Class Struggle and Christian Love

Chapter 51

Herb He rbert ert Mc McCa Cabe be (1 (192 926– 6–20 2001 01))

The Class Struggle and Christian Love (1980) While institutionally the Christian church has denounced Marxism as an atheistic and dehumanizing creed, theologians and other church-people have from time to time dialogued with members of Marxist parties and movements to explore common themes and concerns. Aspects of Marxist thought may be discerned in the emergence and development of political and liberation theologies, and in regions of the Third World Christians and Marxists have found a common commitment to overcoming oppression drawing them onto the same side in revolutionary struggles. The essay from which this extract is taken was one of many writings produced in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s by Christians arguing that the scriptural imperative to do justice, practise love of neighbor, and represent the values of the kingdom of God compels Christians to join with Marxists in their opposition to capitalism and commitment to its overthrow. Whereas capitalism is predicated on human antagonism, McCabe argues, Christianity announces the possibility that people might live together in peace. McCabe was a leading Dominican with British and Irish nationality, who wrote and lectured widely on theology, philosophy, and politics. In 1967 he was briefly suspended from the priesthood by Rome.

Source Herbert McCabe, “The Class Struggle and Christian Love” in Rex Ambler and David Haslam, eds., Agenda for Prophets: Towards a Political Theology for Britain, London: Bowerdean, 1980, pp. 163–7.

Further reading Peter Hebblethwaite, The Christian–Marxist Dialogue and Beyond , London, 1977. Denys Turner,  Marxism and Christianity, Oxford, 1983.

The Class Struggle and Christian Love 273 José Míguez Bonino , Christians and Marxists, London, 1976. David McLellan,  Marxism and Religion, London, 1987. J. Andrew Kirk, Theology Encounters Revolution, Leicester, 1980. John Marsden,  Marxian and Christian Utopianism , New York, 1991. Tim Gorringe, Capital and the Kingdom: Theological ethics and economic order , Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1994.

From The Class Struggle And Christian Love (1980) The strugg struggle le of the work working ing class class is not not . . . sim simply ply a struggle struggle with within in capita capitalism lism,, as though it were a matter of reversing positions and ‘putting the workers on top’ (as in the game of parliamentary parliamentary elections); it is a struggle within capitalism which, insofar  as it is successful, leads beyond beyond capitalism. As Marx puts puts it: An oppressed class is a vital ingredient of every society based on class antagonism. The emancipation of the oppressed class therefore necessarily involves the creation of a new society society . . . Does this this mean the down downfall fall of the old societ society y will be follo followed wed by a new class domination expressing expressing itself in a new political power? power? No, the condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of all classes.

. . . the there re are are certa certain in thing thingss we can say say:: 1. The clas classs struggle struggle is not not a produ product ct of the the envy envy of the the poor poor for for the the rich; rich; it is not about establishing some ideal equality between people’s incomes. 2. The class class strugg struggle le is not not somet somethin hing g we are are in in a positi position on to start ; it is a concondition of the process process called capitalism within which which we find ourselves. If anybody could be be said to have have ‘started ‘started’’ the class struggle struggle it was, was, I suppose, suppose, those enterprisenterprising medieval men who found ways to get round or break out of the stifling customs and traditions of feudalism and thus found ways to make products available more cheaply and more profitably. 3. The clas classs struggle struggle is is not somet somethin hing g we are are in in a positio position n to refra refrain in from. from. It is just there; there; we are are either on one side or or the other. other. What looks like like neutrality is simply a collusion with the class in power. Now of course everything would be so much simpler if the class struggle were altogether altog ether perspicu perspicuous, ous, but it is is not; it comes comes in a variety variety of disguise disguises. s. In the first first place the simple division into two classes classes won’t won’t do. The basic antagonism that lies at the root of society produces a whole ser ies of mutually hostile groupings g roupings engaged in shifting alliances and confrontations. It is almost never never a simple matter to decide in the case of any particular dispute which side is to be supported in the furtherance of the emancipation of the working class and the consequent abolition of all class antagonisms. Very familiar instances of these difficulties occur with national national liberation movements which are always a confusion of different elements struggling for different and sometimes incompatible aims. Nothing in Karl Marx that I know of and certainly nothing in the New Testament provides provides you with a simple key key to what to do in such cases. Marx said:

274 274 Herb Herber ertt McCa McCabe be (192 (1926– 6–20 2001 01)) ‘All the struggles within the State, the struggle between between democracy, democracy, aristocracy and monarchy monarchy, the struggle for the franchise, franchise, etc, are merely merely the illusory forms in which the real struggles of the different classes with each other are fought out.’ out.’ No doubt, but getting through the illusions to the reality is a difficult and delicate business. What is wrong wrong with capitalism, then, is not that it involves involves some some people being being richer than I am. I cannot see the slightest objection to other people being richer  than I am; I have have no urge to be as as rich as everybody everybody else, else, and no Christian Christian (and indeed no grown-up person) could possibly devote his life to trying to be as rich or richer than than others. There There are indeed indeed people people,, very large large numbers numbers of people people,, who are obscene obscenely ly poor, poor, starving, diseased, diseased, illiterate illiterate,, and it is quite obvious obviously ly unjust and unreasonable that they should be left in this state while other people or other  nations nations live live in luxury; but this has nothing nothing specially specially to do with capitalis capitalism, m, even even though we will never now be able to alter that situation until capitalism has been abolished. abolished. You find exactly exactly the same same conditions conditions in, say, say, slave slave societies societies and, mor moreeover, over, capitalism, capitalism, during its prosper prosperous ous boom boom phases, phases, is quite quite capable capable of relie relieving ving distress at least in fully industrialised societies – this is what the ‘Welfare ‘Welfare State’ is all about. What is wrong with capitalism is simply simply that it is based on human antagonism, onism, and it is precisely precisely here that that it comes in conflict conflict with Christianity. Christianity. CapitalCapitalism is a state of war, but not just a state of war between equivalent equivalent forces; it involves involves a war between between those who believe believe in and prosecute war war as a way of life, life, as an econ econom omy y, and and thos thosee who who do not not.. . . . Christianity is deeply subversive of capitalism precisely because it announces the improbable improbable possibility that men might live live together without war; war; neither by domination domination nor by antagonism antagonism but by unity unity in love. love. It announces announces this, of course, course, primarily as a future and nearly miraculous possibility and certainly not as an established fact; Christians are not under the illusion that mankind is sinless or that sin is easily overcome overcome,, but they believe believe that it will be overcome overcome.. It was for this reason that Jesus was was executed – as a political threat. Not because he was was a political activist; he was not. Although amongst his his disciples he attracted some of the Jewish Jewish nationalist nationalist Zealots, Zealots, the Provos Provos of the time, time, they did not attract attract him. Certainly Certainly Jesus was not any kind of socialist – how could anyone be a socialist before capitalism had come into existence? But he was nonetheless executed as a political threat because the gospel he preached preached – that the Father loves loves us and therefore, therefore, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, contrary, we are able able to love love one another and stake the meaning of our lives on this – cut at the root of the antagonistic society in which he still lives. Christianity Christianity is not an ideal ideal theory, theory, it is a praxis, praxis, a particular particular kind of practical practical challe challenge nge to to the worl world. d. Christia Christians, ns, there therefor fore, e, do not, not, or shoul should d not, not, stand stand aroun around d saying ‘What a pity there is capitalism and the class war’. war’. They say, say, or should say, say, ‘How are we we going to change this?’ It might have been nice if we had never never had capitalism; who can tell what might have have happened? happened? Only the most naive naive mechanist supposes that history has inevitable patterns so that you could predict every stage of it. It is at least theoretically possible that there might never never have have been capitalism and that might  have been been nice, though it is hard to see how we could have have

The Class Struggle and Christian Love 275 gone through the enormous strides towards human liberation that were in fact made under and through capitalism. The point is that all that is useless speculation; we do hav havee capitalism, capitalism, we do hav havee class war; war; and the Christian Christian job is to deal with with these these facts facts about about our world world.. . . . The Christian who looks for peace and for an end to antagonism has no option but to throw throw himself himself wholeheartedly into the struggle against the class enemy; he must be unequiv unequivocally ocally on one side and not on the other. other. As I have have said, it is not always perfectly simple to sort out which side is which in the various protean disguises that the class struggle takes, but given that they are sorted out there should be no question but that the Christian is on one side with no hankering after the other. other. The other other side side is the the enemy enemy. If you you doubt doubt this, watch watch how how he beha behaves ves:: he will seek either either to buy you you or crush you. you. The world, world, as John has has Jesus saying, saying, will hate you. Now how  will you carry on the fight? There are various pieces of advice that might be given given,, but I would would like like here here to reiterate reiterate some traditi traditional onal ones. ones. In the first place be meek. meek. Blessed Blessed are the meek meek for they they shall shall inherit the earth; earth; pray for  for  those that persecute persecute you; you; be a peacemaker; peacemaker; do not insult insult your enemy enemy or be angry with him. him. Who, Who, after all, all, wants wants a comrade comrade in the struggle struggle who is an arroga arrogant, nt, loudmouthed, aggressive bully? The kind of person who jumps on the revolutionary bandwagon in order to work off his or her bad temper or envy or unresolved conflict with parents does not make a good and reliable comrade. comrade. Whatever happened happened to all those ‘revolutionary’ ‘revolutionary’ students of 1968? What What the revolution needs is grownup people who have have caught on to themselves, who have have recognised their own own infantilisms and to some extent dealt with them – people in fact who have listened to the Sermon on the Mount. It is a simple piece of right-wing lying that those who carry on the struggle are motiv motivated ated by pride and greed, greed, envy envy and aggression. aggression. Real revo revolution lutionaries aries are loving, loving, kind, gentle, gentle, calm, unprov unprovoke oked d to anger; they don’ don’tt hit back when when someone someone strikes them, them, they do not not insist on their their own way way,, they endure endure all all things; they are are extremely dangerous. dangerous. It is not the revolution revolution but the capitalist competitive competitive process that is explicitly and unashamedly powered powered by greed and aggression. The Christian demand for love and peace is precisely what motivates us to take part in the class struggle: struggle: but more more than that, that, the gospel gospel of love love,, and in particular particular the the Sermon on the Mount, provides provides us with the appropriate revolutionary revolutionary discipline for effective action. We still need though to face the question of revolutionary violence. How could that be compatible with the Sermon on the Mount? Well, first of all, in this matter  we should not lose our sense of humour. humour. There is something especially ludicrous ludicrous about Christian churchmen coming round to the belief that violence is wrong. There is probably no sound on earth so bizarre as the noise of clergymen bleating about terrorism and revolutionary violence while their cathedrals are stuffed with regimental flags flags and monuments monuments to colonial wars. wars. The Christian Church, with minor minor exceptions, exceptions, has been solidly solidly on the side of violence violence for centuries, centuries, but normally it has only only been the violenc violencee of soldiers soldiers and policemen. policemen. It is only

276 276 Herb Herber ertt McCa McCabe be (192 (1926– 6–20 2001 01)) when the poor catch on to violence that it suddenly turns out to be against the gospel. But despite despite all this, this, the Churc Church, h, since it is after all the Christian Church, Church, has never never simply professed itself in favour favour of the violence of the ruling classes, the violence of the status quo. quo. What it has done is to profess itself on the side of justice and to note, note, quite rightly rightly,, that in our our fallen world world justice justice sometim sometimes es demands demands violence. This seems to me to make make perfect sense – my only quarrel is with the way that justice has so often turned out to coincide with the interests of the rich.  Justice and love love can involve involve coercion and violence because the objects of justice and love love are not just individual individual people but but can be whole societies. It is an error  (and a bourgeois liberal error at that) to restrict love to the individual I-Thou relationship. tionship. There is no warrant for this in the New Testament – it is simply a framework that our society has imposed on our reading of the gospels. If we have have love love for people not simply in their individuality but also in their involvement in the social structures, if we wish wish to protect the structures that make human human life possible, ble, then we we sometimes, sometimes, in fact quite often, often, find it necessary necessary to coerc coercee an indiindividual for the sake of the good of the whole. whole. The individual who seeks his or her  own apparent interests at the expense of the whole community may have to be stopped, and may have have to be stopped quickly. quickly. To use violence in such a case is admittedly not a perspicuous manifestation of love (if we were trying to teach someone the meaning of the word ‘love’ ‘love’ we would would hardly point to such examples), but that does not mean that it is a manifestation of lack of love. love. In our world, world, before the full coming coming of the kingdom, love love cannot always always be perspicuous and obvious. We must not hastily suppose that just because an action would hardly do as a paradigm case of loving that it is therefore opposed to love.