Marxism, the socio-political and economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has left an indelible mark on the modern world. Its promises of liberation from class oppression and a vision of egalitarian society have attracted many adherents. However, when scrutinized through the lens of Thomistic philosophy, Marxism reveals profound deficiencies in its understanding of human nature, morality, and society. This critique will explore the historical development of Marxist philosophy, its implications for the human person, and its fundamental incompatibility with a Thomistic framework.

The Historical Development of Marxism

To understand Marxism, it is essential to trace its intellectual lineage. Marx and Engels drew from Enlightenment thinkers, particularly the materialism of Ludwig Feuerbach and the dialectics of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Materialism, in philosophical terms, is the belief that only physical matter exists and that everything—including thought, consciousness, and societal structures—can be explained in terms of material interactions. Feuerbach’s critique of religion influenced Marx’s belief that material conditions, not divine realities, shape human existence.

Hegel’s concept of dialectics—a method of understanding change through the resolution of contradictions—viewed history as the unfolding of an "absolute spirit" through stages of conflict and synthesis. Marx repurposed this idea into a "materialist dialectic," interpreting history as a series of class struggles driven by economic forces rather than spiritual development. For Marx, each stage of history (e.g., feudalism, capitalism) contains contradictions that lead to its collapse and replacement by a new system, culminating in communism.

Marx’s materialism, rejecting the metaphysical (ideas beyond the physical world, such as the existence of a soul or God), reduced all phenomena to economic relations. Human consciousness, for Marx, was not the cause but the effect of material conditions—a reversal of Hegelian idealism, which placed ideas as primary. This foundational view shaped his critiques of capitalism and his vision for a communist society. By contrast, Thomistic philosophy, rooted in Aristotelian metaphysics (the study of being and reality), maintains that being encompasses both the material and immaterial—a harmony lost in Marxist reductionism.

Philosophical Roots of Marxism vs. Thomism

Marx’s materialist conception of history views economic structures (e.g., who owns the means of production, such as factories) as the base upon which all other social phenomena (culture, religion, and morality) rest. These other aspects are referred to as the "superstructure" and are seen as secondary, shaped entirely by the economic base. This mechanistic view reduces humanity to economic entities. A helpful analogy is to think of Marx’s philosophy as seeing people as mere cogs in an economic machine, with no inherent purpose beyond their material function.

Thomistic philosophy offers a radically different vision. Aquinas, drawing on Aristotle, asserts that the human person is a composite of body and soul (“hylomorphism”). Hylomorphism is the idea that every material being is a combination of matter (its physical aspect) and form (its essence or purpose). The soul, according to Aquinas, is the "form" of the body, directing it toward its ultimate end, which is union with God. The intellect (the faculty of reason) and will (the faculty of choice) are spiritual faculties that transcend material conditions, giving humans a purpose that goes beyond economic survival. Marxism’s denial of this dual nature of humanity disregards the spiritual dimension that gives life its meaning.

Additionally, Marx’s adaptation of Hegelian dialectics into historical materialism is deterministic. Determinism is the belief that events are fixed and inevitable due to preceding causes. Marx claimed that economic forces inexorably drive historical development through class struggles, culminating in communism. Thomistic philosophy, by contrast, sees history as a providential unfolding where human freedom (the capacity to choose) and divine governance coexist. For Aquinas, history is not a predetermined economic process but a tapestry woven from human choices within God’s eternal plan.

Implications for the Human Person

Marxism’s materialism fundamentally misconstrues human nature. By asserting that humans are products of economic systems, Marxism reduces them to their material conditions. This perspective ignores the spiritual dimension of humanity, which Thomistic philosophy holds as central.

Consider Marx’s concept of alienation: under capitalism, workers are estranged from the products of their labor (because they do not own what they produce), their fellow workers (due to competition), and their essence as creative beings. Alienation describes a loss of connection to one’s own humanity. While Marx identifies a real problem—economic exploitation—his solution, the abolition of private property, overlooks the role of private ownership in fostering human dignity and virtue. For example, private property allows individuals to exercise responsibility and stewardship, reflecting their inherent creativity and rationality.

An analogy clarifies the point: private property is like a family’s home. It provides stability, fosters responsibility, and serves as a base for contributing to the community. Marx’s vision, akin to abolishing private homes for communal housing, neglects the importance of individual stewardship and the unique contributions of each family.

Marxism’s collectivism also undermines the dignity of the individual. In Marx’s framework, the individual exists primarily as a member of a class, subordinate to collective economic interests. Thomism, however, upholds the inherent dignity of each person as imago Dei (Latin for "image of God"). This means every individual reflects God’s nature through their reason, will, and capacity for relationship. The common good, in Thomistic thought, is not the suppression of individuality but the flourishing of individuals within a just community.

Ethical Consequences of Marxist Philosophy

The ethical implications of Marxism flow from its rejection of natural law and objective morality. Natural law, in Thomistic terms, refers to moral principles that are universal, unchanging, and discoverable by reason (e.g., "do good and avoid evil"). For Marx, morality is not universal but a product of class interests, evolving with economic conditions. This relativism contrasts sharply with Thomistic ethics, which are rooted in the eternal law of God.

Thomistic natural law teaches that good is to be done and evil avoided, principles discernible through reason and applicable to all people. Marxist relativism, by denying objective morality, allows for ends-justify-the-means reasoning—the idea that a morally questionable action can be justified by a desired outcome. Revolutionary violence, justified as a means to overthrow oppression, exemplifies this ethical pragmatism.

Imagine a chess game where rules change depending on the player’s status. Marxist ethics operate similarly, justifying actions based on class position. Thomistic ethics, by contrast, uphold fixed principles that apply equally to all, ensuring justice and fairness.

Marxism in Practice: A Historical Perspective

The implementation of Marxist principles in the 20th century provides a sobering case study. From the Soviet Union to Maoist China, Marxist regimes pursued classless societies through centralized economic planning and suppression of dissent. The result was not liberation but widespread poverty, loss of freedom, and mass atrocities.

A historical example is the Soviet collectivization of agriculture, which aimed to eliminate private ownership of land. While intended to create equality, it led to famine and suffering, as farmers lost the incentive to cultivate their fields. By contrast, Thomistic principles advocate for subsidiarity—the idea that decisions should be made at the most local level capable of addressing them—and distributive justice, ensuring resources are allocated fairly.

The analogy of a body helps illustrate the contrast: Marxism’s approach is like surgically removing healthy organs to achieve uniformity, crippling the body. Thomism views society as an organism where diverse parts work together for the good of the whole, respecting their distinct roles and contributions.

Thomistic Vision for Human Flourishing

In place of Marxism’s materialist utopia, Thomism offers a vision of integral human development. Aquinas teaches that true flourishing involves harmony between nature and grace. Human beings, as rational and spiritual creatures, are called to seek the ultimate good, which is God. Society, in turn, must create conditions that support this pursuit.

Private property, just governance, and the cultivation of virtue are essential to this vision. Thomism rejects both the unchecked capitalism that fosters greed and the collectivism that suppresses individuality. Instead, it advocates for a balance where economic activity serves the common good and respects human dignity.

Conclusion

A Thomistic critique of Marxism reveals its philosophical and practical inadequacies. By reducing reality to material conditions, Marxism neglects the spiritual dimension that defines humanity. Its deterministic view of history and relativistic ethics undermine human freedom and dignity. In practice, its collectivist policies have led to suffering rather than liberation.

Thomism, by contrast, offers a holistic vision grounded in the harmony of nature and grace. Recognizing the dual nature of humanity and the objective moral order, it provides a foundation for authentic human flourishing. As St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, “The human person is the most perfect among earthly creatures, made in the image of God, and directed toward the eternal good.” It is this truth that must guide our pursuit of justice and the common good.

References

• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros., 1947.
• Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. Translated by Marian Evans. Harper & Row, 1957.
• Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Penguin Classics, 2002.
• Pieper, Josef. The Four Cardinal Virtues. University of Notre Dame Press, 1966.
• Ratzinger, Joseph. Introduction to Christianity. Ignatius Press, 2004.
• Woods, Thomas E. Jr. The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. Lexington Books, 2005.
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford University Press, 1977.
• Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Madison Books, 1991.