The Unseen Paradox:: Karl Marx’s “Objective Force” as a Silent Acknowledgment of the Divine

Prof. Dr. Zahurul Alam :

Karl Marx, the principal architect of dialectical materialism and one of the most influential critics of religion, is often associated with an uncompromising rejection of theistic belief and the existence of a transcendent God. His famous assertion that “religion is opium of the people” reflects a broader critique of how religious institutions, in his view, serve to legitimize social inequality and suppress revolutionary consciousness.

However, a closer examination of Marx’s theoretical corpus, particularly his discussions of historical materialism, economic determinism, and social evolution, reveals the frequent invocation of an “Objective Force” or “historical necessity.” This force is portrayed as autonomous, inescapable, and ultimately decisive in shaping the course of human history.

Let us explore the philosophical tension inherent in this conceptualization. While Marx outwardly dismisses metaphysics and divine agency, his reliance on an overarching, deterministic logic of history bears striking resemblance to theological constructs of an omnipresent, guiding force.

The “Objective Force” in Marx’s analysis functions as a non-anthropomorphic power, shaping events beyond individual control, much like the impersonal deity of Spinoza or the dharma of Eastern philosophy. In this way, Marx’s framework does not entirely negate the metaphysical, it transforms and secularizes it.

By re-evaluating the metaphysical implications of Marx’s “Objective Force,” we can argue that his thought may not be a total repudiation of the divine, but rather a reconfiguration of metaphysical necessity within the language of materialism.

This challenges the prevailing interpretation of Marx as purely atheistic and opens new philosophical avenues for understanding his legacy in relation to concepts of divine order, fate, and universal law.

Karl Marx’s critique of religion is legendary: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature… it is the opium of the people.” In the eyes of many, this sentence sealed Marx’s philosophical separation from any theistic worldview.

He rejected metaphysical speculation in favor of material analysis, emphasizing that human consciousness and social life are conditioned by material conditions, not divine will.

However, a close examination of his writings, particularly in The German Ideology, Capital, and The Communist Manifesto, reveals a recurring invocation of impersonal, historical inevitabilities.

These are described as “Objective Forces” or “laws of history” that act independently of human volition, yet determine the path of human development.

This gives rise to a paradox: if these forces are beyond human control, omnipresent, and absolute in power, do they not function as a metaphysical entity akin to what all religions and most philosophies call God?

Now, the obvious question is whether Marx’s “Objective Force” material or metaphysical? Apparently, for Marx, the fundamental driver of history is not God, as religion understands, but class struggle, shaped by economic modes of production.

Yet in describing this process, Marx often appeals to a kind of historical necessity or objective law. This force is not random; it is structured, relentless, and inevitable.

It punishes contradictions and rewards alignment with its logic, echoing the divine justice found in theological doctrines.

In his writings Marx never described these forces as mystical or divine, but rather as natural laws of history, similar to laws in physics, discoverable through scientific analysis.

Despite above, he could not reject the inevitability of historical way of development determined by “Objective Forces”. Here lies the Metaphysical Implications of his theory.

· His “laws of history” act with inevitability and universality.
· These forces are uncontrollable, absolute, and shape destiny, traits often associated with divine will in theology.

This can be interpreted as a secular rebranding of metaphysical determinism.
So, while not metaphysical by intent, Marx’s objective force could be interpreted as functionally metaphysical, depending on one’s philosophical lens.

Marx’s rejection of institutional religion did not eliminate the philosophical structure of a supreme force. In fact, many religious and metaphysical systems, especially in Eastern traditions like Advaita Vedanta or Spinoza’s pantheism, etc. describe God not as a personal being, but as an impersonal, all-encompassing reality that governs existence. This is strikingly similar to Marx’s “Objective Force.”

Moreover, Hegel, whose dialectical method Marx adapted, saw the unfolding of Spirit (Geist) in history as a divine process. While Marx secularized Hegel, the deterministic essence remained.

Therefore, Marx’s notion of objective necessity might not be divinely intentional, but it is certainly cosmic in scope and law-like in power, suggesting not a denial of the divine, but a transformation of it. Despite rejection of God, Marx’s “Objective Forces” are structural replacements for the role that God played in religious narratives.

In terms of theological parallels we can put forward following philosophical point:
· Just as God in theology is seen as the supreme, determining, omnipresent force, Marx’s historical materialism speaks of invisible, determining forces shaping human life.
· These forces may not have divine names, but they function similarly to the metaphysical role of God.
The conclusion may be that Marx’s “Objective Forces” are “God without the Name.”
· Marx eliminated the language and institutions of religion.
· But retained a structure of belief in a transcendent historical order.
· This creates an implicit theology within his materialism, albeit secular and unnamed.

This interpretation suggests that Marx’s system, while atheistic, still echoes theological frameworks. He did not believe in God, but built a worldview where history and material forces act as a kind of unnamed supreme force, guiding human fate. This is why some scholars call Marx’s view “a theology in disguise.”

This leads to a central philosophical contradiction: Can Marx reject all metaphysical realities while invoking one? In rejecting religious imagery, he may have inadvertently preserved its structure, reframing God as history, and divine judgment as economic law.

Indeed, the very idea of “inevitability”, as often used by Marxists, suggests a teleological framework, i.e., one that presumes a purpose, direction, and finality, qualities typically embedded in theistic or metaphysical worldviews.

A Silent Affirmation
Marx did not set out to affirm the existence of God. Yet in his philosophical need for a structuring force that explains the rise and fall of classes, the unfolding of revolutions, and the inevitability of communism, he conjures a force that bears uncanny resemblance to the divine: unseen, all-encompassing, and ultimately sovereign.

Thus, Karl Marx, the atheist, may be understood as a philosopher who, in denying God, inadvertently gestured toward Him. Not in the form of religious dogma, but as a profound metaphysical order he could neither escape nor fully acknowledge.

This interpretation does not distort Marx’s work but opens a philosophical space where atheistic materialism and metaphysical theism briefly converge, in the shape of an “objective force” that governs all.

(The author is Dean, School of Business, Canadian University of Bangladesh)