Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Are classless societies and religion mutually exclusive? I believe that this is one of the major hurdles of communism; that the only way to remove socioreligious classes would be to ban religion, but that would cause much fight-back. So has anybody come up with a non-atheistic alternative to the problem of religion in communism?
ADDENDUM: I asked related questions on some religious Stack Exchanges:
The traditional Marxist perspective is that communisim and religion are incompatible, but this is not a "problem" because it is the collapse in religion that is one of the events leading to the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. There is no "problem of religion in communism" because religion would be gone long before communism was established.
Here is how Marx and Engels imagined religion: In the past "god" was the only way of explaining the many mysteries. But in the capitalist period of history there was no need to believe in god. The fact that religion persisted was because the capitalists were using religion to justify the suffering of the workers. "You'll get your reward in heaven" is what the capitalists would say, and while the workers believed this they would be docile. Hence the slogan "Opiate of the masses". But inevitably the belief in god would die away, and as it did the workers would ask "what gives my life meaning" and the answer would be "my work", but work for many was a life of toil for little reward, while the capitalists benefitted. This is the core of the instability that would lead to revolution.
The workers, having won their freedom would not be religious. There would be no need to ban religion. It would be an aspect of an ancient culture that had no relevance to the communist society.
Anabaptists (especially of Munster) basically tried to build an officially-classless society. (of course, as is 100% the case when someone tries to do that, some animals got to be more equal than other animals even in Munster, but the sordid details of Van Leiden's excesses and abuses are more in scope for History.SE. You should listen to an awesome Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" podcast on the topic as a good intro).
In addition, more generally, religions exist on a spectrum where the clergy is more or less separated and defined (including as a class).
In one corner you have religions like in Ancient Egypt, where priesthood were by definition higher caste.
In another, to the best of my knowledge, modern Wicca doesn't have a dedicated clerical class the way Druids existed back-when.
In another, you have Protestantism, which has made the communication between the deity and layperson much more direct than Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity did, culminating in some branches of Protestantism (especially with Anabaptist branch) where you basically have little need for a priest as a separate class. (I am not an expert, but Latter-Day-Saints seems to also devolve much of clerical stuff on community members).
In general, original Christianity - before becoming state religion after Constantine - has many classless/communist themes, in places. E.g. Acts 2:44. This obviously got perverted to an extent once the Roman Church merged with Roman state, but the concepts of vows of poverty, ascetic monks and such persisted even past that. Cardinal Barbarini may have been upper-class; but a random Dominican monk working the fields or doing some other menial work likely wasn't any different-class from regular peasants, aside from being able to read/write.
As I have pointed out previously, there are versions of communism that are religious and don't require religion to be removed. Only Marxist communism and certain versions of communism advocate for the elimination of religion. One must also remember that Karl Marx and other communist thinkers considered socialism to be a lower-stage of communism, so technically religious socialism can count a form of communism that exists before the final ideal, stateless society. There is Christian communism, where the first Christians lived in some proto-communist societies that many people wish to return to.
Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."
Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Christianity was the expression of class conflict in Antiquity. -Kautsky, Karl (1953)
There is Islamic socialism, which is similar to the lower stage of communist production described by Marx that incorporates Islamic principles, including Gaddafism by Muammar Gaddafi and the ideology of the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party.
tl;dr You can have religion and a society that fits the basic definition of communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
I would simply draw the questioner's attention to an oft-repeated adage about the British Labour Party.
It is that "Labour owes more to Methodism than it does to Marxism".
And for a good essay of a dozen pages on the topic I recommend Methodism and the English Labour Movement by Revd Dr Nigel Scotland.
While it presents a mixed picture it clearly says that "it is reasonable to conclude that the kind of Christianity which counted for most in the history of the Labour Movement was that which found expression in the several branches of Methodism".
I'm not arguing any unique case for Methodism, nor even for Christianity generally, but this seems to me clear evidence that genuine religion is no enemy to any ambition for a classless society.
By definition, Judaism cannot be a "classless" society in the sense that anyone can take on any role in society. For example, the Priestly class (descendant of Aharon the high priest) are the only ones who can serve as priests in the Temple and have special laws which are restricted to them. The Levites (tribe of Levi son of Jacob) did not inherit any land in the nation and were the only ones to take on certain roles within the temple.
The head of government must be the king who is descended from King David through the direct male line from all his successors.
I can answer only about Judaism because every religion would require a separate set of answers based on the beliefs and practices of that religion. As such, I would be unable to answer properly.
As a general system, any monotheistic religion implies a hierarchy under G0d and would require classes in a way similar to Judaism. Any pagan religion, believing in multiple deities would actually treat the "deitic race" as if they were super beings ruling over humanity. This in an of itself implies classes with the deities being in the position of a ruling class and every human part of the slave class.
There do exist non-hierarchical religious structures like that of the Quaker sect of Protestantism. While it's fair to say that a path to classless, religious communism is effectively impossible on a large scale (there are only ~1/3 million adult Quakers in the world), it would not be inconceivable for Quaker communism to form somewhere in the world, especially since Quaker faith (generally) holds that everyone can hear the small, silent voice (God), which enforces human equality on a fundamental belief level.
More basically, as in the American Founding and its Freedom of Religion, If you do not explicitly have Freedom of Religion there is no area of life that the State can't dominate. A classless society would still have classes in, say, the Catholic Church (I am a Catholic). The whole idea is ridiculous.
Since the American Founding the core difference that any society has to address is the following:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.
