In one context or another, Christianity and Marxism are discussed daily in the western world. Rightly so, for these two ideologies have been pivotal in the growth and development of western civilization as it is known today. Both have had great influence upon western thought, and both claim to be able to solve the woes of the world. As such, there have been many who have sought to compare the two and determine if they are compatible with each other. With one being a religion and the other being a form of government, it would seem as though the answer would be simple: both affect different spheres of culture, thus, both can be implemented simultaneously with positive effect. However, the answer may not be quite so simple. Both ideologies make claims about certain subjects, such as spirituality, marriage, family, and property, and these claims may contradict each other. This paper seeks to contrast the claims both worldviews make about just one subject: property.

Marxist Principles of Property

As defined by Karl Marx and his benefactor, Frederick Engels, private property is a social construct; men created property so that they could rule over others (Engels & Marx, 1848). According to these men, society has always been comprised of oppressors and the oppressed and in the modern age, oppression takes the form of economic slavery. Indeed, private property is a constraint on humanity and its intrinsic nature (Marx, 1844). Because the bourgeoisie practically enslaves the proletariat to enrich itself, only the elimination of private property can allow the proletariat to regain its humanity and freedom.

Accordingly, private property must be abolished under Marxist communism. Rather than being the result of the volition of property owners, this abolition is the result of the volition of the proletariat. According to the Communist Manifesto, “the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie” (Engels & Marx, 1848). The Marxist ideal, of course, is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat who rise up in protest of an unfair economy and create a new polity that is governed by all. The members of the proletariat are then to create laws or degrees which remove the private property of each bourgeois and distribute it to everyone, “to each according to his needs” (Marx, 1891). It is therefore the right and responsibility of the working class to redistribute wealth among itself.

Thus, Marxism necessarily requires the forcible redistribution of property by those who have no legitimate claim to it. It is not for property owners to willingly distribute their wealth to the needy, rather, it is the responsibility of the working class to seize the property for themselves. The abolition of private property is “the distinguishing feature of Communism” (Engels & Marx, 1848), making any claim to private property void in Marxist ideology.

Summarily, Marx believed that private property was a construction of the wealthy to enslave the poor. As such, property is evil and must be abolished, for if it is not, men will continue in their economic enslavement. The only way to free the proletariat from its slavery is to take the property which belongs to the bourgeoisie and redistribute it among the working class.

Christian Principles of Property

In the Christian Bible, God summarized his moral law in ten commandments. The moral law, applicable to all people, defines exactly how one must live in relation to God and in relation to man. The eighth of the ten commandments states that “You shall not steal” (English Standard Version, 2016, Exodus 20:15), which means that no one is permitted to unjustly take the belongings of another. Conversely, the prohibition against stealing necessarily enjoins the law-keeper to respect the property and earnings of others. If stealing is the result of believing that one has more right to an owner’s possessions than the owner has, then it follows that to truly keep the eighth commandment, one must recognize the rightful ownership that others have over their own possessions.

Every piece of property that one owns is given to him by God, and thus it is an offense against Him if mere man determines to steal the gifts which God has granted to another (Calvin, 1536/1997). Only God has the prerogative to give to and take from man (English Standard Version, 2016, Job 1:21). Man is to work for his wages so that he can feed himself (English Standard Version, 2016, 2 Thessalonians 3:10); likewise, he must acquire all other goods lawfully.

Possessions, at their basic utility, support life: physical man requires physical goods to live. God has given man property, by which he can support himself, his family, and the needy, and God has given man lawful means to obtain that property, namely, by work. The eighth commandment is intended to safeguard that which man lawfully earns for himself (Ursinus, 1616/1888, p. 595). In safeguarding what is rightfully earned, the eighth commandment expressly forbids stealing, but by extension forbids all that would deprive another of his earnings. The Westminster divines list many ways that the eighth commandment can be violated, including “receiving that which is stolen … oppression … and all other unjust ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves” (The Westminster larger catechism: with scripture proofs, 1647/1996, question 142).

In summary, any way by which man takes that which is lawfully owned by another is a violation of the eighth commandment, regardless of how subtle it may be. Man is given his property by God, and he is not to determine who should or should not receive God’s gifts.

The Relationship Between the Two Ideologies

Necessary Incompatibility

In Marxist thought, private property is a construction of man and a means by which the prosperous can enslave the poor. In Christian thought, private property is a gift of God and a means of preserving and enriching life. Marxism posits that private property must be forcibly redistributed to all; Christianity posits that private property must be safeguarded by both its owner and by others. Marxism teaches that the abolition of private property would free man while Christianity teaches that the abolition of private property is rebellion against the One who grants property to man.

Ultimately, these differences stem from a fundamental worldview difference. Marxism at its core is atheistic and Christianity, necessarily, is theistic. Marxism, although contrary to Christianity, is very logically consistent. If man has created private property so that he can be wealthy at the expense of others, there is no reason not to abolish property. However, if God created and distributed property (as Christianity teaches), man does not have the right to abolish it. The lack of external morality in any worldview will always result in relative, self-serving “morals,” and Marxism indeed lacks it, which is why the end result of Marxism is unjust enrichment. Conversely, Christianity, with its external, objective source of morality, has safeguards for that which is rightfully earned, regardless of the circumstances.

Clearly, there is no compatibility between these views- they are un-apologetically opposite. It is impossible for the two systems to function simultaneously and in fidelity to their core standards. Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Marxism and Christianity are not in direct contradiction to each other. Frederick Engels himself said that “if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it” (1843). One such doctrine that is opposed to Marxism is the eighth commandment. Marxism, by definition, requires its participants to violate the eighth commandment, making Marxism incompatible with a core tenet of Christianity, and thus, with Christianity itself.

The Christian Response

Because Marxism violates the moral law of God, it is the responsibility of Christians as God’s covenant members to refuse Marxism in every form. In order to be a consistent Marxist, one must enrich himself by unjustly depriving his neighbor of his rightful possessions, which is exactly what the eighth commandment forbids. Although the deprivation of the bourgeoisie’s assets is performed in the name of equity, the wretchedness of the deprivation does not change: Marx’s proposed redistribution of wealth is nothing more than state-sanctioned thievery.

Although this paper has only demonstrated that Marxism violates one of God’s ten commandments, a single violation is enough to prove that Marxism is an affront to God. If God “loves righteousness and justice” (English Standard Version, 2016, Psalm 33:5), and Marxism violates God’s standard of righteousness, God must then have no love for the injustice of Marxism. In fact, God hates evildoers (English Standard Version, 2016, Psalm 5:5) and Marxism requires man to do evil in the name of equity.

Under no circumstances should any Christian accept Marxism as a viable form of government because it is opposed to God’s moral law. Ultimately, Marxism is a means by which man can enrich himself at the expense of others. Because the eighth commandment clearly forbids such enrichment, Marxism is an ideology that is entirely incompatible with Christianity.

References

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian Religion (T. Norton, Trans.). Logos Bible Software. (Original work published 1536)

Engels, F. (1843). Progress of Social Reform On the Continent. Marxists.org https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). Crossway Bibles.

Marx, K. (1891). Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marxists.org. Marxists.org https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

Marx, K. (1844). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (M. Milligan, Trans.). Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the communist party (S. Moore, Trans.). Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Ursinus, Z. (1888). The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (G. W. Williard, Trans.). Elm Street Printing Company. (Original work published 1616)

The Westminster larger catechism: with scripture proofs. (1996). Logos Research Systems, Inc. (Original work published 1647)