Law, Religion, Art, Morality and Literature Are the Opium of the Masses, a Mere Construct
Page | 16
“Law, Religion, Art, Morality and Literature are the opium of the masses, a mere construct devised by the bourgeois class to subjugate the proletariat” – Karl Marx.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Marxism
The above statement was made by Karl Marx, founder of the doctrine of Marxism in the Communist Manifesto 1848.[1] Thus, the aim of this paper is to analyse Marxism as a doctrine which serves to dictate socio economy, philosophy and morality as opposed to the legal concept of the Rule of Law as a political and philosophical ethos upon which countries are formed and governed.[2] To fully understand the statement above, we first must reflect in detail on the basis and structure of Marxism itself. Marxism is often referred to as an ideology of which natural history is viewed through an evolutionary prism not to dissimilar to Darwin’s theory of evolution.[3] It is on this line of thought that Marx defined the state and the law as mere instruments of the elite to subjugate and oppress the lower class thus hindering the capacity of human evolution to peak at its finest in prime. This view is further strengthened as Karl Marx sought to dispel the Rule of Law and in its place instil a secular utopia where there would be equality in wealth and power.[4] It is then a viable deduction that where liberalism insists that the law is neutral and non-partisan, Marxism insists that the law is a means of subterfuge, a mere pretence which cloaks injustice[5] and hence proposed the socialism dogma that would see it become the basis of every communist regime henceforth.
1.2 Rule of Law
The Rule of Law on the other hand represents a more subjective and value laden doctrine in which the interpretation of the subject matter varies with different perspectives. The elusive nature of this doctrine solidifies the line of thought that the Rule of Law can indeed be interpreted either as a philosophy or a political theory. It is often considered a procedural device by which those with power rule over man and in essence is found in the sovereignty and supremacy of law over man.[6] To quote Thomas Hobbes, “laws without the sword are merely bits of parchment while a sword without law is naught but iron”.[7] This further illustrates the fact that the efficacy and maintenance of the doctrine is subjected to two distinct pre-requisites, the first being that the general public accept that it is within their best interests and the community as a whole and the second being that laws both confer and inhibit individual rights.[8] In a broader sense, the Rule of Law derives its power not from men but of a higher source, used as a yardstick against the laws of men. It is principled in nature, derived from values and distinct characteristics which accord it inalienable rights which then provide the tools for stability and coherence to the legal order of a nation.[9] A similar doctrine may be found across Europe in the form of the “Rechtsstaat” or a rule of law of state where governmental powers conferred in a state is limited by the law in order to protect its citizens from the capricious exercise of abuse of authority.[10]
2.0 Criticisms of Marxism
2.1 Law
The doctrine of Marxism in relation primarily to law, morality and religion is fraught with several underlying issues and problems thus often coming under criticism from various quarters. The first issue which will be addressed is from the legal standpoint of law or the Rule of Law in the context of Marxism. Engels and Marx in the Communist Manifesto 1848 state: “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all; a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of existence of your class”.[11] This statement according to Marx refers to need of absolute dictatorship to the proletariat to ensure a classless society of equality. However, this concept fails to materialise as it does not guarantee any form of human rights and subjugates the proletariat to a higher authority not to dissimilar to the Rule of Law although without the conformity of having the need to be accountable for the state’s action.[12] It is thus not unreasonable to explain the undercurrent of extreme violence manifested in Marxist regimes as being little more than the projection of such political ideas.
Because Marx believed that law arises from class conflicts, he concluded that the need for law would cease to exist with the advent of classless communism.[13] Such a promise of lawlessness that leads to “perfect justice” was correctly interpreted by Kelsen as being “a utopian prophecy”[14] Since the Marxist state assumes authoritarian forms and frees itself from any constitutional checks and balances, “this leaves out of account very powerful impulses to state action generated from within the state by people in charge of decision-making power.”As a result, those holding powerful positions in the state may be interested in power, status, privilege and money. They will not express themselves in terms of personal interest, but rather in terms of ‘national interest’ and those who seek state power usually find it to convince themselves and others that their achievement of power is synonymous with the ‘national interest’.[15] This would in fact lead to a serious perversion of natural justice and provide a platform for many to abuse the law or rather lack of law thus creating what would be known as a failed state.
2.2 Religion
Marxism is based on the conviction that history is constantly evolving towards a certain direction and that the proletariat is the redemptive force of humanity.[16] Thus Marx declared: “History is the judge, its executioner the proletariat. History was interpreted progressively by Marx, moving by means of social struggle. He believed that the final stage of human evolution actually transcends class struggle, when the eschatological consummation of global communism is at last achieved.[17]
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI states that, “The desire to love everyone here and now, despite his class, and to go out to meet him with the non-violent means of dialogue and persuasion, is denounced as counterproductive and opposed to love”.[18] If one holds that a person should not be the object of hate, it is claimed nevertheless that, if he belongs to the objective class of the rich, he is primarily an enemy to be fought. Thus the universality of love of neighbour and brotherhood become an eschatological principle, which will only have meaning for the ‘new man’, who arises out of the victorious revolution. As such, it can be concluded that communism is an ideal to be achieved at any social cost in which any means can be justified, including violence and deceit.[19] This would implicitly mean anarchy and chaos of unparalleled amount constituting possibly millions of lives lost and would simply negate any plausible positive effect Marxism originally intended to bring forth to its manifesto.
2.3 Morality
There are initially questions concerning his attitude to ideas of justice, and to ideas of morality more broadly concerned where did he think that communism would be just and if it could be morally approved of on other grounds. Arguably, the only satisfactory way of understanding this issue is, once more, from G.A. Cohen, who proposes that Marx believed that capitalism was unjust, but did not believe that he believed it was unjust.[20] Marx wanted to distance himself from this tradition of utopian thought, and the key point of distinction was to argue that the route to understanding the possibilities of human emancipation lay in the analysis of historical and social forces, not in morality.[21] Hence, for Marx, any appeal to morality was theoretically a backward step. In considering Marx's attitude to communism and justice there are really only two viable possibilities: either he thought that communism would be a just society or he thought that the concept of justice would not apply: that communism would transcend justice.[22]
We can see this by reflecting upon the idea of the circumstances of justice where if there was enormous material abundance and everyone could have whatever they wanted without invading another's share we would never have devised rules of justice. The question of practicality aside, Marx states that “communism abolishes all religion and all morality, rather than constituting them on a new basis”.[23] This conclusively shows that morality is not held in high regard in the doctrine of Marxism and is thus subjected often to the standards of the dictator, a single person who is not accountable for his actions.
3.0 The View on the Rule of Law
3.1 British Jurist AV Dicey
One of the most prevalent authorities on the Rule of Law is AV Dicey in the “Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution where he brings forth three main aspects to the doctrine.[24] The first point brought forth by Dicey requires that no person be punished except for conduct which represents a clear breach of law. This is clearly designed to ensure the government or state does not have rights to make secret or arbitrary laws thus protecting the individual. [25] This is illustrated in common social contracts where the citizen surrenders part of their rights and owes allegiance to the state in order for protection of the state. Furthermore, in ensuring that retrospective laws are inhibited, there can be no situation where a conduct which was once lawful is done prior to it being made unlawful be charged by the state under any court of the realm. The second point highlighted is one of equality where Dicey stresses that the government is also subjected to the law and that everyone irrespective of rank shall be subjected by the same laws. While there are many grey areas to this rule such as Crown prerogative power over an individual right[26], the idea is to ensure that there is a sense of accountability. Finally, the protection or rights be made under common laws that are enforced and upheld by the courts alone. These inalienable rights have been codified under “The Human Rights Act 1998”[27] where citizens are protected with concrete laws that ensure their rights are not violated and that the courts are conferred powers to declare incompatibility where government laws go against the Convention rights.[28]
3.2 Professor Joseph Raz
The United Kingdom of Great Britain remains the only major country in the world without a codified Constitution. It relies solely upon the foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law to ensure that the state remains in compliance with the laws of the land and to protect its citizens who voluntarily surrender some of their individual rights in exchange of protection from the state.[29] The rights of individuals are protected by the courts that duly enforce civil liberties thus maintaining legal authority of the state as well as uniformed protection of the citizens. Professor Joseph Raz addresses the view of the Rule of Law as a morally neutral but conceptual standpoint wherein it is just one of the virtues a legal system may possess and does not constitute as justice, democracy or equality.[30] The analogy between law and a knife is brought forth wherein the knife might be put for beneficial use such as surgery or that it may be used negatively for murder. The knife in itself is neutral and this reflects the role of the doctrine of the Rule of Law wherein its purpose rest within a conformed state. For the Rule of Law to be properly implemented as a cornerstone of the legal framework, the laws must be clear and are capable of being obeyed.[31] The view illustrated above is further endorsed by Lord Diplock[32] where he states that the absence of clarity is destructive to the Rule of Law where it is unfair to those who wish to preserve it and encourages those who wish to undermine it.
3.2 Professor Lon L Fuller
In contrast to Raz, Professor Lon Fuller views the Rule of Law from a moral standpoint wherein for a very existence of system deemed ‘legal’, the basic pre-requisite of morality duty or inner morality[33] of law. The analogy here is to a building with weak foundations will crash as to will a legal system with a week framework. The law does not exist as a vacuum separate from the society it regulates; it operates hand in hand which as a result derives the state to create an optimum environment in which citizens with accorded rights may fulfil their maximum potential. This concept is known as “morality of aspiration”[34] where the point directs us to understand that a government without a good system of law might be recognized as a government but not a government according to law wherein the key here is that the law must serve the interests of the people it.
3.3 Freidrich Von Hayek & Robert Nozick
Another notary author on the Rule of Law is provided by Friedrich Von Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” where the law if stripped of all its technicalities, a government or state in all its action is bound by these rules which are fixed and announced beforehand which will allow for fair certainty on how the authority uses it coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan as such the individual’s affairs on the basis of the given knowledge.[35] The Rule of Law in Von Hayek’s view could be succinctly summarized to the provision of a clear and certain set of rules where people would be able to plan and live accordingly in a free society. This is further endorsed by Robert Nozick who argues for the perception of justice is based on the concept of rights expressed in the name of entitlement[36] where entitlement in a welfare state goes against the concept of the rights of individual holders of property.