THE PROBLEM OF POWER

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Tim McAlhaney

The College at Southwestern

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for IDE 3203-C

__________________

by

Wes Terry

February 24, 2009

 THE PROBLEM OF POWER

Marx was a man who saw all of history as a struggle between classes. He

described it as a struggle between those who exploit and the exploited; those who are

oppressed and the oppressors.1 Because of that, Marx advocated a political system that

would use the oppressed to overthrow the oppressors. Marx’s plan was to create a society

with no classes, no hierarchy, no inequality, and no private capital. The reason Marx

wanted such a movement is because he saw abuse on the part of the bourgeoisie2 and

believed that the proletariat had the potential to rule a classless society.3

However, there are a few fundamental problems with Marx’s politics. One, it

presupposes that proletariats desire the power to rule. Two, it really has no system of law

and order once the proletariat are in power. However, there is an even more fundamental

issue. A critical and historical evaluation of Marxian politics will illustrate why

communism is faulty to the core because of the condition of the human heart and the

general problems that are associated with human beings who are placed in a position of

power.

Marxian Politics in Review

Before giving reasons why the human heart is the demise of communism, it is

first necessary that one correctly understands Marxian politics in general. To explain,
1
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (LaVergne:
Filiquarian Publishing, 2005), 65.
2
This word refers to the upper class of society whereas the proletariat refers to
the lower class or the working class.
3
James O. Cade, Communism vs. Christianity: A Twentieth Century Christian
Manifesto (San Antonio: The Naylor Company, 1964), 4.
2
 3
Marx’s own words will be used regarding what the political scene looks like after a

successful overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

“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.”4

In essence, the lower class takes all capital from the upper class (thus removing

their power over society), centralizes it into government, and then produces everything

necessary for living by using the newly established government.5 Marx goes on to give

ten statements which, if exercised politically, will ensure a successful communist regime.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with
State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing
into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in
accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for

agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the

distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the
population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor
in its present form; combination of education with industrial production.

4
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (LaVergne:
Filiquarian Publishing, 2005), 35.
5
Rene Coste, Marxist Analysis and Christian Faith (Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
1985), 87.
 4
For Marx, if such politics are in place, it will ensure a classless society and a

government that loses its political character.6 One may ask, how does government lose its

political character? For Marx, once the proletariat are in power as a ruling class they will

sweep away all the old conditions that they once lived under. Therefore, the class

antagonisms and classes in general will be abolished. The proletariat will then remove

itself as the ruling class. Here is Marx describing the transition. “In place of the old

bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in

which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”7

To sum it all up, equality drives every decision in Marxian politics. Marx’s

communism uses equality to destroy individual liberty. Uniqueness is the enemy of

sameness in Marxian politics. Individual aspirations, by nature, are contrary and, at times,

hostile to the universal intentions of the State. Thinking critically is dangerous and

rebellion results in the loss of your property.8

The Role of Power in Marxian Politics

Given the ends of what Marx’s communism seeks to accomplish, a good

question to ask is where power comes in to play. One cannot read Marx and see past his

disdain for the power of the few. Yet, at the same time, one is taken aback at his plan to

give all power to the many. The reason for the bewilderment is not because the few are so

deserving. One could easily agree with Marx that the bourgeois all too often abused their

power over the proletariat. Additionally, the problem is not in the fact that the proletariat

6
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (LaVergne:
Filiquarian Publishing, 2005), 35.
7
Ibid., Pg 37. Emphases added.
8
Rene Coste, Marxist Analysis and Christian Faith (Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
1985), 89.
 5
are so undeserving. There is nothing about their socioeconomic class which makes any

less qualified to rule than the bourgeois.

The problem lies in the localization of the proletariat’s power in the State. In

Marxian politics, the power does not shift from the bourgeois to the proletariat. It shifts

from the private sector to the government. As Pearl Evans asserts, “even if the

constitution and laws guarantee freedom, the communist application of this concept

negates promised liberty according to the dictate of the leadership.”9 So does a proletariat

revolution guarantee freedom? Absolutely. As long as one never steps outside of what the

newly established government says is permissible.

Such measures will not solve the problem of class struggles because the power

is never eliminated; it is transferred. The role of power in Marxian politics does not

change in its essence. It is just as likely to be abused and mishandled. All that happens in

Marx’s system is that the power changes hands. The question to ask is what will keep

those who now hold the power from becoming just as corrupt as the ones before them?

What prevents the oppressed from turning around and becoming the oppressors?

A Critical Analysis

According to this author, the nature of power is the most problematic part of

Marxian politics for the following reasons. One, no system of government can exist

without some part of the society holding power. Two, the power that is transferred from

the bourgeois is not given over voluntarily, but is taken by force and revolution. Three,

and lastly, the nature of power will corrupt whoever posses it: whether it be the

bourgeois, the proletariat, or the State. These reasons will be unpacked one at time and

then placed together to show how they serve to be the demise of Marxian politics.

9
Pearl Evans, Marx or Jesus (Petaluma: Small Helm Press, 1989), 18.
 6
However, before unpacking these reasons let the reader keep in mind that all of

these factors are a consequence of the human condition resulting from the Fall. The

problem of power is exclusively a problem of sin. Sadly, in Marxian politics, wickedness

is not a result of the human condition, it is a result of one’s social context.

Regarding the principle of sin itself, Herndon Agers submits that “Marxism is

ambiguous at best and devastatingly contradictory at worst.”10 Or, as Dale Vree submits,

“The doctrine of Original Sin puts Christianity in clear opposition to Marxism.”11 Marx

never acknowledged the destructive influence that power has on people due to their

sinfulness. If he had, his political theory would have never been articulated the way it

was. Given that backdrop, the reasons why power is the demise to Marxian politics will

now be provided.

First, there is the assertion that no system of government can exist without

some form of power enforcing law and order. Democratically, this power is instituted by

the people and for the people. In other forms of government, the ruled have no say over

who becomes their ruler but live underneath the established leadership anyway. However,

in Marx’s communism, the role of power, when given to the proletariat, is simply too

idealistic.

As was mentioned earlier, the proletariat, after gaining power over the

bourgeois, are expected to eliminate all classes, eliminate themselves as the supreme

class, and then set up a system of governance which will maintain those conditions.

However, such statements seem to insinuate a system that maintains a healthy dose of

10
Herndon W. Agers, Is Communism a Christian Heresy, in Christianity and
Communism, ed. Merrimon Cuninggim (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,
1958), 86.
11
Dale Vree, On Synthesizing Marxism and Christianity (New York: John
Wiley and Sons Inc, 1976), 36.
 7
anarchy. Historically, no society has ever existed under such conditions because someone

always rises to power.

Take for example the French Revolution (1789-1799). Georges Lefebvre,

along with other historians, attributes much of the bloodshed in the French Revolution to

the class struggles between bourgeois and proletariat. Eventually, there was a breakdown

of power between the two class systems but the resulting anarchy was not as organized as

what Marx’s explains in his Manifesto. This is how Georges Lefebvre describes it.

“Everywhere and at every moment public order was dissolving. Summary reprisals had

led to bloodshed in town and country. Chateaux and private homes had been burned or

looted. The life and property of citizens were unsafe.”12 This madness also arguably set

the stage for Napoleon Bonaparte, who took advantage of such anarchical conditions.13

While the French Revolution happened long before the Manifesto was written, Marx

never used that historical testimony as an example of what negative things can happen to

a society under anarchy.

The example of the French Revolution is not presented to argue that a

proletariat revolution will always result in an oppressive dictatorship. That may not

necessarily be true. However, no system of government has existed without some form of

authority having power. And, as the French Revolution shows, sometimes the absence of

power leaves a nation susceptible to evil men such as Napoleon.

The second assertion, regarding the problem of power, is that in Marxian

politics power is not transferred from the bourgeois to the proletariat but is taken from

them by force and revolution. These are those conditions explained in the Manifesto.
12
Lefebvre, Georges, The Coming of the French Revolution, trans. R. R. Palmer
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 157.
13
James O. Cade, Communism vs. Christianity: A Twentieth Century Christian
Manifesto (San Antonio: The Naylor Company, 1964), 22.
 8
“[The Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible

overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a

Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.”14

Such rhetoric does not allow for the peaceful transfer of power that is present

in democratic countries such as America. Rather, power is taken by force and revolution.

The fundamental problem with this type of power change is that it is contradictory in

nature when placed in the context of Marxian politics as a whole. Marx wanted a society

that showed compassion and glorified equality. However, the means of achieving such

ends are duplicitous in nature when compared to the communist’s desire for kindness.

Alexander Miller explains,

“…the complete relativity of Communist morals, the reduction of every moral

consideration to that of sheer expedience in the service of the revolution, itself
opens the way to ruthlessness of every kind, and regard for human life goes down
the drain with every other kind of obligation except that to the party.”15

In other words, it is all a matter of pragmatics. If violating every principle that

your system stands for is what is necessary in order to actualize it, then it is perfectly

ethical to do so. Such a theory makes no ethical sense and, more importantly, it makes no

logical sense how morality would change for the better once the communist system was

actualized. A change of political and economic scenery will not transform an evil person

into a saint. Sadly, the evil in his heart will just become more sophisticated.

Thirdly, and akin to reasons one and two, the nature of power will corrupt

whoever posses it: whether it be the bourgeois, the proletariat, or the State. This is at the

crux of what it means to be sinful and human. The nature of power will always lead a

14
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (LaVergne:
Filiquarian Publishing, 2005), 55.
15
Alexander Miller, The Christian Significance of Karl Marx (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1947), 59.
 9
man down the path of corruption. As Lord Acton famously put it, “Power tends to

corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”16 Lord Acton is not the only man who

has made such observations. George Orwell wrote an entire novel over the concept of the

corrupting nature of power in his work Animal Farm.

In Orwell’s work the farm animals rebel and take away the power from Mr.

Jones, the farmer. Unfortunately, the classless society that presented itself afterward did

not last long. Eventually, the pigs came to power and the imagery that Orwell paints

shows their corruption. “Amazed, terrified, huddling together, the animals watched the

long line of pigs march slowly round the yard. It was though the world had been turned

upside down.”17 The oppressive nature of the pigs only progressed and the story ends

with a chilling reminder of the corrupting nature of power. Such will be the case where

ever Marxian politics are instituted. Communism will not function because it never

answers the question of what one should do with the problem of power.

Marx’s politics are too idealistic. They are historically unreliable. The system

seeks equality but proceeds to abolish any kind of freedom that is contrary to the well-

being of the system. In Marxian politics, the power that was erected to create a classless

society is wielded to remove any idea of a world that is contrary to that of the communist

state. “The freedom and rights of the individual person and citizen are restricted only by

the equivalent freedoms and rights of others, and by the interest of the socialist society.”18

Free thought is an unnecessary evil when it conflicts with the State. Education is

16
Roland Hill, Lord Acton (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 300.
17
George Orwell, Animal Farm (New York: New American Library, 1996),
132.
18
Vekoslav Grmic, Socialism as it Actually Exists in the Light of Christian
Theology, in Churches in Socialist Societies of Eastern Europe, ed. Norbert Greinacher
and Virgil Elizondo (New York: The Seabury Press, 1982), 65.
 10
censored so that it propagates the intentions of the State. Religion is exercised freely,

insofar as it does not preach against the State. Clearly, the problem of power in Marxian

politics should not be taken lightly. “For, even though communism goes through phases,

power remains the goal.”19

A Christian Response

While this author submits that Marxian politics are antithetical to evangelical

orthodoxy, many have embraced and synthesized his ideas with those of the Christian

faith. Oddly enough, Marx was not an advocate of Christianity. In fact, he tried to

persuasively argue against religion. He described religion as “the sigh of the oppressed

creature,” “the heart of a heartless world,” and the “opium of the people.”20 Religious

systems were merely a means of placating human misery. There is no need for religion in

Marxism because, for Marx, human misery was a result of one’s social context, not

separation from a holy God. As Lochman points out in his work, “…[Marxism] assumed

that by changing the economic base, all the problems of the superstructure would be

solved, including problems of ethics and personal life.” 21 Every problem was a class

struggle problem and every solution was rooted in a classless society.

Marx also asserted that people who were in positions of power would use

religion to work towards their own ends. Religion was a means of showing how servitude

to the bourgeois was actually servitude to God himself. As Chris Sugden summarizes, “It

[religion] serves to justify the present order as an order decreed by God… Religion

19
Pearl Evans, Marx or Jesus (Petaluma: Small Helm Press, 1989), 85.
20
Delos B. Mckown, The Classical Marxist Critiques of Religion: Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Kautsky (Belgium: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975), 13.
21
Jan Millic Lochman, Encountering Marx: Bonds and Barriers Between
Christians and Marxists (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 32.
 11
teaches men to love their slavery.”22 However, this type of behavior is a far cry from what

orthodoxChristianity teaches.

While it is true that communism has noble principles in it such as compassion

and equality, those principles should be informed by Scripture, not Marxian political

philosophy. The philosophy of Marx is nowhere near the teachings of Jesus. They are

different in most every respect. The most fundamental difference however is in the

category of freedom.

Marx promised the proletariat freedom from the bourgeois if he would seek to

overthrow the bourgeois by the means of physical force. Jesus offers a different type of

freedom. He offers freedom from sin and its consequences, not the bourgeois. Jesus offers

freedom from death, not a social class. Jesus’ freedom goes beyond economics. “He

offers not just the ‘freedom from’ of capitalism or the ‘freedom to have the means to do’

of Marxism but promises ‘freedom to be’ what the human heart longs for and what God

intends… This freedom can be abdicated but cannot be stolen.”23

Like most things that are placed in comparison with the Gospel, Marxian

politics only attempts to solve part of the problem. However, only one thing can solve the

ultimate human need (the problem of sin) and that is faith in Jesus Christ. It is by his

death and resurrection that man stands righteous before the Father. It is the sanctifying

work of the Holy Spirit which makes one look more and more like Jesus every day.

Without transformed hearts, there will never be a transformation of society. Thus,

believers look forward to the day when God will reign with justice and righteousness.

Not under a system of capitalism or communism but that of a Christocracy.

22
Chris Sugden, Latin America: Where Marxism Challenges Christians to be
Just, in Christianity and Marxism, ed. Alan Scarfe and Patrick Sookhdeo (Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1982), 111.
23
Pearl Evans, Marx or Jesus (Petaluma: Small Helm Press, 1989), 20.
 12
Christians look forward to this day because only Christ can rule absolutely

without becoming corrupted by power. Only Christ can rule justly with the rod of iron.

Only God himself is worthy of glory, honor, and praise. Until then, man is left with

imperfect alternatives. The problem of power exists in every system because every

system consists of sinful men. Marx changed the scenery but he did not solve the

problem. He could not have even if he tried. There is only one who is able to cure the

condition of man’s heart and that person is his Creator. “In him we live and move and

have our being.”24 So, as Marx calls out “working men of all countries, unite” believers

all around the world join together and say the words written by the apostle John, “Amen.

Come Lord Jesus!”

In conclusion, the Christian voice must respond to communism. It must

embrace its compassion and reject its idealism. Primarily because it is rooted in a

fallacious view of man and is built on the conviction that evil is a result of classes not of

sin. The Christian must articulate that when one places his hope in politics he pursues it

in vain. Man is corruptible and his philosophies are incomplete. Power will corrupt him.

However, there is a source of unfailing hope. It is in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The Christian must point all men to Christ, not communism. For only Christ can solve the

problem of power.

24
Acts 17:28. English Standard Version.
 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agers, Herndon W. Is Communism a Christian Heresy. In Christianity and Communism,

ed. Merrimon Cuninggim, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1958.

Cade, James O. Communism vs. Christianity: A Twentieth Century Christian Manifesto.

San Antonio: The Naylor Company, 1964.

Coste, Rene. Marxist Analysis and Christian Faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1985.

Ellul, Jacques. Jesus and Marx: From Gospel to Ideology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988.

Evans, Pearl. Marx or Jesus. Petaluma: Small Helm Press, 1989.

Grmic, Vekoslav. Socialism as it Actually Exists in teh Light of Christian Theology. In

Churches in Socialist Societies of Eastern Europe, ed. Norbert Greinacher and Virgil
Elizondo. New York: The Seabury Press, 1982.

Hill, Roland. Lord Acton. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Lefebvre, Georges. The Coming of the French Revolution. Translated by R. R. Palmer.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Lochman, Jan Millic. Encountering Marx: Bonds and Barriers Between Christians and
Marxists. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. LaVergne: Filiquarian
Publishing, 2005.

Mckown, Delos B. The Classical Marxist Crituques of Religion: Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Kautsky. Belgium: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.

Miller, Alexander. The Christian Significance of Karl Marx. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1947.

Ogden, Schubert M. Christianity and Communism. Compiled by Merrimon Cunninggim.

Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1958.

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: New American Library, 1996.

Sugden, Chris. Latin America: Where Marxism Challenges Christians to be Just. In

Christianity and Marxism, ed. Alan Scarfe and Patrick Sookhdeo. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1982.

Vree, Dale. On Synthesizing Marxism and Christianity. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Inc, 1976.