Jia Jinyue: A Critical Analysis of Messianic Marxism
"Messianic Marxism" is a term used to describe a set of theories or perspectives that combine Marxist thought with Messianism. In this framework, history is viewed as progressing toward an ultimate goal of redemption or salvation, analogous to the arrival of the Messiah in religious traditions. In this context, Messianic Marxism refers to a strain of Marxism that understands socialist revolution and the construction of a communist society through a religious or mystical lens.
The emergence of Messianic Marxism stems from the need to resolve the quandaries of postmodernity. Particularly in the mid-to-late twentieth century, the advent of postmodernism reflected the massive cultural shifts caused by changes in capitalist political, economic, and social structures, as well as the crisis of contemporary culture and values. To resolve this crisis, some Western philosophers sought a "proposal for redemption" by integrating Marxism with Messianism. They claimed that Marxism possesses an inherent heterogeneity, advocating for the "deconstruction" of the Marxist grand narrative, proclaiming that Marxism is "some sort of liberating and messianic affirmation," and interpreting the legacy of Marxism as "apocalyptic redemption." Figures such as Walter Benjamin of the Frankfurt School, the neoliberal Arnold Toynbee, the deconstructionist Jacques Derrida, and the post-Marxist theorist Fredric Jameson are representative of Messianic Marxism. Some have even turned toward China as a possible site of redemption. However, China is not an apocalyptic Messiah. The reason China has forged a different path in resolving the paradoxes of modernity is not because it transformed Marxist theory into a religion, but because it has consistently adhered to the historical materialist character of Marxist theory. Therefore, using historical materialism to decode Messianic Marxism—uncovering its problems and its essence—is of paramount significance for understanding Chinese-path modernization from another perspective.
I. Messianic Marxism's Response to the Human Predicament and Its Intellectual Characteristics
In the highly mechanized society constructed by modern capitalism, the spiritual and philosophical depth of society has gradually diminished, resulting in a civilization that is indifferent and lacking in humanistic care. To transform the current environment, Messianic Marxism attempts to solve the difficulties facing human society through a completely different dimension. This theory focuses on the future society, exhibiting romanticist and anti-capitalist colorations. It holds that historical development will, at some future moment, bring about the realization or reconstruction of the Kingdom of God. Messianic Marxism possesses the dual characteristics of being both conservative and revolutionary, and it played an important role in European social thought during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
(1) Seeking Theological Support within the History of the Development of Marx's Thought
Regarding the worldview and methods of redemption, Messianism compares Marx’s thought with religious eschatology, identifying commonalities between the two in hopes of providing a possibility for the secularization of religion.
First, regarding its worldview, Marx—like religion—constructs a world of universal redemption. Through an analysis of The German Ideology, Karl Löwith contrasted Hegel’s "Kingdom of Spirit" with Marx's "secular kingdom," arguing that Marx followed in Hegel's footsteps by striving to establish a "logic of history." He claimed that Marx's Messianism transcends reality, sometimes even ignoring the "materialism" he emphasized in order to maintain an eschatological perspective. He attributed the meaning and direction of social development to history, describing it not as "a pagan 'before' Christ and a Christian 'after' Christ, but a less radical cleavage into a 'prehistory' and a future history" [1]. Löwith argued that, thematically, the "community" in the Communist Manifesto bears a clear Messianic imprint; in terms of its practical method, it is a form of universal and pious religious redemption, an attitude carrying clear overtones of an apocalyptic judgment. He likened capitalism to ancient fate and the future community to the Messiah (a Kingdom of God without God). He compared the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to the necessary path from the old world to the new, where the proletariat serves as the "chosen people" [N1], endowed with a privileged mission of redemption to resurrect religious dialectics and usher in a New Era. "The whole historical process as described in the Communist Manifesto reflects the general scheme of the Judeo-Christian interpretation of history as a history of salvation moving toward a meaningful final goal by way of providential direction" [2].
Second, regarding the method of realization, Messianism—like Marxism—possesses revolutionary and political vitality. Messianists believe that Marx was influenced by a "revolutionary apocalypse," aimed at overthrowing capitalism and creating a new society of "utopian desire" to replace divine redemption. Löwith argued that Marx's view of economic exploitation in Capital is a form of transcendental critique: "'Exploitation' remains a moral judgment; measured against a certain idea of justice, it is an absolute injustice" [3]. "In Marx's world-historical narrative, it is nothing less than the fundamental evil of 'prehistory,' or in 'Biblical' terms, the original sin of this age. It is not merely an 'economic fact'" [4]. A firm belief in the ultimate utopian consciousness and the rationality of that goal is the key factor motivating people toward revolution. Once this utopian consciousness gains the support of the masses, it becomes a powerful force with a realistic basis in human history. In Marx’s theory of future society, the awakening of class consciousness plays a crucial role. If utopianism and revolutionary consciousness are organically linked, it will tremendously stimulate human creativity and initiative, transforming current exploitation and oppression into revolutionary hope. According to this school of thought, revolution provides a new intellectual perspective on the connection between utopian thought and Marxism.
(2) The Internal Logic is the Unity of "Messianism" and "Historical Materialism"
Utilizing a metaphysical conceptual framework, Messianists point to the genetic relationship between the modern Enlightenment view of history and Christian historical theology. In his early years, Marx was influenced by both the Enlightenment and Christianity; thus, his view of history contains an implicit Judeo-Christian belief in eschatological redemption.
At the ontological level, the human being is the subject of redemption. The split between reason and reality produced by modern man can be fused through the dialectical characteristics of historical materialism, providing the possibility for achieving redemption. In the "Epistemo-Critical Prologue" to The Origin of German Tragic Drama, Benjamin proposed the "monad" form of ideas, suggesting that individual "monads" can play an active role through deep thinking, reflection on their own existence and experience, and participation in social and historical processes. Every individual has the potential to participate in the transformation and progress of society, thereby realizing the possibility of redemption. He encouraged individuals to participate in the historical process of redemption through deep thought, awareness of social phenomena, and active social action. Benjamin viewed the core concepts of historical materialism as a combination of theological materialism and monadology, determining the reality and historicity of ideas through empirical phenomena. By studying contingent historical events, he aimed to highlight the overall principles of history and provide a theoretical foundation for the redemption of human subjectivity.
At the epistemological level, Marx’s redeemer-view of history carries a clear "utopian" character of religious teleology. In The Meaning of History, Dilthey argued that this teleological understanding of the first and last moments of history began with Judeo-Christian doctrine and gradually became one of its important characteristics. Derrida argued that there exists in Marx’s thought a pursuit of an idealized and redeemed future society—an idealized historical goal that views the future society as an ultimate state of goodness. This perspective, to some extent, reflects the dialectic of historical development and the idealized belief in a socialist future within Marxism. "If there is a spirit of Marxism which I will never be ready to renounce, it is not only the critical idea or the questionable stance... it is even more, and more fundamentally, a certain emancipatory and messianic affirmation, a certain promise" [5]. This implies that people can transcend themselves, liberated from any messianic constraints, without being restricted by any religious dogma or metaphysical beliefs.
At the level of internal logic, "Messianism" and "historical materialism" are unified. Messianic Marxism argues that revolution can rupture the continuity of history. This rupture can provide the proletariat with actual power, allowing them to become God’s chosen people and achieve the goal of social transformation. In short, it emphasizes revolution as a means for the proletariat to achieve self-transcendence and change within history. Benjamin believed that history crystallizes into a significant state at certain special moments. In these moments, we can more deeply understand the fate of the current era and hear the cries for help from a forgotten history. He emphasized the historical importance of specific moments that help us better understand the present and inspire us to use practical action to change the course of history. By collecting vast fragments of historical memory, people can bring the pain of past history into the present, radicalizing the state of contemporary society and making it possible to reshape the future through revolutionary action. This is not merely using intellectual analysis to achieve practical liberation, but rather conducting a direct political revolution through individual remembrance and awakening, breaking historical routines and creating new possibilities.
In summary, Messianic Marxism has three main characteristics: First, in terms of logic and theoretical provenance, it combs through the developmental history of Marx’s thought to merge two heterogeneous ideas and seek a theoretical interface between them. Second, from a perspective of redemption, it explores the operational feasibility of eschatology amidst contemporary human dilemmas and disasters, emphasizing the destruction and rebirth of society. Third, it carries a radicalist tone; the future they speak of is the climax of a long historical process, the final product of a period of intense revolutionary struggle. The salvation of humanity becomes possible only through a thorough revolution.
II. Analytical Critique of the Flaws of Messianic Marxism
(1) Marx's Critique of Eschatology in Early Documents
In Germany, the exploration and debate regarding eschatology were concentrated mainly in the 1820s and 30s—precisely when Marx was studying at the Frederick William University in Berlin. At that time, Bruno Bauer, a leading representative of the Young Hegelians, taught Marx courses on theology and law, which included lectures on the biblical Book of Isaiah. This is evidenced by Marx's graduation certificate from the University of Berlin:
Summer Semester 1839
- The Book of Isaiah, taught by Licentiate of Theology Bauer, attended [6].
Isaiah is one of the three major writing prophets of Christianity (the other two being Jeremiah and Ezekiel) and is often interpreted in Christian exegesis as the one who prophesied the birth of Christ. Messianic Marxists use Marx's study of Isaiah during his university years as evidence of his exposure to biblical eschatology, arguing that Marx was likely influenced by this eschatological language and thought before he discovered historical materialism. "This truth is built upon the religious foundations of the Christian West. From Isaiah to Marx, from Augustine to Hegel, from Joachim to Schelling, the historical consciousness of the Christian West is determined by eschatological themes" [7].
However, Löwith and others ignore the historical context of Marx's study of Isaiah—namely, that the 1830s and 40s were the peak of the development of "Biblical Criticism." Biblical Criticism, a branch of Christian biblical studies, refers to the use of modern knowledge—such as history, philology, textual criticism, and archaeology—to verify the historical background of the Bible. It developed rapidly after the 18th century and became one of the primary disciplines for studying the Bible. As a leading scholar of Biblical Criticism at the time, Bauer criticized and transformed the prophets and eschatology appearing in the Bible. Therefore, his approach to Isaiah was not one of acceptance, but of reflection. In his work Critique of the Gospels and the History of Their Origin, he denied the historical reality and divinity of Christianity by analyzing the literal and grammatical meaning of texts and verifying the chronological order and relationships of the Gospels. At this time, what Bauer promoted was an opposition to the "vow" that individuals in reality must submit to a universal eschatological power.
During his university years, Marx was influenced by Bauer, and thus his attitude toward "eschatology" was by no means as affinity-based as Messianic Marxists claim. For example, in 1841, Marx communicated with Bauer while preparing The Posthumous Proclamation [5]. In this work, Marx aimed to explore the revolutionary essence of Hegelian philosophy to promote atheistic thought. He criticized a series of eschatological concepts, including that of the Messiah. Marx believed that social change is driven by internal contradictions and class struggle within society, rather than being led by a mystical Messianic force. He criticized the fictional nature of religious eschatological concepts and their negative impact on social reform, as they encourage people to wait for the intervention of external forces rather than actively participating in social change. Therefore, far from accepting Messianic eschatology, Marx was primarily critical of it.
By exploring Marx's early thought and theoretical roots, it can be proven that he did not adhere to a Messianic eschatological framework while developing historical materialism. Aside from learning the interpretations of Hebrew prophets provided by biblical criticism during his studies with Bauer, there is no evidence to prove that he supported such a theological tone. Consequently, the theory that Marx’s early period was influenced by eschatology is untenable. Nevertheless, some might argue that although Marx’s thought did not explicitly adopt an eschatological view of history, these perspectives might have permeated his thinking in some way. We can respond to this challenge from the following aspects:
From the perspective of Marx’s theoretical framework, although he was exposed to religious theology in his youth, he did not follow theological concepts. On the contrary, he committed himself to establishing a system of thought inconsistent with theological assumptions. Marx specifically employed the method of historical materialism to explicitly criticize these religious views, emphasizing practical analysis of the social, economic, and historical. Furthermore, Marx consciously stripped away religious imprints during his writing process. To decouple his thought from religious coloring and make it more independent, Marx, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, severely criticized "so-called socialism" tinged with an eschatological tone: "Whether it sentimentally bemoans the sufferings of mankind, or piously proclaims the coming of the millennium and universal brotherly love, or humanistically babbles about spirit, education, and freedom, or abstractly invents a system for the harmony and welfare of all classes" [12], it remains a mere empty phrase that cannot touch the core of capitalism. During the writing of The German Ideology, Marx consciously opposed the apocalyptic, utopian flavor of this early communism. Marx called this approach to communism irrelevant to reality and an "ahistorical abstraction" [13]. He also criticized Hess for having a heavy Messianic complex, stating: "Hess is a pious Christian... since he talks of 'resurrection,' our great master enables us still to recognize his most blatant Jewishness from the remarks on page 110" [14].
In short, during the development of Marx’s early thought, there is no clear evidence to suggest that he ever supported a Messianic eschatological theory. The proposition that Marx’s work is "characterized by profound Christian theology not only in its origin but also in its structure" [15] cannot be sustained.
(2) The "Ahistorical" Argument Contradicts Historical Reality
Given that Western intellectual circles view Marxist concepts as ossified, Messianic Marxists have intentionally selected portions of Marx’s many theoretical works that align with their own theoretical frameworks. However, this argumentative process contains obvious flaws:
First, it treats Marx’s classic texts in a "discontinuous" manner, ignoring the overall historical trajectory and intellectual characteristics of Marx’s thought from the perspective of its developmental history. They take the analysis of socio-historical modes of production found in Marx’s mature critique of political economy as the secularized material basis of the Messiah, while ignoring the developmental journey of the young Marx and the background of his critique of religion.
Second, it treats Marx’s historical materialism as another manifestation of philosophical speculation. Messianic Marxism mistakenly interprets Marx’s process of resolving the contradictions of capitalist society as an abstract, speculative logic in a theological sense. However, Marx advocated that history is shaped by economic and social forces, and that consciousness and ideas arise from social existence. This includes actual human existence, productive practice, labor, the division of labor, and the construction of ownership. It is on this basis that research into social consciousness—including discussions of culture, politics, and morality—is extended. Therefore, Marx’s historical materialism is not an abstract theological theory, but a unique system of thought formed through concrete demonstration and profound insight into social reality.
Third, it misinterprets the characteristics of Marx’s historical materialism. Marx analyzed the modes of production and relations of production in capitalist society in a concrete and historical manner, seeking a practical path for the proletariat to fulfill its historical mission of human liberation. This analysis itself demonstrates the scientific and revolutionary nature of historical materialism. Messianic Marxism equates Marx with a rationalized philosopher of history, emphasizing the role of religion in the development of his historical materialist thought and weakening the dialectical development characteristic of his view of history.
In general, Messianic Marxism attempts to fit a secularized apocalypse into the logical framework of Marxist theory, which undermines the integrity and scientific nature of Marxism. They regard Marxism as a metaphysical logocentrism, thereby causing Marxism to slide into historical nihilism; by using "Last Judgment" and "Prophet" as keywords for Marx’s communism, they filter out the class nature, criticality, and emancipatory spirit of Marxism, thus leading communism toward utopianism.
III. Reinterpreting Messianic Marxism from the Perspective of Historical Materialism
Messianic Marxism links Marxism with religion or mysticism, leading to misunderstandings of social change and political theory. Analyzing this school from the perspective of historical materialism can help people understand Messianic Marxism more clearly, avoid misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Marxist theory, ensure the accurate interpretation and dissemination of Marxist core principles, and maintain the scientific and practical nature of Marxist theory.
First, Messianic Marxism is essentially a variant of "religious teleology." Löwith and others attempted to find a secularized foundation for religious theology within Marxism. He treated exploitation as a "moral judgment," considering it an "absolute injustice," without focusing on the essence of exploitation: the forced deprivation of surplus value from those social members or groups who lack or have little property. Exploitation is a reflection of secular social contradictions—"Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt" [16]. Therefore, only by abolishing private property and classes will this exploitation and oppression vanish. Messianic Marxists do not believe that human history is a history of class struggle; rather, they believe history originates from an undifferentiated universal existence—the "Kingdom of God." Ultimately, they promote Messianism as the driving force of history, transform the Messiah into a universal organization of saints, and take pantheism and eschatology as the ultimate truth and logical end-point of historical development, regarding it as the sole path to human redemption, thus falling into the trap of metaphysics.
Second, Messianic Marxism lacks a revolutionary and practical nature. They religiousize human history by detaching it from actual conflicts of economic interest, relying entirely on how revolutionaries seize the right moment to interrupt the process of history and begin a new era. Benjamin emphasized that revolution is not a locomotive but an emergency brake—that is, intercepting the unlimited process of modernity to make room for a new world. He emphasized the role of human subjective agency in history but ignored the possibilities and limits at the economic level. Because "once 'ideas' are divorced from 'interests,' they will inevitably make a fool of themselves" [17]. However, humanity is not governed entirely by spirit; the essence of man is the sum of all social relations, and human manifestations at the spiritual level are extensions of material production, which plays a decisive role in social development. Furthermore, social revolutionary practice is the standard for testing the correctness of human ideas. Establishing an absolute subject that transcends history, time, and language while detached from a material basis turns "redemption" into an empty phrase completely severed from actual society. The redemption paradigm advocated by Benjamin, which aims for a "synthesis of millennialism and Judeo-Christianity, fin-de-siècle irrationalist philosophy, and Marxism" [18], fundamentally lacks a practical point of support.
Third, Messianic Marxism is detached from the people and from reality. To solve practical problems, one first needs a correct understanding of them. But to truly understand practical problems, one must closely link ideas with actual conditions. Marx believed that the reconstruction of the real order by ideas only provides a theoretical regulation; the key to solving problems lies in turning speculative problems into real problems. Social anomie, loss of faith, and new risks of ethnic conflict brought about by energy crises, terrorist attacks, and refugee waves are all external real-world problems that the people have no choice but to fight through actual action. Therefore, only a thorough change in the relations of production is the only realistic dimension for eliminating the predicament of modernization. Messianic Marxists, fearing the collapse of the old international order, vigorously advocate seeking "conditions for the coexistence and prosperity of diverse utopian aspirations" to solve superficial problems. However, talking abstractly about "world-leaving" and "world-saving" concepts while detached from the actual material base will still result in the fundamental failure to resolve key issues in national development.
Finally, Messianic Marxism remains unable to escape the perspective of "advanced" Western civilization. We cannot deny that the fusion of Messianism and Marxism represents an attempt to solve the predicament of modernity for humanity. Through Messianic Marxism, we have the opportunity to interpret society from commodity fetishism and the mythologization of the social world. This orientation provides us with a unique perspective, allowing us to delve into the history and future of capitalist economic development to reveal the phenomena of falsehood and impetuousness in society. But this attempt still cannot escape the shackles of theology and metaphysics. We can see that while Messianic Marxism strives to avoid Eurocentric tendencies in its eschatological vision and its grasp of the "New Era," how to break through the "Eastern predicament" has never been included in their primary scope of research. This is because all pre-capitalist civilizations and Eastern civilizations are treated merely as copies—reference points for Western civilization to draw lessons and experiences. They turn a blind eye to the actual economic problems faced by Eastern countries, worry about the destruction of social ethics and the ecological environment by technological progress, and deny the efforts of these countries to promote technological advancement, excluding them as contributors to modern civilization. Although they have begun to reflect on modern social problems, it remains difficult for them to escape the mindset of "Western-centrism." The ambiguous critique of capitalism by Messianic Marxism is, at best, a desperate struggle on the "journey home" back to Christian theology.