Li Shen: Marxist Studies Should Treat Religious Studies as a Discipline of Equal Importance to Philosophy

Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism constitute the three component parts of Marxism. The direct source of Marxist philosophy is German classical philosophy. German classical philosophy, one might even say, was the "religious studies" of Germany at that time. Almost all of these philosophical systems were established through the process of researching and critiquing religion. Therefore, Marxist philosophy, established on the basis of a critique of German classical philosophy, is itself the Marxist study of religion. The famous philosophical assertions by Marx and Engels that are widely celebrated today are also almost entirely famous assertions regarding religious issues. Thus, only by deeply studying religious issues and the Marxist study of religion can one profoundly understand those famous philosophical propositions of Marx and Engels. Therefore, the study of Marxism should grant the Marxist study of religion a status of importance equal to that of Marxist philosophy.

I. The Object of Critique in German Classical Philosophy

The first sentence of the first article in the latest 2012 edition of the Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 1, is: "For Germany, the critique of religion has been essentially completed, and the critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique." Those who completed this critique of religion were the German classical philosophers. Among these philosophers were not only David Strauss, the Young Hegelian who wrote The Life of Jesus; Bruno Bauer, who conducted in-depth studies of the Christian Gospels; but even more so Ludwig Feuerbach, who wrote The Essence of Christianity. The Essence of Christianity is the representative work of Feuerbach’s materialism and his most important contribution to the study of religion.

Going back to their predecessors, Hegel and Kant: Kant not only used his critical transcendental philosophy to clarify that the existence of God is impossible within either human innate reason or posterior experience, but he also centrally critiqued various previous proofs of God's existence, deeming them invalid. Hegel, with his dialectical thinking characterized by a "tremendous historical sense," produced a group of thinkers who "both politically and religiously might belong to the most extreme opposition." Furthermore, Hegel provided a philosophical summary of the words and deeds exposing the dark rule of the Christian Church since the 18th century. He pointed out that the corruption of the Church lay in the fact that the clergy themselves were "secular existences, possessing property and treasures"—beings of "crude passions and worldly things."

When describing the state of German classical philosophy, Engels stated that in 19th-century Germany, just as in 18th-century France, a philosophical revolution served as the precursor to political change. The difference was that the French philosophical revolution engaged in open struggle against all official science, the Church, and often against the State. German philosophy, however, had to some extent been exalted as the state philosophy of the Kingdom of Prussia. The philosophers were almost all professors, mentors of youth appointed by the state. Yet, the "dialectical philosophy" represented by Hegel "overthrew all conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute states of humanity corresponding to it." "Before it, nothing final, absolute, or sacred can stand." For the political and religious opposition produced by this philosophy, because "politics was at that time a field full of thorns," this opposition primarily "turned into a struggle against religion." Beginning with Strauss, and passing through Bauer and Stirner, a profound exposure and critique of traditional religion was conducted. Moreover, because of "the practical necessity of struggling against existing religion, a large number of the most resolute Young Hegelians were pushed back toward English and French materialism." This continued until the publication of Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity, which finally "placed materialism back on the throne without qualification."

At this point, German classical philosophy completed its mission as the precursor to political change, such that Marx, as early as 1843 in his "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right," clearly announced at the outset: "For Germany, the critique of religion has been essentially completed." He further noted: "The critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique." It was in this very work that Marx proposed a series of classic assertions on religious issues that are still regarded as maxims today:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man."

"Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification."

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."

Marx’s classic assertions on religious issues form the theoretical foundation of the Marxist study of religion and were the excellent fruits of the critique of religion by German classical philosophy at that time. On this basis, Marx proposed a series of classic assertions on philosophical issues:

"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter."

"The degree to which theory is realized in a nation depends on the degree to which theory serves the needs of that nation."

"As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy."

Therefore, to profoundly understand Marxist philosophy, one must profoundly understand the Marxist study of religion and the research and critique of religion conducted by Marx and Engels.

In the theoretical struggle of religious research and critique, German classical philosophy was deeper than French philosophy, yet it lagged behind the latter in one respect: German classical philosophy and the brilliant philosophers who created it almost all dragged behind them a "religious tail." Kant believed that even if there were no God, it was necessary to create one for the needs of morality. Although Hegel constructed a dialectical system of thought that was inherently revolutionary, he himself was more inclined toward the conservative side of this system; for him, all historical development was merely the development of his "Absolute Idea," and even the Absolute Idea itself was a philosophized deity. Even Feuerbach, despite his profound critique of Christianity, could not break his "religious complex"; he sought to establish a religion of "love" to satisfy people’s religious needs.

Therefore, to make theory radical and "grasp the root of the matter," it was necessary to critique German classical philosophy itself—which had only "essentially completed" the task of religious critique—and to establish a truly scientific study of religion, which is also a truly scientific philosophy. This step was completed by Marx and Engels.

II. Marx’s Critique of Hegel and His Successors

After the critique of religion was essentially completed, the first thing Marx had to do was critique Hegel’s philosophy of right:

"The task of history, therefore, once the other-world of truth has vanished, is to establish the truth of this world. Once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked, the immediate task of philosophy, which is at the service of history, is to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms. Thus the criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

Since the state philosophy and philosophy of right of Germany received their most systematic, richest, and final expression in Hegel’s works, the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right was "both a critical analysis of the modern state and of the reality connected with it, and the resolute negation of the whole manner of the German consciousness in politics and law as it has existed up to the present."

However, Marx did not complete the writing of A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and the manuscript was not published during his lifetime. This was because, during the process of writing it, Marx discovered that the path taken by his companions—the so-called "Young Hegelians" who were also critiquing Hegelian philosophy—was unacceptable.

According to the narrative in Marx and Engels' The German Ideology, since Hegel's death in 1831, the philosophers who originally followed his philosophy split into the "Old Hegelians" and the "Young Hegelians." The Old Hegelians focused on preserving Hegel's system. They believed that "as long as they subsumed everything under a Hegelian logical category, they understood everything." The Young Hegelians, on the other hand, focused on elaborating Hegel's dialectical thought. The main members of this group—"from Strauss to Stirner, the entire German philosophical critique is restricted to the critique of religious conceptions"—"insisted that everything contains religious conceptions or declared everything to be a theological matter, and thus critiqued everything." Consequently, "the rule of religion was taken as the prerequisite. Every dominant relationship was gradually declared to be a religious relationship."

Regardless of the faction, all their efforts to critique Germany never left the terrain of philosophy. All the problems they discussed arose on the basis of the Hegelian system. They all claimed to have transcended Hegel's philosophy, but in reality, they each merely gripped one specific aspect of Hegel's philosophy to oppose his entire system; not one of them attempted a comprehensive critique of the Hegelian system.

Marx and Engels were once members of the Young Hegelians, a group that emphasized Hegel’s dialectical method and possessed strong revolutionary tendencies. However, like the Old Hegelians, members of this school turned the products of consciousness—ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc.—into something independent, believing these to be the true chains of humanity. Therefore, they believed the so-called "critique of earth" required only a struggle against these illusions of consciousness. Consequently, the only result such a critique could achieve was to provide some explanation of Christianity from the perspective of religious history, and even then, a one-sided one. Among them, "none of them thought to inquire into the connection of German philosophy with German reality," nor "the connection of their critique with their own material surroundings." But Marx and Engels discovered:

"The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear here as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people."

As for religion, it is "from the start a consciousness of transcendence," but "this consciousness arises from real forces." Therefore, any critique concerning religious conceptions—or rather, any philosophical critique—that does not touch upon the connection between philosophical or religious conceptions and reality can, at best, only provide one-sided explanations of certain religious or philosophical issues.

The Hegelian school after Hegel’s death often directed its critical edge toward Hegelian philosophy itself. Yet, Hegelian philosophy was the German state philosophy of the time, the dominant ideology of the state, or rather, the ideology of the German ruling class of that time. Marx and Engels pointed out:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it."

The classes themselves, however, are products of the processes of production and exchange. The modern bourgeoisie is the product of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and exchange; the proletariat, the modern working class, is the product of large-scale industry.

Therefore, to complete the historical task of "establishing the truth of this world," the "critique of heaven" must be transformed into the "critique of earth." Contrary to German classical philosophy, which "descended from heaven to earth," the critique of Marx and Engels "ascends from earth to heaven."

To complete such a critique and establish the "truth of this world," following the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx completed his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts in 1844; from 1844 to 1845, Engels completed The Condition of the Working Class in England; from the autumn of 1845 to May 1846, Marx and Engels jointly wrote The German Ideology, which expounded the historical materialist conception of history and communist theory; and finally, in 1848, the two cooperated to complete the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Represented by these works, this series of philosophical and economic writings are not only the results of Marx and Engels’ in-depth research into socio-political economy, philosophy, and religion, but also the fruit of their critique of German philosophy and religious studies. The establishment of the dialectical materialist and historical materialist worldviews was both their philosophical achievement and their achievement in religious studies.

However, the German philosopher whom Marx and Engels critiqued most was not Hegel, nor Kant, nor [Bruno] Bauer or [Max] Stirner, but rather the materialist philosopher who exerted a revolutionary influence on their thought: Ludwig Feuerbach.

III. Marx and Engels’ Critique of Feuerbach

The critique of German philosophy, which had been circling within Hegel's system of "pure spirit," opened up a new situation due to the publication of Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity. Engels described the revolutionary impact brought about by the publication of The Essence of Christianity thus:

"Enthusiasm was general: we all became at once Feuerbachians."

Because of Feuerbach's ideas, materialism was restored to the throne and Hegel was cast aside. However, although this new philosophy gave Marx and Engels a joy akin to passing through a revolution, it could not leave them completely satisfied. To truly complete the task moving from the critique of religion and philosophy to the critique of the mundane world, and to "establish the truth of this world," it was necessary to critique this new philosophy in order to establish a truly correct worldview.

In 1841, Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity was published. In the spring of 1845, Marx wrote the Theses on Feuerbach. This famous philosophical work, hailed by Engels as "the first document containing the brilliant germ of the new world outlook," directly confronts and critiques Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity. From the autumn of 1845 to May 1846, Marx collaborated with Engels to write The German Ideology. The first chapter of the first volume is titled "Feuerbach"; that is to say, in their critique of the German ideology of that time, the first thing they critiqued was Feuerbach’s philosophy. It was precisely in this critique of Feuerbach’s philosophy that Marx and Engels for the first time provided a relatively systematic exposition of historical materialism.

Decades later, in 1886, Engels wrote Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. This is an "important work in which Engels expounded the basic principles of Marxist philosophy." In this work, "Engels discussed the historical process of the formation and development of Marxist philosophy, specifically explained its theoretical sources and natural science foundations, argued in detail the critical inheritance relationship and essential differences between Marxist philosophy and classical German philosophy, profoundly analyzed the essence and significance of the revolutionary transformation caused by the birth of Marxist philosophy in the field of philosophy, and systematically expounded the basic principles of dialectical materialism and historical materialism." Not only that, "this work also systematically discusses the driving forces of historical development, the decisive role of the economic base and the counter-reaction of the superstructure, and basic principles of historical materialism such as the idea that the masses of the people are the creators of history." "Lenin believed that this work, 'like the Manifesto of the Communist Party, is a handbook for every class-conscious worker.'" That is to say, the important works in which Marx and Engels founded dialectical materialist and historical materialist philosophy were almost all completed in the process of directly discussing and critiquing Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity. And The Essence of Christianity was not only Feuerbach's philosophical work, but first and foremost a work of religious studies.

Marx and Engels’ critique of Feuerbach was primarily because Feuerbach "does not conceive... the significance of 'revolutionary', of 'practical-critical', activity." However, "all social life is essentially practical." "The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." "The question whether objective [gegenständliche] truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question."

"Social life is essentially practical." That is to say, social life itself is the practical activity of humanity. In various and diverse practical activities, human beings change their environment and also come to know the world in which they are situated. In particular, those conscious practical activities aimed at transforming reality both strengthen the transformation of the environment with the greatest force and accelerate humanity's understanding of the environment with the greatest force. Almost all people participating in practical activities act with their own purposes. If the purpose is achieved, it proves their original understanding was correct. If the purpose is not achieved or not fully achieved, it proves their original understanding was incorrect or incomplete. Therefore, the question of whether human cognition possesses objective truth is not a theoretical question, but a practical one.

Decades later, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Engels raised the issue of practice again. He cited the example that if experiments and industry could extract alizarin from coal tar, it proved that the understanding of coal tar was correct, and Kant’s ungraspable "thing-in-itself" was finished. But Feuerbach did not understand the meaning of "revolutionary" and "practical-critical" activity; "in The Essence of Christianity, he regards only the theoretical attitude as the truly human attitude."

The second major flaw in Feuerbach's philosophy critiqued by Marx and Engels was that he reduced the essence of religion to the essence of man; however, the essence of man he spoke of was an "abstractum inherent in each single individual." Marx opposed Feuerbach's abstract talk of human essence and put forward the famous thesis that "man is the ensemble of the social relations":

"Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations."

Decades later, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Engels once again discussed Feuerbach’s abstract "man" in greater detail:

"In form he [Feuerbach] is realistic since he takes man as his point of departure; but there is absolutely no mention of the world in which this man lives, and hence this man remains always the same abstract man who occupied the field in the philosophy of religion."

Such a person is "not a real, living man" who "lives in the real, historically evolved and historically determined world." Starting from such a person, Feuerbach designed a new religion for them: the religion of "love." He hoped that in this religion of love, humanity could live together in harmony and the world would be at peace. Engels criticized this, saying:

"Feuerbach’s theory of morals is the same as all its predecessors. It is designed for all times, all peoples and all conditions; and for that very reason it is never and nowhere applicable, and in the face of the actual world is as powerless as Kant’s categorical imperative."

"To get from Feuerbach’s abstract man to real, living men, one must consider them as they act in history." But Feuerbach refused to do this. Because the cult of abstract man was the core of his new religion. Feuerbach did not take this step—replacing abstract man with "the science of real men and of their historical development." "This work of outgrowing Feuerbach and further developing Feuerbach's views was begun by Marx in 1845 in The Holy Family." Therefore, although The Holy Family is marked as a critique of Bruno Bauer and his consorts, it is also a theoretical construction by Marx and Engels that "outgrows Feuerbach while developing Feuerbach’s views."

In the book Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Engels proposed a famous philosophical proposition:

"The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being."

This classic proposition in philosophy is, first and foremost, a proposition of religious studies. Because immediately following this sentence, what Engels discusses is first the relationship between soul and body, the question of how the idea of deities arose, and finally resolves it into the question of the origin of the world:

"Which is primary, spirit or nature?—that question, in relation to the church, was sharpened into this: Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally?"

Philosophers were divided into two great camps according to how they answered this question.

Thus, this classic philosophical proposition is primarily a proposition of religious studies. At the very end of this work, Engels again devoted a large amount of space specifically to the discussion of religious issues—ranging from the origin of religion to the European Reformation and the general laws of religious development. Therefore, the famous philosophical works of Engels and Marx are simultaneously their works of religious studies.

IV. Marxist Religious Studies and Marxist Philosophy

Based on the above discussion, we can say that Marxist philosophy and Marxist religious studies share a relationship of common roots and symbiotic growth; their theoretical foundations are completely identical—one could even say they are the same foundation. Due to their differing tasks, they diverged into two systems of thought when further developing and involving their respective specific issues.

Since the direct source of Marxist philosophy is classical German philosophy, and classical German philosophy was established in the process of critiquing religion, to profoundly understand classical German philosophy and Marxist philosophy, one must conduct in-depth research into religious issues. As for being able to critique classical German philosophy, discarding the dross and taking the essence, one must have an even deeper study of religious matters. Marx and Engels' research into religious issues was precisely the foundation upon which they were able to transcend classical German philosophy and perform a "critical inheritance" ^[7] of it. In this sense, only by profoundly understanding religious issues and Marxist religious studies can one profoundly understand Marxist philosophy.

Mr. Ren Jiyu, the pioneer and founder of Chinese Marxist religious studies who was praised by Mao Zedong, said in 1979:

"Before the birth of Marxism, the guiding ideology for all human research in the field of social history was the idealist conception of history. Past research on religion, including historical atheism, could not be truly scientific. Using the scientific worldview of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, the founders of Marxism conducted a great deal of research on religious issues, summarized the results of previous religious research, critically inherited the legacy of various historical atheisms, and laid the foundation for Marxist religious studies. From then on, religious studies became a science. Marxist religious studies is an important aspect of the entire scientific system of Marxism."

Due to various reasons, for a long time in Marxist research, either Marxist religious studies has been subsumed under Marxist philosophical research, or the existence of a Marxist religious studies has been denied altogether, with the result that the entire discipline of Marxist religious studies has not been well-developed in our country.

Now, various changes in the domestic and international situation have placed religious issues in an increasingly important position. The National Conference on Religious Affairs ^[8], which just concluded in December 2021, put forward the task of "strengthening the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies." This pointed out the direction for religious studies and also pointed out a new direction for Marxist research. Therefore, Marxist research should place Marxist religious studies in a position of equal importance to Marxist philosophy.