The Other View

Issue No.3 Winter 2000

Scientific Socialism

By Tommy McKearney

Fredrick Engels, speaking at the graveside of Karl Marx, said that the key to his friend and colleague’s theory could be summed up in two concepts. Marx he said, had emphasised the vital role of competition between classes throughout history and that this contest can only be properly understood by a materialist (as distinct from spiritual) analyses.

The concept of class struggle conflict is something that is easy to understand and recognise. What one might think of its validity or relevance is, of course, another point. It is the aspect of materialist analyses that some people find more difficult to grasp. Moreover, it is the materialist concepts that have so long disturbed and even outraged religious believers.

To properly appreciate the reason why the first socialists so often found themselves in conflict with organised religion, it is necessary to recognise the type of era in which they lived. In nineteenth century Europe, The standard of education was generally quite low among a majority of working people. Relatively expensive newspapers and books were all that was available in the way of a mass media. Mind broadening travel was confined to either rich or the itinerant journeyman.

In such an era, the great battle for ideas was not fought out in television or radio studios. Nor did people have the opportunity to spend their formative years in schools, colleges and universities learning of and researching life’s options. This was the time of the illiterate rustic and the untaught factory worker. A time when the average working person found it very difficult to differentiate between a religious leader speaking in a spiritual capacity and when the same person spoke in a temporal capacity.

Under such circumstances it is not surprising that entrenched establishments sought (and usually gained) either the outright or tacit support of popular religions. In return for support or tolerance, religious leaders could be relied upon to endorse the status quo. And it did not matter whether the religion was Protestant or Catholic. Roman cardinals, Anglican archbishops and Orthodox patriarchs all performed the coronation ceremonies and royal marriages for monarchs and baptisms and blessings for the captains of industry and commerce that indicated approval for the existing order. There were of course many examples of individual clergyman adopting a radical economic and social line but this was manageable dissent rather than a major challenge to the social order.

None of this is to say that there is anything incompatible with being a socialist and holding religious beliefs. Where problems have risen through was when the powerful and wealthy drew organised religion into the debate in order to distort the argument. When reasoned discussion was overturned by people claiming that there was divine support for ‘the Boss’.

Socialists have long sought to demonstrate that their philosophy is an economic science and not an idealistic superstition. They have for long insisted that the merits of a socialised economy is something that should be measurable in much the same way that universal health care is a measurable benefit to mankind. These ideas remain controversial but nowadays are rarely adjudicated upon by clerics. The World and its technology are more sophisticated than it was a century back. Academics, politicians and trade unionists argue the value of economic measures. Church leaders rarely venture into the debate over economics in Western Europe.

As a consequence, the bitter antagonism between church and socialism is not quite as obvious today as it was a century ago. Many religious leaders remain quite conservative but few would attempt to describe socialism as sinful or immoral even through socialists of the Marxist school are almost always non-believers.

Although the dispute with the religious institutions has abated many socialists continue to adhere to the concept that class struggle exists in the absence of socialism. Central to this argument is the concept that people should not be viewed as isolated individuals but as part of a class within society.

A person’s class is defined not by an accent or an address or an outfit but by ones standing within economic society. Socialist argue that a classless and decent society will come about not when riches are divided but when everybody has an equal standing within economic society. This does not mean everybody starts with the same opportunity to become a multi-millionaire – that is capitalism – but everybody gets the opportunity to play a full part in economic society and that while rewards are not identical, the differentials are not vast.

There are many advantages in this view in society. It is an outlook that allows us to see society in a very different light. Tribes and nations and ethnic grouping don’t disappear but assume much less importance to a socialist. What is important is the creation of a better and equitable society. It is not possible to do justice to socialism in a brief article. It is a subject that deserves much more discussion in this magazine (and elsewhere) but one thing we must say for it is that a socialist society would leave many of of our Northern Irish problems redundant.

Back to Contents