In 1992, Mikhail Gorbachev allegedly said “Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind.”1 Indeed, the goals of Pope Francis’s green encyclical and the core ideas of Marxism do seem to overlap. However, these connections are purely superficial. Upon further inspection, fundamental theory of Marxism differs socially, ideologically and economically from Pope’s ideas, making it impossible to assume any form of parallel between these two.
First, the major purpose of the encyclical is to serve as social guidance to the Catholic community, in a way Pope intended. Drawing from Kant’s ideals of an enlightened flow of knowledge, Holy Father becomes a messenger of thought and turns from a clergyman into an objective scholar2. …show more content…
Therefore, the phrase ‘workingmen of all countries, unite!’5 may be equally attributed to both Pope and the German philosopher. However, as opposed to the Holy Father, oblivious to nationality and race, Marx keeps his perspective strictly within the European society. Thus, the establishment of colonies is for him merely ‘opening the fresh ground6’ for the European development, indirectly neglecting work conditions of those outside the Old Continent and assuming that, probably, their time will come. Therefore, inclusive character of Pope’s message makes it more socially sensible than the Marxist one, thus indicating less radical approach. This leads to the fundamental difference between the works. Just as Marx suggests fight against a part of the society, an inherent part of humankind, Pope proposes common action against a climate change for sake of preserving the entire humanity. These goals differ significantly in all crucial aspects. Not only does Marx instigate to revolt, but he also aims for the total abolition of a ruling class by all possible means7. The psychological impact of the physical, aggressive action against a part of the society itself is the exact opposite of common action of the whole society for sake of achieving a goal that will result in improvement of the whole humankind, regardless of social and economical condition8. …show more content…
However, both sides seem to agree with each other implicitly. Just as Marx would need a safe natural environment for undergoing his radical social changes, Pope could use lack of capitalism to validate his claim of consumerism, without serving himself as a negative example. However, the decision of both sides to withdraw from those possible actions is still a decision. Just as Pope doesn’t support communists, Marx neglects condition of the world outside Europe. Therefore, their paths go in entirely different directions, ultimately disproving Gorbachev’s
First, the major purpose of the encyclical is to serve as social guidance to the Catholic community, in a way Pope intended. Drawing from Kant’s ideals of an enlightened flow of knowledge, Holy Father becomes a messenger of thought and turns from a clergyman into an objective scholar2. …show more content…
Therefore, the phrase ‘workingmen of all countries, unite!’5 may be equally attributed to both Pope and the German philosopher. However, as opposed to the Holy Father, oblivious to nationality and race, Marx keeps his perspective strictly within the European society. Thus, the establishment of colonies is for him merely ‘opening the fresh ground6’ for the European development, indirectly neglecting work conditions of those outside the Old Continent and assuming that, probably, their time will come. Therefore, inclusive character of Pope’s message makes it more socially sensible than the Marxist one, thus indicating less radical approach. This leads to the fundamental difference between the works. Just as Marx suggests fight against a part of the society, an inherent part of humankind, Pope proposes common action against a climate change for sake of preserving the entire humanity. These goals differ significantly in all crucial aspects. Not only does Marx instigate to revolt, but he also aims for the total abolition of a ruling class by all possible means7. The psychological impact of the physical, aggressive action against a part of the society itself is the exact opposite of common action of the whole society for sake of achieving a goal that will result in improvement of the whole humankind, regardless of social and economical condition8. …show more content…
However, both sides seem to agree with each other implicitly. Just as Marx would need a safe natural environment for undergoing his radical social changes, Pope could use lack of capitalism to validate his claim of consumerism, without serving himself as a negative example. However, the decision of both sides to withdraw from those possible actions is still a decision. Just as Pope doesn’t support communists, Marx neglects condition of the world outside Europe. Therefore, their paths go in entirely different directions, ultimately disproving Gorbachev’s