Cause and Effect Part I: "In the day that you eat of it...."

 Every effect has a cause. This is one of the fundamental principles that we learn in science, philosophy, and every other area of our lives. While we are most directly familiar in every day experience with effects, there is great value in examining and understanding causes. When we come to see and understand that a particular cause is good, we are enabled to pursue it and encourage the increase of its good effects in our lives and in the world. If we understand a cause to be bad, or evil, we will be better prepared to avoid it or root it out. The essay that follows is designed to examine a particularly evil effect evidenced in recent history, and to examine its causes. It will also include an examination of an opposing good effect and its cause. Due to the complexity of the topic, and to the constraints of time and space, what follows will be broken up into several parts. I hope to post the remaining parts within the next week or two. Your comments are always welcome.

  It has not been that many generations ago that one of the most horrible and pernicious philosophies of modern times acquired political power and asserted itself in several countries with the result of virtually countless deaths, both spiritual and physical. I am, of course, speaking of Communism. Although Communism's place in the world may have somewhat lessened in recent times, it still exercises its dreadful doctrines and practices over millions of persons worldwide. For those of us who were born and grew up after the Cold War, Communism may be largely forgotten, misunderstood, or go completely unnoticed. Yet, it as real now as it was many decades ago.

 It is no longer an intellectual proposition existing only on paper or in the mind. It passed from that stage over a hundred years ago. The spectre that was haunting Europe, to borrow Marx's opening lines of The Communist Manifesto, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, ceased to be a disembodied ghost. It took a real and awful form, crushing and destroying both the souls and bodies of its subjects, and subjugating science, literature, the arts, and the material world to its tyrannous ends.

 I am not here strictly concerned with the fact of Communism, either its philosophical and economic principles, or its actual behavior resulting from those principles. These facts, which demonstrate a dreadful effect, will simply serve as a framework or springboard for the actual point of this essay, which is their cause(s). Rather, I wish to draw attention to the historical and philosophical conditions that produced Communism's totalitarian success, in order to both comprehend those causes, and through that comprehension to create an awareness of their potential effects, should we see those causes again, here and now. Therefore, the two subjects to be considered here are the following: the philosophical context or climate that allowed, and to a large extent, caused Communism to exist; and the necessary connection between those philosophies and the destructive results of their actualization.

 In regards to the first point, the precedent climate, it should be noted that political and philosophical systems rarely, if ever, simply spring up from nowhere. Such ideas do not occur in a vacuum. Certain preexisting conditions must be in place to enable their growth. These conditions, or climate (perhaps the broader French expression terroir, used in wine making, might be a more accurate word), may be ascertained from a study of history. In the case of Communism it is not necessary to look very far. While it is very likely that its roots reach back much further, I only wish here to examine the immediate philosophies from which Marx's thought arose.

 Marxist thought sprang up in the fertile intellectual soil of nineteenth century Germany. A certain philosophical atheism had come to exist in Germany, witnessed in Feuerbach, Nietzsche, et al. Looking back just a bit earlier, we also find that many German philosophers of the time were greatly influenced by the teachings of Georg Friedrich Hegel. Hegelian thought (though not necessarily atheistic) exerted its influence on Feuerbach, Strauss, Marx, and many others. The connection between Georg Hegel and Karl Marx is no stretch at all:  Marx's adoption of Hegelian dialectic is clearly evidenced in his own dialectical concept of history (past and present, but especially future).

 Having mentioned the philosophical atheism of the times, I find that it is important here to note that the atheism of Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Karl Marx, was not so much atheism as anti-theism. By this I wish to draw a distinction between various forms of atheism. Atheism, like some forms of religion, may be a purely private and personal form of thought or belief, based upon any number of reasons, emotions, or influences. While I believe that some of the following concerns may also be directed towards private, non-militant atheism, I am not here particularly concerned with that form. The intellectually and/or physically militant anti-theism of Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Marx is a completely different matter. Not only did these men not personally believe in God, but they were firmly convinced that religion stood in the way of mankind's future fulfillment, or almost divine self-development. Belief in God kept men from realizing their tremendous potential, and as such must necessarily  be eradicated for mankind's own sake. Hence, this particular brand of atheism was set to utterly remove religion and the notion of God from the world and public consciousness. For further proof of these facts, and a cogent analysis of them, I would give my unhesitating recommendation to the brilliant and scholarly book by Jesuit priest, Father Vincent Miceli, The Gods of Atheism, from which much of the material for this essay is drawn. If you can find a copy of it, buy it, read it....

 So why out of all possible causes  target a form of atheism as the fundamental cause of Marxist doctrine? What about oppressively bloated Capitalism and economics? What about the Bourgeois and private property? Above all, what about the search for a Utopian, classless society? And couldn't Communist economic ideals and social structures co-exist with religion? Actually, the destruction of faith and religion cannot be removed from Communism, for at least the one reason stated above. "Atheism is not an accidental accretion to communist humanism. It is intrinsic and essential to both its creed and conduct." (Fr. Miceli The Gods of Atheism). There is plenty of evidence in the actual words of Marx and Lenin to corroborate this. "Marx was an atheist before the was a Communist, historically and logically. The intrinsic relation between the two he noted as follows: 'Communism begins where atheism begins.'" (Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West)

 But why? Does atheism lead necessarily to such destruction and inhumanity? In the individual atheist it may not. But overall, I believe that it is eventually bound to, for two particular reasons. These two reasons are completely antithetical to much religious thought, particularly the doctrines of Christianity, and may be understood by a comparison to two basic Christian dogmas.

At the core of Christianity's understanding of man and the world is the belief that God created man in His own image (the Imago Dei), and that God declared the universe He had created was good. The first of these two fundamental principles enables us to see the great value and dignity of the human person, a point repeatedly brought to light by Pope John Paul II and others in our own times. If man is in God's own Image, then even fallen, corrupted, and sinful man is imbued with a an awesome dignity that arrests our attention and demands our respect. To a lesser extent this same principle applies to the second doctrine of the value of creation. If God created the universe and declared it good, then even in its present state, the material universe is of great value, and we should adjust our treament and use of it according to this doctrine. If God is denied, if religion and dogma are done away with, then these two great principles (the dignity of man, and the value of creation) are necessarily denied and done away with as well.

 Cause and effect. If the Good God is the cause, then the effect (man, nature) must be considered as good and treated as such. If God is not the cause, then we begin down the dark path of first undervaluing the effect, then manipulating it to our own ends, and eventually destroying it. These points will be examined more fully in Part II.