I would like to support Socialism and Marxism and Communism but I don't understand M

[tradeunionsupporter]

Since religious belief existed in tribal societies before economic class societies existed how can it be said that Religion is the Opium of the masses and used by the Bourgeoisie to keep the Proletariat oppressed I would like to support Socialism and Marxism and Communism but I don't understand Marxism's views on religion ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

[Tablo]

Since religious belief existed in tribal societies before economic class societies existed how can it be said that Religion is the Opium of the masses and used by the Bourgeoisie to keep the Proletariat oppressed I would like to support Socialism and Marxism and Communism but I don't understand Marxism's views on religion ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
That is a misinterpretation of a quote by Marx. When he said religion was the opiate of the masses, he was saying it was a painkiller that made suffering class based society more bearable. Opium in that time period was used as a painkiller to a large degree. Not saying Marx was anti-theist, which I believe he was. Just correcting a simple misinterpretation.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone else have an opinion ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

What does everyone else think ?

[jake williams]

Religious or spiritual beliefs reflect the material lives of the people who live in them. Religions that existed before the development of class society look almost nothing like modern religions.

Moreover, religions entail all sorts of different things, and "religion" isn't some specific phenomena. It can refer to a set of morals, a set of customs, a nationality, a set of descriptive beliefs about the physical world, a set of metaphysical or philosophical beliefs, a belief in a god or gods. There exist societies without a belief in a god, and there will continue to be. But there don't exist societies without moral beliefs, without customs and habits, or without descriptive beliefs about the physical world. And there probably never will be.

[Ocean Seal]

Since religious belief existed in tribal societies before economic class societies existed how can it be said that Religion is the Opium of the masses and used by the Bourgeoisie to keep the Proletariat oppressed I would like to support Socialism and Marxism and Communism but I don't understand Marxism's views on religion ?
You can be a socialist/communist and still be religious. Like Tablo mentioned, Marx said that religion in a capitalist world makes your life more bearable. And if you are religious and a worker you probably already know that. I know that religion has helped me out when I've been feeling low. Just don't fall into the right-wing dogma that honestly dominates many religious circles and question anything you don't like. That way you'll learn more. Never be afraid to lose your faith, always question, and that way you'll be happier.

[tradeunionsupporter]

My question is should it even matter if religion existed before class society in tribal society can anyone give me an example of something like religion that has been used to keep people oppressed before class society if you know what I mean thank you ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Ok tell me you all agree pre class society or tribal society was going to become a class civilization or a civilization because of the technology in my opinion religion was bound and going to be used to keep the Workers oppressed by the Upper Class my opinion on religion is that I believe in freedom of religion but I view it as a tool to keep the Workers oppressed my point is that tribal society was never going to remain tribal therefor it should not matter if they had religion ?

[Ocean Seal]

My question is should it even matter if religion existed before class society in tribal society can anyone give me an example of something like religion that has been used to keep people oppressed before class society if you know what I mean thank you ?
Before class society, I guess that you could say that people were more or less oppressed perhaps along the basis of a clan dictatorship, so a great leader-esque type thing could have facilitated that kind of oppression.

[jake williams]

My question is should it even matter if religion existed before class society in tribal society can anyone give me an example of something like religion that has been used to keep people oppressed before class society if you know what I mean thank you ?
Well, the whole point of pre-class society is you don't really have systematic oppression. If one individual in a tribe tries to tell everyone else what to do, they might listen, but only if they want to. Maybe Jim or Sally just has really good ideas. If they try to do anything really stupid or selfish, they don't have any organized way to protect themselves - if people really hate their decisions, they can just be clubbed to death, and you get a new chief.

You might have some people telling others what to do, but it's not really in any sort of a systematic way. You might have a gendered division of labour that isn't ideal or even fair, but there isn't some deep or massive division of social power because social power is largely interpersonal and it's hard to have massive differences in interpersonal power that persist over time.

In that context, if societies' "religions" - or better put, societies' ideological systems - reflect the societies themselves, then religion doesn't play a role in maintaining class oppression if there is no class oppression. Hunter gatherer "religions" really aren't about class power.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for your repies.

[Commissar Rykov]

Thank You for your repies.

As others stated the quote by Marx must be taken in its historical context where Opium at the time was considered a very powerful painkiller. Marx's main problems had little to do with religious beliefs but how Organized Religion is a tool of oppression used to keep people in line in order to retard progress and uprising.

Lenin: Socialism and Religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)

The biggest thing to realize as a Marxist who happens to be religious is that the problem is the use of Organized Religion as a tool of oppression and blurring of the lines of the separation of Church and State. Thus if you agree with secularism I doubt you would have much of a problem with much of anything.

[Hit The North]

Marx's main problems had little to do with religious beliefs but how Organized Religion is a tool of oppression used to keep people in line in order to retard progress and uprising.


Nevertheless, we need to be clear that philosophically, Marx was anti-theist in that he was a humanist and a materialist. He considered religious belief (not just its institutions) to be a distorted representation of collective human powers. He, therefore, considered all religious belief in Gods and spiritual realms to be illusions which individuals would benefit by being freed from.

He writes:

Originally written by Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm):
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. So, although it might not be a political priority for Marx and Engels, they supported the struggle against religious illusions as part of the wider communist critique of existing society.

This falls short of attempts to ban religion or to shun religious workers. Nevertheless, because communist should not hide their views, they should be clear about the materialist origins of all religious sentiment.

I think you can be a socialist or even, perhaps, a communist, and be religious. You can be religious and accept the vast majority of the Marxist critique of capitalism and its program for the economic and political emancipation of the working class. But you can't be an historical materialist and consistently cling to a belief in supernatural beings and forces. So, in that respect, you can't be religious and be a Marxist.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone else have any view on this thank you.

[Commissar Rykov]

Nevertheless, we need to be clear that philosophically, Marx was anti-theist in that he was a humanist and a materialist. He considered religious belief (not just its institutions) to be a distorted representation of collective human powers. He, therefore, considered all religious belief in Gods and spiritual realms to be illusions which individuals would benefit by being freed from.

He writes:
So, although it might not be a political priority for Marx and Engels, they supported the struggle against religious illusions as part of the wider communist critique of existing society.

This falls short of attempts to ban religion or to shun religious workers. Nevertheless, because communist should not hide their views, they should be clear about the materialist origins of all religious sentiment.

I think you can be a socialist or even, perhaps, a communist, and be religious. You can be religious and accept the vast majority of the Marxist critique of capitalism and its program for the economic and political emancipation of the working class. But you can't be an historical materialist and consistently cling to a belief in supernatural beings and forces. So, in that respect, you can't be religious and be a Marxist.

Well I guess I should find another ideology and forum then.

[L.A.P.]

I see religious beliefs as being potentially a useful medium of propaganda to spread class consciousness (liberation theology) but that's about it. But even at that, I see that most people shed a lot of their religious views as a first step to gaining some insight on capitalist society. I think it just depends on the material conditions of the specific area, I honestly don't see religious socialism and liberation theology appealing to Western people's religious beliefs as religious beliefs seem to be inherently reactionary in Western society. However, liberation theology and religious socialism seem to be much more effective in places like South America as the religious customs of South American society don't seem to entail the reactionary elements found in Western religious customs.

As far as the Western world goes, trying to appease to people's religious beliefs and being in opposition to militant anti-theism is just a lost cause. Very rarely is there ever a progressive church and most religious institutions just distribute bourgeois conservative propaganda. The vast majority of churches, especially in the United States, should be viewed as political enemies of the working class and we should encourage workers to not necessarily denounce their religious beliefs but at least turn against their churches.

[Hit The North]

Well I guess I should find another ideology and forum then.

It would be better if you shed your religious illusions instead, comrade.

[ComradeMan]

Well I guess I should find another ideology and forum then.

No, you should stay put here and ignore the inane bullshit that some spout in their anti-religion crusade. Whatever your personal life-philosophy choice is no one else's business other than yours, unless of course you try to force it upon them- which I don't think you would try to do to be honest.

Attacking people's personal life-philosophy choise (religion/spirituality/belief system) just means, as it nearly does in this very example, driving away people and causing even less solidarity than there was before.

Here's an article you may appreciate:-
Socialism is Practical Christianity
(Written for the People's National Party—P. N. P.-of Jamaica, 1965)
By Bertell Ollman)
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/practical_christianity.php

[robbo203]

I think you can be a socialist or even, perhaps, a communist, and be religious. You can be religious and accept the vast majority of the Marxist critique of capitalism and its program for the economic and political emancipation of the working class. But you can't be an historical materialist and consistently cling to a belief in supernatural beings and forces. So, in that respect, you can't be religious and be a Marxist.

I would draw a distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism. I think it is possible to square religious beliefs with the former but not the latter. The question is whether the latter has any bearing on a practical movement to establish communism. I think not , personally.

[hatzel]

I would draw a distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism. I think it is possible to square religious beliefs with the former but not the latter. The question is whether the latter has any bearing on a practical movement to establish communism. I think not , personally.

As a wise man once said: matter is rigid and stiff; no wonder materialists are, too :) If you ask me, metaphysical materialism not only has no "bearing on a practical movement to establish communism," but perhaps has no place in philosophy full-stop. In this instance, I agree with Enrique Dussel:


I shall use the word "cosmos," of Greek origin, to designate the totality of real things, whether or not any human being knows them – the totality of heavenly bodies, life, and reality insofar as they are something constituted "of themselves," by their own essence.

On the other hand, "world," mundus in Latin, designates the totality of sense included in one's fundamental horizon. World is the totality of beings (real, possible, or imaginary) that exist because of their relationship to humankind; they are not only real "of themselves." The wood of the table is "of itself," from within itself; it is a substantive reality. The table, on the other hand, is a moment of the world. Without a world there is no table; there is only wood. Without humankind there is no world, only a cosmos. Evidently there was a cosmos before humankind, for the human species emerged only a few million years ago, but only with the appearance of humankind in the cosmos did the world appear as a cosmic reality. The world is thus the system of all systems that have humankind as their foundation. Economic, political, sociological, mathematical, psychological, and other systems are only subsystems of a system of systems: the world.

This does not mean that the world is a part of the cosmos but that some real things in the cosmos have in the world the function of sense-things. There are, nevertheless, beings that are not cosmic but only worldly (all imaginary beings, for example). This is why we say there are things in the cosmos (in reality), or that beings are (sein) in the world.

Idealism considers the world to be the only reality; naive realism or equally naive materialism consider the cosmos as the only reality. Against idealism, I claim the cosmos is a partially real anteriority; against realism, I claim the world is a real constitutive of human nature, and thus even imaginary beings have a meaning.

[Hit The North]

I would draw a distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism. I think it is possible to square religious beliefs with the former but not the latter. The question is whether the latter has any bearing on a practical movement to establish communism. I think not , personally.

I'd like to know how the materialist conception of history can be squared with religious belief. For instance, the central proposition that consciousness does not determine being but being determines consciousness. In other words, religion does not make man, man makes religion. In fact, the entire logic of historical materialism is that all ideas are historically emergent and connected with the material conditions of human beings.

The only way religious belief can square that circle is by taking itself to the margins of experience: a Creator god exists but is not concerned with the development of his creation and, therefore does not intervene in history.

But then what kind of religion are we dealing with then, apart from the solipsism of mainly white middle class Western new age mystics? Certainly there is not one major world religion which argues that the spiritual realm is of no human consequence.

God cannot be found in historical materialism because it argues that history unfolds according to the real material interactions of human beings. The mode of production and the material struggles of human beings propels history and human development, not Gods. On the other hand, metaphysical materialism can be squared with a creator God, purely because it is metaphysical - in other words, it presents matter as operating outside of history, according to preordained laws.

[Hit The North]

No, you should stay put here and ignore the inane bullshit that some spout in their anti-religion crusade.

This might refer to me, whichn I think is a bit unfair as I'm putting a lot of thought into my critique.

You should take a leaf out my book instead of retreating into your own private Idaho. But no doubt you'll continue to ignore my points and claim the 5th.

[Hit The North]

I agree with Enrique Dussel:

I also agree with Dussel. Of course imaginary beings have a meaning, otherwise they would not appear in the human imagination and be represented and shared within the culture. I'm quite willing to rank spiritual beings and events alongside the beings and events of literature and drama and designate them as imaginary but meaningful.

It is the religious who erroneously elevate their imaginary creations into the realm of the real.

[Hit The North]

Here's an article you may appreciate:-
Socialism is Practical Christianity
(Written for the People's National Party—P. N. P.-of Jamaica, 1965)
By Bertell Ollman)
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/practical_christianity.php

Good article. But what is Ollman doing here? He is showing that what is most valuable about Christianity is its primary rules for good human conduct. Then he is showing how these rules can be found rearticulated in socialism.

In other words, he is divesting religion of its spiritual aura in order to show its secular value. In that respect, Ollman is humanising religion and not conceding to the existence of a spiritual realm, in the sense that you would perhaps like him to do.

[robbo203]

I'd like to know how the materialist conception of history can be squared with religious belief. For instance, the central proposition that consciousness does not determine being but being determines consciousness. In other words, religion does not make man, man makes religion. In fact, the entire logic of historical materialism is that all ideas are historically emergent and connected with the material conditions of human beings.

The only way religious belief can square that circle is by taking itself to the margins of experience: a Creator god exists but is not concerned with the development of his creation and, therefore does not intervene in history.

But then what kind of religion are we dealing with then, apart from the solipsism of mainly white middle class Western new age mystics? Certainly there is not one major world religion which argues that the spiritual realm is of no human consequence.

God cannot be found in historical materialism because it argues that history unfolds according to the real material interactions of human beings. The mode of production and the material struggles of human beings propels history and human development, not Gods. On the other hand, metaphysical materialism can be squared with a creator God, purely because it is metaphysical - in other words, it presents matter as operating outside of history, according to preordained laws.


By " squared" I mean "not at odds with". I am saying that it is quite possible for someone to hold religious views and yet endorse the basic idea of historical materialism - that, as you say, the mode of production and the material struggles of human beings propels history and human development, not Gods. Indeed a non-theistic, or deistic, view of religion would rule out divine intervention anyway (and my guess is that most nominally theistic believers are effectively deists). From what you say I think you would probably agreee with this point.

The basic point I was making is that you need to make a distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism but it is a moot point whether you are perhaps tending to blur this distinction by the way in which you have formulated your response.

To make my position more clear, a historical materialist approach might have a lot to say about how a particular religious belief came to take the form that it did. It would invoke specific material circumstances that helped to shape this belief over time. However, it would stop of declaring whether or not the belief in itself is metaphysically valid.

Saying that "being determines consciousness" and not the other way round does not in itself invalidate a religious belief. After all , a religious believer might conceivably counter that with the argument that the notion of a god or an afterlife exists indepenently of our belief system and comes to manifest itself precisely though "being". Except that for some people this "being" blocks realisation of such ideas. Ironically atheistic ideas can thus themselves be attributed to the influence of material circumstances. To counter this arhument one would be forced willy nilly onto the terrain of metaphysical materialism. It is not something that can be adequately countered through a materialist perspective of history per se. And that is precisely my point.

Its like saying a christian scientist cannot be a scientist which is evident nonsense. Its just that the individual does not allow his or her christianity to get in the way of his or her sceince. Similarly, someone can take a materialist perspective on history - adopt historical materialism as a mode of historical analysis - without this compromising his or her metaphysical idealism

Moreover, I think it is important not to read too much into the assertion that "being determines consciousness" rather than the other way round. How would we demonstatrate such a causal (deterministic) connection? Consciousness is not something that can be set aside, as it were, for the sake of an experiment that might prove such a connectuon. Rather, "being" is inextricably bound up with "consciousness" and all times.

One might even say our consciousness of the world mediates or structures our experiences in the world - our "being" - though no doubt in a kind of dialectical fashion (Marx was far from being the crude determinist he is sometimes made out to be - as his early writings particularly attest)

[Hit The North]

The basic point I was making is that you need to make a distinction between historical materialism and metaphysical materialism but it is a moot point whether you are perhaps tending to blur this distinction by the way in which you have formulated your response.
I don't think I am blurring the distinction and I think I have a good grasp of the differences. If you think otherwise, tell me where I blur the two.


To make my position more clear, a historical materialist approach might have a lot to say about how a particular religious belief came to take the form that it did. It would invoke specific material circumstances that helped to shape this belief over time. However, it would stop of declaring whether or not the belief in itself is metaphysically valid.
Perhaps some version of historical materialism, but not Marx's. He is clear that he views religion as a fantastic and distorted representation of material relations. Further, historical materialism, as worked out by Marx and Engels, does not make metaphysical claims (except through carelessness) and, indeed, stands in contradistinction to all metaphysical claims, perceiving in them a common error, and rejecting their validity.


Saying that "being determines consciousness" and not the other way round does not in itself invalidate a religious belief. I agree that the reality is more complex than a one-way causation.


After all , a religious believer might conceivably counter that with the argument that the notion of a god or an afterlife exists independently of our belief system and comes to manifest itself precisely though "being". Except that for some people this "being" blocks realisation of such ideas. Well their reliance on such an untestable hypothesis would hardly be surprising given that this is the entire ideological edifice of religion.


Ironically atheistic ideas can thus themselves be attributed to the influence of material circumstances.This isn't even ironic from the point of view of historical materialism, which easily accounts for how our greater understanding of and mastery over nature leads to a more informed view of the world and our place in it. Marx has things to say about how capitalism produces the opportunity for some to transcend the mystic realms of superstition. Atheists should thank their place in history and not their assumed superior intellect for their emancipation from religious dogma.

So historical materialism does not need to concede to metaphysical materialism but merely to its own findings.


Its like saying a christian scientist cannot be a scientist which is evident nonsense. Its just that the individual does not allow his or her christianity to get in the way of his or her sceince. Similarly, someone can take a materialist perspective on history - adopt historical materialism as a mode of historical analysis - without this compromising his or her metaphysical idealism I've already conceded that one can be a socialist or a communist and retain religious faith. Similarly, the scientist can attempt to reconcile, or put to one side, his religious belief when he is practising science, but he cannot be a historical materialist or a consistent scientific realist. Or, he can view the world in a fractured form: a dualism where the material and spiritual side of reality do not impact on each other, where immanent dialectical laws of development do not somehow come into conflict with an eternal metaphysical metastructure. Now, again, the scientist could say, well the universe is in a state of material development and this has been put into train by a creator God who now chooses to allow the mechanism to run of its own volition and without interference, but this will only diminish the importance and relevance of the spiritual realm. So, one would wonder exactly why this scientist persists in entertaining religious belief at all. At this point, the critique of religion becomes inconsequential because the object of its critique becomes inconsequential, the role of God diminished to a big sneeze of creation but where there are no imperatives placed on the conduct of human beings and no judgement made. But, of course, this is far from the claims made by real world religions.

[PlayAlone64]

Religion essentially tells you that you've got access to some truth that others don't have and that you are in some way better than others who don't share your beliefs. Also, you must believe in spite of no substantial evidence.

Faith and elitism are incompatible with humanitarianism and a classless society.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[ComradeMan]

Good article. But what is Ollman doing here? He is showing that what is most valuable about Christianity is its primary rules for good human conduct. Then he is showing how these rules can be found rearticulated in socialism.

In other words, he is divesting religion of its spiritual aura in order to show its secular value. In that respect, Ollman is humanising religion and not conceding to the existence of a spiritual realm, in the sense that you would perhaps like him to do.

That's as it may be- but he certainly presents an argument against fundies and also perhaps an argument against militant atheists too. Even Dawkins described himself as a "cultural Christian"- doesn't he?

[Hit The North]

That's as it may be- but he certainly presents an argument against fundies and also perhaps an argument against militant atheists too. Even Dawkins described himself as a "cultural Christian"- doesn't he?

I think it is less clear that he is arguing against militant atheism - maybe yes he is, but that would depend on your definition of militant atheism. If it is someone who seeks to enforce the abolition of religion against the will of religious believers, then he is correct to do so. It still doesn't help anyone who would want to cite Ollman as an example of a marxist who validates the spiritual.

As for Dawkins he says a lot things I don't agree with. Whatever he means by "cultural Christian" is up to him to explain. I certainly don't feel culturally Christian, even though I was sent to Sunday School as a child and excelled at Religious Education at school. Of course we're all products of our environment but it would be difficult to disentangle the influence of Christianity from the influence of bourgeois ideology, scientific rationalism, national tradition, class struggle, and other influences on my upbringing. I certainly don't feel "culturally Christian" in a way that marks me different from "culturally Islamic" or "culturally Hindu" or whatever, if that is Dawkins' meaning.

[ComradeMan]

What I think people are missing here is that there is no one monolithic "marxism". Marx's thought breaks down into:-
1) Philosophy- atheistic without doubt.
2) Economic- nothing to say on religion.
3) Sociology- nothing to say on religion.

There is nothing to say a "religious communist" cannot accept (2) and (3) without rejecting (1).

[citizen of industry]

Well for one, tribal societies didn't have the benefit of science to explain a lot of the phenomena around them. So the idea of a deity seemed reasonable. Today, science can explain a lot about our environment.

Regarding the "opiate of the masses," Marxism is a guide to action. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it." I believe the criticism was that someone who accepts a heavenly afterlife has little incentive to struggle for better life here on earth, and would be more inclined to accept awful living conditions and exploitation, relying on their religion to get them through the day while accepting the status quo, which is a big ally to capitalism.

I believe Marx's personal view on the matter was that in a socialist society there would be no need for religion, and it would die out on its own accord after the conditions for its existence were cut.

Now there are a lot of religious people who do a lot of great deeds, take Jesuit priests in S.America for example, they are often brutally murdered getting the truth out and defending workers. So if your religion is an obstacle to joining the movement, I'd say jump in but keep an open mind. Don't just wiki Marx and read things out of context. Read Marx.

[Hit The North]

What I think people are missing here is that there is no one monolithic "marxism". Marx's thought breaks down into:-
1) Philosophy- atheistic without doubt.
2) Economic- nothing to say on religion.
3) Sociology- nothing to say on religion.

There is nothing to say a "religious communist" cannot accept (2) and (3) without rejecting (1).

I don't think the above is true at all. Dividing Marx's work into discreet academic disciplines (philosophy, economic, sociology and we could also add history and anthropology) does not do justice to his genius for synthesis. For a start, Marx's work is never purely philosophical, economic or sociological but often engages on these levels simultaneously. For a start, Marx's philosophical position is a materialism which takes the social as its material: all philosophical questions are dissolved into social practice, with the material relations of production setting the conditions for other forms of social practice. So philosophy is social practice expressed in thought, and the economic relations are themselves the key sociological relations.

Moreover, if you read what Marx actually writes about religion it is obvious to see that he argues that religion has economic and social effects and is itself conditioned by the material relations of production and the social conditions people find themselves in: it is the heart of a heartless world, that 'world' being nothing but the social conditions of class society.

[RGacky3]

Moreover, if you read what Marx actually writes about religion it is obvious to see that he argues that religion has economic and social effects and is itself conditioned by the material relations of production and the social conditions people find themselves in: it is the heart of a heartless world, that 'world' being nothing but the social conditions of class society.

His critique of religion is more of how outside spheres of economics are effected by economics and vise versa, it was'nt part of his materialistic analysis of Capitalism itself.

[Hit The North]

His critique of religion is more of how outside spheres of economics are effected by economics and vise versa, it was'nt part of his materialistic analysis of Capitalism itself.

Sorry, I don't understand what point you're making... "outside spheres of economics"?

[RGacky3]

For example religion is not directly tied into economics, neither are cultural phenomenon, however Marx's dialectics explain how economics and class structure have major impacts on cultural and religious structures and vice versa.

[ComradeMan]

I don't think the above is true at all.....

Marx wrote comparatively little on religion compared to everything else he wrote and what he did write is open to a lot of criticism in terms of the underpinning theoretical basis.

[Hit The North]

Marx wrote comparatively little on religion compared to everything else he wrote

True and what he did write clearly speaks to the economic and social manifestations of religion. Marx was not a theologian and did not bother himself with scholastic arguments about the reality or otherwise of a spiritual realm - he took it as read that the basis for religious belief was material and that the content of religion belief is illusory.

[ComradeMan]

True and what he did write clearly speaks to the economic and social manifestations of religion. Marx was not a theologian

... a good reason to take his view on the matter with a grain of salt.


and did not bother himself with scholastic arguments about the reality or otherwise of a spiritual realm

... another good reason to tahe his view on the matter with a grain of salt.


- he took it as read that the basis for religious belief was material and that the content of religion belief is illusory.

... despite the fact there is conflicting evidence and he only really knew about two religions as such. :rolleyes:

[thriller]

Since religious belief existed in tribal societies before economic class societies existed how can it be said that Religion is the Opium of the masses and used by the Bourgeoisie to keep the Proletariat oppressed I would like to support Socialism and Marxism and Communism but I don't understand Marxism's views on religion ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

I would like to know what evidence anyone has of tribal society NOT being class based? Even American Indian tribes, especially the Blackfoot of Alberta Canada, were class based. In fact they used their religious beliefs to reinforce domination of lower people within the tribe, such as their Grass Dance which symbolized women in a submissive role (the dance has changed over time to become more appealing) or the fourteen groups of warriors, such as the Dog Men, who used a rigid hierarchical order to "filter" the people of society. So I don't know where people get the idea that belief in supernatural came before domination, but please point me in the right direction.

On your question of "opiate of the people", pretty much what everyone else said. It helps to lift the people out of darkness when they are going through hard times. It obviously doesn't help the upper class out of darkness, since they own the light source. But on another level, many religious groups offer food, housing and financial assistance to the needy. If/when socialism/communism comes about, the role of organized religions helping the needed would vanish.

[Hit The North]

... a good reason to take his view on the matter with a grain of salt.


It's true he couldn't tell you how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. He had more worldly issues to address, I guess.


... another good reason to tahe his view on the matter with a grain of salt.

Well, as ever, it is up to those who believe in that kind of thing to prove their argument. So far, no soul has been detected, no Earth-spirit has been run to ground, no God has popped up to say hi on live TV. And of course you're free to take anything Marx wrote with a grain of salt, if it contradicts your own belief.


... despite the fact there is conflicting evidence and he only really knew about two religions as such. :rolleyes:


Once you've disposed of the heavenly realm by bringing it down to Earth, it follows that all spiritual representations become understood in their dirty, secular form.

I'm not sure what 'conflicting evidence' you're referring to, but I guess Marx's knowledge of religious belief and ritual was limited compared to someone who has studied comparative theology. Is there some religious revelation that Marx was unaware of, but that you have experienced and want to share with us?

[ComradeMan]

It's true he couldn't tell you how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. He had more worldly issues to address, I guess.

... because that's all that theologists and philosophers of religion do.


Well, as ever, it is up to those who believe in that kind of thing to prove their argument. So far, no soul has been detected, no Earth-spirit has been run to ground, no God has popped up to say hi on live TV. And of course you're free to take anything Marx wrote with a grain of salt, if it contradicts your own belief.

It has nothing do to with anything supernatural. I just find his material explanations of the reason why religion exists to be unconvincing and open to critique.


I'm not sure what 'conflicting evidence' you're referring to, but I guess Marx's knowledge of religious belief and ritual was limited compared to someone who has studied comparative theology. Is there some religious revelation that Marx was unaware of, but that you have experienced and want to share with us?

Well the fact that Marx's ideas on religion falter when applied to other religions or religions of the past. Think about Greco-Roman religion, in which case only the rich and well-to-do or powerful went to Elysium whereas the masses were confined to a gloomy existence in Hades' kingdom. If you could not pay the boatman you couldn't get in. That kind of religion wasn't much of a heart in a heartless world for the masses was it?

Secondly, if material and economic conditions give rise to religious beliefs or adaptations of those beliefs in a fixed direction then explain to me why capitalism arises after the reformation and subsequent emergence of protestantism and not before it.

[Hit The North]

... because that's all that theologists and philosophers of religion do.


Really? If you say so....


It has nothing do to with anything supernatural. I just find his material explanations of the reason why religion exists to be unconvincing and open to critique. I'm quite happy to agree that Marx's scattered comments on religion do not add up to a comprehensive explanation. However, it seems to me that there are two broad approaches to religion: one is the critique from inside which presupposes the general truth of the existence of the spiritual realm and the other is from outside which does not accept this truth. Marx provides a materialist basis for the latter that can be added to. Anyway, judging from your comment below you employ a too narrow interpretation of Marx's approach:


Well the fact that Marx's ideas on religion falter when applied to other religions or religions of the past. Think about Greco-Roman religion, in which case only the rich and well-to-do or powerful went to Elysium whereas the masses were confined to a gloomy existence in Hades' kingdom. If you could not pay the boatman you couldn't get in. That kind of religion wasn't much of a heart in a heartless world for the masses was it?
Marx doesn't only explain religion from the point of view of the compensation it offers the common man:


Originally written by Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm)
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... Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. So there is plenty to build on besides the appeal to consolation.*


Secondly, if material and economic conditions give rise to religious beliefs or adaptations of those beliefs in a fixed direction then explain to me why capitalism arises after the reformation and subsequent emergence of protestantism and not before it.
Marxism is dialectical and so "fixed direction" is not really part of the analytical arsenal. We have to take a more complex view. You probably know that the anti-Marxist sociologist Max Weber has written interestingly on the "elective affinity" between protestantism and capitalism. What is clear is that protestantism took root in those areas of relatively advanced economic development, among the bourgeoisie as it emerged from under the yoke of feudal domination. The English reformation, for example, provided the basis for the political independence of England from Roman Catholicism and its stultifying economic practices. Same as the indepednt states of the Netherlands which became not only a protestant powwer but also the centre of European finance. It is difficult to disentangle the influence protestant ideas such as predestination had on the bourgeoisie and how much the social and economic interests of the bourgeoisie influenced the content of protestant theology. What is clear is that given the catholic church was the ideological guarantor of feudal absolutism, it was in the material interests of the emerging bourgeoisie to find an alternative church.
______________________________________________

* Besides, this webpage on the Afterlife in Greco-Roman religion (http://www.theologywebsite.com/history/afterlife.shtml) contradicts your assertion claiming that Elysium was the "bliss of the virtuous". So the idea of living a virtuous life and being rewarded with paradise (i.e. consolation) seems to be prevalent here as well.

[ComradeMan]

Marxism is dialectical and so "fixed direction" is not really part of the analytical arsenal. We have to take a more complex view. You probably know that the anti-Marxist sociologist Max Weber has written interestingly on the "elective affinity" between protestantism and capitalism. What is clear is that protestantism took root in those areas of relatively advanced economic development, among the bourgeoisie as it emerged from under the yoke of feudal domination.

So how come it did not take root in the economic power-houses of Portugal and Spain?

This of course also ignores or rejects any genuine theological basis to the events- something I think we cannot ignore given the context of the times.


The English reformation, for example, provided the basis for the political independence of England from Roman Catholicism and its stultifying economic practices.

I'm not sure whether you can class the English reformation as a genuine protestant reformation. Henry VIII was a good catholic in many senses, he just didn't get on witht he Pope. I am not denying the influences of Lutherans etc but in terms of the established Church of England, the Anglo-Catholic Church- it's a bit tricky, seems more like a compromise.


Same as the indepednt states of the Netherlands which became not only a protestant powwer but also the centre of European finance.

Didn't about half of the Netherlands remain catholic, as it is to this day? The other problem is that what you are saying confirms the idea of protestantism preceding burgher capitalism. Or are you arguing that they are more or less simultaneous developments?

---
Re Greco-Roman relgious belief and the afterlife, err-- I'm not all that keen on the article.

[Comrade Gwydion]

My question is should it even matter if religion existed before class society in tribal society can anyone give me an example of something like religion that has been used to keep people oppressed before class society if you know what I mean thank you ?

I can give you an example of how 'religion' was used to oppress in the previous class-society: Feudalism.

One could take the Christian quote "To the Lord what is the Lord's, to the king what is the king's". One could interpret that quote in several manners, but for long time it has been interpreted as the idea that as God is a supreme ruler over the world, and nothing falls outside His rule, and total obedience to His rule is required, so rules the King in his nation, the Duke in his dukedom or the count in his county etc: Questioning the rule of the nobility would be 'as evil' as questioning the rule of God.


That said, I'm religious myself. I'm a Pagan, so not one of the Abrahamic religions, but still. Even though many religious institutes seem to hold quite reactionairy views and even do reactionairy things, I wouldn't blame that on the concept of religion itself, or even on those particulairy religions.

[ComradeMan]

One could take the Christian quote "To the Lord what is the Lord's, to the king what is the king's". One could interpret that quote in several manners, but for long time it has been interpreted as the idea that as God is a supreme ruler over the world, and nothing falls outside His rule, and total obedience to His rule is required, so rules the King in his nation, the Duke in his dukedom or the count in his county etc: Questioning the rule of the nobility would be 'as evil' as questioning the rule of God..

Proverbs 8:15 By me kings reign and rulers make laws that are just;
Proverbs 29:4 By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.
Proverbs 29:14 If a king judges the poor with fairness, his throne will always be secure.

Matthew 22:21- "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's"- isn't saying accept blindly the rule of kings and nobility at all. You have to view this within the historical context of the time.

[Hit The North]

So how come it did not take root in the economic power-houses of Portugal and Spain?


Portugal and Spain were economic power houses but only on the basis of plunder from the New World. They were beneficiaries of what Marx refers to as the revolution in world trade (discovery of Americas, etc.) which also had the effect of marginalising the Italian city states which were the site of the first flowering of capitalism. In Capital vol one, Marx writes:


In Italy, where capitalistic production developed earliest, the dissolution of serfdom also took place earlier than elsewhere. The serf was emancipated in that country before he had acquired any prescriptive right to the soil. His emancipation at once transformed him into a free proletarian, who, moreover, found his master ready waiting for him in the towns, for the most part handed down as legacies from the Roman time. When the revolution of the world-market, about the end of the 15th century, annihilated Northern Italy’s commercial supremacy, a movement in the reverse direction set in. The labourers of the towns were driven en masse into the country, and gave an impulse, never before seen, to the petite culture, carried on in the form of gardening.This brings us to the crux of Marx's view: that the emergence of capitalism depends upon class struggle, particularly the revolutionary transformation of the material relations in the countryside. Neither Spain nor Portugal had this revolution in class relations. In fact, the riches and land on tap from the colonial plunder of the Americas had the result of strengthening the feudal states of Spain and Portugal in the sixteenth century and hence ultimately condemned these nations to economic backwardness well into the Twentieth century.


This of course also ignores or rejects any genuine theological basis to the events- something I think we cannot ignore given the context of the times.Not at all. Because Marx argues that religion is "the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction," this allows our analysis to take into account the ideological impact of religious belief and disputation on the actual events. Ideas are weapons, and this is never more true in eras of social revolution. So, the English Civil War of the 1640s, was fought out in the minds of the combatants in religious terms. Nevertheless, for an analysis based on historical materialism, ideological battles are read back to shifting material relations. Cromwell may not have believed that Parliament's struggle was setting the material basis for the further advance of the bourgeoisie and its mode of production, but, in fact, that is exactly what was happening. This, of course, is the Marxist theory of ideology in action.


I'm not sure whether you can class the English reformation as a genuine protestant reformation. Henry VIII was a good catholic in many senses, he just didn't get on witht he Pope. I am not denying the influences of Lutherans etc but in terms of the established Church of England, the Anglo-Catholic Church- it's a bit tricky, seems more like a compromise.Yes, but this is often the case with revolutions. They can be hesitant, unconscious of their real potential, incomplete. They often end in compromise. The bourgeois revolution in England, which took a couple of hundred years, is the model of such compromises. The French revolution was quicker clocking in at nearly a century to complete.


Didn't about half of the Netherlands remain catholic, as it is to this day? Perhaps. I don't have the data to say one way or the other. Perhaps the Catholic areas remained less developed than the protestant, or maybe the emphasis on protestantism's connection to capitalism is over stated?


The other problem is that what you are saying confirms the idea of protestantism preceding burgher capitalism. Or are you arguing that they are more or less simultaneous developments?As I said, connections are complex and often contingent. This is why a dialectical approach is required. I don't have the knowledge to hand at the moment.

[ComradeMan]

Portugal and Spain were economic power houses but only on the basis of plunder from the New World. They were beneficiaries of what Marx refers to as the revolution in world trade (discovery of Americas, etc.) which also had the effect of marginalising the Italian city states which were the site of the first flowering of capitalism. In Capital vol one, Marx writes:

This brings us to the crux of Marx's view: that the emergence of capitalism depends upon class struggle, particularly the revolutionary transformation of the material relations in the countryside. Neither Spain nor Portugal had this revolution in class relations. In fact, the riches and land on tap from the colonial plunder of the Americas had the result of strengthening the feudal states of Spain and Portugal in the sixteenth century and hence ultimately condemned these nations to economic backwardness well into the Twentieth century.

This is a contentious point indeed. We are talking about modern capitalism, not the merchant capitalism that could be traced back to practically Biblical times. This emerges primarily in the colonial sea-faring nations, Spain, Portugal, England and the Netherlands as a result of colonial expansion and the trade and industry built thereon. If we are to include the Italian city states then it does cause a problem with the idea of protestantism, albeit not absent from the northern states.


Not at all. Because Marx argues that religion is "the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction,"

That seems to me like just a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole with little substance. Marx argues that religion is the general theory of this world yet he did not have an encyclopaedic knowlegde of the religious traditions of this world from which to justify his statements.

[Hit The North]

This is a contentious point indeed. We are talking about modern capitalism, not the merchant capitalism that could be traced back to practically Biblical times. This emerges primarily in the colonial sea-faring nations, Spain, Portugal, England and the Netherlands as a result of colonial expansion and the trade and industry built thereon.


Except that modern capitalism didn't develop in Spain and Portugal. :rolleyes: This means that colonial expansion, in itself and on its own, did not lead to the emergence of modern capitalism.

As Marx points out the crucial precondition for the emergence of modern capitalism is the existence of free labour.


If we are to include the Italian city states then it does cause a problem with the idea of protestantism, albeit not absent from the northern states.
Remember, it's not Marx that claims an affinity between protestantism and capitalism.


That seems to me like just a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole with little substance. Marx argues that religion is the general theory of this world yet he did not have an encyclopaedic knowlegde of the religious traditions of this world from which to justify his statements.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is hardly a rejoinder to my point that Marxism is able to take ideology (or theology, as you prefer) seriously as a motive force in history.

[ComradeMan]

Except that modern capitalism didn't develop in Spain and Portugal. :rolleyes: This means that colonial expansion, in itself and on its own, did not lead to the emergence of modern capitalism.

But that's not what the point was... are you denying that Spain and Portugal did not too have a wealthy merchant class? England and the Netherlands, historically, took over from Spain and Portugal in terms of colonialism in terms of being merchant sea-faring nations.


As Marx points out the crucial precondition for the emergence of modern capitalism is the existence of free labour.

And where did that actually exist ever?

I'm not entirely disagreeing with Marx all the time, but I do find he makes too many generalisations and things that don't seemed to be backed up by modern scholarship.

[Hit The North]

But that's not what the point was... are you denying that Spain and Portugal did not too have a wealthy merchant class? England and the Netherlands, historically, took over from Spain and Portugal in terms of colonialism in terms of being merchant sea-faring nations.


Of course it is the point as we are discussing the emergence of modern capitalism not merchant capitalism. As you pointed out yourself, societies like Rome had a wealthy merchant class - so did ancient Iran and China and India and Medieval Turkey - it didn't make any of these capitalist societies.


And where did that actually exist ever? We're talking about "free" as in free from the obligations and rights of feudal property. Millions of dispossessed peasants forced to sell their labour on the land or in the towns. It happened in England, it happened anywhere that the capitalist mode of production took root. You need to read the section called The So-called Primitive Accumulation in Capital vol one.


I'm not entirely disagreeing with Marx all the time, but I do find he makes too many generalisations and things that don't seemed to be backed up by modern scholarship.

Frankly I think you would need to have a better acquaintance and understanding of his work than you exhibit here to make that judgement.

[ComradeMan]

Of course it is the point as we are discussing the emergence of modern capitalism not merchant capitalism. As you pointed out yourself, societies like Rome had a wealthy merchant class - so did ancient Iran and China and India and Medieval Turkey - it didn't make any of these capitalist societies.

So why did those societies "freeze" at that point?


We're talking about "free" as in free from the obligations and rights of feudal property....

Okay... I wasn't sure what you meant. You meant as in "free agents" as such...


Frankly I think you would need to have a better acquaintance and understanding of his work than you exhibit here to make that judgement.

The problem is this, as I see it. Marx' historical materialism does not allow the idea to be causal, no- the material conditions are always causal and the "idea" is a response to those conditions. He explains this in Part 1 of the Germany Ideology, 1845, under Social Being and Social Consciousness: "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process. "

If this is the case... then what is Marxism and Marxist ideology? How can this be causal?

If on the other hand we admit that radical new ideas can come about independently of the material conditions etc then we also have to re-evaluate Marx's idea about religion.

[Hit The North]

So why did those societies "freeze" at that point?


These are big questions that have little to do with the topic of this thread and there is such a wealth of material dealing with these questions that it would be hard to do justice to them here. Suffice to say, for Marx, the answer will be found within the material (property) relations of those societies and the history of class struggle. These are his methodological touch-stones. Now it is important to recognise that the class struggle is not conceived by Marx as an automated response by social actors to changing material circumstances, there can be any number of complicating factors including ideological, political and other. This takes detailed study to disentangle and make sense of. Take a look at Marx's work on France in the 1850s:

The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm)
The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm)
Or Engels' The Peasant War in Germany (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm)

For examples of detailed analysis of class struggle and failed revolution. You'll find plenty of reference to ideological and psychological factors within the motivations of the actors.

Of course there are alternative explanations for why modern capitalism emerged first in Northern and Central Europe, and I guess you're closer to Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/protestant-ethic/index.htm)


Okay... I wasn't sure what you meant. You meant as in "free agents" as such...A precondition for modern capitalism is a large population of people who's existence depends upon selling their labour to capitalists. before this can happen, the population needs to be freed from the soil. This requires a revolution in the countryside - the transformation of millions of peasants into millions of proletarians. This will depend upon the decay of the feudal ruling class and the progress of a bourgeoisie in privatising land that was hitherto held as commonwealth.


The problem is this, as I see it. Marx' historical materialism does not allow the idea to be causal, no- the material conditions are always causal and the "idea" is a response to those conditions. He explains this in Part 1 of the Germany Ideology, 1845, under Social Being and Social Consciousness:
If this is the case... then what is Marxism and Marxist ideology? How can this be causal?Again, I don't think this does justice to Marx and Engels work. Ideas are allowed to be decisive within a particular framework of analysis. This is Engels on the matter:
and
“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.” [Letter to J Bloch, Sept 1890]
and
“What we understand by the economic conditions which we regard as the determining basis of the history of society are the methods by which human beings in a given society produce their means of subsistence and exchange the products among themselves (in so far as division of labour exists). Thus the entire technique of production and transport is here included. According to our conception, this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products, and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, the division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc. Under economic conditions are further included the geographical basis on which they operate and those remnants of earlier stages of economic development which have actually been transmitted and have survived — often only through tradition or the force of inertia; also of course the external milieu which surrounds this form of society.” [Letter to Starkenburg, January 1894 — and the letter goes on to continually widen the definition]


Citation (http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/blackwood/andy03.htm)
If on the other hand we admit that radical new ideas can come about independently of the material conditions etc then we also have to re-evaluate Marx's idea about religion. Which is your actual agenda, I guess. But even if we argue that ideas are produced spontaneously out of great minds, this does not explain the historical career of those ideas. This can only be done by examining the actual social relations, the historical milieu, in which the idea is transmitted. So even if ideas originate independently of the material conditions (and these would have to therefore be imported somehow from outside society), they cannot exist, be communicated and have an impact, independently of the material conditions. Even Weber doesn't believe that the ideas of Calvinism produced modern capitalism out of nothing. There had to exist material infrastructure and a group of people who could use the ideas as weapons in their rise to domination. And even though Weber emphasises the role of the idea in shaping social life, he does not have to concede to the claims of Luther or Calvin that their ideas were imparted by the Holy Spirit. His analysis is entirely secular.

[ComradeMan]

Engels: “According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.” [Letter to J Bloch, Sept 1890] .

But this creates a causality dilemma- unless we concede a symbiotic relationship of causality between the economic base and the superstructures, in which case we cannot necessarily argue that things like religion are de facto products of the material conditions of society. This is not to say that there is no connection between them either.

[Hit The North]

But this creates a causality dilemma- unless we concede a symbiotic relationship of causality between the economic base and the superstructures, in which case we cannot necessarily argue that things like religion are de facto products of the material conditions of society. This is not to say that there is no connection between them either.

Well if religions are not the products of society, what are they?

Meanwhile the 'symbiotic' relationship is rendered as a 'dialectical' relationship in Marxism.

[ComradeMan]

Well if religions are not the products of society, what are they?

That's not what is meant though. Of course religion and society are inextricably linked but it is the derivation from the material conditions of that society and its relationship towards the means of production that is harder to establish.


Meanwhile the 'symbiotic' relationship is rendered as a 'dialectical' relationship in Marxism.

Let's not go there...... :lol:

[Hit The North]

Let's not go there...... :lol:

I'm afraid we must :)

[ComradeMan]

I'm afraid we must :)

Nooooo........ I'm not convinced by all of that everything has an opposite philosophy.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think I understand now before Class Society Religion was used in Tribal Society to explain Nature and why we are here now we have Evolution/Darwinism to explain why we are here and Science explains Nature than when Class Society came about Religion was used to keep the lower class down and them hoping for a better life in a afterlife or hereafter does anyone agree wth this theory ?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/ju...dar1-j17.shtml

[thriller]

I think I understand now before Class Society Religion was used in Tribal Society to explain Nature and why we are here now we have Evolution/Darwinism to explain why we are here and Science explains Nature than when Class Society came about Religion was used to keep the lower class down and them hoping for a better life in a afterlife or hereafter does anyone agree wth this theory ?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/ju...dar1-j17.shtml

I guess I could agree with that somewhat. At least with western Europe. Back before Luther most of the 'common' people lived a majority of their life to please the Church so they could spend the least amount of time in purgatory. Almost everything they did was to affect their afterlife. Anyone know if Catholics still believe in purgatory? As far as 'before class society' I still have yet to see anyone post info on a tribe that had no social hierarchy (aka class structure). With all the 'Marx said this, Marx said that' argument, it goes to show how vague he was on the subject and how it doesn't matter what he thought, because he's dead and it is up to us to continue the struggle in the 21st century, not the 19th century.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Religion in itself is fine, as the majority of the worlds religions promote peace, caring, and love.

However, the problem lies in the priest, clerics, pastors, etc. They use religion to peddle their own agenda. They use religion to divide rather than unite. Fundamentalist Christian pastors say that Muslims are the enemy and are out to get you. Well, the people who listen to him immediately develop a prejudice against Muslims.

The church takes the peoples money and sure it spends some of it on charity, but I have seen many, many churches simply spend it on expanding their building and adding needless (expensive) crap to it. I have noticed that pastors and priests live quite comfortable lives, they do not work long hours, so it is easy for them to tell people how they should act. I personally believe, from my experiences in the southern US, which is a predominantly protestant, fundamentalist Christian region that Chruches are nothing short of money-laundering schemes. The first time I noticed this is when I was 16, I had a girlfriend who lived in a huge house in a nice neighborhood. I asked her what her father does, she replied: "Oh, he's just a pastor at a church."

I am not "Anti-Theist" however, I am against church officials using their power over people to instill political beliefs, which I have seen them do with my own eyes.

Marx viewed religion as a painkiller, something that makes the world not seem that bad. A "Heart in a heartless world". Which is very, very true. Pastors, Clerics, priests, etc. etc. are bourgeoisie and their power MUST be limited. They have no business mixing their religions ideas into politics as they so often do.