Christianity Versus Marxism

by | May 8, 2022 | Inspirational

Is Marxism a Christian value – does it lead to a better life on Earth? Many Christians support at least some of the stated principles of Marxism and many are in full support of socialism and the liberal agenda. Properly framed, Marxist ideas sound like Christian ideas. There is a power to the people component – that the weak, helpless, and poor will be taken care of and will have a voice. It is implied that the rulers will represent the interests of the common man. The Marxist slogan is, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”.

The Christian Church supported many of the Marxist revolutions in South America. Powerful and corrupt rulers and their cronies were accumulating massive wealth while the poor were oppressed and starving. By any measure, it was David and Goliath, good versus evil. It pits the promises of Socialism, Communism, and Marxism against the reality of an unjust and unfair system. This led to Liberation Theology, a blend of Christianity and Marx. This Marxist infusion turned centuries of Christian doctrine on its head. Rather than being responsible for following Christian principles and practices as outlined in the Bible and then answering to God, the Church now sanctioned a seizing of power and wealth with a promise of a better life on earth rather than a promise for eternal salvation.

This new alliance brought together former enemies, the Church and Marxism, to build a better world. What originally started with the USSR burning a 100,000 Churches and killing 95,000 Russian Orthodox priests, now has them as teammates promising a better life. Two doctrines; one believing in God given rights, sanctity of life, individual responsibility and, in the end, salvation, the other believing in rights given by a powerful government with the individual surrendering to the collective for the earthly betterment of all.

Two hundred years ago America was formed with a quite different ideal. America’s Founding Fathers were Christians and scholars. They read the great literature of Cicero, Plato, John Locke, Adam Smith, and the Bible. They studied the lessons of history, the Anglo-Saxon Natural Law, the Magna Carta, and the Roman Empire. They recognized their recent plight as British subjects who sought to make a “more perfect union”. They penned a document far different than that of Liberation Theology. It recognized man’s God given rights not to be given or taken away by Government. Life, liberty, property, and a means of defense are paramount rights to all men. It also recognized that a man is responsible for his own actions and will make choices that serve his self-interests and by his own efforts achieve success or failure. The Government’s role was to make and enforce laws to promote fairness and equal opportunity, protecting a man’s natural rights and liberties. Laws and justice were to be blind and equally applied to both the strong and weak, a philosophy represented by a blindfolded Lady Justice.

Marx’s philosophy was inspired by the French Revolution in which the “Oppressed” overthrew the “Oppressor”. People are binned into one of two groups – good or bad – oppressor or oppressed. It is a self-imposed constraint that strains logic, ignores free will, and generates forced conclusions. In the eyes of Plato and Locke people moved from the country into cities to improve their position. Work was available, and the population provided the market. A free man could make a choice based on his self-interests. Marx, on the other hand, saw this as oppression. The wealthier (oppressor) hired the new arrivals (oppressed) and did not pay an appropriate amount for their labor since the goods were sold for more than the combined cost of the raw materials and the cost of the labor thus generating a profit. Marxism attempts to enforce a Utopian society on earth in the heavy-handed implementation of state mandated fairness and equality of outcome.

Until very recently, most Americans did not support the values of Socialism. Now, however, we have many Democratic Legislators supporting “Democratic Socialism”. One side in Congress, the Conservatives, support the Constitution as written and values the freedoms. It recognizes and supports the Judeo-Christian origins in the founding of our country and places the individual and their rights prominently at the top. They could also be called the Constitutionalists. The other side believes in a living Constitution which can be changed at will. They call themselves Democratic Socialists and are true to Marxist principles. They believe the health of the Collective is more important than the individual. Thus, individual rights can be curtailed if it suits the needs of the Collective. Some believe in infanticide and euthanasia, the ultimate sacrifice of the individual for the Collective. They also have confidence that the Government can improve the way businesses are run to the advantage of the proletariat or worker.

I would encourage all to pay attention. Read the party platforms, take the time to understand the difference of our political parties. Look at the historical performance of Capitalism and the various levels of Marxism. History has not been kind to Marxism and its offspring Communism and Socialism. It has resulted in the loss of millions of lives and loss of the most basic of freedoms for more hundreds of millions. Understand what is proven and true and separate it from the promises. To date, Liberation Theology and the poorly defined Socialist Democrat has not resulted in the slaughter of millions but the current collapse of South American economies and the masses of fleeing refugees speak of potential disaster for any country embracing Socialism.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, a great man – The truth can keep you free.

Joe Grant, Wiscasset


Help Support The Effort


  1. The Maine Anchor

    This is a letter sent to us from Todd.

    This is not necessarily a letter worthy to publish. I am finally getting around to reading my two copies of The Maine Anchor. I feel compelled to comment, to give you feedback, and support. Thank you for what you do.

    I’m only on the first article “Christianity Versus Marxism”. I completely agree with the article. Yet, the situation is even worse than presented by the author, Joe Grant. I am sure he knows that, and I applaud him on his presentation of the subject. To take it to another level, I state that Marxism is based on Satanic principles.

    The Democrat party platforms are Satanic. This is spelled out in a book
    Satan Would Be A Democrat; Examining The Democrat Party Platform In Light Of God’s Word by Jefferson Daniel Seal, available at I have nothing against fellow Americans who are registered Democrats. I believe the above book speaks of the agenda hidden in plain sight.

    Furthermore Mark Levine has been educating Americans on the subject matter in his book American Marxism. I offer that as another angle for anyone searching for truth.

    The Satanic principles are “properly framed” as Joe Grant stated in his article; or in other words they are dressed up in plain sight. Many people have studied the history of this ruse. I conclude that Marxism stands for everything opposite of freedom, the family, humanity, and God. Today, we are at a precipice of the spiritual battle which has taken place on earth for millennia. The Constitution stands against the tyranny that has infiltrated all aspects of our society. The founding fathers knew this, and that is why we the people will win.

    For anyone who can not see the evil agenda we face, consider all the open source publications behind the Marxist movement for one world government also known as the New World Order. Their agenda, driven by global oligarchs, can be found “properly framed” in the numerous white papers on their platform called the World Economic Forum (WEF). Yes, the WEF agenda is available open source, online to anyone. I view their agenda as clever, and extremely alarming.

    If you look into this and still can not decode as I have done, consider the Protocols of Zion published in 1905. A detailed study presented in the video THE SEQUEL TO THE FALL OF THE CABAL – PART 4, THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION, can be found on Peace.

  2. The Maine Anchor

    This is a letter sent to us by Michael.

    Although I agree with most of what was written I would like to add the following…

    The article mistakenly conflates the philosophy of Plato and Locke. “Plato’s Republic” has much more in common with the “Communist Manifesto” by Marx & Engels than the work of John Locke in his “Two Treatises on Government.” One common denominator exists between Plato’s Republic, Marx’s Manifesto, Thomas More’s Utopia and Thomas Hobbe’s Leviathan; they all write and advocate for a utopian statism. By contrast, John Locke’s Treatise served as the predicate for our founding as well as The Declaration of Independence. Plato, Marx, More and Hobbes along with Rousseau, were advocates of an egalitarian utopia. Whereby, individual rights and freedom are renounced and transferred to the collective, the individual becomes subservient to the state. Locke wrote of an eternal natural law and rights, as well as the social contract. These are the bases of America’s founding and The Declaration of Independence.

    In his “Republic”, Plato promotes eugenics, the abolition of the nuclear family and euthanasia for the old and sick as opposed to treatment. Plato also writes of “The Noble Lie”, whereby we are all born with either gold, silver or bronze souls. The metal determines each individual’s status and relative worth to the state and represents nothing more than a caste system. Plato is openly hostile to the individual in his Republic as he believes this destructive to the collective good of his utopian state. The Republic is based on the elitism of the “Philosopher/King” mentality (arrogance). Plato provided a philosophical template that influenced tyrannies for centuries to come.

    Locke makes the case for a civil and consensual government in his Treatise. Locke wrote, “The Natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together.” Locke also argued for a representative government but warned that it, too, required restraints, “for all forms of government are self-perpetuating.” Locke argued for a representative government that would preserve the individual’s God given rights and established by the consent of the governed. 

    As for Marx, his philosophy can be summed up in a single phrase, “rule or ruin.” This stems from his successful coup of the International Working Men’s Association, the successor to the Communist League. The former organization met its demise as a result of a power struggle between Marx and Russian anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin. If Marx could not control it, he would seek its ruin. Marx was born into a bourgeoisie environment. The son of a prominent lawyer, Marx had servants, property, education and local prominence. Engels came from a family even wealthier than Marx. Although they called themselves the proletariat, they were nothing of the sort. They viewed themselves as intellectuals, however, neither had any appreciable skill that would allow them to prosper in a free market. They both lived off allowances, inheritance and gifts from family and friends. At one point Engels actually supported Marx with an annuity while working in his father’s factory. The irony of Engels working as a capitalist while he underwrites Marx’s efforts to overthrow capitalism. 

    As for Socialism in general, this pernicious mindset infected our body politic long ago. I would also encourage all to pay attention as well to party platforms. During the election of 1928, the Socialist Party in this country put out its economic platform broken down to fourteen issues. Some of their issues were relief from unemployment, national ownership of railroads, publicly owned utilities in partnership with the federal government, loans to states and municipalities, old age pensions, &c. Without ever being elected, every single issue on the Socialist party platform in 1928 is now a part of our system. Relief from unemployment manifested itself in the WPA and PWA of the New Deal. We have Amtrak, national ownership of railroads. TVA was an example of publicly owned utilities partnering with the federal government. Loans to states and municipalities are common now in the form of federal grants. We have old age pensions in the form of social security. 

    ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ is a phrase from ancient Rome under Cesear that means to pass a point of no return. The progressive and atheist left has been on the march for 100 plus years. I would argue this state and country is on the precipice of ‘Crossing the Rubicon’, if we have not done so already. 

    Michael Ozga


Join the discussion...


Hillsdale’s Mission and the Politics of Freedom

Hillsdale’s Mission and the Politics of Freedom

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on the Regent Seven Seas Mariner on June 30, 2023, during a Hillsdale College educational cruise from Istanbul to Athens. Hillsdale is often called a conservative college, and in an important sense it is, although it is not a label we regard as fundamental. The word “conservative”

Why the CIA No Longer Works—and How to Fix It

Why the CIA No Longer Works—and How to Fix It

The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on October 3, 2023, during a conference on “U.S. Intelligence: History and Controversies.” We need the CIA, but we also need to recognize the uncomfortable reality that the CIA is not performing at the level we require. It is not keeping us safe. It

Inside the Transgender Empire

Inside the Transgender Empire

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on September 12, 2023, at the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship on Hillsdale’s Washington, D.C., campus, as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. The transgender movement is pressing its agenda everywhere. Most publicly, activist teachers are using classrooms to propagandize

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This