Marx and Progressives: An ironic, exploitative love story

Current progressivism can plausibly be explained, in part, on Marxist grounds as a class ideology that cloaks exploitation with high-sounding rhetoric.

Karl Marx Monument in Chemnitz, Germany. (animaflora |

People talk about their problems, sometimes more than they realize. What they say can’t help but reflect their actual outlook in some way, and when they harp on an issue it’s likely to be one that hits close to home. So it makes a sort of sense that the two greatest liars I’ve known personally have been clergymen who talked constantly about honesty.

Situations in which people complain about the thing they exemplify arise in politics even more than religion. The standard of truth is vaguer, and virtue signaling a bigger part of what people do because there’s less at stake personally. The conversion of politics into a religion, a burden it can’t sustain, makes things worse by making the whole enterprise unreal. No sanctimony strikes as false a note as political sanctimony.

“Family values” used to provide the best-publicized examples of hypocrisy in public life, but moralism and denial of human nature are mostly on the left today, so that’s where the most spectacular examples can be found. Recent instances include prominent male feminists who habitually abuse women sexually, and hatred, violence, and mob action in the name of tolerance.

But what about Marxism? It seems to be making a comeback in what passes for intellectual culture—and even in some corners of the Church. We have recently seen a series of nostalgic articles in the New York Times about the past hundred years of communism, and praise for Marx from his namesake Cardinal Marx, president of the German bishops’ conference, on the bishops’ website.

Marxism explains history by reference to exploitation, so it seems that those who find it appealing would see exploitation as the fundamental human relationship. That view may show something about their own outlook and conduct. So does increasing sympathy for Marxism suggest that today’s progressivism is a cover for its adherents’ exploitation of others? The question deserves exploration.

Marxism can be seen as a form of technological determinism driven by the human desire for wealth and power. At any level of technology, it tells us, some way of organizing production will be most efficient and therefore tend to be adopted. That method will define social classes that correspond to people’s varying roles in the productive process, and whatever class does most of the decision-making will use its position to grab as much for itself as possible. The other classes will of course object, so the dominant class will hire priests, professors, philosophers, and pundits to explain why it’s right for them to run the show and take so much for themselves.

The resulting system of exploitation works for a while, but eventually the development of technology and methods of production change the relative importance of social classes. The result is a struggle between the existing ruling class and a new class that is better able to function effectively in the changed environment. Eventually the old masters are overthrown, a new dominant class takes power, and the priests, professors, and so on, who know where their advantage lies, discover that it’s really the new class that deserves to rule.

Hence the Marxist claim that economic class struggle is the driving engine of history, and religion, philosophy, and moral thought are a matter of class ideology designed to further the material interests of the dominant class.

But how does all this apply to the world around us?

Standard Marxist theory tells us that the landowning warrior class that dominated the feudal system gave way to the entrepreneurial capital-owning class, whose wealth and position was justified by free market economics and classical liberal thought. Supposedly, that class was going to be overthrown by the workers, who were going to abolish private ownership of the means of production, establish universal equality and abundance, and bring about the end of class society and therefore history.

That isn’t quite how it’s worked out. The capital-owning class has indeed been largely subordinated to workers—to people who live on what their employer pays them for their work rather than income from property or independent business activity—but it’s not the mass of workers who have taken control. Instead it’s managers, bureaucrats, and manipulators of symbols—lawyers, media people, and experts of various sorts. That class’s power is based on control of the extensive bureaucratic, contractual, and communications networks that now, as a result of changes in technology and economic life, determine who holds power and how economic goods are produced and distributed.

The result is that we’re headed toward a world governed by global business, global bureaucracy, and global media, with those who manage those things as our rulers. It is that class whose hired spokesmen—media talking heads, ambitious and well-connected journalists, academic and ecclesiastical functionaries—define respectable views of politics, morality, and religion.

Those views constitute contemporary progressivism, which promises equality, abundance, and the end of history as a constant struggle arbitrated by force. It claims that the neutral expertise of managers and social technicians acting through bureaucratic, contractual, and communications networks is the uniquely rational and effective way to realize those goals.

On that view the emerging status quo, which confers enormous power and other benefits on those who run it, becomes the natural and unquestionable order of things, just as nineteenth-century capitalism and medieval feudalism were thought to be in their day. To dissent, respectable people agree, is to attack peace, prosperity, rationality, and human dignity, and so to favor violence, oppression, hardship, and madness. Traditional arrangements such as family, religion, and specific cultural community interfere with the unquestioned authority and smooth operation of the system. So people who take those things seriously are attacking the benefits the system promises. That means they are ignorant, evil, or crazy, and have to be re-educated or at least shut up.

Some adjustments are needed to make the story plausible. First, abundance has to be viewed globally. Average production and living standards have indeed been rising worldwide under the new order, but not for everyone. People at the top and in most of the Third World have been doing better, while incomes have stagnated and living conditions gotten worse for non-elite Westerners. Young Westerners are having an especially hard time of it, but nonetheless seem resigned and often devoted to the new order of things—a testimony to the success of the system in presenting itself as inevitable and to the extraordinary effectiveness of today’s education in achieving what it cares about. Older people, who weren’t properly “educated”, remember how things were, and sometimes do weird things like vote for Trump or Brexit, need to be propagandized, browbeaten, and silenced.

More importantly, the focus of equality has to be shifted away from economics. The growing complexity and hierarchical nature of the emerging global order makes it easy for those at the top to enrich themselves disproportionately. The result has been rising economic inequality, a trend that has been successfully obscured by an emphasis on other dimensions of equality that are now treated as moral absolutes. It is now respectable to speak with utter contempt of people who shop at Walmart—non-wealthy non-urban people—but not of racial or sexual minorities.

The practical result of all this has been a radical decline in the well-being of those in the bottom half of the social order, who depend more than the successful and prosperous on traditional arrangements and who find themselves headed toward the bottom half of global society. That result doesn’t bother today’s progressives, whose only real concern is that they stay near the top of the ladder and that the bottom half include enough white men—all those Walmart shoppers—for the moral demands of equality as now understood to be satisfied.

It seems then that current progressivism can plausibly be explained on Marxist grounds as a class ideology that cloaks exploitation with high-sounding rhetoric. Such an explanation is not of course the whole truth, if only because Marxism is not a complete theory of human life. In particular, it doesn’t demonstrate anything about the motives of particular people. Even so, it’s worth presenting as an argument, since there’s a great deal of truth in it and it’s a useful response to progressive moralism and triumphalism, which are also found in the Church. For that reason it may help make it possible to discuss social and political issues intelligently once again.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About James Kalb 132 Articles
James Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism(ISI Books, 2008) and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).


  1. What’s delectable to progressives is Marx’s ideology of separating religion from justice. So the progressive can be moralistic without being moral. Everyone has a conscience its denial doesn’t extinguish it. Recall the televangelist who railed against fornicators only to be found a fornicator. You’re two lying clergy suffered similar guilt [when the ordained jettison truth the opposite is limitless] as the televangelist as did Judas who railed about Mary spending a fortune on balm to anoint Jesus’ feet. Money for the poor. Exploitation of love for the poor is a powerful rhetorical argument for cryptic Marxists when more concerned with retention of power than the poor. Democrats have exploited minorities for ages with false promise. They transfer their guilt to hapless Christians. The USCCB buys into it since they no longer clearly distinguish between justice and compassion. Mercy they’re being admonished from above doesn’t simple transcend justice it demolishes it. Embrace of crucifixion with Christ to the degree proper to our status vanquishes the Lie. Proved by The Apostle who crucified himself to the world and had the intelligence and fire to do precisely that.

  2. The current pontiff and the Cardinals who made sure he was elected are the epitome of the priests as shamans and witch-doctors for “the global establishment.”

    Nothing is more pathetic than a mediocrity like Bishop Sorondo proclaiming his delight that the Chinese Communist State is now the kingdom of God.

    No profanity could be worse than our “Supreme Pontiff” venerating the Hammer & Sickle on which the body of Christ crucified was affixed.

    Pathetic, “useful idiots.”

  3. As a tongue-in-cheek article, this is very good. It reminds me of the many posts on the “Eccles is Saved” blog. Very funny, indeed!

    However, as a serious matter, Marxism is simply a “just-so” story invented by Marx and his collaborators in the International Working Men’s Association movement of the mid 19th century. It tells a simplistic tale of technological determinism (pointed out by Mr Kalb above) aimed at capturing the imagination by telling a tale of world history in which the working class would inherit the earth (rather than the meek). It took the apocalyptic sweep of its storyline from a mashup of Jewish and Christian traditions with a reversed version of Hegel’s philosophy. In Marx’s reversal of Hegel, materialistic conditions replaced the role of Hegel’s “Spirit” as the impelling force for humanity’s progress.

    The fact that it has little fidelity to the true details of historical and technological change, has been noted again and again. But the simple storyline (what Lyotard called its metanarrative) has proved to be very seductive, especially to those who have some education (enough to know a little of world history) but not so much that they know many of its details.

    Hence it has seduced many undergrads who make only a cursory study of history, reading Howard Zinn or worse as the authority. Many young people have been fooled by this nonsense. Let us hold them in prayer, that they may quickly find the truth.

    • Marxism, like all forms of socialism, is more of a religious faith than a rational system of economics or government. That is why the material failure of every “progressive” experiment gives its true believers stronger spiritual convictions. It is as if Satan whispers in their ears: “Next time we will make it work. Just keep the human sacrifices coming.”

    • It’s not entirely a joke.

      The line of causality Marxism talks about (technology => economic organization => distribution of power => accepted ways of thinking) does I think have some effect. That effect is likely to increase if influential people think it explains everything. So Marxism is likely to explain its sympathizers’ views better than anything else. That’s one point the piece makes.

      Of course there are problems with the theory. There are causal factors like religion and science that it doesn’t recognize as independent factors. And the causality works more than one way. Patrick Deneen just wrote a widely-praised book (Why Liberalism Failed) in which he argues that political philosophy explains technology.

      Another problem is that a deterministic system goes wherever it goes, not toward someone’s idea of utopia. If we put a Marxist interpretation on events then the workers who have seized power are not the oppressed masses (surprise, surprise) they are people in powerful positions. And what they’re giving us isn’t utopia although they try to pass it off as such. That’s another point the piece makes.

  4. Jordan Peterson said ideology is a cripple religion, whatever else you think about Peterson, that’s exactly right. Societies are so complex, any attempt to effect sweeping, revolutionary change is doomed to failure. The law of unintended consequences.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Marx and Progressives: An ironic, exploitative love story -
  2. The ABC of Liberal Failure – Catholic World Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.