Backgromh

One of the most significant but least widely known developments in East-West relations is the current dialogue between Christian and Marxist philosophers and sociologists seel&g to clarify the nature of the differences that separate the two predominant Welt- anxhauungen in the Western world. While the prin- cipal objective of the dialogue is the clarification of the built-in contradictions between two conflicting modes of thought, considerable attention is also being given to the exploration of those spheres in which an intellec- tual rapprochement between a transcendentally oriented Christianity and a materialistic-atheistic Marxism may become possib1e.l

The idea of attempting a rational assessment of the essential content of two conflicting world views is not new. Zn the mid-lggo’s, when the creation of “popular fronts” to unite all anti-Nazi parties in the face of the increasing German danger became the leitmotiv of Communist policies, Christians were urged to join Com- munists in the struggle against Hitler. Although this policy, described by Maurice Thorez, then chief of the French Communist Party, as “kz politique de hz m&n tendue,” required no philosophical justification, there were at that time a few isolated attempts to eliminate some of the doctrinal dif6culties preventing a tactical collaboration between Christians and Marxists. The trend toward a rapprochement was broken in the post- war era when the brutally antireligious policies of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and Moscow’s dog- matic intransigence prevented a rational approach to problems involving Christian-Communist relations.

A Review of Developments Since 20th Congress

The situation changed radically after the 20th Con- gress of the Soviet Communist Party, when peaceful coexistence became one of the basic principles of the policies of Communist-run East European countries. The principle implied not only the normalization of East-West relations but also consistent efforts to pro mote a process of stabilization in Eastern Europe. One of the main objectives of the stabilizing process was to bring forth a relaxation of the inner tensions created by the antireligious policies of the Stalinist regimes. But Communist attitudes toward religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, also had to change in the West, since the commitment to the prin- ciple of peaceful coexistence precluded, at least for the immediate future, the emergence of revolutionary situ- ations in which Communists could seize power by vio- lent means. In order to escape complete political isola- tion, the Communist parties of Western Europe had to seek an “opening” which would allow them to re- establish some kind of contact with what Communist information media usually describe as “the progressive Christian masses.”

‘Although not all Marxist participants in the dialogue are communists, in this article the term “Marxist” is used as a convenient, although semantically inappropriate, equivalent to “COnlmuJ&&-

v 4 JULY-AVQV.ST

The Christian - Marxist Dialogue It was against this background that the Christian-

Marxist dialogue developed. Significantly9 one of the first important contributions to the dialogue was made in Czechoslovakia, a country with a Catholic majoriq and an intellectual elite strongly committed to a Protes- tant outlook rooted in Hussite traditions. In 1958, Joseph Hromadka, a prominent Czech theologian, dean of the Comenius Faculty at the Universiv of Prague, published a small volume entitled G?ospeZ for Atheists.* Professor Hromadka’s purpose was to demonstrate that “the true faith in Jesus’ gospel is something quite differ- ent from what Marxist atheists imagine the Christian religion to be.“O Denying that religion is a mere “super- structure,” Hromadka declared that true religion is not “wedded” to any social system; it can, and should, per- form its essential functions freely whether it is the col- lectivity or individuals who own the means of produc- tion. In Hromadka’s opinion, the first task both atheists and believers had to undertake was to clarify the real meaning of religion through rational discussion.

The Czech theologian was not alone in believing that a systematic dialogue might dispel the mistmderstand- ings arising from an erroneous Marxist interpretation of the Christian message and its historical functions. A few years before Hromadka’s book was published in Berlin, Protestant theologians in West Germany began a scientific exploration of Marxism. One of the most important results of these efforts was the publication of Marxismu.sstudien (Marxist Studies) under the patron- age of the Evangelical Studies Collectivity in Tubingen The increasing interest in a reinterpretation or de-mytho- logization of Christianity, as proposed by such prominent theologians as Barth, Tillich and Bonhoeffer, provided further incentive for trying to clarify the ideological differences between Christians and Marxists. In 1964 French Protestant and Catholic theologians engaged in a series of discussions with prominent Commrmist theo- reticians, including Roger Garaudy and Gilbert Mury, on the meaning of materialism and transcendence.4 A

*J. L. Hromadka, Evangelium fiir Athekten, Berlin, 1968. 80p. cit., p. 47. ‘In November 1966, Mury, who was secretary-general of the

Marxist Study and Research Center in Paris, bmke with the F’remh Communist Pm and joined one of the dissident pm Chinese splinter groups.

Edmund Demuitre

A prewar and wartime correspondent for French and British papers, Edmund Demaitre has devoted the last 20 years to studies of Marxism and the international Communist movement. “The Chris- tion-Marxist Dialogue” marks his third appear- ance in Communist Affairs. (See III/h July-Aug. 1965, for his article “Italian Communism: Debate and Dilemma”; and IV/l, Jan.-Feb. 1966, for,his study of “Communist Sema.ntics.“)

3

few weeks later, on the occasion of the 400th anniver- sary of John Calvin’s death, a similar discussion took place on the theme, “The Christian or Humanistic Sig- nificance of the Reformation.“” In the following year, Christian theologians and Marxist theoreticians met in Salzburg at the invitation of the predominantly Catholic Paulus Society. From that time on, the contacts be- tween Christians and Marxists multiplied. In 1966, the Paulus Society organized a second meeting at Herren- chiemsee, Bavaria, and similar discussions took place in Vienna, Paris, Nantes, South Bend (Indiana), and later in Marienbad. By that &ne, the scope of the discussions had widened considerably. So had the spec- trum of the participants, which included a growing number of prominent Catholic theologians, among them Fathers Rahner, Dubarle, Wetter and Calvez.

Effects of Papal Encylicals and Second Vatican Council

The efforts to clarify Christian-Marxist relations gained further momentum with the development of the ecumenical movement as a part of the aggiornamento designed to redefine the position of the Church in the modern world. The papal encyclicals Pacem in Ted and Ecclesiam Swm called for a dialogue with non- Catholic Christians as well as with non-Christians and even nonbelievers. This development, as well as the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, paved the way for increasing contacts with Marxists, even though Rome has never ceased to stress that the dialogue does not imply “a reconciliation with extreme and non- tested forms of (social) life.“e The mood of the Church was well expressed by Cardinal Henriquez of Chile who, in urging the Council to adopt more flexible policies, said: “Let us engage in a dialogue with the atheists whose strength derives from the approval of earthly values. It is necessary that these values should be ap- proved by the Church too.“7 This was in full accord with one of the most significant paragraphs of the encyclical Pacem in T-is, which stated that a clear distinction should be made between “false philosophical teachings” and historical movements that “contain elements that are positive and deserving.“8

On the Marxist side, the basis for the dialogue was clearly defined by several leading theoreticians, includ- ing Lucia Lombardo-Radice of Italy, Roger Garaudy of France, and Milan Machovec of Czechoslovakia.s Al-

~L%nnme chdien et rho= man&e. Confrontations et &bats. Paris, 1964.

6Osservatore Romano, Aug. 11, 1964 ~Disputation zwischen Christen ud Mtuzisten, ed. Martin Stohr,

Munich, 1966, p. 53.

*One of the most interesting Marxist enalyses of recent en- cyclicals and pastoral pmxnnmcements is Jacques Milbau’s “Ob- servations sur les travaux de Concile” in La Nouvelle Critique, Paris, No. 178, pp. 19-65.

TlThara is now an immense litarature on the relations of atheistic Md and Christianity. Cf. L. Lombardo-Radice, in II dialogo al&z prove, Florence, 1964 and Rinascita, Rome, Merch 1965; Roger Garaudy, De PAnath&ne Au Dialogue, Paris, 1965; Milan Machovec, Mardsmus wd dialektische Theologie, Zurich, 1965; Luigi Fabbri, Z communisti e la religione, Rome, 1966; Hans Gerhard Koch, Absch&mg Gottes? Der materialistische Atheis- mus als hedge Ezistenzform, Stuttgart, 1961; Hatms Lilje, Atheis-

though they approached the subject from different angles, these and other Marxist theoreticians favoring a dialogue with Catholics were in full agreement with the late Italian Communist Party leader, Pahniro Togliatti, who said in his famous Yalta Memorandum of 1964, “the old atheistic propaganda is of no use.” Garaudy went to great lengths in trying to prove that Marx’s famous statement that “religion is the opium of the people” was quoted out of context or was generally misunderstoodlO. In reinterpreting Marx’s dictum, Ga- raudy, following Engels, made a clear distinction be- tween “apocalyptic” and “Constantinian” Christianity, representing, respectively, the original Christian mes- sage as contained in the Gospels and Christianity as developed by a Church that was an integral part of the power structure of the temporal world. The distinction implied the possibility of a rapprochement with a Christianity divested of its “Constantinian” accretions. In defining the perspective in which the dialogue should be put, Garaudy pointed out that “the Com- munist parties have been established in order to put an end to the exploitation of man by man . . . and are not to be considered some kind of clubs for the propagation of atheism.“ll

Moscow Forced to Modify Attitude

This was in outright contradiction to the principles enunciated in the report submitted in November 1963 by the then chief Soviet ideologist, Leonid Ilychev, to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. In stressing that peaceful coexistence should in no way imply ideological coexistence, Ilychev declared that religion in all its forms was diametrically opposed to communism, and called for the intensification of the atheistic campaign. The Ilychev report, as well as a subsequent article by M. Mchedlov in the Soviet theoretical journal Kommunist,12 brought forth spirited rejoinders by Lombardo-Radice and Luciano Gruppi in I1 Contamporaneo, a supplement to Rinascita, the of- ficial organ of the Italian Comnnmist Party.18

The unfavorable echo the Soviet attitude found in the Western Communist parties may have contributed to a change in Soviet tactics. While Moscow never came out officially in favor of the dialogue, Soviet gestures, like Andrei Gromyko’s and Nikolai Podgorny’s visits in 1967 to the Vatican, clearly indicated that, in contrast to its former policies, the Kremlin would not object to Marxist-Catholic contacts - even if they implied

mus, Hu manismus, Christenturn, Hamburg, ig6a; Henri de Lubac, Le ohme de l’humanisme athke, Paris, 1~; G. Szczesny, Die Zukunft des Unglaubens, Munich, 1958; H. Gollwitzer, Die madstische Religionskritik und der christliche Glaube, Muni4 1965; L. Kolakowski, Der Mensch ohne Alternative, Munich, 1960; Emil Fuchs, Chridiche und m.arxistische Ethik, Leipzig, 1958; Pierre Bigo, Mar&me et human&me, 1953, etc. etc. The main contributions to the Salzburg discussions were published in Christenturn Und Mar xismus-Heute, ed. Ekicb Kellner, Vienna, 1966.

Whristentum Und Marxismus-Heute, p. 87. ~Vhnce Nouvelle, June 8, 1966. 12Kommunist, October 1964. %Zinescita, March 1965.

4 COMMIJNLST AFFAXES

some measure of an ideological rapprochement. The contacts were obliquely sanctioned by the publication in the Moscow-sponsored World Marxist Review of an article by Santiago Alvarez, a member of the Spanish Communist Party’s Executive Committee, who declared that “a dialogue between Communists and Catholics is not only possible but urgently necessary.“‘”

It remained to establish the context in which the dialogue was to be conducted. From the beginning, both Christians and Marxists had made it clear that the intellectual exchanges should be divested of a crusading or missionary character. In other words, it was agreed that in a dialogue with their Marxist op- ponents Christians should not seek to convert them and vice versa.

The main purpose of the dialogue was to explore the terrain on which a rapprochement could be made rather than to exacerbate the existing differences by unproductive polemics. In this connection, it was pointed out that since for both Marxism and Chris- tianity the fundamental problem is to combine a radical concern for a just society and the freedom to organize differentiation, the discussions should be centered on the methodology of the means by which social progress could be stimulated and the lot of the individual im- proved in the rapidly changing modern societies. In the opinion of Professor James L. Adams of Harvard University, it was on these points that the two ideologies might inspire each other without abandoning their in- dependent lines of development.16

The Quest for a Common Denominator

The quest for a common denominator to which Christian transcendentalism and Marxist dialectical ma- terialism could be brought, in spite of their inherent antinomies, produced some very interesting results. One of the most challenging interpretations of the structural analogies between Christianity and Marxism was of- fered by the French Jesuit Gaston Fessard, who believes that the Christian concepts of unity between God and Man, original sin and universal redemption, provided the model for Marx when he set out “to change the world.” He turned the concept of unity between God and Man into the unity of Nature and Man; the con- cept of original sin, explaining the existence of evil in the world, became, in Marx’s interpretation, the emer- gence of private property; and universal redemption was identified with world revolution which was to put an end to man’s alienation by the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production.1e

While Professor Milan Machovec of Prague sought to reconcile materialistic Marxism with what he des- cribed as a “dialectical theology,” another Czech phi-

14Santiago Alvarez, “Towards An Alliance of Communists and Catholics,” World Mar&t Review, June 1965.

IsJames L. Adams, “Is Marx’s Thought Relevant to the Chris- tian? A Protestant View,” Paper presented at the meeting on Marz- ism at the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Ind., April 1966.

%ev. Gaston Fessard, S.J., “Is Marx’s Thought Relevant to the Christian? A Catholic View.” Paper presented in South Bend, Ind.

losopher, Vitezlav Gardavsky, attempted to work out a system of “atheistic metaphysics.“l’ The purpose of the imaginative philosophical exercise was to prove that the Scriptures contain something of exceptional im- portance for contemporary Marxist thought: they ex- pressed for the first time, in prescientific, mythical form, the concept of man ‘<who makes a choice exceed- ing his destiny.”

The Czech philosopher’s theories merely reasserted in the language of metaphysics what other Marxist thinkers, including Lukacs, Mannheim and Korsch, had stated in preponderantly sociological or ethical terms, namely that the essence of Marxism is a concern over the fate of the individual and the resolve to im- prove the human condition. The problem, as the Polish Marxist theoretician Adam Schaff put it, was to assure the individual “a truly human life” by working out a Marxist ethics in the framework of which the issues of the freedom of the individual and his moral respon- sibility could be solved. Is According to Schaff and other neo-Marxists, it was this concern for man as an in- dividual that prompted the young Marx “to set Hegel straight” by placing the concept of alienation at the center of his system. If alienation was the core around which Mamism was built, it logically followed that Marxism, like religion, should take into consideration those elements of the human condition that do not fit into the pattern of social relations. As Schaff pointed out, dialectical materialism is of little help to men facing the problems of loneliness or death.

The placing of man and his alienation at the center of Marxist thought amounted to the rechanneling of Marxist philosophy to its Hegelian sources. It was from Hegel and Feuerbach that Marx borrowed the concept of alienation, adapting it to his own systems by identifying the private ownership of the means of production as the source of man’s estrangement from his surroundings. As long as Marxism remained an imaginative socio-economic theory, or a theoretical blueprint for revolution, the correctness of the Mar&t concept of alienation could neither be proved nor dis- proved. The situation changed after the establishment of Communist regimes which put an end to the private ownership of the means of production. It then appeared that, despite the collectivization of production, aliena- tion continued to weigh as heavily on the individual as in the so-called capitalist societies. Unwilling to shove the problem under the rug, or to state apodictically, as the philosophers of the Stalin era were wont to do, that in Communist societies men had reached a state of bliss, several prominent Marxist thinkers concluded that the entire concept of alienation should be revised in the light of Marx’s earlier writings.

While disagreeing on many theoretical details, these Marxist philosophers and scientists-Ernst Bloch and Robert Havemann in East Germany, Adam Schaff and Leszek Kolakowski in Poland, Cesare Luporini and Gal- vano della Volpe in Italy, Roger Garaudy, Lucien Gold- man and Henri Lefebvre in France-were unanimous

‘7Literarny Noviny, Dec. 17, 1966.

IsAdam S&B, Pilozofi czlowieka (The Philosophy of Man), Warsaw, lg6a.

5 V 4 JTJLY-AUGUST

in stressing the inability of Marxism to solve many problems faced by the individual regardless of the social or political structure of the society in which he lives. To fill the gaps in Marxism described as “the empty areas,” Communist philosophers attempted to “rethink” the concept of alienation and to work out a new system of Marxist ethics inspired by “socialist humanism.“lg

Attempts to Equate ‘Socialist’ and ‘Christian’ Humanism

Although there is no agreement amo ifi

Marxist pbi- losophers as to the exact meaning of soci ‘st humanism, it is generally presented as the logical development of the young Marx’s concept of the “human foundation” on which history evolves. In this connection, Garaudy emphasized that what distinguishes Marxist materialism from all antiquated forms of materialism is its insist- ence on the importance of man’s creative acts.2o The creative act, however, implies a choice, and this in turn requires freedom. Consequently, Marxism should not disregard those spheres in which the individual assumes responsibility by freely choosing his attitude toward such awesome problems as the meaning of life or the inescapability of death. On this point, socialist human- ism is no longer in contradiction to Christian humanism. In fact, Garaudy wrote, “Mandsm would be much poorer if the sense of transcendence and love as rep- resented by Saint Paul and Saint Augustine, Theresa of Avila, Pascal and Claude1 were alien to it.“21 Viewing socialist h umanism as a product of the collective ex- perience of the human race, Garaudy defined it is “the methodology of the historical initiative for the realiza- tion of the total man.“pa

That a rapprochment between “apocalyptic” Chris- tianity and an undogmatic Marxism is not only possible but imperative is the central theme of Professor L,om- bardo-Radice’s theory on “pluralistic socialism.” To enable man to fulfill his destiny through the free development of his faculties is, in Lombardo-Radice’s opinion, the main objective of “non-integrist” (that is, progressive) Christianity and pluralistic (that is, non- monolithic) Marxism. Epistemology cannot be based on Statist-Zhdanovian distortions which turned Marx- ism into “definite truth without appeal.” If submitted to a tiy Marxist critique, Marxism should be viewed as the truth but a truth which does not consist ex- clusively of the original corpus of the classical Marxist- Leninist doctrines but of an amalgam of truths which mutually complement each other. Since nonmonolithic Marxism proved capable of integrating certain com- ponents of Freudianism or pragmatism, and was, in fact, compelled to do so in order to maintain its vitality, there is no reason why it should not absorb or be inspired by the humanistic content of the Christian message. A common respect for the individual’s free- dom of choice provides the basis on which a dynamic

Wu Marxid ethic3 and “the empty arefq” see my article “In Search of Humanisnq’ in Problems of Communism, Sept.-Oct. @!5.

*ORogt~ Garaudy, De L’Anathhne Au Dialogue, Paris, 1965,

PP. 5943. =Zbid. =Zbid

coexistence between Christianity and Marxism could be created.

‘Undogmatic’ Marxism vs. Basic Marxist Assumptions

Garaudy’s and Lombardo-Radice’s theories on bring- ing “apocalyptic” Christianity and materialistic but un- dogmatic Marxism to a common denominator by plac- ing the emphasis on the identity of the efforts to free man from his alienation reflected a clear departure from Marxist orthodoxy. The attempt implied, at least in- directly, the repudiation of one of the basic Marxist assumptions, according to which religion as a super- structure merely reflects the economic basis of capitalist societies. In recognizing man’s eternal quest for an explanation of his existence and for some metaphysical or ethical comfort in the face of nonexistence, the Com- munist philosophers also enlarged the classical Marxist concept which views man as homo economicus and nothing else. 28 Consequently, they recognized the need to complement the Marxist teachings with a new anthropology and the working out of a system of Marxist ethics.

Christian theologians and philosophers are generally in agreement with the Marxists on the need for a new Marxist as well as a new Christian anthropology. Ex- cept for some minor reservations on the details, they also agree on the theoretical possibility of harmonizing the humanistic contents of Marxism and Christianity. At the same time, however, they stress the inevitable antinomies between Christian humanism, rooted in man’s freedom, and Marxist humanism, which, as Father J. Girardi put it, by considering social laws the equivalent of natural laws, relapses into a naturalism that leads inevitably to integration&m and to the denial of human freedom. He also made a clear distinction be- tween historical materialism which is not necessarily atheistic, and dialectical materialism, which is. In Father Girardi’s opinion, the effectiveness of the dialogue depends on the answers Matists would give to the questions: Does Marxism admit that religion can be- come a revolutionary force in the development of the world? And, in order to become a revolutionary force, does religion have to modify its concept of freedom? If the answer to the first question is affirmative, what becomes of the Marxist thesis according to which religion itself is the main source of alienation? Finally, can Marxism admit that earthly values leave man, who strives for the infinite, unsatisfiedT2’ Garaudy replied that Marxism does not deny that religion can be an effective vehicle of protest. As for the rest, he declared that Marxist atheism places the emphasis on the afEi.rmation of man rather than on the denial of God.

Humanistic Content Becomes the Only Connecting link

In the light of the principal contributions to the dialogue, the main areas of a

r ent as well as of

disagreement become clearly ‘scernible. Both Chris- tians and Marxists consider the humanistic content of

2SCf, Walter Holhcher, Luciano Gruppi, Cesare Luporhi, Bra&o Bosnjak and Asari Polikarov in Christenturn Und Marx- ismus-Heute.

*‘Zbid.

6

heir respective philosophies the connecting link be- meen two otherwise hostile ideologies. On the Com- munist side there seems to be a willingness to re- consider the classical Marxist concept of religion as a superstructure whose built-in social fatalism and basic pessimism in relation to this-worldly matters are among the principal causes of man’s alienation.

Christian theologians and philosophers, on the other hand-those, at least, participating in the dialogue- seem to be prepared to adapt Christian theology and philosophy to the requirements of modern life by abandoning what Teilhard de Chardin described as “the fhist view of the universe.” It is stressed that although the beatific vision of a universe which finds its ultimate consummation in God remains intact, neither Christian theology nor philosophy should regard the world otherwise than as an organic totality in evolu- tion, subjected to the strains and stresses of uninter- rupted creative activities. The reevaluation of the Chris- tian world view in the light of the inner dialectics of Christianity also implies a move away from static in- tegrism. In Father Rahner’s interpretation, Christianity cannot be static since it is a religion not of Being but of Becoming, and as such it is “the religion of the absolute future.” But there is also what Father Rahner describes as the “inner-worldly future” of the individual, who acts freely in shaping his destiny. The absolute future of the world and man is God; the inner-worldly future is planned by men. Christianity does not object to any justified planning of the future; it rejects only those ideological utopias in which the absolute future is con- fused with the inner-worldly future. In nontheological or nonphilosophical terms this means that as long as believers are not compelled, in the name of an an- tagonistic ideology, to renounce their faith in God as the supreme driving force of cosmic existence, includ- ing human history, everyone should be free to seek the establishment of whatever social order he considers to be just and appropriate for man’s self-realization.P6

In making a clear distinction between Christian theology and the political position of individual Chris- tians, Father Rahner, who is professor of religious philosophy at the University of Munich, touched upon the most sensitive issue that has come up for discussion in the course of the Christian-Marxist dialogue. The question is whether totalitarian Marxism can be di- vested of the restrictive features which demand un- reserved acceptance of all its basic assumptions, in- cluding, of course, atheism as an organic element of dialectical materialism. The issue is closely related to another crucial problem, namely that of Communist motivations and the credibility of a “social pluralism.” In Salzburg, Father Rahner approached the problem frontally by asking: “How does it happen that it is only in Western countries that the theses on pluralistic freedom in socialist societies are submitted by Marx- ists?“2e In presenting a logical justification for ideologi- cal coexistence, Father Gustav A. Wetter, professor of Marxist philosophy at the Papal University in Rome, was equally outspoken. Describing the harassments to

p”Ibid. ‘Ybk?.

which the Church is subjected in the Commumst-run countries, Father Wetter declared that “those who em- ploy such means for settling differences of opinion dem- onstrate that what they seek is not the solution of con- tradictions but the imposition of their point of view and the elimination of their opponents.“*’

The Ambiguity of the Communist Position

In answering the questions on motivation and credi- bility, Communists deny categorically that their moves directed at reaching an accommodation with Christians are prompted by tactical or, in the Western countries, electoral considerations. They admit, however, that what mainly attracts their interest is what Professor Walter Hollitscher described as “the protest component among the Christian masses.“ao That the dialogue and, consequently, the rapprochement with Christians should be considered in the light of “concrete mass movement techniques,” was recently spelled out in Nepszabadsag, the official organ of the Hungarian Communist Party. Stressing that the aim of Marxism is not simply to en- gage in a critique of religion, the article defined the purpose of the dialogue as “to make it easier for the greatest possible mass of people to break away from the system of exploitation and war . . . and to facilitate their joining the democratic and socialist movement for the creation of a free and conscious future.“‘e Obviously the future the writer had in mind bore no resemblance to either the absolute or the inner-worldly future as Father Rahner sees them.

The ambiguity of the Communist position is high- lighted by the antimony between a commitment to a truth (Marxism) invested with universal validity, and different, or even contradictory, attitudes determined by the adherence to allegedly identical principles. It is on the basis of an allegedly correct interpretation of Marxist thought that Garaudy places the problem of alienation, socialist humanism and Marxist ethics at the center of the dialogue. It is, however, in the name of the same Marxist doctrines that Zenon Kliszko, chief theoretician of the Polish Communist Party, anathema- tizes Schaff and rejects the demand for a humanistically inspired Marxist ethics.*O Lombardo-Radice speaks of dynamic pluralism, while the pro-Chinese French Marxist-Leninists contemptuously describe the resolu- tion of the French Communist Party, which strongly supported the dialogue, as “a social populism with a Christian tone.“81 And the Chinese Communists, who also claim to be genuine Marxists, reject humanism as a non-Marxist, foreign concept propagated by revision- ists oblivious to the true Marxist-Leninist meaning of conflict and struggle.*a

*Thristentum and MarzkmwHeute, p. 60. 28Weg uiuf Ziel, Vienna, June 1966, pp. 310-319. *~Nepszabadsag, Dec. 15, 1~66.

~%lneirs wolnosci, Warsaw, Dal2 17, lQ6& SlLe Mode, Nov. 19, 1966. The monthly organ of the pro-

Chinese splinter group strongly criticized Garandy for ‘his neo- Hegelianism, his speculative delirium in philosophical matters and his shamafd conciliation vis-B-vis the Church . . .” Le Com- mm&e, July-Augusl $966.

*SD. W. Fokkema in Osteuropa, Stuttgart, May-June 1~66.

v 4 JVLT-AUQUST 7

Many Christian Thinkers Advise Caution

In these conditions it is hardly surprising that many Christian theologians and philosophers advise the great- est caution in trying to implement a Christian-Marxist rapprochement in the West while a militant atheism remains the characteristic feature of the Communist regimes in the East. Citing Marx, who said that “athe- ism, being the annulment of God, is the advent of theo- retical humanism,” Father Fessard subjected Marx’s concept of alienation and humanism to a detailed analy- sis, and concluded that the Marxist objective of restoring the original unity of Man and Nature resulted in the setting up of an atheocratic Church whose “integrism” precludes any real rapprochement. In Father Fessard’s view, the Communists’ efforts to fuse two antagonistic visions of history in one redemptory message is a tacti- cal move which develops in three or four phases: seduce, compromise, pervert, or destroy.33 Another prominent Catholic theologian, Rev. Virgilio Fagone, is equally cautious but less negative. Considering that such terms as justice, freedom, and democracy, which seem to make an apparent convergence possible, assume different meanings when interpreted in the light of Christian philosophy and materialistic Marxism, he suggests that the first phase of the dialogue should establish the full meaning of the two conflicting views of the world. Only a preliminary clarification of this kind could pave the way for the unity of truth which, in Rev. Fagone’s words, “does not exclude the multiplicity of the concrete existential prospects through which the different in- dividuals, in the environment of the different cultures, under varying social conditions, are progressing towards an even more profound understanding.“a4

Briefly summarized, these are the positions that are crystallizing in what may develop into the most exciting intellectual confrontation of the 20th century. Essen- tially, the dialogue reflects the concerns and bewilder- ments of a confused world laboring under the stresses and strains of overlapping national, social, scientific, and technological revolutions. Amid these convulsive transformations, it becomes more and more apparent that all-embracing unitary concepts are no longer able to dispel man’s metaphysical fears or to solve his prob- lems in “the ftitude of temporality.” Viewed in this light, the significance of the dialogue as the first tenta- tive step toward the development of a genuinely plura- listic concept of the world should not be underrated.

-Edmund Demaitre 83Rev. G. Fessard, op. cit. 34Civiltd Cattolica, Rome, June 4, 1966.

New Documentary Study of Vietnam War Communism in Vietnam, a documentary study

of the roles and aims of the Communist partici- pants in the Vietnam war, has been published (Sept. 16) by the American Bar Association. This latest in the ABA series of documentary reports on world conmnmism by American scholars is the joint effort of Rodger Swearingen and Hammond Rolph, director and research associate, respectively, of the Research Institute.

International Communist Front Conferences SEPT.- CONFERENCEOF WFDY-IUS Czecho- OOT. YOUTH AND (World Federa- Slovakia

STUDENTS ON tion of Democratic EUROPEAN Youth-Interna- SECURITY tional Union of

Students)

OCT. MEETINGOF WPC East Berlin, EUROPEAN PEACE (World Peace East Ger- COMMIXTEFS Council) maw

OCT. CONFERENCEOF WPC Conakry, 15-22 SOUDARITYWITH Guinea

PORTUGUESE COL- ONIES,ZIMEABWE, S.W. AFRlcA, AND SOUTH &RlCA

OCT. l?,XEcUTIVE WFTU Leningrad, 25 c0MM1l-rFx (World Federa- U.S.S.R.

MEETING tion of Trade Unions)

Nov. MEETINGOF WFDY Finland YOUTHOF NATO AND WARSAW PACTCOUNTRIES

DEC. GENERAL 1-2 COUNCIL

FIR (International Federation of Resistance Fighters)

East Berlin, East Ger- mm

Additional Developments

The 10th Workers Conference of the Baltic Countries, Norway and Iceland was held in Restock, East Germany, July 12-14. It was attended by 822 delegates, guests. and observers. The WFTU sent a delegation headed by WFTU secretary Victor A. Podzerko, of the U.S.S.R. (Neues Deutsch- land, July IO, 13).

The International Conference on Vietnam, held in Stockholm July 6-g, was attended by 404 delegates and 48 observers from 64 countries. The conference, organized primarily by the WPC and the Christian Peace Conference, which is based in Prague, issued a “worldwide appeal on behalf of Vietnam”; it contained the familiar Communist demands for a settlement of the war. (Slow0 Powszechne, July 4; Neues Deutschlmd, July 6, 7, IO.)

In the second week of July, a South Vietnamese youth group visited Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden under the aegis of the WFDY and Scandinavian youth organizations. The purpose of the tour was to familiarize the youth of Scandinavia with the struggle of the Vietnamese people and to establish contacts with the representatives of Scandinavian youth organizations oppos- ing “American aggression in Vietnam.” (TASS, July IO.)

The pro-Soviet faction of the Afro-Asian Writers’ Per- manent Bureau (AAWPB) met at its Cairo headquarters July 4 and 5 to condemn the Israeli “aggression” as a threat not only to the Arab states, but also to the African and Asian peoples and all “progressive peoples of the world.” . . . It was decided at the meeting that an Afro- Asian writers’ symposium on “Poetry and the Present Time” would be held in Senegal in 1968. . . . The publica- tion of an AAWBP journal called From African and Asian Literature will soon be started in Cairo. The journal will be published quarterly in Arab, English, and French. (TASS, July 6; Literaturnaya Gazeta, July 12.)

L

8