Blogs > Liberty and Power > The Younger MLK on Marx, the Individual, and Statism

Jan 15, 2007

The Younger MLK on Marx, the Individual, and Statism




This is an old blog but still worth repeating. The following is from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s book in 1957, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story Unfortunately, King later shed much of his earlier skepticism of Marx and statism, especially during his"Poor People's Campaign" phase:

During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. I also read some interpretative works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day. First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian, I believe that there is a creative personal power in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality-a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter. Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the 'millennial' end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the means.

Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxists would argue that the state is an 'interim' reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man is only a means to that end. And if man's so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.

This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as means to the end of the state; but always as an end within himself."



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


David T. Beito - 1/19/2007

I agree Gus. This was a major failing of classical liberals. Some made a devil's bargain.

The sad thing that classical liberals were pretty much of the cutting edge when the civil rights movement, including the NAACP, was formed in the early twentieth century.


Gus diZerega - 1/19/2007

if only classical liberals had been more sensitive to this side of King they might not have been so quick to ally themselves with the extreme right - for which they are now paying an enormously high price.