This is an invitation to read and discuss a passage from chapter 3 of The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. in which King is reading and scrutinizing the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Think of this post as a motivator to read Marx himself.
For background on this passage—the year is 1949 and he is studying at Crozer Theological Seminary. King graduated from Morehouse College the year before. He will graduate from Crozer with a bachelor of divinity in 1951, before moving on to Boston University where he will earn a doctorate in systematic theology in 1955. In total he is in school for 21 years. From chapter six
After being in school twenty-one years without a break, I reached the satisfying moment of completing the residential requirements for the Ph.D. degree. The major job that remained was to write my doctoral thesis.
And here is the passage describing a portion of his time at Crozer Theological Seminary.
During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. I also read some interpretive works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day.
First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality—a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.
Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Community there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything—force, violence, murder, lying—is a justifiable means to the "millennial" end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the means.
Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an "interim" reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end. And if any man's so-called rights or liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.
This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.
Here is the second half.
Yet, in spite of the fact that my response to communism was and is negative, and I consider it basically evil, there were points at which I found it challenging. With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew as a protest against the hardships of the underprivileged. Communism in theory emphasized a classless society, and a concern for social justice, though the world knows from sad experience that in practice it created new classes and a new lexicon of injustice. The Christian ought always to be challenged by any protest against unfair treatment of the poor.
I also sought systematic answers to Marx's critique of modern bourgeois culture. He presented capitalism as essentially a struggle between the owners of the productive resources and the workers, whom Marx regarded as the real producers. Marx interpreted economic forces as the dialectical process by which society moved from feudalism through capitalism to socialism, with the primary mechanism of this historical movement being the struggle between economic classes whose interests were irreconcilable. Obviously this theory left out the numerous and significant complexities—political, economic, moral, religious, and psychological—which played a vital role in shaping the constellation of institutions and ideas known today as Western civilization. Moreover, it was dated in the sense that the capitalism Marx wrote about bore only a partial resemblance to the capitalism we know in this country.
But in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Marx had raised some basic questions. I was deeply concerned from my early teen days about the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, and my reading of Marx made me ever more conscious of this gulf.
Although modern American capitalism had greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system: capitalism is always in danger of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity. Thus capitalism can lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism taught by communism.
In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yes and a partial no. Insofar as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous no; but insofar as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with a definite yes.
My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. Nineteenth-century capitalism failed to see that life is social and Marxism failed and still fails to see that life is individual and personal. The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both.
What are some motivations for reading this passage?
To better understand DEI, Marxism, communism, socialism, capitalism, critical race theory, etc.;
To build motivation for reading Marx and Engles, specifically Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto;
To learn more about Dr. King and to compare him with other activists;
To better understand ourselves, human nature, freedom, property rights;
To motivate further reading, possibly Christoper Rufo and Alexander Solzhenitsyn;
To remind ourselves of those suffering in contemporary communist countries such as North Korea, China;
To better understand the history of the 20th century: WWII, the Cold War, the history of Israel, McCarthyism;
To understand socialist strains in Christianity and Western Civilization.
Let’s see if we can read and discuss this passage as if we’re in a class or a community book club, with the obvious difference that we’re going to read and comment on our own time over a period of months. In other words this post is meant to endure for months, and maybe years.
What are some questions we might ask about this passage?
What are the basic points that Dr. King makes about communism and capitalism?
Where does he agree and disagree with Marx?
Where is Marxism in our culture today?
What benefit(s) does he see in Marxism?
Does Marxism sound appealing? Would you be interested in living Marxism, whether it be on a commune in America or moving to a communist country?
I will add more questions and comments later.
For reference, I have not read Marx or Engels. My deepest readings on Marxism are peripheral and critical. For example
Ran Abramitzy’s book The Mystery of the Kibbutz: Egalitarian Principles in a Capitalist World.
Books by Richard Pipes, specifically Property and Freedom, Communism: A History and A Concise History of the Russian Revolution.
Various books and essays by F.A. Hayek, specifically his books, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors Socialism, his three volume series Law, Legislation and Liberty, and his most important essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”
“I, Pencil: My Family Tree” and Animal Farm; both make for excellent family reading.
Milton Friedman’s books Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.
And last but not least, The Autobiography of Malcom X along with Bryan Caplan’s book club commentary. (See also Bryan’s Museum of Communism FAQ).