In The Principles of Communism, Friedrich Engels repeatedly describes the abolition of private property not merely as desirable, but as necessary. He writes:
“Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement….”
For many readers, the meaning seems obvious. Engels is prescribing an ideal society which humanity ought to pursue. Communism is interpreted as a moral project — either a righteous one or a dangerous one depending on the politics of the reader.
But this interpretation may fundamentally misunderstand what Engels means by the word “must.” Because later in the text, Engels clarifies his position in a way that radically changes the meaning of the earlier passage.
He writes:
“Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations…”
This is no longer the language of morality. It is the language of historical consequence.
The distinction matters enormously.
An Orthodox Interpretation
Eastern Orthodox societies often encountered Marxism through the historical reality of Soviet Communism itself. As a result, Engels’ language is frequently interpreted through the lens of revolutionary prescription. The “must” is read almost prophetically:
- society ought to abolish private property,
- humanity should pursue collective ownership,
- revolution becomes an intentional mission.
This interpretation is understandable given the historical experience of the Soviet Union, where Marxism-Leninism became fused with state ideology, centralized planning, and political orthodoxy.
Under this framework, Communism resembles a consciously pursued social blueprint. But this still assumes that history is fundamentally guided by intentional moral or political will.
The Catholic Interpretation
Catholic interpretations often tend toward moral readings, though in radically different directions.
Conservative Catholicism
Within traditional Catholicism, truth descends through institutional authority:
- the Church,
- apostolic succession,
- bishops,
- doctrine,
- the Pope.
The moral order exists prior to the individual subject. Grace flows through the institutional structure established by God. Under this framework, Engels appears dangerous because he introduces a rival totalizing truth claim outside the authority of the Church.
Thus, when Engels writes:
“Private property must, therefore, be abolished…”
the conservative Catholic hears:
“Human beings should reconstruct society according to their own ideological desires.”
This resembles rebellion against divine order itself. In many ways, this is still a pre-Reformation understanding of necessity. “Must” refers to moral obligation grounded in transcendent authority.
Anything outside the Church’s doctrinal structure becomes threatening precisely because it competes with the Church’s monopoly on truth.
Progressive Catholicism
Progressive or Marxist Catholics often reverse the moral polarity while preserving the same structure. Communism becomes:
- the ethical society,
- justice for the poor,
- liberation of the oppressed,
- the righteous cause.
The revolutionary subject becomes morally heroic because they are willing to sacrifice themselves for humanity. But this still interprets Engels morally. The structure remains:
“We ought to pursue Communism because it is morally correct.”
This creates the righteous subject — the individual who believes their moral commitment guarantees historical legitimacy. But the morally righteous subject rarely confronts what psychoanalysis would call the Real.
George Orwell illustrates this perfectly in 1984. Winston possesses moral opposition to the Party. He believes himself principled and resistant. Yet the moment he confronts actual terror — the rat cage in Room 101 — his morality collapses instantly. He betrays Julia immediately.
The point is not merely that Winston is cowardly. Rather, it reveals that moral conviction itself is fragile when confronted by material reality, fear, pain, survival, and death. The moral subject imagines themself autonomous until reality intervenes.
The Lutheran Interpretation
In my view, the Lutheran interpretation is the most historically accurate reading of Engels — especially considering that Marx and Engels emerged from post-Reformation Germany.
This interpretation understands Communism not primarily as a moral ideal, but as the consequence of changing socio-economic relations. Engels writes:
“Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations…”
This sentence is crucial because Engels explicitly rejects the idea that social systems emerge primarily through moral choice. He continues:
“When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property.”
This is an extraordinarily important point.
Private property itself was historically necessary. Feudalism did not collapse because humanity collectively decided it was immoral. Rather, new productive forces emerged:
- manufacture,
- trade,
- early industrialization,
- urban production,
- expanding markets.
The old feudal structure could no longer contain the productive reality developing inside it. Therefore:
- feudalism gives way to capitalism,
- not because of morality,
- but because material production changes.
Engels makes this even clearer:
“For manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.”
This does not sound like moral condemnation of capitalism. Quite the opposite.
Engels is arguing that capitalism itself was historically necessary. This is where the Protestant structure becomes visible.
Protestantism and Historical Becoming
The Reformation fundamentally altered how German intellectual life understood necessity. In Catholicism, truth remains heavily mediated through institution and moral authority. But Lutheranism destabilizes this structure:
- grace precedes works,
- transformation occurs prior to moral perfection,
- history becomes dynamic rather than fixed,
- contradiction and becoming move to the center.
By the time of German Idealism, this develops into a philosophy of historical unfolding itself:
- Hegel,
- dialectics,
- becoming,
- contradiction,
- Spirit moving through history.
Marxism inherits this structure while secularizing it. History itself becomes the moving force. This is why Engels writes:
“Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period…”
and later:
“These mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order.”
Again, this is not fundamentally moral language. It is structural language.
Capitalism itself creates productive capacities which increasingly destabilize the property relations capitalism depends upon. Only after explaining this historical contradiction does Engels conclude:
“Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.”
The phrase “absolutely necessary” changes the entire meaning of the text.
Moral Necessity vs Historical Necessity
There are two fundamentally different meanings of the word “must.” The first is moral:
- You must obey God.
- You must help the poor.
- You must tell the truth.
This kind of necessity depends upon ethical obligation. One can fail to obey it.
The second kind of necessity is structural:
- Winter must follow autumn.
- Pressure must rupture weak foundations.
- Feudalism must transform once productive forces outgrow guild structures.
This is not commandment. It is consequence. This is the deeper meaning of Engels’ “must.”
If Communism were merely a moral project chosen intentionally by political actors, then it would not truly be “absolutely necessary.” Moral choices are contingent by definition. They can succeed or fail. Engels is describing something closer to historical inevitability:
- productive forces expand,
- contradictions intensify,
- property relations destabilize,
- new social forms emerge.
Communism, therefore, is not fundamentally an ethical fantasy imposed onto history. It is what Engels believes history itself increasingly produces. It is not primarily the language of morality. It is the language of historical consequence.
