Socialism and Religion

The modern era is an age of emancipation—a period of both bourgeois and socialist revolutions. Stretching from the late eighteenth century to the second half of the twentieth, it was marked by industrialization, the formation of the modern state, and the breaking of feudal constraints.

The relationship that the early socialist movement had toward the church and religion cannot be understood outside its historical context. Socialist revolutions built upon liberal ones and inherited their stance toward religion from the broader liberal and democratic movements.

Early liberalism and the values of the Enlightenment emerged as part of the struggle against feudalism, in which the church played a specific and powerful role. Confronting ecclesiastical authority and limiting its privileges were defining features of liberal and democratic revolutionary movements. Liberals and bourgeois revolutionaries advocated for a secular society and the separation of church and state.

Few people today realize that in France a large portion of church property was nationalized. Even the famous Notre-Dame Cathedral is owned by the state. This approach to religious property stems from France’s liberal and democratic heritage—not from any communist revolution. In fact, one of Paris’s greatest symbols was ravaged during the French Revolution—and this was not the work of communists, but of a movement whose values are now shared by every European state.

Socialist and communist revolutions largely took place in backward and underdeveloped countries burdened by semi-feudal systems. In the end, their function was similar to that of democratic revolutions: the destruction of feudalism and the creation of modern society. Communists saw the church as an adversary for the same reason liberal revolutionaries did—they were fighting remnants of the old regime, in which the church played a central role.

In that sense, anti-religious attitudes can be attributed to socialists just as much as to liberals. And it is precisely liberal values that underpin the structure of every democratic state today—a framework accepted by all, including Christian democrats. For that reason, it is unfair in today’s secular and modern societies to regard the left and socialism as incompatible with Christian, Muslim, or religious sentiments more broadly.

Marx and Religion

Most people today associate Karl Marx with the quote describing religion as the “opium of the people.” This creates the impression that Marx was a fierce opponent of religion—an atheist indifferent to the religious feelings of ordinary people. In reality, the opposite is closer to the truth: Marx strongly opposed the militant atheism promoted by some of his liberal contemporaries.

Although Marx did not focus extensively on religion, his views are most clearly expressed in his polemic on the so-called “Jewish Question.”

At the time, the Jewish population in Prussia faced multiple forms of discrimination. Special laws dictated which professions Jews could enter and even where they were allowed to live.

Jewish rights became a pressing issue within the liberal circles to which Marx belonged. Many supported the political emancipation of Jewish people, but there were also strong opponents. Bruno Bauer—a professor and liberal intellectual—was a fervent atheist who refused to defend the rights of a religious minority.

Bauer argued that liberals could not defend religious minorities without betraying their own principles. He claimed that the struggle against religion should be paramount, and that liberals could only support Jews if they first renounced their religion.

In his sharp critique of Bauer, Marx insisted on several key points. The fight for a secular state, he argued, does not imply the destruction or prohibition of religious belief. A secular state means the separation of church and state—not the disappearance of religion as a social phenomenon. He pointed to the United States as an example: a secular state with a largely religious population.

The famous statement that religion is the “opium of the people” must be understood in this context. In other words, religion would persist in a secular society and might even grow stronger. Marx argued that even secular societies would remain predominantly religious in many countries—hence militant atheists are mistaken when they claim religion has no place in a secular state.

Of course, Marx was an atheist for most of his life and believed that organized religion would eventually fade in a classless society. But he was also a strong opponent of militant atheism and of any project aimed at the “abolition of religion.” He saw the disappearance of religion as a gradual, organic process that would unfold in a communist society—without coercion or top-down intervention.

The Left and the “New Atheists”

History has played a curious trick: in philosophical terms, the left has become one of the main critics of contemporary atheism. In recent decades, the so-called “new atheism” has emerged as a major trend, yet it has often been left-wing philosophers—not religious conservatives—who have subjected it to the sharpest critique.

“New atheism” is described as a crude form of materialism that pits scientific evidence against religious dogma, while overlooking the complexity of religious traditions and reducing them to mere illusions. Its proponents dismiss centuries of religious thought as intellectually worthless, mock believers’ sentiments, and portray religion as a product of human ignorance.

Many advocates of this trend lean to the right or even the far right, while critics have included left-wing theorists such as Richard Seymour and Slavoj Žižek. These critics—often working within a Marxist framework—have deconstructed “new atheism” and exposed its limitations.

Secularism, Religion, and Science

The relationship between religion and science is more complex than it is often portrayed. Science and religion are not in direct conflict—nor can one serve as a substitute for the other.

Sacred texts are not scientific documents, and theologians—regardless of denomination—do not interpret them as such. Christian doctrines are not scientific theories, nor have they ever been treated as such. The questions religion asks are not the same as those science seeks to answer. The two operate in different domains: religion cannot resolve scientific questions, just as science cannot resolve religious ones.

Great scientists such as Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Louis Pasteur were all religious. Many of them opposed church authority or suffered under medieval dogmatism. Martin Luther—one of the most important challengers of (Roman Catholic) church authority—was not an atheist but a Christian and the founder of Protestantism. The revolutionary masses who overthrew feudalism and fought for secular society were themselves largely religious.

In light of these facts, Marxism as a social science should be understood in a more nuanced way. Historical materialism has a more complex relationship with religion than that suggested by liberal rationalism. To claim that a Marxist cannot be religious is no different from claiming that any scientist must be an atheist.

The left is not a sect, nor are communists. There is no authority or doctrine that forbids leftists from being believers. Many supporters of the left—including communists—are religious. In fact, in Venice, the headquarters of the Communist Party even contains a small chapel where members can pray. Hugo Chávez—a revolutionary and president of Venezuela—was a Christian and a Roman Catholic. Many leaders, representatives, and followers of European social democratic parties are also religious.

Today, it is high time to discard outdated prejudices about the left—including the notion that it is inherently atheistic or anti-religious. The era of Stalinist dictatorships is long past, and the contemporary left largely distances itself from such regimes.