Neomarxism: Redeemable or Rejectable?
By Daniel Hickinbotham
Neomarxism: Redeemable or Rejectable
Author: Daniel Hickinbotham - 11/1/25
Introduction
Much of the 20th Century was marked by a prolonged and multifaceted conflict between adherents to Marxist ideology and… well… everybody else. Marxism had profound impact on the world, starting with the bloody political and cultural upheavals of the 1917 Russian Revolution, followed by Communist revolutions in Mongolia, China, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cuba and Vietnam. There were Soviet-led installation of Communist governments in Poland, East Germany, Czechoslavkia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria after WWII and numerous other states across the globe adopted or had foisted upon them Marxist-Leninist forms of government. It was on the Korean peninsula where the first true international war between Marxist forces and Western democracies occurred. Though many other conflicts followed, notably the Vietnam War, open hostilities transitioned primarily into a shady chess game we now call the Cold War.
In assessing the fallout of Marxist revolutions and governments in the 20th Century, the death toll is truly staggering. Deaths caused by violent revolutions, ensuing internal political and religious persecution, mass starvation, and the perpetual lack of material and medical resources can be very conservatively estimated at above 100 million people.
The fall of the Soviet Union generally marked the end of the Cold War, and for many, it marked the end of any serious threat from Marxism. Now it is mainly considered an isolated ideology which will, ultimately, collapse under the weight of its failures. But we must ask the question: is that true? Has Marxist ideology truly been dealt its death blow?
As we see New York on the verge of electing an openly socialist mayor, we must recognize that Marxist ideology is alive and well, and is more influential in the world, our culture, and even the church than we may think, having mutated into what can be broadly called Neomarxism. In seeking to renew and conform our minds to the word of God, to contend for the faith once and for all handed down to the saints, and be equipped to tear down every vain philosophy that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, biblical Christians must be intentional in examining the prevailing cultural currents from a biblical worldview. This essay seeks to briefly explore the current iteration of Marxist ideology from a Christian perspective to determine whether it is redeemable or rejectable.
Foundations of Neomarxism
In order to comprehend the Neomarxist paradigm, we must first examine its foundation in classical Marxism, an economic theory named after the 19th century German philosopher, Karl Marx. In his seminal work, The Communist Manifesto, Marx (and a man named Friedrich Engels) postulated that all the world’s problems could be narrowed to a single foundational sin: the private ownership of property. This private ownership of property, which is the means of all economic production, served to alienate workers from the fruits of their labor, fellowship with other people, and their own virtuous natural state. It was this alienation that was the root cause of all social and personal dysfunction and dysphoria. Additionally, private ownership created an impassable gulf between the ownership class (the bourgeoisie) and everyone else (the proletariat).
Marx and Engels proposed solution was the violent uprising of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, sieze the means of production, and redistribute the wealth. This redistribution was initially to be managed through state power, but later through a pure voluntarism in what they called the communist utopia, where the private ownership of property would be anathema. This economic overthrow would, in turn, undo all existing political authority, social relationship, and morality, which were seen as mere outgrowths of capitalist oppression. A new social consciousness and morality would arise which would ensure the advent and flourishing of the envisioned communist utopia. In short, they anticipated a cultural renovation coming as a result of the economic revolution.
The Evolution From Marxism to Neomarxism
As discussed in the introduction, history quickly showed these economic efforts led to catastrophic death, wide-spread corruption, and long-term impoverishment of both liberty and economic prosperity. Marxism as an economic theory proved so disastrous in the early 20th century that it was quickly being rejected. However, Marxists philosophers began morphing the principles of the theory into sociological, psychological, political, and anthropological theories. As economic Marxism floundered, these new Marxist philosophers, particularly a group known as the Frankfurt School, reenvisioned and broadened their concept of the foundational problem. Where once defined as the private ownership of property, it became the more general concept of any person or group possessing something that another person or group did not. The Haves and the Have Nots became the new bourgeoisie and proletariat. From the Frankfurt School flowed the idea that all existing systems (be they economic, social, cultural, political, or religious) served to alienate individuals from personal flourishing and to establish and maintain the impassable gulf between the oppressor (or the oppressor class) and the oppressed. These classes were defined by those who possess certain rights, experiences, privileges, opportunities, wealth, and/or status and those who do not possess the same. A man named Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher and politician, was instrumental in shaping this new formulation, proposing the idea of a “cultural hegemony” – which is the assertion that the ruling class shapes cultural norms, expectations, logic, and social constructs in order to oppress and exploit others.
This transition period from Marxism to Neomarxism marked an inversion of the main strategy for most Marxists. Where once it was violent economic revolution that was sought in order to catalyze a cultural renovation, Neomarxism pursues a radical cultural revolution as the catalyst for an economic renovation. Neomarxism, as with most things, exists on a spectrum, from the violent overthrow of institutions perpetuating cultural hegemony (groups like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers) to societal withdrawal seeking mental liberation from hegemonic indoctrination (groups like the Beatniks or the Hippy Movement).
But in most of the West, it was a concept called “the long march through the institutions”, championed by key figures like Rudi Dutschke and Herbert Marcuse, that won the day. This long march is the intentional infiltration of political and cultural institutions (local, state, and national governments, political organizations, schools and universities, charities, media producers, etc.) in order to deconstruct them and reseed the broader landscape with Neomarxist principles. And since the 1960’s, the goal of capturing influential institutions has been largely accomplished and is now the dominant societal worldview. For a harrowing synopsis of this success, you can read Roger Kimball’s The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s Changed America.
Why This Matters for Christians
So why should a Christian concern themselves with understanding Neomarxism? For many it seems like the Neomarxist is attempting to address many of the concerns that the Christian is. Many of the societal ills we see and seek to address today seem to be biblically identified and provide potential common cause for linking arms with the Neomarxists in seeking a solution. Corporate greed, political cronyism, institutional corruption (which usually ends up disproportionately harming the poor), and widespread economic difficulties, have at least contributed to societal ills like increased drug use and suicidality, tribalism, crime, and the broadly reported experiences of dissatisfaction and depression. Why not partner with this new iteration of Marxism to alleviate suffering and establish justice? Don’t we all want a utopia where everyone has enough, and there is societal order born out of goodwill and common decency?
There is significant danger for the Christian in this attitude, as Neomarxism is not a reformed or renewed version of classical Marxism, rather it is a potent fruit of a poisonous root. Consider the following:
Marxism’s Anti-Theistic Foundations
Marxism is virulently antagonistic toward theism in general, but towards Christianity specifically. Marx's writings contain numerous statements about religion's inherent harm. He was contemptuous of Christianity and its God specifically, admiring Satan as the archetype of those willing to cast off Christian religious and moral shackles. In Marx's estimation, Christianity had been institutionalized not because it was true, but as a convenient means for subjugating and deluding the poor. "Blessed are the poor" and promises of rewards in the afterlife kept the masses from pursuing their own earthly satisfaction, insulating the rich and enabling them to retain and multiply wealth. Engels, Marx's compatriot and benefactor, explicitly stated that Christianity and socialism were mutually exclusive worldviews. (While Engels never composed sonnets to Satan, he hated Charles Spurgeon due to his massive influence across Europe.) Marxism's DNA is so anti-theist and anti-Christ that any truth claims generated from it or its progeny cannot be safely baptized and incorporated into a believer’s (or a church’s) life and doctrine.
Rooted in Covetousness
Neomarxism is rooted in covetousness, which some argue is the actual original sin (see Paul's example in Romans 7:7-13). It was at least part of Adam and Eve's original sin. Having been given all the trees of the garden save one, they looked upon the restricted tree as something good being denied them, and the knowledge of Good and Evil as something God had that they did not.
The evident bitterness in Marx's writings toward those possessing wealth and privilege reveals covetousness to be Marxist philosophy’s unifying value. It foments envy, ingratitude, and discontent, using them as goads to spur their version of progress. Humanity must be awakened to their dispossessed state, and have their envious discontent agitated enough, before the necessary revolutionary zeal can manifest. Further, woven into Neomarxism's DNA is the inherent "wrongness" of one party possessing something another doesn't, and this foundational sin is not limited to material things. Anything one party has that another lacks (even things as ethereal as “mental rest in a culture”) is taken as evidence that injustice is being committed. The Neomarxist goal is to deconstruct all systems that led to this disparity.
This contradicts both the Old Testament Law and the New Testament ethics which affirms the goodness of the 10th Commandment and the call to lead content and peaceable lives.
Anti-authority not just Anti-authoritarian
Baked into the cake of the Neomarxist worldview is the assumption that all authority is fundamentally at odds with the individual’s ability to accomplish their true goal of self-actualization. In a Neomarxist framework, submission to just authority is not to be embraced or delighted in. Those in possession of authority are not to be trusted, unless they wield that authority in the specific way you desire. Change comes from stirring agitation, undermining credibility, and prolonged resistance, with the only acceptable result being the transformation of the institution or position. The assumption of this approach is that there is no just authority. When authority is exercised, it is always done as a means of control and not care, oppression and not protection, subjection and not safeguarding. The entire field of Critical Theory and its offshoots are devoted to examining authority structures and how they perpetuate cultural hegemony, in order to subvert and ultimately deconstruct them.
Fundamentally, Neomarxism’s opposition to cultural hegemony puts it at direct odds with the God of the Bible—the sovereign King by whom, through whom, and for whom all things were made and who establishes earthly authority and rules over a hegemon called the Kingdom of God. Neomarxism calls evil what God has ordained and calls good.
Promotes a False Gospel
The misdiagnosis of the original sin is problematic in itself, but it reveals a more foundational problem. Neomarxism is at odds with the Gospel in the following ways.
First, it rejects God’s providence in history.
It assumes things like circumstances of birth (family lineage and history, immutable characteristics, etc.) and the expressions of culture across human history (hierarchy, social structures, political institutions, etc.) are not created, ordained by, or sustained by the providence of God, rather they are expressions of either the triumph of oppressors or the oppressed in past generations.
Second, it rejects the sovereignty of God in the created order.
Where all people are created with diverse characteristics, giftings, abilities, genetics, proclivities, etc., leading to a broad diversity of outcomes, Neomarxism inherently views diversity of outcome as evidence of injustice.
This is not to deny that unjust systems and injustice don’t exist or affect people’s outcomes, nor that there is not a Christian imperative to identify and address them. However, the intrinsic view of Marxism, its Creation Narrative if you will, is that humanity in its unaffected state would have no diversity of outcome, which is not a biblically justifiable claim.
Third, it misdiagnoses humanity’s foundational problem.
Neomarxism substitutes internal sin with external oppression. Sin, the rejection of God and refusal to observe His commandments, is something done volitionally within and through people against God. External oppression is something done systemically against people from without, causing the people to experience dysphoria and behave dysfunctionally.
Fourth, it promotes a different savior and a different salvation.
Salvation from sin requires the Savior, Christ Jesus, and His atoning redeeming work on the cross to reconcile the world and humanity to God. In a Neomarxist paradigm, salvation requires humanity to come to an awareness of their dispossessed state in order to overthrow and deconstruct the external systems of oppression. In this system the savior, whether it is the state or the people, is humanity itself.
Finally, it promotes a different consummation.
Where gospel restoration is characterized by all things existing in a perfect submission to God and redeemed relationships to one another, the consummation of all things in a Neomarxist paradigm is humanity existing in a utopic existence devoid of religion, family, government, or any other forms of authority.
Utterly Rejectable
For these reasons, and a multitude more, any Marxist thinking should be fully rejected as a worldview, and its methods resisted whenever attempts are made to use them to inform directives for life and doctrine.
However, some claim that Marx made appropriate criticisms of Capitalism and social ills and thus can be useful as a tool of analysis. After all, all truth is God’s truth. I would warn against this disposition. First, Scripture makes far better (and truer) critiques than The Communist Manifesto or Critical Theory. Second, it is virtually impossible to immunize against the Marxist worldview. It is a kind of mind virus which infects the host. It is a replacement worldview, complete with creation narrative, fall into sin, redemption through a savior, and an anticipated restoration of all things. You cannot divorce its conclusions from its worldview—accepting the former requires (wittingly or unwittingly) embracing the latter.
For Lord of the Rings fans, it is akin to the One Ring. Many might attempt to use it for destroying evil but find themselves corrupted and enslaved by it. Genetic Fallacy notwithstanding – some conclusions are worth rejecting simply because of the egregious nature of their genesis. Any ideology explicitly rooted in exalting itself against Christ and His Kingdom deserves not only to be torn down, but its ashes are not worth sifting in an attempt to find salvageable gems.