Wang Liangbin, Jing Tao, et al.: On the Implications of Engels' Religious Research in His Later Years
After the death of Marx, Engels took up the banner of the international communist labor movement as a revolutionary mentor. Guiding the practice of the international labor movement and defending and developing Marxism became his sacred mission and an inescapable responsibility. In his late years, Engels devoted his primary energy to editing Marx’s monumental work Das Kapital; however, it is noteworthy that research into religious issues also constituted a significant undertaking in his late research, forming a secondary thread in his final years. Within the long-term practice of the international labor movement, the question of religion remained an unavoidable topic. On one hand, a certain connection existed between religion and socialism; there were certain superficial similarities between the two, and this connection and similarity possessed a degree of deceptiveness within the labor movement. This deceptiveness exerted a relatively negative influence, causing the international labor movement to deviate to some extent from the correct direction of development. On any other hand, the assertions and practices of radical atheism and the forced, violent elimination of religion severely diverged from Marxism and were detrimental to the development of the labor movement. It is not difficult to see that Engels's late religious research possesses immense theoretical and practical significance. Deeply excavating the purpose and significance of this research is essential for re-recognizing the achievements of Engels’s late religious studies, assessing whether his attitude toward religion shifted in his later years, and evaluating the historical status of his late religious outlook.
I. The Needs of Realistic Revolutionary Struggle
The question of religion occupied a pivotal position in the practice of the international communist labor movement. A correct understanding of religious issues was vital to the forward direction of the international labor movement. In the realistic revolutionary struggle, there were primarily two erroneous understandings regarding religion: one was the denial of the existence of God and the belief that religion should not exist—namely, radical atheism and the forced elimination of religion; the other was the acknowledgment of God’s existence while simultaneously linking religion with socialism, thereby blurring the line between religious belief and the lofty ideals of communism. Engels offered timely critiques of these two erroneous viewpoints, largely purging their negative influence within the international labor movement.
(1) Refuting radical atheism and the theory of the forced elimination of religion, and elucidating the inherent laws of religion
How should the problem of religion be handled? What kind of religious policy should be adopted? Based on the development of the social revolution of that time, Engels needed to provide a scientific answer to these questions to defend the guiding position of Marxism in the labor movement. Starting in 1872, Bismarck, under the banner of the Kulturkampf [1], promulgated the May Laws directed against the Catholic Church, launching an attack on the Church in the form of legislation. However, his purpose was not to clarify matters of religious faith, but rather to use atheism’s opposition to religion to mask his political goal—weakening the power of the Catholic Church and its representative, the Center Party, in order to consolidate the dominant position of the German Empire. When the flourishing development of the German socialist labor movement threatened the dominance of the Bismarck government, he redirected the spearhead of the struggle toward the Social Democratic Party of Germany. As Engels wrote in a letter to Kautsky in 1884: "No matter how Geiser scolds the atheists, Bismarck will still not satisfy him—he will not abolish the Anti-Socialist Laws."
Similar situations appeared within the international labor movement. The Blanquist [2] exiles "imagined every revolution as a coup de main [3] carried out by a small number of revolutionaries," advocating for the initiation of violent revolution through the conspiracies of a few to achieve a dictatorship of the minority. Engels criticized them for "using their own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument" in the field of practice. Regarding the treatment of religion, they believed that religion had long enslaved people and prevented them from recognizing their true interests, so they signed Commune decrees to prohibit all religious propaganda and religious organizations. The Bakuninists [4] likewise advocated for the elimination of the state apparatus through radical violent revolution, but their goal differed from the Blanquists: they sought to achieve a state of absolute free anarchy, and atheism was similarly their label. Engels believed that the Blanquist exiles and the Bakuninists were "more radical than anyone in their atheism." Clearly, this was not a compliment. As Engels noted: "The only service that can still be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of faith and to outdo Bismarck’s anti-church laws in the Kulturkampf by prohibiting religion altogether." It is evident that Engels did not approve of the viewpoints of radical atheism. Therefore, to continue overemphasizing atheism within the international labor movement was, in a sense, acting as a propagandist for God; the concept of atheism always presupposes the existence of the concept of God.
Regarding the forced elimination of religion, in addition to Bismarck’s May Laws against Catholicism, Eugen Dühring’s ideas on the violent elimination of religion were also criticized by Engels. Dühring believed that in the future social community, all basic components of religion and worship must be removed; he opposed all religion and incited the future gendarmerie to attack religion. To refute Dühring’s erroneous assertions, Engels systematically expounded on the essence, origins, and withering away of religion in Anti-Dühring. He believed that "all religion... 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." Religion has its own specific natural, social, and cognitive roots. Correspondingly, religion should wither away of its own accord [5] along with the elimination of its original roots, rather than being attacked through simple and violent means using the gendarmerie as Mr. Dühring suggested. Mr. Dühring's approach would only help religion achieve "martyrdom and a prolonged lease on life."
(2) Distinguishing Christian Socialism from Scientific Socialism and indicating the direction of the international communist movement
An important purpose of Engels's research into the history of primitive Christianity in his late years was to demonstrate that communist faith and religious faith are two different types of paths for human liberation, thereby indicating the direction of the international communist labor movement. It is undeniable that primitive Christianity and socialism do indeed possess similarities and commonalities. For example, both groups consist of the oppressed, both are mass movements, and both long for liberation. Beyond these commonalities, through an investigation of the history of primitive Christianity, Engels also pointed out the fundamental distinctions between the two. This distinction is mainly manifested in two aspects: first, primitive Christianity underwent changes in its later development; second, unlike the otherworldly salvation of primitive Christianity, socialism focuses on the worldly liberation of actual human beings.
Through historical investigation, Engels discovered that primitive Christianity had undergone a massive transformation. He believed that "Christianity, which at that time had not yet become self-conscious, was as different as heaven from earth from the world religion later fixed by dogmas at the Council of Nicaea." Primitive Christianity lacked the concepts of the Holy Trinity and original sin, which precisely became the basis for later Christian dogma. This indicates that later Christianity already contained the consciousness of the ruling class; factors such as fraud and inequality had already been mixed into it, and the believers' pursuit of salvation had been transformed into a tool for the interest groups of the ruling class to seize profit. However, primitive Christianity "had the feeling of carrying on a struggle against the whole world and the certainty that this struggle would be victorious, a thirst for struggle and a confidence in victory which have been completely lost to the Christians of our day and which in our time are to be found at the other pole of society—among the socialists."
Engels affirmed the fighting spirit and means of struggle of the primitive Christians—likewise as oppressed people, likewise struggling against a powerful world, and likewise a mass movement. However, this spirit of struggle has been lost in modern Christians. Modern Christianity has become a tool for the ruling class to maintain its rule, a Christianity possessed of ruling-class consciousness, which compared to primitive Christianity is more riddled with fraud and paralysis. Yet religious control cannot block the tide of the proletariat because it is passive and therefore destined to be destroyed. As Engels said: "No religious doctrine can support a tottering society." Whether it is religious faith or communist faith, their ultimate goal is the question of human salvation. Communism seeks the liberation of all humanity through the transformation of the world, while Christianity seeks salvation in the "beyond" after death. The inevitable demise of capitalism cannot be saved by relying on religion. The inevitable victory of socialism has already become a logical necessity, and its path of realization has been found. Only by establishing the lofty ideal of communism, uniting as one, and consciously resisting the religious paralysis of the bourgeoisie can the oppressed proletariat overthrow bourgeois rule, liberate all humanity, and thereby liberate themselves. This is the lofty ideal of communism, which is distinct from religious faith.
Precisely because primitive Christianity and socialism shared certain similarities, a school of thought that reconciled the two—Christian Socialism—emerged. This doctrine blurred the boundaries between the two and was highly deceptive within the international labor movement, hindering its development. A typical case was in the early period of the European labor movement, when Wilhelm Weitling preached early Christian communism. In his book Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom, he ruthlessly criticized capitalist society and advocated for the establishment of a harmonious and free society. However, his so-called harmony and freedom were built on the premise that all individual interests must be dissolved into a common general interest, and the leadership of this interest must be entrusted to those most talented in the various most beneficial sciences. Furthermore, he advocated that the harmonious and free society should implement a system of collective ownership and shared enjoyment, vigorously promoting the benefits of such a system. But how could such entrustment be guaranteed? What should happen when individual interests conflict with the common general interest? How could private property be shared? It is not difficult to see that Weitling’s doctrine was saturated with utopianism, egalitarianism, and ultra-democratic colorings. In The Gospel of a Poor Sinner, Weitling specifically expounded on what communism is and attempted to reconcile communism with religious sentiment, adding a religious hue to communism. He believed that both communism and religion were "matters of the heart," and that communism could not be guaranteed without an inner ardor similar to religious sentiment; communism could utilize the immense power inherent in religious sentiment for its own benefit.
After Weitling was imprisoned, Kuhlmann took the opportunity to preach his own "gospel," advocating for the establishment of a new world and a spiritual kingdom on earth, with himself as the master of this new world, capable of expressing all the pain, longings, and hopes of all people. Engels called his doctrine "nothing but the most vulgar sentimental drivel, dressed up in Lamennais-like semi-Biblical phrases and delivered with the arrogance of a prophet." With the development of the practice of the international labor movement, extreme cases like Kuhlmann’s became rare. However, with the secularization of Christianity, Christian Socialism developed accordingly; it became more deceptive and seductive, gaining a strong response in the labor movement. Its distinguishing feature was the significant influence it took from Marxism, increasingly focusing on the actual struggles of workers and possessing prominent practical characteristics. For example, groups and organizations like the "Christian Social Union" and the "Guild of St. Matthew" in Britain, the "Society of Christian Socialists" in Boston, and the "Christian Social Workers' Party" in Germany mostly took collective ownership and the labor theory of value as their theoretical weapons to carry out labor movements. However, unlike scientific socialism, which seeks to overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus through violent revolution to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat and social transformation, Christian Socialism advocates for the use of peaceful means to reform society, utilizing parliament, voting, legal strikes, and other methods to achieve its goals. The inherent weakness and compromise of Christian Socialism were precisely what Engels criticized. His study of religion in his late years was, to a large extent, precisely to purge the negative influence of Christian Socialism within the international labor movement.
II. Defending and Developing Historical Materialism
In 1845, Engels met Marx again, and in The German Ideology, by criticizing the idealistic conception of history held by Feuerbach, Bauer, Stirner, and others, they systematically and profoundly expounded the basic principles of historical materialism. This was the first articulation of the theory of historical materialism. However, during Engels’s late years, the theory of historical materialism came under attack. This attack primarily took two forms: first, the distortion of historical materialism into "economic determinism"; and second, the treatment of historical materialism as a "universal formula." Engels’s late religious research was precisely the great practice of applying historical materialism as a research method to guide religious studies, representing the defense and development of historical materialism.
(1) Refuting economic determinism and proposing the idea of "intermediate links"
Regarding economic determinism, Engels argued that treating the economic factor as the only decisive one transforms the proposition into a hollow, abstract, and nonsensical phrase. While the economic base exerts a tremendous influence—affecting historical struggles and largely determining their form—it is the primary factor, not the sole one. Various elements of the superstructure, such as political, legal, philosophical, and religious theories, also influence the course of historical development. Engels clarified that the interaction of these superstructural elements proceeds such that, in the final analysis, the economic movement asserts itself as a necessity through an endless series of accidents. To explain why the link between economics and consciousness is often obscured, Engels noted that ideologies like philosophy and religion are "higher" and more distant from the material economic base. In these realms, the connection between ideas and their material conditions becomes increasingly intricate and blurred by intermediate links. By distinguishing between superstructural elements with direct ties to the base (legal and political) and those with indirect ties (philosophy and religion), Engels built a bridge between economic factors and religious development. He maintained that while religion always contains traditional material—a potent conservative force—the transformations within that material are ultimately driven by changes in class and economic relations.
Engels's study of bourgeois political revolutions and religious critiques substantiates this theory of intermediate links. He identified three "decisive battles" against feudalism: the first uprising sparked by the German Reformation, the second led by Calvinism, and the third being the French Revolution, which entirely discarded the "religious cloak." Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith" critiqued Catholic dogma to represent the interests of the commoners and burghers. Calvin's "predestination" later critiqued Lutheranism to align with the bourgeois spirit of enterprise. Finally, the French Revolution replaced religious forms with pure political struggle, though all these movements were driven by the underlying rise of the bourgeoisie as a representative of more advanced productive forces and relations of production. As Engels noted, while these mass movements often adopted the form of restoring primitive Christianity, they were always fueled by "real, worldly interests." This analysis demonstrates Engels's further development of historical materialism.
II. Critiquing the Formulization of Historical Materialism and Advocating for In-depth Historical Research
In 1890, following the dismissal of Bismarck [6] and the repeal of the Anti-Socialist Laws, a group of "Left" opportunists known as the "Youngsters" (Die Jungen) emerged within the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Primarily composed of literati and students, they claimed to be Marxists but treated the theory as a fashionable slogan rather than a subject for rigorous study. They deviated from Marxist principles in strategy by blindly inciting strikes, in organization by undermining democratic centralism, and in theory by dogmatizing and formulizing Marxism. To counter their negative influence, Engels emphasized that the materialist method should be a guide for historical research, not a "ready-made formula" used to trim historical facts. He criticized those who used historical materialism as a mere label, arguing that such an approach detaches research from social practice. Instead, he urged a thorough re-examination of all history and the specific conditions of various social formations to derive the corresponding political, legal, aesthetic, philosophical, and religious views. His own late-period research into the history of primitive Christianity was a vital part of this effort.
III. Resolving the Personal "Bible Complex"
Roland Boer used the term "Bible Complex" to describe Engels's lifelong engagement with scripture, characterizing his early departure from Christianity as a process of "self-disenchantment." This complex transformation drove Engels to study the Bible throughout his life, and his writings frequently utilize biblical motifs. In a letter to Kautsky, Engels noted that his interest in the Book of Revelation dated back to 1841, calling it the oldest and most important part of the New Testament. His 1894 work, On the History of Early Christianity, was the culmination of fifty-three years of contemplation. This late-stage critique of German biblical scholarship served as a summary of his life’s work on religion and a resolution of his youthful "Bible complex."
(I) The Complexity of Engels's Early Religious Transition
Born in Barmen to a father who was a devout and conservative Christian, Engels grew up in a household where strict adherence to the Bible was demanded. However, his mother’s interest in art and literature provided a more open intellectual influence. This tension between conservatism and openness likely fueled his religious struggles. His correspondence with the Graeber brothers documents his early turmoil as he grappled with contradictions in the Bible that orthodox preachers could not resolve. This painful process led him through various stages: from mysticism to supernaturalism, then to the liberal theology of Schleiermacher. The publication of Strauss's The Life of Jesus was a turning point, leading Engels to become a staunch "Straussian" and subsequently a Hegelian. Finally, Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity exerted a liberating influence by identifying God as a phantom reflection of human essence. However, Marx and Engels eventually moved beyond Feuerbach’s "half-hearted" materialism—which still sought to establish a "religion of love"—to develop a fully historical materialist worldview and embrace communist conviction.
(II) Biblical Critique and Political Critique in Germany
The combination of politics and religion was one of the hallmark features of Western Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church and the Papacy were the actual holders of political power, and the Church's mode of action followed doctrine derived from the Bible. Conformity to the Bible constituted religious orthodoxy, while deviation from it was regarded as religious heresy. Therefore, differing interpretations and studies of the Bible were directly related to the establishment of religious doctrinal content and, to a large extent, influenced shifts in political power. As Renaissance humanists began to question the Vulgate translation [13] of the Bible, the biblical foundation of Scholasticism began to collapse, and the path toward the reform of religious doctrine formally opened. Various forms of Protestantism emerged as the times required, primarily in Germany. As Engels stated: "Only the Germans possessed theology and, by that account, possessed the object for a critique—a historical, philological, and philosophical critique. Such a critique is a German product; without German Protestantism, this critique would have been impossible, yet it was absolutely necessary." The German Reformation proceeded along two tracks: first, German biblical criticism; and second, its role as the starting point of the bourgeois revolutionary movement against the feudal system. The work of German biblical criticism involved investigating the dates, origins, and historical significance of the books of the New and Old Testaments. From a critical perspective, German biblical criticism was primarily based on philology and history. Representative figures included Wilke [14] and Bauer. In The First Evangelist, or, Philosophical-Critical Investigation of the Relationship of the First Three Gospels, Wilke examined the chronological order and interdependence of the Gospels purely from a linguistic standpoint; subsequently, Bauer provided historical verification based on the specific content of the Gospels.
In terms of the direction of critique, German biblical criticism primarily developed along two paths: the Tübingen School and the research of Bruno Bauer. The Tübingen School’s [15] rational critique of the Bible greatly undermined its authority; it recognized that the four Gospels were later re-workings of lost documents. The school pointed out contradictions within the Bible, "striking out as unacceptable all miracles and contradictions in the historical narrative," while simultaneously attempting to "save whatever could still be saved" by retaining certain biblical accounts as historical truth, thereby leaving room for faith. The great merit of Bruno Bauer’s research lay not only in his ruthless critique of the Gospels and the Epistles but also in his serious study of the sources of the concepts and ideas that constituted the Christian system—namely, the purely Greek and Greco-Roman elements. Engels believed it was precisely these elements that "opened the way for Christianity to become a world religion." Why, then, did Engels divide German biblical criticism into two different directions? What exactly were the similarities and differences between these two critiques of the Bible? The similarity lay in the fact that both critiqued the New Testament, the Gospels, and early Christian literature, significantly weakening the authority of the Bible. The difference lay in the intensity and depth of their critiques. The Tübingen School, including Strauss [16], stopped at the critical study of historical accounts within the Bible, distinguishing to a certain extent between historical narrative and historical reality. For example, Strauss distinguished between Jesus as a historical figure and Jesus as the object of Christian faith. Bauer, however, argued that almost the entire content of the Gospels could not be proven as historical fact, and that the boundary between historical narrative and historical reality was difficult to grasp. Consequently, he took a different path, launching an in-depth study directly into the intellectual sources of the Christian system and how it achieved dominance—something the Tübingen School failed to do. Engels believed that the remnants in the Bible not refuted by the Tübingen School "provide the maximum limit of what can currently be recognized by science as a matter for debate," i.e., the boundary between science and faith; Bauer’s research, on the other hand, provided "the maximum limit that can be refuted by science," i.e., the highest limit of what historical science can currently investigate. Truth exists between the two. In his later years, taking the opportunity of Bauer’s death, Engels re-critiqued German biblical criticism, affirming Bauer’s critique of Strauss’s "mythology theory" and recognizing Bauer’s contribution to the historical origins of Christianity. Simultaneously, Engels pointed out the deficiencies in Bauer’s research. For instance, Engels noted that Bauer failed to give sufficient attention to the fact that Christianity originated from popularized Philoic [17] concepts rather than directly from Philo’s writings; Bauer wrongly believed the birthplace of Christianity was Alexandria and Rome; and Bauer’s idealist [18] stance hindered his elucidation of how Christianity achieved victory and world dominance. Thus, based on the materialist conception of history, Engels further proposed his own insights into the historical origins and development of Christianity.
IV. Conclusion
In summary, by deeply exploring the purpose and significance of Engels's late-period religious studies, the questions of whether his attitude toward religion shifted and the status of his late-period research results have been answered to some extent. Regarding the view that Engels's attitude toward religion underwent a "mellow" shift in his later years, he remained consistent from the standpoint of the critique of religion. First, it must be pointed out that critique is not mere negation but sublation (Aufheben); it is a more rational and scientific explanation of religion. In the Germany of Marx and Engels's youth, the political field was overgrown with thorns, so political critique could only be conducted through the critique of religion. After the establishment of the materialist conception of history, Marx and Engels turned from the "critique of heaven" to the "critique of the earth"—the critique of religion was transformed into a critique of the secular foundations upon which religion depends. In his later years, Engels further studied the history of primitive Christianity and theoretically clarified the connection between the economic base and religion—an ideology much "higher" and more distant from the material economic base. The building of this bridge and the profound understanding of primitive Christianity made his late-period critique of religion appear even more thorough; thus, his attitude did not undergo a mellow shift. As for the oppositional view that Engels's thought diverged from Marx's after the latter's death, this is clearly untenable. In his later years, Engels always stood on the Marxist position to lead the international workers' movement and actively struggled against anarchism and revisionism to defend Marxist doctrine. In his late-period writings on the history of primitive Christianity, it is evident that he consistently occupied the standpoint of historical materialism to explain religious issues. Since historical materialism was Marx’s genius discovery, Engels’s late-period research results remained consistent with Marx’s thought and were not in opposition to it. These late-period documents on religion greatly enriched the connotation of Marxist religious theory, added a profound sense of historical gravity to it, and remain an indispensable part of Marxist religious theory, holding an unshakeable position in the field of Marxist religious studies.