular doctrine retains the scope of traditional religion in offering an interpretation of human existence by means of which men may situate themselves in the world and direct their actions to ends that transcend those offered by their immediate situation: Marxism. ”
July 21, 2012
Tries to take worldly concept and ground it in Christian roots. The arguments are weak at best. Though, it is worth the read as an introduction if the reader reads with much caution.
July 17, 2017
Alasdair Macintyre's earlier work, 'Marxism and Christianity,' sketch a genealogy of Marxist thought
vis-à-vis
the Christian religion. Although, I presumed he would have provided a theological framework, either to critique or praise Marx/Marxism(s) with a conclusion stating contradictions or overlapping goals among both communities. This book is largely focused on Marx and his development as a thinker and philosopher beginning with Hegel's metaphysics, a later left-Hegelian appropriation, and an integration of Feuerbachian materialism. His conclusions clarify historic Christian claims amid the infectious liberalism that was rampant at the time.
Macintyre introduces Marxism by situating it within the context of secularization, the Enlightenment project, and the political fervor surrounding this era. For this reason, he is sure to define a concept of the 'social' that is predicated on a religious logic; which is to say, individuals are always collectively acting in association with one another and correlate their identity, roles, and relationships within a larger social structure. These structures function as interpretive grids for human existence; according to this logic, every individual necessarily acts or speaks within a religious orientation. "Thus Marxism shares in a good measure both the content and the functions of Christianity as an interpretation of human existence, and it does so because it is the historical successor of Christianity." (6)
After clarifying certain presuppositions, Macintyre proceeds to explain Marx's philosophical heritage, a heritage rooted in Hegelian idealism. Hegel's lexicon contained key concepts for Marx. Macintyre explicates the Hegelian concepts of self-estrangement, alienation, objectification, and self-knowledge within a theological trajectory. Self-estrangement finds a correlate in the hamartiological branch of Christian theology; under the auspices of Adam's rebellion men have become 'estranged' from themselves and their fellow neighbor. Conflict emerges between the individual and the society he engages because he is now at odds with both his ‘internal’ self and the ‘external’ world. The relation between the internal--external are classified as object and subject. Because of the subject's self-estranged nature a process of 'objectification' now takes place. Objectification alienates the self from the external products he creates and corruptly reifies the external world in purely discrete terms. The unity of both man and nature cohere in a redemptive event described as "appropriation" or "self-knowledge."
The Christian narrative of creation, fall, and redemption are now narrated in a Hegelian vernacular. The dialectic of slavery-toward-freedom progressively constructs a new unified synthesis—an optimistic eschatological vision of the final triumph of freedom. The production of thought becomes the primary means by which concrete reality is altered and the ‘ideal’ world is envisaged. The construction of ideas are feats of the mind that manifest the 'geist'; the animating force of the world unfolding in history. This part of Hegel's thought illustrate a metaphysical framework attempting to overcome material contingency. Hegel's philosophy of the 'mind' become an important component for Marx’s further dialectical and material formulations.
“...To change reality one must change thought.” (21) A battle among Left and Right Hegelian ‘thought’ occupied the socio-political terrain of the mid-nineteenth century. A battle over ideas ensued, and this would presumably set the course for political transformation. According to this vision, the realization of the ideal in history had to be implemented by vanguardist philosophers. But as time went on the Left Hegelian’s slowly peeled the theological husk from the natural kernel and consequently ‘demythologized’ the material world. Hegel’s theological tradition no longer informed the abstract notions of Spirit, thought, and the ideal. The left-Hegelian’s reoriented their path toward a Feuerbachian direction. Instead of the object-subject relationship abstractly conditioning one another, the “Hegelian unity of subject and object is simply man as subject apprehending the world as object.” A weight is leveraged on the objectivity of the ‘material’ world wherein the subject encounters the ‘world-in-itself.’ Self-knowledge is ‘psychologically’ divorced from the knowledge acquired through concrete communal exchange. Christianity is evacuated of its dogmatic content, while the fraternal form and ethic of love remain. Now, this mode of “...politics must become our religion.” (27)
“If we set out to change the world in a progressive sense, we must be prepared in so doing to transform our philosophy into an instrument of our action.” (34) Marx’s next move as a Hegelian becomes a move from theory to praxis; Hegel’s theory, now shed of its idealism, must be concretely manifest. Hegel formulated the state as an expression of the collective will of a society, but Marx flipped it on its head. Society, as an extension of man’s essence, would develop a state-form that would determinedly instantiate the good society. Marx democratizes the political agency of men in relation to the State as 'citizens.' For Marx, humans nature is fully realized when it is incorporated into the State and its political activity.
Marx’s appropriation of Hegel transmute his metaphysic into a social science. This is evident in the chapter entitled, “Marx’s account of history;” it clearly articulates core Marxist doctrine, i.e. the alienation of labor, private property, and the relation of labor to property. This was one of my favorite chapters in the book because it pieces together conventional Marxist terminology with its theoretical counterpart. Once Marx’s logic and grammar are situated within Hegelian phenomenology and ontology, his metaphysical materialism and dialectical notion of history make proper sense.
Macintyre makes the claim that alienation is a concept that carries over into Marx’s mature theory, and with it traces of idealism. This is an important claim because it retains the theological character and abstract notions of Marxist theory. He uses this as a springboard to dissect Marx’s critique of capitalism. The apparent inevitability, rationality, and determinism of capitalism inculcated by elites is the same ‘law’ that justifies the determinative transition into socialism. He deconstructs this ‘law-governed’ and ‘mechanistic’ reading of Marx by employing a Hegelian schematism that isn’t subject to a particular interpretation of his theory. Engel’s is culpable for this particular reading; Macintyre demonstrates he isn’t alone in this critique and others have pushed back on this reading. It is important to take into consideration the humanistic and Hegelian inheritance of Marxism and not take the materialism at face value.
“Religion is only disposed of by the Marxist critique if it is true that the essential character of religion is other-worldliness, its essential claim to explain phenomena, and its essential function to compensate for human powerlessness and to mask human exploitation.” This neatly sums up the Modern presuppositions that have been historically antagonistic toward a religious logic. i.e. "Religion only satisfies the needs of those who are captive to the superstitions of an un-enlightened past; now that we have discovered the methodologies of ‘science’ and acquired advanced technological artifices, our concepts of religion have become dispensable." That is simply a misunderstanding of the content and function of religion that is polemically conditioned by a secular worldview which ironically pays its homage to a Christian patrimony. These secular and liberal assumptions misunderstand Christianity’s world-historical drama that is in actuality a “...cosmic drama. The liturgy is the reenactment of this notion.” (107) This could also be a critique leveled against Marxism, as a mythic-narrative, by Moderns that are committed to the political vision of liberalism: “...just as religion becomes a private talismanic aid for the individual, helping him to orient himself to the everyday world, so very often does Marxism.” (133)
‘Marxism and Christianity’ is a little book with astute insights into Marxism’s relationship to a liberalizing Christianity that emerged in the eighteenth century. He is sure to clarify theological points throughout the book and verify them with historic Christian doctrine. (as opposed to the liberal Protestantism he Marx is familiar with) I also think debunking and unveiling Liberalism’s mythic character is a worthy endeavor both Marxists and Christians can engage in. This an overall fascinating introduction to Marxism by somebody who has also grappled with his religious convictions.
Macintyre introduces Marxism by situating it within the context of secularization, the Enlightenment project, and the political fervor surrounding this era. For this reason, he is sure to define a concept of the 'social' that is predicated on a religious logic; which is to say, individuals are always collectively acting in association with one another and correlate their identity, roles, and relationships within a larger social structure. These structures function as interpretive grids for human existence; according to this logic, every individual necessarily acts or speaks within a religious orientation. "Thus Marxism shares in a good measure both the content and the functions of Christianity as an interpretation of human existence, and it does so because it is the historical successor of Christianity." (6)
After clarifying certain presuppositions, Macintyre proceeds to explain Marx's philosophical heritage, a heritage rooted in Hegelian idealism. Hegel's lexicon contained key concepts for Marx. Macintyre explicates the Hegelian concepts of self-estrangement, alienation, objectification, and self-knowledge within a theological trajectory. Self-estrangement finds a correlate in the hamartiological branch of Christian theology; under the auspices of Adam's rebellion men have become 'estranged' from themselves and their fellow neighbor. Conflict emerges between the individual and the society he engages because he is now at odds with both his ‘internal’ self and the ‘external’ world. The relation between the internal--external are classified as object and subject. Because of the subject's self-estranged nature a process of 'objectification' now takes place. Objectification alienates the self from the external products he creates and corruptly reifies the external world in purely discrete terms. The unity of both man and nature cohere in a redemptive event described as "appropriation" or "self-knowledge."
The Christian narrative of creation, fall, and redemption are now narrated in a Hegelian vernacular. The dialectic of slavery-toward-freedom progressively constructs a new unified synthesis—an optimistic eschatological vision of the final triumph of freedom. The production of thought becomes the primary means by which concrete reality is altered and the ‘ideal’ world is envisaged. The construction of ideas are feats of the mind that manifest the 'geist'; the animating force of the world unfolding in history. This part of Hegel's thought illustrate a metaphysical framework attempting to overcome material contingency. Hegel's philosophy of the 'mind' become an important component for Marx’s further dialectical and material formulations.
“...To change reality one must change thought.” (21) A battle among Left and Right Hegelian ‘thought’ occupied the socio-political terrain of the mid-nineteenth century. A battle over ideas ensued, and this would presumably set the course for political transformation. According to this vision, the realization of the ideal in history had to be implemented by vanguardist philosophers. But as time went on the Left Hegelian’s slowly peeled the theological husk from the natural kernel and consequently ‘demythologized’ the material world. Hegel’s theological tradition no longer informed the abstract notions of Spirit, thought, and the ideal. The left-Hegelian’s reoriented their path toward a Feuerbachian direction. Instead of the object-subject relationship abstractly conditioning one another, the “Hegelian unity of subject and object is simply man as subject apprehending the world as object.” A weight is leveraged on the objectivity of the ‘material’ world wherein the subject encounters the ‘world-in-itself.’ Self-knowledge is ‘psychologically’ divorced from the knowledge acquired through concrete communal exchange. Christianity is evacuated of its dogmatic content, while the fraternal form and ethic of love remain. Now, this mode of “...politics must become our religion.” (27)
“If we set out to change the world in a progressive sense, we must be prepared in so doing to transform our philosophy into an instrument of our action.” (34) Marx’s next move as a Hegelian becomes a move from theory to praxis; Hegel’s theory, now shed of its idealism, must be concretely manifest. Hegel formulated the state as an expression of the collective will of a society, but Marx flipped it on its head. Society, as an extension of man’s essence, would develop a state-form that would determinedly instantiate the good society. Marx democratizes the political agency of men in relation to the State as 'citizens.' For Marx, humans nature is fully realized when it is incorporated into the State and its political activity.
Marx’s appropriation of Hegel transmute his metaphysic into a social science. This is evident in the chapter entitled, “Marx’s account of history;” it clearly articulates core Marxist doctrine, i.e. the alienation of labor, private property, and the relation of labor to property. This was one of my favorite chapters in the book because it pieces together conventional Marxist terminology with its theoretical counterpart. Once Marx’s logic and grammar are situated within Hegelian phenomenology and ontology, his metaphysical materialism and dialectical notion of history make proper sense.
Macintyre makes the claim that alienation is a concept that carries over into Marx’s mature theory, and with it traces of idealism. This is an important claim because it retains the theological character and abstract notions of Marxist theory. He uses this as a springboard to dissect Marx’s critique of capitalism. The apparent inevitability, rationality, and determinism of capitalism inculcated by elites is the same ‘law’ that justifies the determinative transition into socialism. He deconstructs this ‘law-governed’ and ‘mechanistic’ reading of Marx by employing a Hegelian schematism that isn’t subject to a particular interpretation of his theory. Engel’s is culpable for this particular reading; Macintyre demonstrates he isn’t alone in this critique and others have pushed back on this reading. It is important to take into consideration the humanistic and Hegelian inheritance of Marxism and not take the materialism at face value.
“Religion is only disposed of by the Marxist critique if it is true that the essential character of religion is other-worldliness, its essential claim to explain phenomena, and its essential function to compensate for human powerlessness and to mask human exploitation.” This neatly sums up the Modern presuppositions that have been historically antagonistic toward a religious logic. i.e. "Religion only satisfies the needs of those who are captive to the superstitions of an un-enlightened past; now that we have discovered the methodologies of ‘science’ and acquired advanced technological artifices, our concepts of religion have become dispensable." That is simply a misunderstanding of the content and function of religion that is polemically conditioned by a secular worldview which ironically pays its homage to a Christian patrimony. These secular and liberal assumptions misunderstand Christianity’s world-historical drama that is in actuality a “...cosmic drama. The liturgy is the reenactment of this notion.” (107) This could also be a critique leveled against Marxism, as a mythic-narrative, by Moderns that are committed to the political vision of liberalism: “...just as religion becomes a private talismanic aid for the individual, helping him to orient himself to the everyday world, so very often does Marxism.” (133)
‘Marxism and Christianity’ is a little book with astute insights into Marxism’s relationship to a liberalizing Christianity that emerged in the eighteenth century. He is sure to clarify theological points throughout the book and verify them with historic Christian doctrine. (as opposed to the liberal Protestantism he Marx is familiar with) I also think debunking and unveiling Liberalism’s mythic character is a worthy endeavor both Marxists and Christians can engage in. This an overall fascinating introduction to Marxism by somebody who has also grappled with his religious convictions.
February 28, 2021
In the beginning the author says his motivation to research this topic and eventually write the book was that he used to be a Christian Marxist and he spent a lot of time thinking if/how these to are compatible. I read the second edition of the book, which he wrote years later, when he already was neither.
This is a very well written piece in which the author draws parallels between Marxism and Christianity. It's perfect for those who want to understand Marxism (philosophically), how it is connected to the philosophical concepts developed by Hegel, how Marx adopted/changed/improved them and created a new theory. The author understands Marxism very well and elaborates complex topics in a way that it's easy to understand for those who do not have special education or deep knowledge of philosophy.
It is a good, well-grounded critique of both Christianity and Marxism as well. I am sharing short passages from the end of the book.
"Marxists have been unable to be sufficiently self-critical of their own conceptual schemes, Marxism became available as a conservative ideology the moment social forms appeared which were undeniably different from those of classical capitalism and which were prepared to utilize a Marxist vocabulary for the purposes of self-description."
"For if Christianity, in even the semi-secular society of the present, is to be able to present itself as having a relevant content and function, it is forced to present itself as having a secular content and function. Hence the many attempts to demythologize Christianity, to separate relevant kernel from irrelevant husk. The tragedy of these attempts is that what is disentangled as the essential human meaning of Christianity is so platitudinous, and it is platitudinous precisely because what is presented is a way of life in accordance with the liberal values and illiberal realities of the established order. That function of religion which consisted in providing a radical criticism of the secular present is lost by those contemporary demythologizers whose goal is to assimilate Christianity to the secular present. But this is not a necessary outcome of the attemp to realize the human meaning of the Christian gospels. It. Is a basic contention of this book that Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx humanized certain central Christian beliefs in such a way as to present a secularized version of the Christian judgement upon, rather than the Christian adaptation to, the secular present. It is sad that the demythologizers of the gospel are often anxious to free Christianity from its inheritance from Gnosticism, but worry far less about what Christianity inherited from Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. If they are to learn to do otherwise, it is difficult to believe that they will not have to learn from both the achievements and the failures of Marxism."
This is a very well written piece in which the author draws parallels between Marxism and Christianity. It's perfect for those who want to understand Marxism (philosophically), how it is connected to the philosophical concepts developed by Hegel, how Marx adopted/changed/improved them and created a new theory. The author understands Marxism very well and elaborates complex topics in a way that it's easy to understand for those who do not have special education or deep knowledge of philosophy.
It is a good, well-grounded critique of both Christianity and Marxism as well. I am sharing short passages from the end of the book.
"Marxists have been unable to be sufficiently self-critical of their own conceptual schemes, Marxism became available as a conservative ideology the moment social forms appeared which were undeniably different from those of classical capitalism and which were prepared to utilize a Marxist vocabulary for the purposes of self-description."
"For if Christianity, in even the semi-secular society of the present, is to be able to present itself as having a relevant content and function, it is forced to present itself as having a secular content and function. Hence the many attempts to demythologize Christianity, to separate relevant kernel from irrelevant husk. The tragedy of these attempts is that what is disentangled as the essential human meaning of Christianity is so platitudinous, and it is platitudinous precisely because what is presented is a way of life in accordance with the liberal values and illiberal realities of the established order. That function of religion which consisted in providing a radical criticism of the secular present is lost by those contemporary demythologizers whose goal is to assimilate Christianity to the secular present. But this is not a necessary outcome of the attemp to realize the human meaning of the Christian gospels. It. Is a basic contention of this book that Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx humanized certain central Christian beliefs in such a way as to present a secularized version of the Christian judgement upon, rather than the Christian adaptation to, the secular present. It is sad that the demythologizers of the gospel are often anxious to free Christianity from its inheritance from Gnosticism, but worry far less about what Christianity inherited from Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. If they are to learn to do otherwise, it is difficult to believe that they will not have to learn from both the achievements and the failures of Marxism."
December 9, 2017
The connection of Christianity to Hegel and Feurbach to Marx to the greater Marxist tradition is evaluated along with a fascinating evaluation of the state of the Marxist tradition of thought. A fascinating little gem from the great Alasdair MacIntyre!
January 27, 2019
Alasdair MacIntyre tillhör en av de där personerna som sakta med säkert kommit att bli mer och mer inflytelserik. Hanns genombrottsbok After Virtue väckte visserligen en hel del uppmärksamhet inom den lila ankdam som den moralfilosofiska akademin utgör. Och dessförinnan, under 60-talet hade han varit en stigande stjärna inom den marxistiska Akademin innan han lämnade denna. Men inget av det tidigare anmärkta förde honom till någon form av berömmelse. Denna har kommit krypande. Ironiskt nog inom två ytterligheter inom det politiska spektrat. Så väll marxister som konservativt kristen har funnit något hos honom. Ju längre tiden går, ju mer blir han ett fenomen.
Den föreliggande essän skrev han vid 22 års ålder. Den har snart 70 år på nacken. När han lämnat marxismen, men inte funnit sin egen identitet inom katolicismen än. En kan inte bli annat än imponerad av den lärdom och skärpa, intellektuella hederlighet som utmärker denna bok.
Frågan som essän sysslar med är ofta utforskad. Sekularisering och moral. Upplysningstidens blommiga förlustelse och förhoppning var att när de religiösa vidskepelserna sakta smälte iväg så skulle mänskligheten som kollektiv kunna bergrunda och svara de stora existentiella frågorna om etik och moral, kärlek och tillvarons mening, skönhet utifrån en rationell grund istället för en religiös. Istället smälte det gemensamma ramverket för att ägs ställa den typen av frågor bort, inte nog med att förmågan att besvara frågorna försvann. Själva ramverket inom vilket frågorna ställdes smältes bort.
Det är här frågan om Marxismen kommer in, för när essän skrevs så hävdar MacIntyre att oavsett marxismens sanningshalt, vilket inte nödvändigtvis är viktiga så var densamma ett av de få ramvärken som ar förmöget att ställa frågorna, och så klart även besvara dem. Det är därför Maxismen blir intressant som intellektuell tradition.
Det är utgångspunkten, marxismen som ett svar på sekulariseringen, där efter följer en genomgång av de grundläggande marxistiska koncepten, och deras historia. En begreppens genealogi. Dieter tydligt att MacIntyre en gång befunnit sig djupt inuti denna tradition, han har en skolastik kännedom, men det märks även att han lämnat den, han har den utomståendes klarsyn i att kunna peka på vad som är oundbärligt för systemet.
Själva det intellektuella projektet är tydligt, pedagogiskt och omöjligt att vederlägga. MacIntyre visar på hur Marx hämtat sin begreppsapparat från Hegel, och visar på hur Hegels begreppsapparat är lånad från medeltida skolastiken och från den paulinska läran. Efter det går han vidare och gränskar historieuppfattningen, iden om. klasserna, medvetande, mm.
Inte en enda gång är han svår att följa, varje mening sprakar av knaster torr logik. Ovedersäglig. Det är tydligt att författaren är skolad i en anglosaxisk filosofisk tradition. Lika tydligt är det att han tar sitt ämne på djupaste alvar. Och försöker göra det rättvisa.
Essän är kort, strax under hundra sidor, och är gammal, men den innehåller mer än den flesta tegelstensböcker Och för alla som vill förstå hur marxismen utvecklats, men kanske framför allt, vill förstå hur detta sekulära evangelium kunde slå an som en präriebrand i ett djupt kristet Europa är det mer än värt tiden att läsa och studera de frågor som Macintyre reser här.
Den föreliggande essän skrev han vid 22 års ålder. Den har snart 70 år på nacken. När han lämnat marxismen, men inte funnit sin egen identitet inom katolicismen än. En kan inte bli annat än imponerad av den lärdom och skärpa, intellektuella hederlighet som utmärker denna bok.
Frågan som essän sysslar med är ofta utforskad. Sekularisering och moral. Upplysningstidens blommiga förlustelse och förhoppning var att när de religiösa vidskepelserna sakta smälte iväg så skulle mänskligheten som kollektiv kunna bergrunda och svara de stora existentiella frågorna om etik och moral, kärlek och tillvarons mening, skönhet utifrån en rationell grund istället för en religiös. Istället smälte det gemensamma ramverket för att ägs ställa den typen av frågor bort, inte nog med att förmågan att besvara frågorna försvann. Själva ramverket inom vilket frågorna ställdes smältes bort.
Det är här frågan om Marxismen kommer in, för när essän skrevs så hävdar MacIntyre att oavsett marxismens sanningshalt, vilket inte nödvändigtvis är viktiga så var densamma ett av de få ramvärken som ar förmöget att ställa frågorna, och så klart även besvara dem. Det är därför Maxismen blir intressant som intellektuell tradition.
Det är utgångspunkten, marxismen som ett svar på sekulariseringen, där efter följer en genomgång av de grundläggande marxistiska koncepten, och deras historia. En begreppens genealogi. Dieter tydligt att MacIntyre en gång befunnit sig djupt inuti denna tradition, han har en skolastik kännedom, men det märks även att han lämnat den, han har den utomståendes klarsyn i att kunna peka på vad som är oundbärligt för systemet.
Själva det intellektuella projektet är tydligt, pedagogiskt och omöjligt att vederlägga. MacIntyre visar på hur Marx hämtat sin begreppsapparat från Hegel, och visar på hur Hegels begreppsapparat är lånad från medeltida skolastiken och från den paulinska läran. Efter det går han vidare och gränskar historieuppfattningen, iden om. klasserna, medvetande, mm.
Inte en enda gång är han svår att följa, varje mening sprakar av knaster torr logik. Ovedersäglig. Det är tydligt att författaren är skolad i en anglosaxisk filosofisk tradition. Lika tydligt är det att han tar sitt ämne på djupaste alvar. Och försöker göra det rättvisa.
Essän är kort, strax under hundra sidor, och är gammal, men den innehåller mer än den flesta tegelstensböcker Och för alla som vill förstå hur marxismen utvecklats, men kanske framför allt, vill förstå hur detta sekulära evangelium kunde slå an som en präriebrand i ett djupt kristet Europa är det mer än värt tiden att läsa och studera de frågor som Macintyre reser här.
April 6, 2023
Unfortunately, this is not a great piece of work. MacIntyre is a fantastic mind. I'm a top, top fan of his but this is adolescent, relatively speaking. The language used is unnecessarily obtuse to the point where you begin to wonder whether he isn't simply flaunting his talents. The blurb states "This [book] explores the common ground between Marxism and Christianity". Wrong. It explores one aspect of Christianity (two if you really stretch things) and then briefly looks at what Marxism attempts to do in its corner. The entire book could be written in pamphlet form but instead one needs to wade through mud to reach some kind of conclusion. Christianity is complex, Marxism can be too - hence, the topic deserved more. Still, not a bad piece of work for a 23 year old. I wish I could write like this at that age. I can see how MacIntyre got to where he is now. The seeds of brilliance were there.
May 12, 2017
This is a book that shows how at different levels Marxism mimics christianity or rather how Marxism due to its coinciding functions and so on has inherited christianity. That Marxism can be and is as dogmatic as the religion has been shown already sufficiently.
In this Macintyre skillfully argues that Marx inherited the tradition of Hegel and Feuerbach and developed his models on the dialectic of Hegel one of whose main concerns in doing so was the christian question of Fall Of Man.
While part of the book's focus is on Marx's inspiration some other part is about his theories and the flaws in them.
The book ends with the development of Stalinism a mystified communism - which mitigated the efforts of Marx and Engels and before them Feuerbach ultimately making Communism a religion.
In this Macintyre skillfully argues that Marx inherited the tradition of Hegel and Feuerbach and developed his models on the dialectic of Hegel one of whose main concerns in doing so was the christian question of Fall Of Man.
While part of the book's focus is on Marx's inspiration some other part is about his theories and the flaws in them.
The book ends with the development of Stalinism a mystified communism - which mitigated the efforts of Marx and Engels and before them Feuerbach ultimately making Communism a religion.
January 28, 2022
Como suele ser habitual, tenemos que recurrir a pequeñas editoriales para leer a algunos de los grandes pensadores de las últimas décadas. Es por tanto de agradecer la iniciativa de Nuevo Inicio de publicar este trabajo temprano de MacIntyre, que, como indican otras reseñas, funciona estupendamente como una historia crítica del marxismo. Se analizan sus premisas, desarrollo, virtudes, defectos y degeneración, a lo que se añade un par de capítulos acerca de la relación de Marxismo y Cristianismo. Todo explicado con la claridad y profundidad habitual en el autor.
August 3, 2025
“It is sad that the demythologizers of the gospel are often anxious to free Christianity from its inheritance from Gnosticism, but worry far less about what Christianity inherited from Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. If they are to learn to do otherwise, it is difficult to believe that they will not have to learn from both the achievements and the failures of Marxism.”
143
143
February 22, 2021
Elbette çok özel bir şahsiyetten söz ediyoruz ama bir insanın henüz 23 yaşında böyle bir metin yazması gerçekten de hayranlık uyandırıcı nitelikte. Kitabın temel iddiası Hristiyanlığın örüntü düzeyinde Hegel ve Feuerbach üzerinden Marx'ın düşünce sistemine sızması.
January 24, 2022
3 stars for the opening genealogical chapters. 5 stars for the final two.
March 31, 2024
Must read for people looking for the philosophical roots of Marxism out of Christianity, Feuerbach and Hegel.
January 2, 2025
Interesting book about the philosophical origins of Marx, but not really a synthesis of Christianity and Marxism like I thought it would be. Christianity is not really the focal point of the book.
August 7, 2016
MacIntyre here profoundly sketches the present (1960s) state of Marxism, one characterized by the brutality of Stalin's regime but also a state characterized by a rapid spread of communism to China, Cuba, etc. The central problem that MacIntyre sees, both with Christianity and with Marxism, lies in the mystification that occurs in both. Namely, MacIntyre argues that, starting with Hegel and then Feuerbach and culminating in Marx, a process of demystification (of philosophy but also of religion) occurred. Instead, we see in Marx a concentration on the material conditions--the felt conditions of the exploited 19th century working classes. Similarly, MacIntyre provides a cursory explanation of Feuerbach's project to demystify Christianity. While MacIntyre indicates the necessity of a demystified Christianity (and Marxism), he, unfortunately, gives no details or analysis on what, exactly, Christianity might look like demystified. Perhaps I only hold familiarity with more orthodox strains of Christianity, but demystification and Christianity, in my knowledge of Christian thought, remain mutually exclusive: part of the beauty of this religion, indeed, lies in its very denial of the self. MacIntyre seems to view alienation as undesirable whereas Christian theology, espousing the depravity of human nature, sees the alienation of the self (for that of God) as the way to live a holy life. MacIntyre fails to discuss any of this.
MacIntyre's stronger arguments concern Marxism. Indeed, he cogently delineates the deification and mystification of Marxism that occurred in Soviet Russia--Stalin became deified, thereby making him unquestionable and thereby alienating the people by ideology and interpellation just as religion does. In other cases, Marxist thinkers deified history by conflating it unquestionably as THE way that the future will unfold. Thus, MacIntyre's call to demystifying Marxism, here, makes good sense, especially since he wrote this in the wake Stalin's reign and while Russia still posed a major threat to the U.S. and western Europe.
MacIntyre's stronger arguments concern Marxism. Indeed, he cogently delineates the deification and mystification of Marxism that occurred in Soviet Russia--Stalin became deified, thereby making him unquestionable and thereby alienating the people by ideology and interpellation just as religion does. In other cases, Marxist thinkers deified history by conflating it unquestionably as THE way that the future will unfold. Thus, MacIntyre's call to demystifying Marxism, here, makes good sense, especially since he wrote this in the wake Stalin's reign and while Russia still posed a major threat to the U.S. and western Europe.
January 29, 2016
Marxism is right in its analysis of that particular situation of Industrial England and somewhat the the situation of living in a capitalist economy even now but offers a 'utopian' solution that shares a lot with Christianity but also outright dismisses its other-worldly (final) resolution as impractical, a mere opium to pacify the 'Proletariats' in the face of 'Bourgeois' oppression.
McIntyre's analysis is thorough and extremely helpful in pointing out the positives of a Marxist system and its historical development beginning with Hegel but also quick to pinpoint its several loopholes.
Overall a highly recommended text.
McIntyre's analysis is thorough and extremely helpful in pointing out the positives of a Marxist system and its historical development beginning with Hegel but also quick to pinpoint its several loopholes.
Overall a highly recommended text.
May 18, 2015
I feel like someone must've torn the pages out of the library's copy when and Christianity got to "and Christianity..." Christianity was barely mentioned at all. Even Marxism got little more than a summary touch.
May 23, 2016
"the Marxist project remains the only one we have for reestablishing hope as a social virtue"
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews