Marxism is alive and flourishing!

The contemporary narrative of social politics is often expressed in terms of power versus oppression. This comes from ‘Contemporary Critical Theory’ (CCT) which has become the dominant metanarrative in western cultures. CCT argues that in order to make things better the ‘oppressed’ need to be empowered to overcome their ‘oppressors’. It’s a model which, I’m sure you will recognise, finds its roots in Marxism. In a Marxist system the aim is to overthrow capitalism by empowering the oppressed workers (proletariat) to overcome the oppression of the wealthy (bourgeoisie). For our contemporary situation It’s not a model without some merit. Money, education, family connections, undeniably buy power, whereas poverty, lack of education and social standing leads to powerlessness. And worse, human nature means that the powerful easily adopt a ‘right to rule’ mentality (‘Old School Tie’), whereas the powerless may resign themselves to being ‘victims’ of unassailable oppression. This analysis is undoubtedly evident, the real issue is how to bring about change. To put it crudely, How do we empower the powerless? Should we use welfare as a tool to lift people out of poverty, or should we increase opportunities for education and meaningful employment to do the same? The answer is surely a combination. This is where party politics begins, a subject from which I will steer well clear!

Some observations

First cultural. Traditionally the ‘oppressed’ have been seen as those living in poverty. The attraction of Marxism at the start of the last century was that the unscrupulous, powerful rulers who kept the oppressed down by keeping them economically needy, could be brought to book and overthrown bringing ‘power to the people’. Notice that the ‘sin’ was being wealthy not being wicked. However philanthropic a wealthy person may have been he was still the enemy of the people. The sad reality is that this led to riots, revolutions, and even massacre as the powerless became the functional powerful. The oppressors ‘had it coming,’ this was payback.

But as our culture has moved nearer economic equality (there is certainly not the extreme poverty there was at the start of the last century, high earners pay high taxes, and there is largely equality of opportunity for most), other areas of inequality have come to the fore, ant-racism and feminism being two examples. Now, in seeking to empower the powerless, simple equality of opportunity (what we used to call colour or gender blindness) is not enough, that would in reality do little more than maintain the status quo. Today we provide positive incentives, training for the powerful to understand their oppression of others, and constant monitoring to make it happen. Everyone who is not GMH (Global Majority Heritage) is a racist and everyone who is not a woman is a misogynist. The result is that one organisation after another is accused of, for example, ‘institutional racism’ and employees are offered ‘unconscious bias’ training to recognise their racism. Quotas are sometimes introduced to empower the powerless in order to bring about proportionate representation, fairness. Often this looks like, and may indeed be, bias towards the ‘oppressed’ group. I am making no judgement here, there may be much good in these things. Where I do have misgivings, though, is when a reversed social imbalance results. Men (oppressors) can be the object of critical humour (eg. terms like ‘man-splaining’ or ‘man-flu’), whereas women (oppressed) cannot. It cannot be right to demean an entire group in this way. Isn’t mutual respect a better way forward?

And the latest group to be added to the oppressed/oppressor list is LGBTQ+. This is one development that makes the current debate in the Church of England so difficult. Which leads me to my second observation.

It is interesting to see how this fundamentally Marxist model has entered theology, to the extent that, in all but the most conservative circles, it has become the dominant, even the only, model for theological thinking. So called ‘liberation’ theology has, for some time, been the dominant paradigm for theological enquiry the world over. Theology of liberation, put simply, argues that the gospel is about freeing (empowering) the oppressed. The Bible (when it is used) is read through this lens with Luke’s Gospel a favourite. Jesus, a victim of oppression himself, is seen as one who empowers women, children, the sick and the outcast. In his oppression and death Jesus brings liberation and freedom for those who are oppressed while judging the wealthy guilty (eg. Luke 16v19ff). Now, of course, there is again much here that’s good. We needed to get rid of the Victorian thinking revealed in the verse (now thankfully always omitted) from Cecil Alexander’s Hymn ‘All thing Bright and beautiful; The rich man in his castle / the poor man at his gate/ God made them high and lowly / He ordered their estate. It is testament to the influence of liberation theology that we all (I hope) find this verse shocking and distasteful.

Liberation theology takes many forms: opposing racism, poverty, slavery; and pursuing equality and justice. For me the biggest problem with it is that it makes ‘liberation’ the entirety of the gospel, and ‘oppression’ the entirety of sin. Judgement is only in terms of oppression. Hope is liberation from oppression. The future picture of a perfect world is one where all are equal in every way. An enticing dream, and one that is surely partly correct. But without an understanding of the depth and universality of sin, and the need for God’s forgiveness, it can only be a caricature of the biblical truth.

My third observation brings us right up to date. The Israel Gaza war is a very complex situation with entrenched opinions on both sides. It is very difficult to make any comment on it without being accused of taking sides. The problem is that if we apply our ‘liberation’ paradigm to the situation, it is no help at all. Which side is oppressed? Is it the non-white people of Gaza living in poverty and hemmed in? Or is it the white Israelis facing constant opposition, threats, and terrorist attacks from groups pledged to Israel’s obliteration? And the oppressors? Who dare judge?