We believe not in revolution but in Resurrection!
St. Paisios of Mount Athos
Photo: rusnasledie.info
Introduction: Against All Forms of Materialism
At my Atlanta-area college, it is rare to have an Orthodox Christian student attending my class. It is rarer still to have a self-described communist student. I recently had a student who is a new convert to the Orthodox faith as well as a sincere Marxist-Leninist, and he took it upon himself to convince me that there is no incompatibility between his new faith and political ideology. Is he correct? Many readers—not least those who directly experienced communist rule—will answer with an immediate no. But for me, personally, this is a question worth investigating. After all, I also once sympathized with communism. I even taped a portrait of Karl Marx on my college dorm room wall after having read the Communist Manifesto. It was an admittedly superficial socialism that I subscribed to; a product of my concern for the poor (a good sentiment) coupled with a desire to challenge authority (which could be either good or evil, depending on the context). I humbly ask my anti-communist readers not to judge me. For the same rebellious impulse that might drive one to sympathize with Marx in the U.S. might be manifested in another’s denunciation of him in a communist country. Where one lives shapes the contradictory ways in which desires common to us all are expressed. By remembering this basic truth, neither communists nor their detractors will be quick to demonize the other.
Now, after having explored this issue at some length, I have concluded that the two are indeed incompatible. But before I build my case against communism, specifically, I want to clarify that my argument should not be interpreted as an implicit and wholesale defense of capitalism or any other materialist philosophy. In my view, all of these should be discarded, or—to be more accurate—transfigured by the light of Christ. I arrived at this belief after having considered the implications of the Christian’s most fundamental social duty, which is to love his neighbor. He expresses this love—which he manifests not only on a face-to-face level, but also on the social, economic, and political levels—by seeking his neighbor’s material and, more importantly, spiritual well-being. He fulfills this duty most effectively through human and divine synergy; that is, by cooperating with God’s grace in caring for his neighbor. It is only by means of divine grace and arduous ascetical labor that the Christian can overcome his fallen, selfish nature and genuinely prioritize his neighbor’s well-being.
It seems to me that neither capitalism nor communism shares Christianity’s vision of the ideal economy as one that cares for our neighbor’s well-being in such a holistic manner. Some capitalists believe that the ideal economy is one in which society, as a whole, amasses material wealth; they use metrics like GDP in gauging “progress.” While material prosperity is not necessarily evil, it is not, in and of itself, good. Indeed, it can often be spiritually deleterious (it is no coincidence that many of the world’s richest countries are also among the most atheistic). Other capitalists, like Ayn Rand (that prophetess of economic satanism), insisted that the ideal economy is one in which individuals are free to pursue their economic self-interests. In her view, human reason, unhindered by religion (or “mysticism,” as she was wont to call it) or notions of the common good, will inexorably lead to the conclusion that capitalism is the only legitimate way to organize an economic system. It must be stressed that her atheism was by no means incidental to her support of capitalism. As she acknowledges in her essay Requiem for Man, “I have said and stressed for years that capitalism is incompatible with altruism and mysticism.”1
Advocates for capitalism seem oblivious or apathetic to the fact that many exercise their economic freedom as a means not of loving their neighbors, but of corrupting, exploiting, poisoning, or malnourishing them. This abuse of freedom—which will be more common the more that people are unrestrained by Christian morality or their God-given conscience—is the consequence of man’s fallen human nature, which is either ignored by the capitalist, or is believed to be something that can be channeled in a positive direction through a supposed “invisible hand” of the marketplace. However, the only invisible hand that can bring good out of evil is that of God, who has been displaced in capitalist thought by the impersonal laws of supply and demand.
Now, the ideal world, according to communism, coheres well with the Christian view of the eschaton: a stateless, classless world. But communists err in thinking that man, alone, can arrive at or at least approach this end goal. For them, progress is made through cooperation, not with God, but with the State. Communists are perhaps more appreciative of man’s imperfect nature, but they mistakenly believe that it can be transformed, not by divine grace, but by political indoctrination and force.
It is true that communism is more explicitly linked to atheism; Marx himself said that “communism begins from the outset … with atheism.”2 However, while communism is a child of atheism, we must remember that it has siblings. While Fr. Dimitrios Gagastathis (†1975) was grateful that “God saved [the Greeks] from communism,” he lamented that “satan delivered [them] to materialism.”1 Further, the great Romanian-born confessor of the faith Fr. George Calciu (†2006) argued that Western culture, and not just communism, sought to isolate people from one another,
“In order that we may become lonelier, less bound to each other, and less communicative, in order that they may lead us to their intended destination.
“The Communists have done this through violence. The West doesn’t use violence but another method: proclaiming that you are ‘unique,’ that you have ‘many rights,’ that you are an ‘independent man,’ that you need to be alone, not confined by your parents, not obedient to them or to anyone as a child, because you are a ‘free man.’
“This misunderstood freedom is a revolt against God, it is nihilism.”3
Fr. Seraphim Rose of Platina saw what he called Bolshevism and another godless philosophy—national socialism—as two sides of the same nihilist coin. Both were
“assigned the principal roles in the Nihilist task of the destruction of the Old Order. The two, whatever their psychological dissimilarities and the historical ‘accidents’ which placed them in opposing camps, have been partners in their frenzied accomplishment of these tasks.”4
Despite “its monstrous crimes,” Bolshevism has seemed more innocuous than national socialism because it could “appeal to a pseudo-Christian, messianic idealism…”5 Marx and Engel also acknowledged the ease with which illusive parallels can be drawn between socialism and Christianity. “Nothing is easier,” they argued, “than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge.”6
To support his case that communism and Orthodoxy are compatible, my student pointed to several saints who appeared to speak positively of communism. It is to this issue that I will now turn.
Communism and the saints
Naturally, my student cited St. Maria of Paris, a former socialist revolutionary, as support for his futile case. Unbeknownst to him, perhaps, she later became disillusioned with the Bolsheviks and fervently criticized communism. “It is quite impossible,” she wrote, “to speak of a christianization of communism. The christianization of communism implies the destruction of its very heart: its coercion, its violence, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the party hegemony of selective communist rule.”7
Photo: svoboda.org
Sts. Matrona of Moscow and Paisios of Mount Athos were also mentioned. He promoted the belief that Joseph Stalin once met with St. Matrona during World War II. According to this story, she supposedly advised him to take an icon of the Theotokos to the front line to protect the Soviets from the Nazis. When I raised the fact that the Patriarchate of Georgia objected to the presence of an icon depicting this alleged meeting in a Tbilisi cathedral, saying that “there was ‘insufficient evidence” that the saint and Stalin ever met,”8 my student’s response was, “Icons don’t lie, and I think that this is the Church’s position.” The obvious problem with this argument is that if he were to take it to its logical conclusion, he would be forced to renounce Marxism, for there is a church in Montenegro that displays an icon depicting Marx, along with Engels and Tito, in hell.9
Further, even if this meeting between St. Matrona and Stalin took place, would that have revealed anything about St. Matrona’s political convictions? Would she not have exhorted any leader (socialist or otherwise) to turn to the Mother of God for help?
As for St. Paisios, my student made much of the fact that he reportedly said the following about communism:
“Personally, if the communists weren’t atheist, if they didn’t hunt Christ, I would agree with them. It’s good for the plots of land, the factories, to belong to everyone; not for one to be hungry while someone else is throwing away food.”10
But what relevance does this statement carry? I know of one political party based in Europe that, among other things, called for “the extensive development of insurance for old age,” and “raising health standards … by protecting mothers and infants [and] prohibiting child labor.” Do you agree with these positions? If so, guess what: you are a rabid Nazi! After all, these are policies enumerated in the Nazi Party’s 25-point program.11 This at least approximates the logic of citing St. Paisios’s quote as evidence that Orthodoxy and communism are compatible. The argument is not over whether there is anything positive in communism (few, if any, ideologies are entirely evil), but whether the positives so outweigh the negatives that an Orthodox Christian could justifiably identify as a communist. Here St. Paisios is simply identifying the good that he perceived in communism. But we obviously cannot overlook the fact that communists were, in his judgment, atheists who hunted Christ.
The incident involving St. Gabriel Urgebadze
St. Gabriel Urgebadze My student and I also discussed an incident involving the Georgian saint, Gabriel Urgebadze. In 1965, St. Gabriel set fire to a huge portrait of Lenin, for which he was brutally beaten and arrested. My student suggested that what St. Gabriel was protesting was not Lenin, per se, but the act of idolizing him. It was certainly true that, after torching the portrait, St. Gabriel said this to the shocked crowd: “People, come to your senses! The Georgians have always been Christians! So why are you bowing down before idols?”12
However, St. Gabriel denounced not only idolatry in this sermon, but also the person being idolized. In the comments that immediately followed, St. Gabriel proclaimed that “Jesus Christ died and rose again… But [these] cast idols will never be resurrected. Even during their life they were dead…” In other words, Lenin was among the living dead (cf. Luke 9:60), in St. Gabriel’s rather unflattering view of him.
In short, while Sts. Matrona and Paisios cannot reasonably be cited as proof that Orthodoxy and communism are compatible, it is true that St. Maria was a “socialist sympathizer,”13 even if she did become an ardent critic of communism. Nevertheless, the fallacy of cherry-picking (in this case, pointing exclusively to St. Maria of Paris) is especially objectionable when it comes to Orthodox epistemology, which weighs the consensus of the saints heavily. As we will see below, the apparent consensus was not, to put it mildly, favorably disposed towards communism.
Atheism and communism
Communist Revisionism
In his pitiable attempt to reconcile communism with the Christian faith, my student downplayed or denied the reality that communism’s most important figures were atheists and/or anti-religion. He even highlighted the fact that Marx was a baptized Christian. But how much mileage does a communist expect to get from this fact? Should Christians also look for guidance from one of England’s most notorious serial killers Peter Sutcliffe—a.k.a., the “Yorkshire Ripper”—because he, too, had also been a Christian (even serving in the altar)?
As for Stalin, my student cited the fact that, in his early years, he studied to be a priest and even attended a church in his later years. Further, he insisted that Stalin was not the powerful dictator Western propagandists make him out to be. Those instances of religious persecution that we hear so often about—churches and monasteries being closed, repurposed, or destroyed, priests being imprisoned and slaughtered, etc.—occurred without Stalin’s blessing or even knowledge.
What are we to make of these revisionist claims? I would not in the least bit be surprised if it were shown that Stalin’s power has been greatly exaggerated. But to these revisionists I put the following four questions. First, is it not safe to assume that, at a minimum, Stalin wielded as much power over his country as a U.S. president does over his? Second, would a U.S. president not be held responsible for massive waves of religious and other forms of persecution that occurred under his watch? Third, how much more would he be held accountable if it were shown that he was not only aware of the persecution, but even sympathized with it? Finally, would such evidence not also expose the president’s anti-religious prejudices, regardless of what he believed in his youth or near the end of life?
Since it is, indeed, reasonable to assume that Stalin held at least as much power as a U.S. president, he should—just as the latter would—be held responsible and judged to be anti-religious if it could be demonstrated that he was not only aware, but also supportive, of the religious persecution that occurred under his watch. Does such evidence exist? I was prompted to research this question after my student repeatedly pressed me to provide just one piece of evidence showing that Stalin was, per U.S. propaganda, truly anti-religious. Given the confidence with which he challenged me, the thought did cross my mind that I might have been duped by an anti-Soviet myth. Then, after spending two minutes searching the Marxists Internet Archive, I said to myself, “Nope, I was right. The guy was totally godless.” Here I will limit myself to three statements that suffice as proof of Stalin’s hostility to religious belief.
Statement # 1: We…have a shortcoming like the slackening in the struggle against religion.14
This statement clearly shows that Stalin was aware of a “struggle against religion.” Far from objecting to the struggle, he complained that the state had become lax in it. Further, whereas my student insisted that Stalin was opposed to only “reactionary religion,” it is obvious that he objected to religion, per se.
Statement # 2: …Any group of persons have the right to profess any religion they please… Social-Democrats will combat all forms of religious persecution, be it of members of the Orthodox Church, Catholics or Protestants. Does this mean that Catholicism, Protestantism, etc., “do not contradict the precise meaning” of the program? No, it does not. Social-Democrats will … carry on agitation against Catholicism, Protestantism and the religion of the Orthodox Church in order to achieve the triumph of the socialist world outlook.
And they will do so just because there is no doubt that Protestantism, Catholicism, the religion of the Orthodox Church, etc., “contradict the precise meaning” of the program, i.e., the correctly understood interests of the proletariat.15
To paraphrase Stalin, “You are free to profess any religion of your choosing. However, since your religion is contrary to the state’s raison d’ être, which is to defend the interests of the proletariat, we will use state resources to agitate against it.”
Statement # 3: Our legislation guaranteed to citizens the right to adhere to any religion… But… The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science.16
Stalin claimed to respect one’s freedom to adhere to any religion of his choosing. But since he regarded religion, per se, as anti-science, he advocated using state resources to conduct anti-religious propaganda against it. For a government to practice a policy of permitting something that it otherwise persecuted may seem very strange to American readers. Nevertheless, this was the official policy under Stalin.
In short, the conventional wisdom is more or less correct—Stalin was, indeed, an unbeliever who expressed hostility towards people of faith, at least during a period of his life in which he had the power to inflict harm upon millions of believers. If, after this destructive period, he returned to the Orthodox faith, then we should rejoice; may his sins be forgiven!
The Communists’ Need to Eliminate Faith
The rejection of the true God—so brutally epitomized by Stalin—does not, of course, eliminate our need for Him. It simply redirects our pursuit of God towards worldly substitutes, often causing us to idolize matter. As Archbishop Averky Taushev (†1976) noted, “materialism is the natural offspring and logical development of humanism. The ideal of the full stomach, concealed behind the loud names of the ‘ideal of social justice’ and ‘social truth,’ becomes the highest ideal for a mankind that had renounced Christianity.”17 Therefore, anything—including Christianity—that hindered the hopeless pursuit of this ideal must be overcome, with violence and oppression if necessary. Hence the Securitate’s (i.e., the Romanian secret police) panic over St. Cleopa of Sihăstria’s (†1998) ministry:
“They accused Fr. Cleopa, ‘You have set Bucovina afire with mysticism; you sabotaged the economy of the country. You say, ‘Today is George and tomorrow is Basil and it is a feast,’ and the people put down their tools and refuse to work!’”18
The communist’s solution, Archimandrite Ioanichie Balan notes, was to “sever the bond between spiritual father and disciple” in order to “destroy the people’s faith.”19 Speaking from experience, Fr. George Calciu agreed: “The first goal of communism in Romania was to destroy the Church.”20
Economic justice in a post-Christian world
When Christianity no longer provides the moral compass for guiding people’s pursuit of worldly objectives, many evils that are so characteristic of communism will naturally result. Here I will focus on four revealed Christian truths.
Change Must First Come From Within
Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you (Matt. 6:31).
According to Elder Arsenie Papacioc (†2011), “You must first strive to become perfect in order to solve the problems of the world.”21 Likewise, Archbishop Averky wrote the following: “How [is] one to establish social equality…? The only foundation for restraining people’s passions is the law of Christ.”22 He goes on to argue that the problem with socialism and “its extreme manifestation, communism” is that they “attempted to treat humanity’s plagues with negative means. They neither saw nor understood that modern evil is rooted in the depths of the human soul…They naively thought that all evil came from imperfect (in their opinion) government and social structures…”23
Ridding a land of the scourge of communist rule—the “kingdom of satan,” in the words of Metropolitan Anastasy Gribanovsky (†1965)—also requires more than social and political change. “This kind does not go out expect by prayer and fasting’ (Matt. 17:21), that is, only by religious and moral ascetic labors (podvig).”24
We must strive for peace
Blessed are the peacemakers (Matt 5:9).
Those who fervently desire fundamental social change while ignoring the needs of the human soul will naturally favor change through force. Thus, Fr. Seraphim Rose is correct in writing that “violence is no mere incidental aspect of the Nihilist Revolution, but a part of its essence.”25 He quotes from Marx’s Capital: “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.”26 Similarly, Archbishop Averky argues that for “extreme socialists…the change of structure necessary to attain … prosperity required violent means, including the shedding of blood and the physical destruction of those who did not agree with their doctrine” [emphasis added].27
We must respect governing authorities
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (1 Pet. 2:13–14).
Both in theory and practice, Marxism-Leninism is a revolutionary ideology. Therefore, it cannot be easily reconciled with Christian teaching on political obedience. Nevertheless, my student offered the bizarre argument that the October Revolution did not violate Scripture because it was not a “real government” that the Bolsheviks overthrew. Rather, it was merely a provisional government set up after the February Revolution. Of course, this is a superficial distinction. A provisional government is still a government—albeit a temporary one—and in this particular case, it was one that was internationally recognized as Russia’s governing authority. In short, in light of St. Paul’s instruction that “every soul be subject to the governing authorities” (Romю 13:1), the Bolshevik Revolution poses a direct challenge to Christian teaching.
Of course, this overlooks the fact that the Bolsheviks were also involved28 in the February Revolution; a “real revolution” that overthrew the right-believing Emperor St. Nicholas. This should come as no surprise given that Lenin was an explicit advocate for revolutionary socialism. “The task of the proletariat, wrote Lenin in 1915, “is the waging of a supremely courageous revolutionary struggle against the monarchy.”29 Moreover, he advocated for a “struggle in alliance with the European proletariat for the socialist revolution in Europe.”30
Another problem with revolutions, Metropolitan Anastasy argues, is that they “always [come] with the temptation of absolute freedom, even divine freedom, the same promise that we first heard in Eden: ‘You will be as gods.’ Revolution always finds sustenance in this undying delusion of mankind, for which mankind has always paid a heavy price”.31 As far as his native Russia was concerned, it is difficult not to conclude that it was, as a communist country, birthed in sin.
Every Human Soul is Sacred
What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? (Luke 15:4)
According to the Christian faith, every human soul is precious in God’s eyes; so much so that He is willing to leave the ninety-nine sheep for the sake of the one lost sheep. Indeed, the modern concept of human rights originally derived from the Christian conviction that every individual is a sacred bearer of God’s image and is thus worthy of protection. Such a conviction is lacking in the godless ideology of the communists. This explains, in the case of communist Romania, prison guards’ willingness to subject their “lost sheep” to “the cruelest physical and psychological tortures.”32
Decades before the Bolshevik revolution, St. Theophan the Recluse (†1894)—a contemporary of Marx—acknowledged the “progressive” tendency to ignore the individual and lump all people together. “Mankind,” He argued,
“consists of individual persons…If each one of us did what was possible to do for whoever was standing in front of our eyes, instead of goggling at the community of mankind, then all people, in aggregate, would at each moment be doing that which is needed by those in need, and, by satisfying their needs, would establish the welfare of all mankind… But those who keep thoughts of the welfare of all mankind inattentively let slip by that which is in front of their eyes. Because they do not have the opportunity to perform a general work, and let slip by the opportunity to perform a particular work, they accomplish nothing towards the main purpose of life.”33
Conclusion: Not Just an Issue of Semantics
Imagine the following scenario. I once dated a girl named Becky. She came up with a fun tradition of us watching cheesy romcoms every Wednesday night. Eventually, though, we broke up, and I ended up marrying her nemesis, Julie, whom she bullied for years. Julie and I established a similar tradition of watching romcoms, although, under her influence, ice cream was added to the ritual.
Now, how do you think Julie would react if she learned that I chose to refer to this tradition as “Becky-Julie Wednesdays,” owing to the fact that this ritual incorporates ideas from both girls? In my view, my decision is not entirely unlike that of a Christian identifying as Marxist-Leninist. My student will likely object that not everything that Marx or Lenin taught was wrong. Although I am happy to grant this, I am not convinced that it is relevant. After all, we need not assume that Becky was entirely bad in order to conclude that “Becky-Julie Wednesdays” is probably not the best title to use for this weekly tradition. The Bible describes God anthropomorphically as a “jealous God.” We cannot compartmentalize our lives—choosing goodness in one area, and making peace with evil (especially in the form of the atheism promoted by all the major socialist thinkers) in another. He wants our whole hearts.
Further, whatever truth is to be found in Marxism-Leninism, it is ultimately not that of Marx or of Lenin, but is rather the truth of Christ that is perceived—albeit imperfectly—by these thinkers. Adopting the identifier “Marxist-Leninist” diverts our gaze from Christ, the very source of truth, to the dusty mirror on which truth is reflected. Further, with respect to this particular ideology, this decision opens a door to writings and other media that consist not only of these partial truths, but also of falsehoods. Why provide a means of exposing fellow believers to the latter? Finally, why would one wish to scandalize fellow believers who lived under communism by embracing such an evocative label?
I think that the solution, which seems to be in harmony with the Orthodox ethos, is to adopt all that is true and good in any political ideology. But I have my doubts as to whether a Christian should ever dub his politics “Marxist-Leninist.” Every area of life should be subsumed by Christ, alone. There may, indeed, be competing schools of thought within the Church on politics. After all, Holy Tradition does not consist of a concrete political program. It contains, rather, the seeds from which a political philosophy compatible with an Orthodox phronema could sprout. However, Christians must be united in their efforts to water the soil of their hearts with faith and self-denial.
