Hope: The Convergence and Divergence of Marxism and Liberation Theology

Ι

It is interesting to note that Marxism which developed in nineteenth-century Europe has been thriving in some Asian countries, like in China. Similarly, it is also striking to note that liberation theology which derived from Christian theology has until recently been influential in some Latin American countries, like in Brazil. No doubt, originally there is the European legacy in both of these schools of thought. But why do they have the European heritage while both of them flourish in the non-European milieux? To answer this question, fundamentally, we need to analyze the similarities between Marxism and liberation theology. Concretely speaking, we need to explore the common ground shared by Marxism and liberation theology. It is insignificant to compare these two within an overall macrocosmic scope since they each have a very broad range of issues which are little to do with our question. Also, it is meaningless to compare these two within an over microcosmic scope since they nevertheless embrace some trivial issues which have no implications for our question too. Therefore, it is wise to focus on a specific idea of these two schools of thought from a “golden mean” standing point. This specific idea is “hope.”

What is the “hope” in Marxism? For Marxists, communism is the realization of hope in the history of human social development. According to Marx and Engels, communist society will be eventually realized by human beings. The current capitalist society is full of irreconcilable contradictions. All these negative effects have been gradually accelerating class antagonisms and one day will lead to the revolution by the proletariats who own no property yet have to sell their labor for their living. Their labor under the capitalist system is in the form of estranged labor which Marx expounded as follows:

the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes; the better formed his product, the more deformed becomes the worker; the more civilized his object, the more barbarous becomes the worker; the mightier labor becomes, the more powerless becomes the worker; the more ingenious labor becomes, the duller becomes the worker and the more he becomes nature’s bondsman. ¹

Interestingly, the idea of “hope” in Marxism does converge with the idea of hope in liberation theology. How should we understand theology in the present situation of poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean? “Theology, as a critical reflection in the light of the Word adopted through faith on the presence of Christians in a tumultuous world, should help us to understand the relationship between [the] life of faith and the urgent need to build a society that is human and just.” ⁵ Is not this a hope for a better society? The tumultuous world is the capitalist society where materialism, fetishism, or mammonism predominate over spirituality, moralism, or humanism. The idea of hope in liberation theology is also an orientation for a better society, as in Marxism. Is this hope for this world or another world? To Marxists, it is definitely for the emancipation of the human being, especially for the proletariat in this world. It is the same for liberation theologians. “The positions of the liberation theologians varied as they are, do seem to exhibit certain tendencies and influences (the presence of God in the persons of the poor, the emphasis on action rather than belief, the hope for the reign of God on earth, and a reliance on an action–reflection model).” ⁶ What should their actions be? Their actions should be the participation in changing the world where poverty, corruption, exploitation, oppression, and other social problems are still prevalent. As for Christians, especially those who live in Latin America or Asia, their actions embody a hope for the reign of God on earth rather than in heaven. This is the gospel for the suffering. This is the gospel in action. Is not communism good news to the proletariat who have suffered? Is not communism a belief that is fueled by the actions of the working class? Whether Marxists or liberation theologians, hope is integral to practice. Hence the eschatology of both Marxism and liberation theology is an optimism in which “hope” plays a crucial role. Hope is oriented toward the liberation and freedom for the poor, the marginalized, the exploited, the oppressed, the insignificant, or the despised in capitalist society.

For both Marxism and liberation theology, hope is an orientation toward the future of the human being whose action is the foundation for the fulfillment of the hope that will eventually result in improvement for living in this world. In this sense, hope is not a fantasy (as some Christians imagine that God will redeem them one day in heaven). Instead, it is a praxis of required action for fulfillment in this world. If people regard hope only as an orientation for the other world, they may also easily find excuses for not taking action toward the fulfillment of hope in this world. If a Christian never practices what he or she preaches, they are not real Christians at all. If a Marxist never tries to change this world, they are not real Marxists at all. For every one of us, this life is near while the afterlife is of less immediate concern. Is it not easy and practical to pursue something near rather than something far? Can human beings go to the future yet not have to pass through the present? Both to Marxists and liberation theologians, this life is unavoidable and it is the arena for action and change. Though there is no existence of another world in Marxism, there is an agreement between Marxism and liberation theology that hope for a better “this world” is fundamentally important.

Obviously, hope is fundamentally important for this-worldly issues. However, for whom hope should be motivated for a better quality of life, there are different answers. In some parts of Christianity, it is for Christians who will have a glorious, happy, sinless, even perfect life in heaven if they follow God. For non-Christians, they will have a shameful, unhappy, sinful, thus imperfect life in hell since they do not follow God. But this is a view not shared by all Christians who confess Christ. Non-Christians are human beings. Furthermore, non-Christians may have their own God or gods. In this sense, faith is a freedom for human being and thus a part of human rights. Marx once claimed, “everyone should be able to attend to their religious needs, just like their bodily ones, without the police sticking their noses in.” ⁷ Therefore the over-emphasis on hope which is presupposed solely for Christians is against human freedom and human rights. Just as Christianity's theology has often served the interests of the ruling class, this is also true of Confucianism. In Confucianism, all the virtues — such as humaneness, righteousness, integrity, loyalty, filial piety, honesty, kindness, and so on — are bound up with the quality or characteristics of the “gentleman” (Junzi). The opposite of the gentleman is disparaged as the “narrow-minded man” (Xiao’ren) who deserves none of these virtues. Even though the Confucians believe that a gentleman has deserved those virtues through personal and communal endeavor (especially including self-cultivation and self-creation), they have not fully taken a consideration of the sociopolitical possibility for that endeavor. Taking Confucius as an example, though he never gave up his endeavor, he eventually had failed to realize his “hope” or dream of being a senior official in his own country. In his life during the Spring and Autumn Period, there was almost no sociopolitical possibility for the realization of his hope since the ruling class was corrupt and brutal. Hence the Confucian “hope” was essentially an ideology of meritocracy which was later promoted by the emperors and others of the ruling class into a political ideology in Chinese feudal societies.

Confucianism (like Christian theology) has often functioned to keep power in the hands of the rich and powerful. Different from the Confucian “hope,” the Marxist “hope” is neither oriented toward the meritocracy nor toward the ruling class. For whom is communism designated? Not surprisingly, it is for the working masses who are oppressed and exploited in bourgeois society. Of course, in a broad sense communism is a hope for humankind. Should there be no problems in the modern bourgeois society, humankind would not have to strive for communism.

What is the most serious problem in the modern bourgeois society? It is the poverty of the working class and their miserable living conditions. What Engels observed during his time in England serves as an illustration of this issue. “That a class which lives under the conditions already sketched and is so ill-provided with the most necessary means of subsistence, cannot be healthy and can reach no advanced age, is self-evident.… That the dwellings of the workers in the worst portions of the cities, together with the other conditions of the life of this class, engender numerous diseases, is attested on all sides.” ⁸ England was the most industrially developed country in the so-called Victorian Era. Needless to say, the same problem was more serious in other less-developed countries. Furthermore, this is not a problem only of the Victorian Era, but a problem through the whole span of capitalism. Pollution in Asia, Africa, or Latin America is the result of poor living conditions of the working people around the world. From capitalism to colonialism, imperialism, globalism, or consumerism, the capitalists have been clever in shifting the sufferings to the working people that working people may not even realize the problem. Whether the means are cultural, economic, political, or even militaristic, capitalists are eventually the winners and the working people the losers. Marxism, like liberation theology, regards capitalism as a more serious evil than any other form of private property. Marxism offers hope for the proletariat, for oppressed working classes, just as early Christianity did.

Compared with those social relations of production prior to capitalism, capitalism is a form of more serious evil. In an analysis of social class, we can find that more classes existed in pre-capitalist societies. For example, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, the privileged and the commoner, these classes might have simultaneously existed in the feudal society.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonism. It has established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat. ⁹

Christians, whether they are themselves proletariat or not, live in a world full of poverty and destitution caused by bourgeois private property. From the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, Roman Catholics have paid much attention to workers who are suffering in capitalist society. The popes and the church groups showed real concerns for the workers and their families.

We therefore consider it our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner. ¹¹

How can the oppressed liberate themselves from miserable society? According to Marxism, the proletariat will set themselves free from oppression by the bourgeoisie in revolution. Just as orthodox Christianity is based on the conviction that the Kingdom of God will inevitably come, so Marx and Engels were convinced that the classless society would come when the proletariat assumed power and the classless society would arise from the ruins of capitalism. “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hand of the states.” ¹⁴ To shift all capital from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, to centralize all instruments of production in a state-owned property from a private property, all these are human actions rather than sermons, propaganda or interpretations. How will a Marxist philosopher deal with these practical issues? “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change the world.” ¹⁵ Actually, what these philosophers should do is linked with the reflection of Marxist belief in hope. The agent of the hope is human action. Liberation theology agrees with the term agent of hope. Liberation is itself praxis. How can liberation be reflected in the light of hope? “To reflect on the basis of the historical praxis of liberation is to reflect in the light of the future which is believed in and hoped for. It is to reflect with a view to action which transforms the present.” ¹⁶ Hence liberation can never be separated from hope which is for the future. From present to future, there must be change by human beings who conduct action. Human action is actually the agent of hope

Π

Marxism, as we all somehow have to admit, is a theory of atheism, the denial of the existence of supernature. According to Marxism, a supernature like God is the alienation of human consciousness by humans themselves. In Christianity, God is the creator of the world, the whole universe. So God existed before the beginning of the world where human beings live. Paradoxically, the existence of God is something which can never be proven by human beings in the sense of doing so substantially and concretely. What the human being can know and experience is life itself which is both substantial and concrete. Anything derived from life, like human consciousness, is eventually determined by life. “It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness. In the first view one proceeds from consciousness as from the living individual; in the second, in conforming with real life, from the real living individuals themselves, considering consciousness only as their consciousness.” ¹⁷ Hence all the beliefs, such as the existence of God as the creator, the resurrection of Christ as the redeemer, the Holy Spirit as the revelation, in a word, Christian theology, are essentially and potentially ideological and the product of human consciousness. However, this human consciousness in the form of religious beliefs is distorted or alienated by the human being since it is not the correct reflection of life itself which is substantial and concrete. In other words, religious beliefs are insubstantial and abstract human consciousness which contradicts the reality of life. In this sense, to Marxism, all religion is the form of human consciousness in which the reflection of the reality of life has been overturned. As Marx began to overturn Hegelian idealism, he found the true meaning of religion. He wrote, “religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again.” ¹⁸ Engels shared the same ideas on religion as Marx did. After the lengthy discussion and criticism in his article “Anti-Dühring,” Engels cogently concluded that all “religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.” ¹⁹

Obviously, when Marxists (the orthodox Marxists who are different from those so-called Marxists thereafter, such as Christian Marxists) talk about “hope,” there is no supernatural intervention implied in the “hope.” But they do have hope as a “faith” in history leading to the triumph of the proletariat and the arrival of communism. It is not God who comes to save the human being from the misery of capitalist society, instead it is the proletariat who acts as the human agent which brings about fundamental social change. “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.” ²⁰ The goal of the proletariat is the realization of communist society. This realization is a historical development which is determined by the human agent who is active, practical, and revolutionary. To Marxists, this development does not rely on God who is void of action and substantiality. Practically, it is humans who bring change to the world. Theoretically, it is historical materialism that systematizes the interpretation of human social development. From the point of view of historical materialism, it is social reality that determines human consciousness. An idea or theory like proletarian revolution is determined by the social reality. “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own gravediggers. Its fall and victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” ²¹ So the inevitable social changes from capitalist society to socialist society are determined by social reality rather than by a revolutionary theory. Even in the future the realization of communist society does inevitably rely on social reality, wherein the interactions between productive forces and relations of production play the fundamental role according to Marxism.

Though Marxist atheism does contradict Christian theism, we cannot simply put these two in antagonism in which there is no possibility for cooperation between each other. As a simple principle, atheism and theism are each one side of the same coin. They are both opposite and related. How could they be related to each other? Liberation theology is the right way to relate them. There is a revolutionary idea and praxis created by liberation theologians like Gutiérrez who

stressed the need to break with the dualism inherited from Greek thought: there are not two realities as alleged, one “temporal,” the other “spiritual,” nor are these two histories, one “sacred,” the other “profane.” There is only one history and it is in this human and temporal history that redemption and the kingdom of God must be realized. ²²

With the coming of the miracle, there comes the realization of hope in liberation theology. The goal of liberation theology is to bring about the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth where human equality, freedom, and wealth are eventually guaranteed by the grace of the Lord. Looking at the history of Christianity, we sadly notice, some Christians regarded men to be superior to women, some were white supremacists, some confined their black slaves in the plantations, some assembled extraordinary wealth but kept committing tax evasion. All these Christians themselves did believe the coming of the Kingdom of God but to them heaven is in the other world which does not witness as a part of human history. This belief is fundamentally different from that of liberation theology. “If we believe that the Kingdom of God is a gift which is received in history…indicate to us, that the Kingdom of God necessarily implies the reestablishment of justice in this world…a Kingdom of justice which goes even beyond what they could have hoped for has begun.” ²⁴ So one may wonder how the Kingdom of God has already begun? In other words, how the hope for a just society has been achieved? The hope is achieved not by words but by action, not through changing the rich, but transforming the poor. This is the innovation of the so-called “undercover theologian.” “The undercover liberation theologian separates the vocation from the profession. She goes undercover in another discipline of her choosing and her expertise, such as economics, medicine, or urban planning and works from within to transform its presuppositions and practice.” ²⁵ Hence the grace of the Lord is the promise for the poor (hope) and hope is realized for them. Whoever are the poorest, the most fulfilled dreams are for them. As Sergio Fajardo’s famous motto says, “Our most beautiful buildings must be in our poorest areas; the most beautiful things, for the poorest people.” ²⁶ Indeed, the hope of liberation theology is basically a divine proclamation but is essentially achieved through human agency. With no action, no change, no dedication or commitment in practical issues with human effort, there is no hope for liberation theology.

Taking into account the convergences and divergences of Marxism and liberation theology, we inevitably forecast what the future relationship between these two could be. If there is a synthesis of the convergence and divergence, this synthesis will nevertheless bring forth a new, completely creative, active, capable, free, conscientious, reliable, trustful, and independent human species. Liberation theology by stressing the central importance of serving God in this world shares with Marxism a common commitment to human betterment. How could it be better? According to the Hegelian dialectics on which Marxism found its methodological philosophy, communist atheism is the negation of Christian theism. Then the theism of liberation theology is a further negation of communist atheism. Finally, the synthesis of Marxism and liberation theology is an even further negation of the theism of liberation theology. So through the endless transformative process, the human being as a species alternatively becomes an entity identified as sinner then “not-sinner” and then sinner and then “not-sinner.” As we can see, the “not-sinner” is someone who negates the sin which implies imperfection, flaw, and unconsummation. Of course, a “not-sinner” does not mean he or she has been completely sinless, but does mean he or she is constantly becoming less a sinner than he or she was.

In summary, the new species will eventually become sinless. A sinless world is the goal of all Christianity. However, the more sinless they become, the less of a theist they will be. The praxis of liberation theology and Marxism/communist atheism is the basis of cooperation for understanding the world as it is, the action necessary in the world as it is and wishing for a better world. Thus it is through “hope” that we can explore a comprehensive dialogue between Marxism and liberation theology. For both Marxism and liberation theology hope, could be regarded as a gift to them. The value of this gift is not for the illusory satisfaction which would please them. “But this gift is accepted in the negation of injustice, in the protest against trampled human rights and in the struggle for peace, and brotherhood.” ²⁷ Indeed, this is the hope essentially inherent in both of them. The opposite of hope is desperation, which could be depicted as the eschatology of capitalism. Capitalist society is a hopeless society where evil has predominated over virtue. The soul of capitalism is the endless avarice for profit wherein one does not care about the who, how, and why of what is made. It is the proletariat who have made the profit for them but they still leave the proletariat to live miserably. It is by exploitation of surplus value that the capitalists made huge profit. It is because of capital that capitalists have claimed the sanctification of the exploitation of the proletariat or working class. Hence, both Marxists and liberation theologians impose heavy criticism on capitalist society. Theoretically, both Marxism and liberation theology are the negation of capitalism wherein justice, equality, and freedom have been severely relinquished. There is no hope for capitalism in the future.

Thereafter, how can hope be guaranteed by both Marxism and liberation theology? Of course, to Marxism, hope is substantially guaranteed by revolution and the changing of the world. To the innovative liberation theology, “Christian hope is closely tied to the ultimate hope of the return of Jesus Christ as the judge of the living and the dead.” ²⁸ So the return of Jesus Christ is the hope of liberation theology just as the birth of the proletariat is the hope of Marxism. They are both something hopeful for the future of human society. Hence, hope is the convergence of Marxism and liberation theology. However, divergence between them still remains in the different ways that hope can be achieved. If we put them in the triad of Hegelian dialectics, there will be a clear picture of their future. Marxism (thesis)–liberation theology (antithesis)–“active ideology” (synthesis). Definitely, active ideology is a becoming.

Becoming thus contains being and nothing as two such unities…becoming is the vanishing of being into nothing, and of nothing into being, and the vanishing of being and nothing in general; but at the same time it rests on their being distinct. It therefore contradicts itself in itself, because what it unites within itself is self-opposed; but such a union destroys itself. ²⁹

How does a social organism adhere to the historical dialectic? According to Hegel, historical dialectics is a series of progressive transformation which keeps generating new social organisms. “In other words, the form of the new social organism is already contained in the old one. This is what Hegel refers to as the ‘double movement’ or ‘doubling process’ of the dialectic.” ³¹ In this way, socialism is already contained in capitalism and finally socialism will overcome its opponent, capitalism. Similarly, as theism opposing atheism and vice versa, Marxism is already contained in Christianity, and liberation theology is already contained in Marxism. It is in this sense that we say Marxism is the antithesis of Christianity and thereafter liberation theology is the antithesis of Marxism. As both Marxists and liberation theologians look forward to some ultimate synthesis, both have to recognize the dialectic of their situation and the constant need for an active ideological critique, to unmask the contradictions of the present and the oppressive consequences for humanity. From the point of view of synthesis, liberation theology is the synthesis of Christianity and Marxism and thereafter active ideology is the synthesis of Marxism and liberation theology. There is, however, an endless progressive development in human history and society where Marxism, liberation theology, active ideology, and so on adhere to the principle of the Hegelian dialectic. Active ideology (a form of synthesis in human history sooner or later) is not passive since it is the result of contradiction (convergence and divergence) of things itself. So it changes actively by itself with the internal drive due to contradiction rather than by external power. Ideology, with regard to human activity, is the faith of human beings who constantly pursue a better and better society. There are differences between Marxism and liberation theology. Yet the supporters of both long for a brilliant future for human beings, striving for a better society than the current one, convinced that human beings can change the world by their actions. This is hope—the basis of a convergence of Marxism and liberation theology.