Marx was to the working class movement what Saint Francis was to the Catholic Church. The reason why both men came to historical prominence was not the exceptional power of their ideas, but because they were turned into patron saints by the institutional forces striving to reform the corrupt status quo.
Their philosophical ideas were not new, and neither was their critique of the status quo. In fact, that critique was rooted in the foundational myths of the systems they criticized. Saint Francis called for the return to the values preached by Jesus Christ, the mythical founder of Christianity and the Catholic Church. He called for carrying out the work of Jesus Christ not just for the humans, including the poor, but also for animals and the environment. Marx used the classical economic theory viewing the myth of free market as the foundation of capitalist world order and the bourgeoisie embodied it to critique this world order, and advocated for an alternative that can be characterized as free market sans property relations that fetter it. In other words, free interaction among all people not encumbered by accumulated wealth and state violence distorting this interaction.
Of course, similar ideas were voiced by countless reformers of Christianity and capitalism. Neither Saint Francis nor Karl Marx particularly stand out in this respect. They gained their prominence not from the ideas thy preached but from the material reality, or rather its institutional forces they sought to change - the Franciscan order and the nascent political parties of the working class. Both institutions needed patron saints represent and encapsulate their causes - and both used idealized versions of real life advocates for that purpose.
Today, it is not that the actual ideas of both philosophers that matter, but the ideas and yearning they came to symbolize after their death. Incidentally, this also make them vulnerable to the critique of institutions that made them their patron saints, but whose actual working has little to do with the actual ideas advocated by these saints. In many ways, the Catholic Church represent the opposite of Saint Francis philosophy - a powerful political institution instrumental in plunder, exploitation and oppression of the poor, people of color, and nature. Likewise, the Communist states became the exact opposite of stateless people free to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, and engage in critical thinking after dinner, advocated by Marx. But as patron saints of both institutions, they are blamed for the sins of those institutions, whose material shape became the opposite of the ideals embodied in their foundational myths.
However, “deconstructing” patron saints for the real and alleged sins of institutions that elevated them to sainthood, routinely practiced by hack propagandists, distorts the fundamental historical fact that these saints had nothing to do with the actual operations of the institutions that created them. In fact, such ‘deconstructing” is a sure sign of intellectual mediocrity of the writers, envious of the larger than life footprints of their fellow writers, and throwing mud on them instead of engaging in a difficult intellectual task of understanding a broader social context in which the consecration of these fellow writers took place. No other writer characterized this broader social context than Marx himself when he commented on the role of religion: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
Indeed, the consecration of Saint Francis and Karl Marx is an expression of the sigh of oppressed creatures – people mercilessly exploited and oppressed by kings, aristocrats, capitalists, bankers and leaders of various stripes. The bigger than life shadow these patron saints cast on society is not of their own making, but a reflection of the dark side of the reality itself – a reality in which countless people starve and die amidst of plenty for the sole reason of their bosses resisting relinquishing their control of the material resources.
Their philosophical ideas were not new, and neither was their critique of the status quo. In fact, that critique was rooted in the foundational myths of the systems they criticized. Saint Francis called for the return to the values preached by Jesus Christ, the mythical founder of Christianity and the Catholic Church. He called for carrying out the work of Jesus Christ not just for the humans, including the poor, but also for animals and the environment. Marx used the classical economic theory viewing the myth of free market as the foundation of capitalist world order and the bourgeoisie embodied it to critique this world order, and advocated for an alternative that can be characterized as free market sans property relations that fetter it. In other words, free interaction among all people not encumbered by accumulated wealth and state violence distorting this interaction.
Of course, similar ideas were voiced by countless reformers of Christianity and capitalism. Neither Saint Francis nor Karl Marx particularly stand out in this respect. They gained their prominence not from the ideas thy preached but from the material reality, or rather its institutional forces they sought to change - the Franciscan order and the nascent political parties of the working class. Both institutions needed patron saints represent and encapsulate their causes - and both used idealized versions of real life advocates for that purpose.
Today, it is not that the actual ideas of both philosophers that matter, but the ideas and yearning they came to symbolize after their death. Incidentally, this also make them vulnerable to the critique of institutions that made them their patron saints, but whose actual working has little to do with the actual ideas advocated by these saints. In many ways, the Catholic Church represent the opposite of Saint Francis philosophy - a powerful political institution instrumental in plunder, exploitation and oppression of the poor, people of color, and nature. Likewise, the Communist states became the exact opposite of stateless people free to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, and engage in critical thinking after dinner, advocated by Marx. But as patron saints of both institutions, they are blamed for the sins of those institutions, whose material shape became the opposite of the ideals embodied in their foundational myths.
However, “deconstructing” patron saints for the real and alleged sins of institutions that elevated them to sainthood, routinely practiced by hack propagandists, distorts the fundamental historical fact that these saints had nothing to do with the actual operations of the institutions that created them. In fact, such ‘deconstructing” is a sure sign of intellectual mediocrity of the writers, envious of the larger than life footprints of their fellow writers, and throwing mud on them instead of engaging in a difficult intellectual task of understanding a broader social context in which the consecration of these fellow writers took place. No other writer characterized this broader social context than Marx himself when he commented on the role of religion: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
Indeed, the consecration of Saint Francis and Karl Marx is an expression of the sigh of oppressed creatures – people mercilessly exploited and oppressed by kings, aristocrats, capitalists, bankers and leaders of various stripes. The bigger than life shadow these patron saints cast on society is not of their own making, but a reflection of the dark side of the reality itself – a reality in which countless people starve and die amidst of plenty for the sole reason of their bosses resisting relinquishing their control of the material resources.
