Historically, capitalism has thrived on the principle of minimal state interference. Its proponents argue that the market, guided by capitalists and their understanding of economic dynamics, is more efficient than the state in organising economic life. Under this ideology, the state's role is narrowed to tax collection, political administration, and the regulation of citizens, without interfering in market operations.
In such a system, public welfare—employment, healthcare, income distribution, cultural life, and overall living standards—is not considered a right or social duty, but merely a by-product of successful economic performance. Their productivity and profit-generating capacity measure an individual's worth. Citizenship is defined not by civic rights or ethical values, but by one's role as an economic contributor. The state's laws are shaped to ensure the smooth profit flow, making profitability the highest public good. Individuals become expendable components in a vast economic machine.
Religion as a Counter to Capitalist Values:
In stark contrast, religion evaluates human worth through an ethical lens. Across cultures, religious traditions recognise honesty, compassion, justice, and integrity as the true markers of a person's value, not their wealth or productivity. Religion does not demand economic performance in order to grant dignity; rather, it offers moral belonging and intrinsic value, irrespective of one's material status. In doing so, it provides a framework of emotional security and ethical meaning that capitalism fundamentally lacks.
This contrast places capitalism and religion on opposing sides of human valuation. Capitalism upholds competition, individualism, and measurable success. Religion elevates community, morality, and shared values. While capitalism breeds anxiety and insecurity, compelling individuals to constantly "perform" economically, religion provides stability, recognising human dignity regardless of output.
For this reason, religion historically attracted far more adherents than capitalism. Most people, especially those unable to succeed within capitalist systems, found solace in religion's moral inclusivity. Religion appealed to collective identity; capitalism demanded relentless individual performance. Yet the contest between them was never simply about popularity—it was a deeper struggle for power, fought not by ordinary people, but by the elites who controlled institutions.
But religion, too, was not immune to corruption. As Shakespeare wrote, "To err is human." Despite their spiritual teachings, religious institutions were often swayed by power and ambition. Recognising the deep emotional and cultural grip that religion held over the masses, particularly among peasants, artisans, and labourers, capitalists did not confront religion directly. Instead, they found it helpful.
This gave rise to a historical compromise. Capitalists acknowledged that most producers were more motivated by faith than profit. At the same time, religious authorities accepted the rising dominance of capital. This mutual accommodation allowed both systems to survive: capitalism monopolised material wealth, and religion claimed moral authority. Together, they upheld existing hierarchies—both economic and social.
In this alliance, the boundaries between capitalism and religion began to blur. Both tolerated—and at times justified—discrimination: religion through caste, class, and gender hierarchies; capitalism through wealth-based inequality. The moral authority of religion was compromised by its proximity to capital. The spiritual became transactional.
Marxism and the Collapse of this Nexus :
Marxism arose as a direct challenge to this alliance. Marx saw that capitalism and religion, though ideologically distinct, operated together within the same oppressive structures, each reinforcing elite power. He recognised the communal ethics within religion, but denounced its complicity in exploitation. He aimed to reclaim religion's moral values—its commitment to justice, equality, and dignity—without the institutional corruption that had allowed it to serve power.
He envisioned a new form of social faith, rooted in collective ownership and economic justice. Marx argued that actual communal values could only emerge in an egalitarian society, free from the tyranny of the market. He believed that the moral ideals upheld by religion could only be fully realised through socialism, by dismantling profit-based individualism and constructing a society founded on shared human dignity.
Living through the Industrial Revolution, Marx witnessed the brutal contradiction between religious ethics and capitalist reality. While religion preached dignity, industrial workers, who produced society's wealth, were treated as disposable machines. His critique was also shaped by the ideals of the American and French revolutions, with their promises of liberty, equality, and fraternity. For Marx, these ideals could only be fulfilled through shared governance within an industrial system free from exploitation.
The Betrayal of Marx's Vision and the confluence of the Capitalist-Religious structures:
However, when his followers implemented Marxist revolutions, they became trapped in a literal reading of industrialisation. Rather than liberating individuals, socialist states sought to transform everyone into productive units, replicating the very capitalist logic Marx had opposed. The state became the new capitalist: monopolising power, controlling labour, and enforcing compliance.
In this transformation, Marxism abandoned its ethical vision of dignity. Communist regimes guaranteed basic needs but denied individual freedom. Economic insecurity was replaced by political subjugation. The citizen became a dependent of the state, reduced to a functional cog in an authoritarian machine. Ironically, the only distinction from capitalist societies was that, under capitalism, citizens had limited freedoms and could compete, while under communism, they received basic provisions at the cost of personal liberty.
The Collapse of Marxist ideals was not immediate. Initially, many parts of the world—especially those with industrial experience or emerging from caste- and class-bound artisanal cultures—embraced Marxism for its promise of dignity and shared ownership. These movements displaced existing capitalist and religious dominance structures that had long perpetuated inequality.
As Marxist revolutions dismantled capitalist and religious authorities, these two previously antagonistic institutions found common cause. Faced with an existential threat, they set aside their contradictions and began collaborating. Capitalists and spiritual leaders, once adversaries, now reinforced one another.
The line between moral and material power collapsed. Religious institutions became tools of capital, and capitalists found in religion a powerful mechanism for social control. Together, they invented new enemies to preserve their dominance. The capitalist denounced the godlessness of communism; the religious condemned its moral nihilism. In both cases, fear was the chosen tool of authority.
This convergence completed the corruption of religion. No longer a moral bulwark against capitalist greed, it became capitalism's ally, blessing exploitation, justifying hierarchy, and pacifying the oppressed. Spiritual obedience was retooled into economic submission. On the other side, communism—both in structure and as a reaction to developments within capitalist societies—grew increasingly authoritarian.
The Forgotten Third World
Beyond the stark binary of capitalism and communism in industrially focused societies lies a third world, comprising the non-industrialised nations of Asia and Africa. These regions, mainly agrarian and rich in resources, faced deliberate exclusion from industrial development. This exclusion resulted from historical factors such as colonial underdevelopment and the racial hierarchies imposed by the developed world. Their non-white populations were denied access to the global systems of power and wealth that defined both capitalist and communist blocs.
These nations were neither fully capitalist nor authentically Marxist. They were trapped in a liminal space—colonised, exploited, and often used as ideological battlegrounds in conflicts not of their own making. Yet their histories, social structures, and traditions offered alternative frameworks—not based on profit or ideology, but on community, subsistence, and ethical continuity.
continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment