Marxism and Religion in America

[dcsmart]

This article is in response to a survey that shows

"that the United States may be becoming both less religious generally and less Christian specifically. This may come as a shock to some, as over the past decade, the Religious Right has for many people come to represent the public face of the country. This has been spurred on and encouraged by the cries coming from many liberals over the past few years of an impending “theocracy.” However, the facts on the ground are quite different, as the American Religious Identification Survey, performed by Trinity College in Hartford, CT, recently proved."

It continues with a variety of stats about religious belief and thought in this country and moves on to a Marxist interpretation, some of which is cited below. It would be best to read the opening paragraphs to understand the motivation for this article.




Written by Josh Lucker
Friday, 10 April 2009

Marxism as a philosophy is atheistic, but our ideas in relation to religion are far more complex than the caricature of “Godless communists” usually portrayed in the media. If people know anything about Marx’s ideas on religion, chances are they know that he said that religion was “the opium of the masses.” He did in fact say this, but what he actually meant goes far beyond an isolated quote.

The quote is from Marx’s Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, written in 1844. In it, he takes up the German critics of religion, a trend led by Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer and others, who focused their attacks, not on existing social relations, but on religion itself.

He points out that: “Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again… This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world… The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion… Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people…

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

As Marx explains, the 19th Century German critics of religion had the whole thing turned upside-down. Religion is merely the reflection of suffering in this world, inequality in this world, injustice in this world. So long as these conditions exist, religion cannot simply be “abolished,” because it has a material base. It is, as he put it, the “sigh of the oppressed creature.”
Text

In other words, religion cannot simply be abolished or criticized out of existence. As Marxists, we believe that if you eliminate the conditions of misery that most of humanity lives under, that is, if we create conditions for “real happiness,” then over time, the need for “illusory happiness” will disappear on its own. If you do not agree, that is perfectly fine with us. In the future we can debate all we want about life after death, but in the meantime, we should work together to create the conditions for a life before death.
Text

FULL ARTICLE
http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/709/56/

[Howler]

1. Thank You!!!!!

Excellent Artical!!!

[54anickel]

2. Interesting how that sounds a bit like liberation theology or the Jesus teaching of

the Kingdom of God is here, within us if we'd just stop hoarding and using and abusing each other...daily bread as in enough to go around for all.

I look forward to reading the rest of the article later this afternoon. Thanks for posting.

[dcsmart]

3. they mention that at the end of the article

[54anickel]

5. Love this part....

...if you eliminate the conditions of misery that most of humanity lives under, that is, if we create conditions for “real happiness,” then over time, the need for “illusory happiness” will disappear on its own. If you do not agree, that is perfectly fine with us. In the future we can debate all we want about life after death, but in the meantime, we should work together to create the conditions for a life before death.

The entire article is a great find. Thanks again.

[struggle4progress]

4. Marx was a diligent observer of contemporary affairs, and his use of opium as a metaphor

for religion in 1844 may have been informed by the First Opium War in China, which had only recently concluded

Indian opium was an attractive commodity for English traders because (as William Burroughs later said of the derivative heroin) The merchandise is not sold to the consumer: the consumer is sold to the merchandise. Narcotics are effective analgesics for persons in tremendous pain; the ruthless exploitation of peasantry in imperial China produced such pain; and so the English traders were assured of a ready market. As was often the case elsewhere (for example, in the later exploitation of the Congo under Belgium's Leopold), it became convenient to mystify exploitation: the opium traders carried with them not only their narcotic cargo, but also a limited number of missionaries who would work against opium addiction, and "Christianizing the heathen" became part of the official cover story. The fact, that religious conversion could sometimes overcome opium addiction, would have been a natural fundraising argument by the missionaries in their reports back home; Marx could scarcely have been unaware of such aspects of the culture in which he moved; and he may simply have drawn the conclusion that there was a rough equivalency between the social functions of opium and religion

Opium and the Good Fathers
By Harry Knipschild
... Even before the Opium War of 1839 missionary entrepreneurs were active along the coasts of China. Preachers such as Prussian Karl Gützlaff travelled out in ships carrying opium, their funds remitted via opium traders; their charitable work relied on donations from Western firms involved in the opium trade ... Wherever missionaries were working to convert the Chinese, they were confronted with opium. The drug was so omnipresent that in their letters they sometimes made only casual remarks. The European fathers, while themselves smoking cigars and tobacco, did their utmost to persuade their converts to renounce opium ...
<pdf>: http://www.iias.nl/nl/34/IIAS_NL34_14.pdf
<html from pdf:> http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:FGmV1S2GZUUJ:www.iias.nl/nl/34/IIAS_NL34_14.pdf+opium+and+the+good+fathers&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[rug]

6. Recommended.

[54anickel]

8. I'll second that.

[amyrose2712]

7. Great post...

"In fact, apocalyptic visions of the “end of the world” are merely the spiritual reflections of social systems which have outlived their historical usefulness. They reflect the semi-conscious realization of “prophets” that the world as it exists, or rather social relations as they exist, cannot continue as they have in the past. We have seen no shortage of these harbingers of doom in recent years, typified by the popularity of the Left Behind book series.



Hopefully, it means wide spread social change soon.

[alcynic]

12. I certtainly hope so

Evangelism is the expression of a latent desire to control the thought of others, The Inquisiton, The Salm Witch Trials, The current mess with the GOP, It's all part of a desire of leaders to remain in absolute power

[readmoreoften]

9. It is not a dig against the devout. The full quote calls religion "the heart of a heartless world."

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843)

[followthemoney]

10. God is a concept by which we measure our pain.

I'll say it again. God is a concept by which we measure our pain.

Lenin, John, that is

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Fascinating article. Thanks for posting this! K & R n/t

[materialist101]

13. Boo

Moving from one ludicrous delusion to another? This is just pathetic.

Marx did have something worth commendable, especially on philosophy. But socialism is just as delusional as any religion. An ideology famous for breeding pol pot and stalin is really not much better that the one famous for crusades or the one that still endorses honor killings.

They are all superstitious faiths. No doubt shall be cast upon them, or you will be labeled and persecuted, either because your an infidel or counterrevolutionary.

[dcsmart]

14. people, unfortunately, make the jump from Marx

to dictatorial regimes and from there conclude that Marxism is wrong. First, you cannot have socialism without democracy. So, anyone claiming to represent socialism will at the same time represent democracy. dictatorial/authoritarian...whatever you want to call it, stalinsim, maoism, none of them represent Marxist philosophy in any way. and why the che guevara avatar.

thanks for the response

[materialist101]

15. Yea, right...

If I'm a sophomoric teenager that never read one piece of paper of marx lenin, I might get bamboozled.
Say, whats the prerequisite, or more exactly, the fundamental symbol of socialism? To my limited knowledge: labor country, proletariate-controlled productive material. So democracy? Well, it is possible, but it is definitely different from the democracy of most western countries'. That's right, you can say some northern european countries influenced by marxism, but you cannot say they have followed the light of marxism. And don't even bother mentioning Hugo Chavez.

Of course, marx himself can hide behind all those eastern european mess and keep playing his tai-chi-chuan. Just like christians, somehow a whole city can be razed, with it's children brutally murdered, but the "god" behind all this is still "moral".

Now I'm asking you a favor of answering one simple (could be quite complicated to some sense) question: why so many insane dictators, stalin, polpot etc, so love teaming up marxism? Why either their ideology are called lennin-marxism or sung-gung politics, they all love embracing marxism so much? Why there isn't no dictator love calling himself "washingtonist" or somehow say their ideology derived from lincolnism?

As for the avatar, since a lot of liberals don't mind putting a guy that mercilessly killed a lot liberals as their avatar, I don't think I have a reason to, either.

Thanks for your response and have a nice day.

[dcsmart]

16. well said

but as christians can read their scriptures (new testament) where jesus never endorsed violence and still act violently, so can others read marx and interpret him and his philosophy to justify their violence. Academic Marxism is completely different than applied marxism in the instances you mention. but marx would never have allied himself who those people because they were the oppressors of the working class....in fact, almost everyone. there is an enormous amount of literature out there and actions by self-described marxists far more studied than me that do not resemble or do they endorse any of the actions of the dictatorial interpreters of marx. i assume you have experienced the applied marxism of the wrong kind and have firsthand knowledge of its problems so you are in a better place to argue the problems of the marxism than i am. And, you are right, i think it would be ridiculous for someone to claim George Washington and Lincoln as their philosophical mentors all the while establishing their dictatorship. Yes, badly interpreted marxism has its legacy and so does Nietzsche at the hands of hitler, but that does not invalidate the philosophy.

[materialist101]

17. Still...

Still, above all the marxists, either they are academic or applied, have to answer one question: if your not gonna do something, then why on earth even bother inventing something so seditious. I do not know you, but when the first time I read bloody capitalist were pouring milk into the sea rather than giving to the poor, I couldn't sleep. I was thinking how tragical american were living. Several years later thanks to Al Gore, as he said, let there be the internet, I was be able to know I was actually living a life much more pathetic than an average american. Again several years later When I was in high school, I know there's someone called Adam Smith. Which sorta gives different explanation to economy.

Back to marx. If I remembered correctly, marx's daughter (can't remember which one, maybe all of them)is a passionate marxist. When the preexistence of english labour party sorta find marxism is not that practical and somehow radical, and seceded from the former coalition with that daughter, she was pretty generous in using "traitor" and synonymy like that.

So here is another funny question: why marxism can so easily be misinterpreted, and among those misinterpreters, included his own daughter? Even the lil story I wrote above isn't true, why so many ppl did "misinterpreted" them and yet more importantly, can went for quite a long time with very very few noticed?

Why is it every time, when you do something, it always go wrong? Why those who have correct interpretation, didn't really do anything? Then how are we going to know, next time, someone claim that he understand it the best, we can believe him, without being cheated by someone who shows his true color in the halfway?

See? This is a "can god create a stone he can't lift" paradox. With so many truth and facts presented, we have to draw a conclusion: among those followers of carl, only some of them truly understand it, others, as a matter of fact, don't, they just "follow". So it necessarily became elite-cracy of some sort. Since so many ppl fall to the wrong interpretation, we have to draw another conclusion, the whole theory has to stay on a theoretical level, it shall remain unused, until someone smart enough to fulfill two goals: 1,find a way to let everyone understand correctly (let's forget about the logical fallacy that it is possible to set up the standard for "correct") 2, invent a mechanism to prevent those who don't really understand from infiltrating in.

Any superstitious claims will have to be full of holes. Why? Because of absolutism. If you ask an aerodynamics expert if his blueprint for a plane is the best, he certainly would not tell you yes or not, he will tell you thats what he can come up with and he's done his best. Bertrand Russell excelentlly observed that it is "a system of dogma".

If agree with marx's philosophy makes you a marxist, then count me in. In a sense, I believe ppl like you and me are all marxist, it's just after seeing so many atrocities, I know what's not going to work will not work. see? I'm a materialistic marxist, your an idealistic marxist. :P

[dcsmart]

18. all this and you finally say you are a marxist..lol

i guess that is what it comes down to: i agree with most of marxist philosophy, so that is why i consider myself a marxist and why i belong to the Democratic Socialists of America. i really would not want to be considered a idealist. i am a materialist through and through...and i have to admit that when it comes down the application of marxist ideas i find myself following the example of Eugene Debs and the union movement. the union movement in this country is the closet thing we have to an organized working class. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x19546

and remember how marx defined working class:

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market."

this definition applies to most us here, and around the world....to make a long response short....

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

i find that to be true about history and most of marx's analysis beyond that. for me, it is that understanding, and from that, my focus on the working class and their rights and struggles in society. i work for a more just and equitable society and for a more humane distribution of wealth, since the workers actually are the ones that produce it. so, my marxism is very materialistic in its application, and marx said: The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

i do not think that is idealistic. but at the same time, i do realize the limitations involved in making this happen.

good talking to you, comrade




Democratic Socialists of America

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[materialist101]

23. I don't think you get it...

What I'm trying to say, is marxism is a system of dogma. It's a dogma for actions. To put it more explicitly, it wants you to do something, as we can read from almost every seditious word of marx's book, and it was written literally in words have the LEAST POSSIBILITY to be mistaken. And it wants you to do exactly what it tells you. Stalin, lennin, they all follow the very dogma that has been printed in their bible. You never, for a moment, think somehow a guy clever enough like karl will write a book in languages that can mislead another clever enough guy like stalin into misunderstanding?
No! It's logically impossible.
I know what academics are like. There are tons of theologians out their, who knows god doesn't exist, but just keep telling themselves times after times the book is true. Why? Because fame, status, benefit, and more importantly, they do not want their study, their life to be a joke.
Their are both devout evangelicals and hardcore marxists who get back to rational lives.But they are minority. Beside the reason that some ppl are just dumb enough to believe superstitious claims, they can always resort to one-way thinking. If a christian question his faith, he would think: why are we here? what we supposed to do? Then clearly there is a god isn't it? Wrong! A super being doesn't explain, it by every means complicate problems as this "god" opens a whole new gate of studying. If a marxist question his belief, he would think: then shall we live like this and let those bloody railroad tycoons get away with his railroad paved with those poor irish's bones?
These are all wishful thinking. Want to know the meaning of your life? Let's study and keep studying, not stop by introducing a space daddy; want to bring justice and solve problems? Let's struggle and keep struggling, not by destroying what we have and replacing a system proved many times to be impratical.
So your script is underpaid? Strike like WGA. micro$oft is growing to big? Sue it and tear it down! If your really a materialist, you should've questioned marxism enough times to know what to do long time ago. But, as I said, borrow things from it does not make you any more of a marxist than martha steward.

[dcsmart]

24. i think i do undertand

"If a marxist question his belief, he would think: then shall we live like this and let those bloody railroad tycoons get away with his railroad paved with those poor irish's bones?
These are all wishful thinking. Want to know the meaning of your life? Let's study and keep studying, not stop by introducing a space daddy; want to bring justice and solve problems? Let's struggle and keep struggling, not by destroying what we have and replacing a system proved many times to be impratical.
So your script is underpaid? Strike like WGA. micro$oft is growing to big? Sue it and tear it down! "

i understand what you are saying and in my response to another DUer i posted this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=205868&mesg_id=206858


philosophy is no substitute for action, but that action should have some philosophy motivating it. if my philosophy is marxist-socialist and its implementation is in the union movement suppering workers rights and better living standards for workers around the world, why is that not legitimate. after questioning marxism, i take from it the motivation to act for a more equitable society.

"The proletarians
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of All Countries, Unite! "...

that is not about writing dissertations. it is a call to action. and as i mentioned in the post above i think Eugene Debs is an excellent model for this.
http://marx.org/archive/debs/index.htm
if you are not familiar with him see above link.

he was a socialist and one of the most important union organizers in the USA. his reputation reached around the world. his life is a profound example of socialist principles in action.

i enjoy our conversation....and respect your point of view as it no doubt comes from the experience of failed marxist ideas. which i concede, on the world stage, seems to be Marx's history.

in the usa, today is Workers Memorial Day
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x19607

take care

[materialist101]

26. I see...

Okay then. Your one of those who employ a certain philosophy and theory to improve a certain group's life condition, not zealots who tramp others' right to achieve his/her own goals. Always glad to hear rational voices. But I still have to remind you, do not get too drunk of any dogma, also you may be called "revisionists" by those radical and dogmatic ones.

Good luck.

[Occam Bandage]

19. I find the Marxist complaints about religion darkly amusing,

given that the implementation of Marxism as a guiding philosophy for governance has almost invariably caused widespread human suffering on an unimaginable scale, in nearly exactly the same way the implementation of religion in the same role does.

Both claim that their goals are purely the benefit of mankind. Both promise that individual sacrifice now will result in common reward later. In time, that promise is perverted into a cynical justification for stripping individuals of their rights as a means to ensuring state power is non-threatened. This happens, because in both, strict adherence to the philosophy is invariably seen as necessary for accomplishing the greater good, and as the state becomes indistinguishable from the philosophy, a threat to one is seen as a threat to the other. And, of course, the blind belief that the philosophy must be held and followed by all, regardless of pragmatic reality, results in a sad disconnect whenever a policy formulated on the basis of that philosophy results in an unforeseen problem, in which the governing order either neglects the suffering that is caused or worsens it by prescribing a cure that is simply more of the problem.

The Marxist position on religion would be more credible were it not the product of Marxists.

[dcsmart]

20. materialist101 above, argues the same point,

but as a student of marx, i will always argue that marxist philosophy is incompatible with how it was implemented. but, yes, it is unfortunate that its history is so terrible and i guess if you cannot implement it without the abuses would good is it. but his philosophy, historical materialism, dialectical materialism and his analysis of capitalism and class has enormous interpretive value when applied to culture. that is why i consider myself a marxist-socialist. all actions for change have some underlying philosophy. mine is marxist.

thanks for your response.

[Occam Bandage]

21. "marxist philosophy is incompatible with how it was implemented"

Yes and no, I'd say. It's certainly incompatible with how it was implemented, but I think that Marxism simply cannot be implemented without becoming incompatible with itself. Much like Christianity or like Islam, Marxism is not a philosophy that can be applied to real-world governance without defeating any goal it might have had. They share one common defect: the philosophy claims that strict adherence to the philosophy is a goal in itself, and the philosophy grants unchecked power to a central government. This invariably results in mismanagement, atrocity, and failure.

I agree that Marxism can have interpretive value when applied to culture. I think that it is best kept, however, as a form of cultural analysis.

[dcsmart]

22. i may have to concede that point

"I agree that Marxism can have interpretive value when applied to culture. I think that it is best kept, however, as a form of cultural analysis."

i think one of the best expressions of marxist ideas in this country came from the actions and writings of Eugene Debs. the union movement to me is the best example of marxist-socialist ideas. Debs said that

Next followed the final shock—the Pullman strike—and the American Railway Union again won, clear and complete. The combined corporations were paralized and helpless. At this juncture there were delivered, from wholly unexpected quarters, a swift succession of blows that blinded me for an instant and then opened wide my eyes—and in the gleam of every bayonet and the flash of every rifle the class struggle was revealed. This was my first practical lesson in Socialism, though wholly unaware that it was called by that name.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1902/howi.htm

Debs talked about marx as marxism applied to the class struggle. i think it is in that context we can have a viable marxist-socialist movement. it is from this idea"

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

that we might have a functional foundation with Debs and others like him in the lead.

thanks for your thoughts and comments.

[dmallind]

25. That premise is wrong. Power matters, not numbers

Nowhere near a majority of Germans in the 1930s were slavering anti-semitic genocidal loons. The problem was a majority didn't care enough to stop the ones who were from running the place.

The US danger of theocracy is not from having 150MM+ theocrats, but from having a few million theocrats and 150MM+ who have the kneejerk opinion that religious indoctrination is OK for kids, and that religion helps morality and we'd all be OK if we were a bit more religious. These folks then will simply not fight to stop theocracy, and that's where we'll end up.

As long as the religious right maintain their media, societal and political power bases we are at risk of theocracy even if WAY less than half the people want theocracy per se.