Zhu Fengkai and Peng Wuqing: The Stage of Social Critique is the Fifth Stage of Marx and Engels' Conception of Religion
Currently, the academic community, whether spontaneously or consciously, divides the religious views of Marx and Engels into four stages, specifically manifesting as the stages of religious criticism, political criticism, economic criticism, and cultural criticism. (1) The stage of religious criticism is an early expression of Marx and Engels's religious views. At this stage, the two had not yet completely demarcated their thinking from the Young Hegelians [1]; their views on religion were characterized by intense criticism of religion’s hypocrisy and artificiality. (2) In the stage of political criticism, the criticism of religion served as a means to critique the European politics behind religion and to reveal its political roots. However, at this time, Marx and Engels's research into political economy was not yet complete, and their religious outlook could not yet reach the economic roots of religious emergence. (3) The stage of economic criticism is the mature stage of their religious views, following the establishment of historical materialism and their in-depth study of political economy. Important discourses—including the investigation into the roots of religion and the critique of the capitalist economic system through the critique of religion—were born during this economic criticism stage. (4) The stage of cultural criticism reflects the religious views of Marx and Engels in their later years; this stage suggests that in their old age, they viewed religion as a complex cultural phenomenon. (5) Current scholarship comes to an abrupt halt after proposing that a cultural criticism stage exists in their religious views. However, by revisiting the classic texts of Marx and Engels, one can discover that the cultural criticism stage was not the endpoint. There is yet another stage after cultural criticism: the stage of social criticism.
I. The Academic Periodization of Marx and Engels's Religious Views
The proposition that there are four stages in the religious views of Marx and Engels first appeared in an article by Mr. Chen Rongfu published in the China Social Sciences Gazette (中国社会科学报) [2] in 2009, titled "Four Stages and Two Leaps in the Development of Marx and Engels's Religious Views." In this article, Chen Rongfu defined their religious views in detail across four stages: religious criticism, political criticism, economic criticism, and cultural criticism. Subsequently, Ms. Ye Lei's article "Marxist Religious Views and Their Methodology and Modern Religious Culture Studies" followed this four-stage proposition, basing its conceptual framework on Chen Rongfu’s division. The practice of dividing their religious views into stages has existed for some time, particularly regarding the stages of religious, political, and economic criticism. The academic definitions of these stages are extremely close to Chen Rongfu’s first three stages, differing only in phrasing. For instance, in Mr. Lü Daji's work Research on Marxist Religious Theory, he divides the religious views of Marx and Engels into three parts: the period of the Rheinische Zeitung [3], the period of the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher [4], and the period following the publication of the Communist Manifesto. Mr. Niu Sulin’s work Marx and Engels's Understanding of Religion divides their views into early religious views, views during the transition period, and views after the establishment of historical materialism. In his article "On the Developmental Thread of Marx's Religious Views," Mr. Zeng Chuanhui divides Marx's views into a democratic religious view, a historical materialist religious view, and supplementary views in his later years.
There is no dispute in the academic community regarding the first three stages—religious, political, and economic criticism; different scholars simply use different terms to describe them. While there is still some debate over whether a cultural criticism stage exists, generally speaking, the academic community recognizes the existence of four stages. For example, descriptions such as the Rheinische Zeitung period, the "early period," or the "democratic period" correspond to the stage of religious criticism. Terms like the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher period or the "incipient historical materialism period" correspond to the stage of political criticism. Furthermore, different scholars define the nature of these first two stages in the same way: on the one hand, religious and political criticism provided theoretical support for economic criticism; on the other hand, these first two stages reflect an immature religious outlook because both critiqued the superstructure from within the level of the superstructure, without analyzing the economic base behind religion. Following the publication of The German Ideology, and especially after the first volume of Capital and the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels integrated the methods of historical materialism into their religious views, elevating them to the stage of economic criticism. Since there is no academic disagreement on this, the community uses terms like the "mature stage" or the "historical materialist stage" to define the economic criticism phase.
In summary, although the phrasing differs, academic periodizations of Marx and Engels's religious views from the perspective of developmental history are qualitatively similar to the framework of religious criticism—political criticism—economic criticism—cultural criticism. However, based on the classic literature—specifically Marx’s expressions regarding religion in Volume III of Capital and Engels’s "Letter to Conrad Schmidt" and "Letter to Franz Mehring"—combined with the new methodology used in their later years to analyze religious issues, a fifth stage should exist: the stage of social criticism.
II. Elaborating the Connotations of the Fifth Stage: The Stage of Social Criticism
The stage of social criticism in Marx's religious views refers to an approach based on historical materialism that includes, but is not limited to, the economic analysis method (where the economic base determines the superstructure). It also analyzes religious issues holistically from the perspective of "social resultant forces" [5], including culture, politics, history, and individual will. Broadly speaking, the social criticism of religion starts from the specific conditions of existence of various social formations [6] to explain the essence and laws of religion.
1. Conceptualizing the Religious View in the Stage of Social Criticism
Synthesizing relevant late-period literature from Engels, we can attempt to define the religious view in the social criticism stage as follows: It is a religious theory based on historical materialism that comprehensively examines various social formations within real history and explains religious issues from the perspective of these integrated social formations, while not neglecting the reactionary force [7] of religion upon the social formation as a whole.
First, the factors influencing religious development include integrated social resultant forces in addition to the economic base. Engels pointed out: "There are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant—the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition." The social criticism stage of the religious outlook faces the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure head-on. While identifying the material production that plays the decisive role in religious issues, it pays greater attention to the historical inheritance of ideology and the relative independence of the superstructure. By analyzing and deriving religious relations from real forms of intercourse and social relations, the social criticism stage holistically examines comprehensive social factors—politics, law, philosophy, religion, and so on—which "all react upon one another and also upon the economic basis." This religious theory, based on historical materialism while integrated with an examination of social resultant forces, constitutes an effective counterattack against the erroneous idea that distorts historical materialism into "economic materialism."
Second, the study of religious issues must proceed from history and examine in detail the integrated social conditions of specific historical periods. In his 1890 "Letter to Conrad Schmidt," Engels mentioned: "All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce from them the political, civil-law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them." The perspective here clearly demonstrates Engels's shift from economic criticism to social criticism in his religious outlook. In Anti-Dühring, Engels mentioned: "All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces." This definition of religion is a typical manifestation of economic criticism, representing an analytical process from religion back to real existence. However, in the "Letter to Conrad Schmidt," Engels reversed this relationship; it was no longer about moving from religion to social existence, but deriving religion from social existence. Engels emphasized the prerequisite for religious analysis: one must first "examine individually the conditions of existence of the different formations of society," and then find the religious relations based on this research. The "social formation" is the foundation of religious study; Engels even suggested "studying all history afresh" before conducting religious analysis. In 1882, in "Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity," Engels already noted the roots of religion: "All the religions of antiquity were spontaneous tribal and later national religions, which sprang from and were inseparable from the social and political conditions of the respective peoples." Thus, it is evident that Engels's concept of social criticism was not spontaneous but conscious. He gradually realized that a religious outlook based solely on economic criticism could not comprehensively analyze religious issues; a complete social study and social criticism were required from the ground up to provide a sufficient theoretical and realistic basis for religious analysis.
Third, the examination of religion must focus not only on the influence of various social formations on the formation and development of religion but also reflect on the reactionary effect of religion’s formation and development back upon social formations. In his 1893 "Letter to Franz Mehring," Engels reviewed his and Marx's early definitions of historical materialism, admitting that they had previously focused too much on the decisive and restrictive role of the economic base on the superstructure, and to some extent neglected the relative independence and reactionary force of the superstructure. "Because we denied an independent historical development to the various ideological spheres which play a part in history, we also denied them any effect upon history. The basis of this is the common undialectical conception of cause and effect as rigidly opposite poles, the total disregarding of interaction." Engels's reflections here provided the theoretical basis for the shift from the economic criticism stage to the social criticism stage. If historical materialism merely described the restriction and determination of the superstructure by the economic base, it would possess boundaries and limitations. Fortunately, Engels and Marx did not simplify historical materialism. Therefore, the religious views of Marx and Engels built upon historical materialism would inevitably not stop at an economic or cultural criticism stage that focuses only on one field. From Engels’s supplements to historical materialism in the "Letter to Franz Mehring," we can infer the requirements for the social criticism stage: one must not only value the influence of social resultant forces on religion but also must not ignore the interaction between religion and various forms of the superstructure.
From the theory of "social resultant forces" in the "Letter to Joseph Bloch," we can derive the theory that religious development is influenced by comprehensive social forces in addition to the economic base. From the "Letter to Conrad Schmidt," we can summarize that the study of religious issues needs to proceed from history and involve a detailed investigation of integrated social conditions. From the "Letter to Franz Mehring," we can summarize that the examination of religion must address both the influence of social formations on religion and the reactionary effect of religion on those formations. Therefore, the definition of the social criticism stage of religion emerges: it is a religious theory based on historical materialism that comprehensively examines social formations within real history, explains religious issues starting from those integrated formations, and does not neglect the reactionary force of religion upon the overall social formation.
2. The Inevitability of the Stage of Social Criticism in Religious Views
There is an inherent necessity in the shift of Marx and Engels's religious views from the economic and cultural criticism stages toward the social criticism stage, analyzed as follows.
First, the holistic vision of social criticism is an inevitability of this stage's emergence. In another part of the "Letter to Conrad Schmidt," Engels mentioned: "While the economic necessity was the main driving force of the progressive knowledge of nature and becomes ever more so, it would surely be pedantic to try and find economic causes for all this primitive nonsense." In his later years, Engels increasingly realized that research into religious issues could not be completed solely through the lens of economic criticism; even adding a cultural horizon was far from enough. The study of religious issues requires a holistic social vision.
Secondly, the stage of social critique within their view of religion consists of the stage of dialectical analysis of religion, based on a mastery of historical materialism. During this stage, with various social elements at the core and proceeding from a complex social existence, they grasped the superstructure, thereby compensating for the deficiencies of the stages of economic and cultural critique and investigating the essence and laws of religion through multiple dimensions. In 1893, Engels noted in his "Letter to Franz Mehring": "That is to say, we all began, and were bound to begin, by placing the main emphasis on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological conceptions, and of actions arising through the medium of these conceptions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side—the ways and means by which these conceptions, etc., come about—for the sake of the content." Engels emphasized that while the analytical method of historical materialism—wherein the economic base determines the superstructure—is fundamental, economic analysis is not the end. If one only conducts a single-dimensional analysis, it inevitably leads to the neglect of other aspects of the problem. Regarding the question of religion, all other social factors besides the economic base interact actively and vigorously.
Furthermore, the proto-elements of the social-critique view of religion appeared during Marx's composition of the first volume of Capital. He once stated: "It is, in fact, much easier to find by analysis the earthly core of the religious delusions, than, vice versa, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialized forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one." At this time, Marx’s view of religion was still in the stage of economic critique; his definition of religion proceeded from reflectionism, regarding religion as a distorted reflection of real relations of production. However, by this point, Marx had already keenly sensed that economic analysis alone could only define the reflectionist aspect of religion but could not provide a more comprehensive mastery or thorough understanding of it. Therefore, building upon the economic analytical method, Marx mentioned seeking the laws of religion from "the actual relations of life." In the aforementioned expression, Marx first referred to the "earthly core"; since the set of contradictions between productive forces and relations of production is the driving force of all historical development, the "actual relations of life" following the "earthly core" must not refer specifically to productive forces and relations of production again. Thus, "actual relations of life" refers to the totality of social relations. The "only materialistic method" Marx referred to was not the economic critique method of analyzing the economic base from religion, but the social critique method of exploring religious laws by starting from society.
Going further, when Marx analyzed commodity fetishism in Volume I of Capital, he started from its mystical character, stripping away the mystery of commodity relations by revealing the religious cloak of commodity fetishism and reducing commodity relations to labor relations. However, in Volume III of Capital, Marx’s view of religion clearly transitioned to the stage of social critique. He no longer critiqued the economic base starting from religion, but rather adopted the "only materialistic method." When mentioning the relationship between surplus value and the fetish-form of capital [8] in Volume III, Marx analyzed: "Interest now appears, on the contrary, as the fruits proper to capital, as the original thing; while profit, now transformed into the form of profit of enterprise, appears as a mere accessory and addition added in the process of reproduction. Here the fetish form of capital and the conception of the fetish capital are consummated." This discourse is Marx’s exploration of the externalization of capital relations in the form of capital; because the theme is focused, Marx did not expand the topic to the general social field. Yet, from a methodological perspective, the method in Volume III for exploring the root of the birth of the capital-fetish is entirely different from the method used in Volume I for the root of commodity fetishism. In Volume III, Marx implemented the social-critique analytical method of deriving religious relations from "actual relations of life"; he derived the religious relation of the form and conception of capital-fetish from the actual life relations of the capitalist’s interest income and reproduction. Marx’s analytical method regarding the capital-fetish in Volume III indicates that in his later years, his view of religion consciously and actively transitioned from the stages of economic and cultural critique to the stage of social critique.
III. Methodological Analysis of the Fifth Stage—The Social Critique Stage
When Marx and Engels’ views of religion were in the stages of religious and political critique, the research method they adopted was a conceptual induction similar to that of the Young Hegelians. When their views of religion reached the stages of economic and cultural critique, the basic method they adopted was economic analysis. However, a new research method emerged in their social-critique stage of religion. This new methodology is a spiral advancement [9] of the economic-critique methodology, specifically manifested as adhering to the research methods of historical materialism while emphasizing the use of specific conditions of the existence of various social formations [10] to explain the essence and laws of religion.
First, during the stage of religious critique, Marx’s analysis of religious issues still followed the conceptual analysis method of the Young Hegelians in terms of methodology, defining the essence of religion as the conceptual determinacy inherent in religion itself. In "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction," Marx analyzed the essence of religion: "For every religion sees its distinction from other, particular, imaginary religions precisely in its own special essence, and it is just because of this determinacy that it is the true religion."
When Marx and Engels’ view of religion was at the stage of political critique, the methodological level of analyzing religious issues still belonged to conceptual induction and deduction. In the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right", Marx analyzed the source of religion: "This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world." But the "state" and "society" here are answers obtained through conceptual induction and deduction. In "The Condition of England: Review of Thomas Carlyle's Past and Present", Engels categorized the essence of religion not only as a reflection of nature but also as the alienation of the human essence. At this time, Engels’ definition of the human essence used conceptual analysis; methodologically, his definition of the essence of religion was likewise conceptual induction.
The economic-critique and cultural-critique stages of Marx and Engels’ view of religion are mature stages based on the completion of The German Ideology, The Communist Manifesto, and Volume I of Capital. In these two stages, they used the research methods of historical materialism to explain religious issues. For example, in The German Ideology, they defined the source of religion as follows: "Religion is from the outset consciousness of the transcendent, arising from actual forces." Furthermore, Marx’s definition of this "actual force" was no longer a conceptual induction; in the later Capital, he went further to point out the internal relations of this "actual force" itself—namely, as a social relation that "reflects the social relation of the producers to the sum total of labor as a social relation between objects, existing outside the producers."
Secondly, compared to the stages of economic and cultural critique, the social critique stage is a comprehensive analytical method based on historical materialism in terms of methodology. It shifts from the previous approach of analyzing the economic base starting from religion to explaining religion starting from the social totality. Compared with previous views, the methodology adopted in the social-critique stage is more stratified, combining the thinking paradigms of "from the general to the particular" and "from the abstract to the concrete." Specifically, Marx first mentioned this new method of studying religion in Volume III of Capital: deriving religious relations from the actual productive forces and forms of intercourse. Engels later added in his "Letter to Conrad Schmidt": study the conditions of existence of the various social formations, and then try to derive the corresponding religious views from these conditions.
Economic and cultural critique pointed out the economic roots of religion, stripped away its mystery, and explained its man-made nature. Social critique goes a step further to answer the influence of complex social aggregate forces [11] and other social factors beyond economic roots on religion. This new methodology—deriving religious forms from actual forms of intercourse—regards religious phenomena as a reflection of the holistic and comprehensive forms of intercourse and the relations of social life, linking social phenomena and religious phenomena through the laws of social development. "In this way, it unmasks these false appearances and illusions, this mutual independence and ossification of the different social elements of wealth, this personification of things and reification of relations of production, this religion of everyday life." In the new methodology mentioned in Volume III of Capital, Marx starts from classical political economy but is no longer limited to pure economic analysis; rather, he investigates social history and the economic base in combination.
Therefore, the development from conceptual analysis and induction in the stages of religious and political critique, to economic analysis in the stages of economic and cultural critique, and finally rising to social analysis in the stage of social critique, represents a spiral advancement from the general to the particular, and then from the particular to the general at the methodological level. From the perspective of the "two leaps" from knowledge to practice [12], the transition from the economic-critique stage to the cultural-critique stage is only the first leap from practice to knowledge. Therefore, cultural critique is not the end point of Marx and Engels' view of religion; only by completing the second leap from knowledge to practice—namely, from cultural critique to social critique—can the leap from "understanding the world" to "changing the world" be accomplished.
IV. Significance Analysis of the Fifth Stage—The Social Critique Stage
First, the social-critique turn in Marx and Engels’ view of religion is conducive to a deeper understanding of the essence of religion and provides a theoretical guide for correctly handling religious issues. As mature perspectives, the economic-critique and cultural-critique views of religion once played a very revolutionary role. As Marx mentioned in the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right": "For Germany, the critique of religion has been largely completed; and the critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique." The economic-critique view of religion provided an entry point for Marx and Engels to launch a fierce critique of the capitalist economic system; meanwhile, it was the first view of religion to analyze religious issues from the perspective of historical materialism, contributing a revolutionary guiding direction for understanding the roots and developmental laws of religion, and ending the idealistic religious thoughts of the Young Hegelians in their view of history. The cultural-critique view of religion, building on economic critique, emphasized the analysis of the cultural attributes of religion and further enriched the depth of historical materialism. The social-critique view of religion, on the basis of economic and cultural critique and combined with the theory of social aggregate forces, reveals the complex relationship between religion and various social dimensions, answering the dialectical relationship between the laws of religion and the specific paths for dealing with religious issues.
The social-critique view of religion is a perspective where Marx and Engels neither deviate from the axis of the economic base nor fail to cover various contingencies outside economic necessity. Since specific social formations are not immutable, a social-critique view of religion derived from the investigation of specific social formations will not be a dogmatic one. "But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelians." The social-critique dimension of religion requires both a comprehensive re-examination of past history and an investigation of the present; therefore, it is a guide for action and constitutes the second leap from knowledge to practice.
While the economic-critique and cultural-critique views of religion explored the roots of religion, summarized its laws of development, and analyzed its cultural factors, the social-critique view of religion provides answers to questions such as: the relationship between freedom of religious belief and the private vs. the state; the attitude of the working-class party toward propagating and educating in scientific atheism; the demarcation of "Left" and "Right" in religious policy [13]; and the relationship between religious work and united front work. The reason Marx could provide correct answers to specific religious affairs—such as whether to implement the separation of church and state or whether to implement freedom of religious belief—in the 1871 The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Workingmen's Association, and why Engels could do the same in his A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891, is because the social-critique view of religion truly realized the dialectical unity of theory and practice.
Secondly, the significance of Marx and Engels's religious criticism lies in revealing the hypocrisy and artificiality of religion, and the stage of social criticism specifically embodies the integrity of their perspective on religion. After forming the stage of religious criticism, Marx and Engels discovered that religious criticism alone could not achieve a truly thorough critique of religion; they therefore added political criticism as a supplement. A religious perspective based on political criticism does not consist of political criticism alone, but rather religious criticism plus political criticism—that is, criticizing Europe’s political systems while simultaneously revealing the hypocrisy and artificiality of religion. By the same token, the reason why Marx and Engels later supplemented their views with economic and cultural criticism was that they discovered the religious perspectives of previous stages were insufficient to complete a thorough critique of religion.
The reason Marx and Engels developed the stage of social criticism in their later years was precisely because they discovered that the first four stages alone could not achieve a comprehensive and complete critique. The underlying reason for this is that Marx and Engels's understanding of religion was constantly being refined. Starting from an initial awareness of religion’s hypocrisy and artificiality, they discovered religion’s political attributes, then deepened their understanding further through prior research to explore the economic roots of religious emergence. Subsequently, they also realized the cultural factors present within religion, until finally, Marx and Engels recognized that the investigation of religion required integration with various concrete social formations [14].
As for why Marx and Engels established the social criticism stage of their religious perspective, Marx provided the answer in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: to achieve the sublation [15] of human self-alienation and the realization of human liberation. If religion is the alienation of man from himself, then to sublate this alienation, one must deepen the understanding of religion. In the process of understanding religion, Marx and Engels discovered the complexity of the religious question, thereby forming five stages in their religious perspective.
Finally, regardless of how many stages there are in a religious perspective, the ultimate goal remains singular: to achieve the sublation of religious self-alienation and the realization of human liberation. The reason Marxism is open and developing is that Marxism is not dogmatism, but methodology. Marx and Engels always addressed specific problems within concrete societies; they would never attempt to answer the questions of one social formation by starting from another. Since concrete social formations are always developing and changing, a religious perspective based on social criticism can proceed from reality and investigate and analyze religious issues by seeking truth from facts. Regardless of how one defines the periodicity of Marx and Engels's religious perspective, their view remains one of social criticism—or a perspective that resolves the problem of "man"—because the ultimate aim of their critique of religion lies in resolving religious self-alienation at the social level and finally realizing human liberation.