582
PARTISAN REVIEW
working hypotheses and I suspect that one reason why they became
axiomatic value-judgments
is
that the material out of which they emerge
is so very scarce. It is interesting, however, to reflect on their origin.
It happens, and this cannot be a coincidence, that all three can
be
traced to ideological positions of Marxism or historical self-interpreta–
tions of Bolshevism itself. As a matter of fact, only the "evaluation" and
the emphasis are changed.
There is no doubt that Lenin understood himself as a mere tacti–
cian, faithfully applying the revolutionary strategy of Marx to changing
and changed circumstances. It is more than probable that Stalin quoted
Marx and Lenin in justification of all his actions---not merely or even
primarily for propaganda purposes. Bolshevik self-interpretation, long
before scholars bothered to look into it, had already elevated the un–
broken line from Marx to Lenin to Stalin into dogma.
It is somewhat more difficult to perceive the origin of the theory
of a secular or political religion. This is meant to explain the role of
ideologies in politics. Now, it was Marx of course who first systematically
"explained" all religions as ideological superstructures concealing the
interests of the ruling classes. He could do this because he viewed re–
ligion as an exclusively social phenomenon in whose function he
was
interested, but whose substantial content he consistently neglected. The
social sciences have gone one step further in the same direction and
dissolved all material, intellectual and spiritual factors in human life
into social functions and relationships. They are distinguished from or·
thodox Marxism only in that they do not believe that thought in the
interest of the proletariat could by some magic be "true" and not
merely an ideology. They can, in other words, talk back to Marx and
tell him that Marxism, too, is an ideology, no better and no wone
than the religions whose ideological character Marx unmasked.
Seen in this social context alone, ideology and religion are the
same: they seem to fulfill the same basic social need. The concept of
a "secular religion" without God is possible only on the basis of Marx's
devastating criticism of all religions; his central point is not so much
the quoted vulgarized formula "religion is an opiate of the people"
(obviously religions, like everything else, can be used and misused)
as the claim that the idea of God itself originated in social conditions
which led to the self-estrangement of man. Just as Marx did not take
seriously the religious claim of the existence of God, so the term "secu–
lar religion" implies that one need not take seriously the ideological
claim of atheism.
Gurian tries to avoid the relativism of the social sciences where
