Opiate of the masses - Modern entertainment

[Nordic Rebel]

This idea sprung to my mind today.

We all know that Marx called religion as opiate of the masses. But what would he call the modern entertainment?

I think he would attack it even more fiercely, but I would like to hear other oppinions about this.

[CubanFox]

It's like the creepy lesbian in the movie He Died With a Felafel In His Hand...

"I don't watch television. It's the opiate of the masses."

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Nordic Rebel on 5:07 pm on April 25, 2003
This idea sprung to my mind today.

We all know that Marx called religion as opiate of the masses. But what would he call the modern entertainment?

I think he would attack it even more fiercely, but I would like to hear other oppinions about this.


It's so true, almost none goes to church/mosq today, so the authorities use the massmedia as a tool to win the masses.

But the church and mosq are gaining ground in the battle for the "hearts and minds" of the masses.

The mosq is winning ground, because the muslim population is trying hard to fit in the society which is christian(/jew) dominated.

So they are more then open for any story which tells them, that the "profet Mohammed" is pro captalist/pro America.

The seperation between Church and state is disapearing in the US, while they note non Christian country's to change their own policy.

This disseperation only helps out the pro captalist churches, because the fundings are governmental and they decide which church is "good" enough to receive funds.

Eventually the anti-captalist churches and maybe mosqs will disappear due to a lack of funds. This way the governmental influences will be increased.

[Umoja]

Religion really isn't the opiate of the masses much more. Otherwise most atheist would be communist, unless most Atheist are...

I'm for the belief of the mass media being the opiate of the mass. It shows itself rather clearly.

(Edited by Umoja at 8:50 pm on April 25, 2003)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Umoja on 8:49 pm on April 25, 2003
Religion really isn't the opiate of the masses much more. Otherwise most atheist would be communist, unless most Atheist are...

I'm for the belief of the mass media being the opiate of the mass. It shows itself rather clearly.

(Edited by Umoja at 8:50 pm on April 25, 2003)


It's not religion beeeing the opiate, but the organized (government) sponserd religion institutions. If you know what I mean.

Par example those shows in which a priester heals up to ten people an hour and shows people the "light". Those shows get a hugh profit and have nothing to do with "soulcleansing" or something.

[redstar2000]

Entertainment has always been crucial to sustaining the power of ruling classes.

It might be argued that something more than that is at work today. The capitalist strategy appears to be one of offering people entire surrogate lives to distract them from the lives they actually live.

If anywhere from three to five hours every day is spent as a "lawyer", a "cop", a "football star", etc., perhaps you won't mind so much working a shit job for lousy pay. For the time being, it seems to be working for them pretty well.

This suggests a practical slogan for communists: Throw Away Your Dummyvision Set!

:cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In America, TV shows represent and tell people how great it is to have mediocre lives and always conform to what other are doing, or in the TV-watcher's case, what TV character are doing. Horrible really, a tool of opression, an enemy of the worker, a counter revolutionary force, it is!

[hazard]

to me, this was the intention of marx's "opiate" remark. it wasn't anti-religious at all. it is anti-opiate.

modern opiation has moved away from religion and is now, among other things, TV and all that it offers. such as movies and video games. I, for one, am opiated well by this device. clearly if marx were still around to make comment he would have no problem with modern religion and have every problem with modern opiation, that is, the TV.

[andresG]

This reminds me of the times of Ancient Rome, when the people would be offered entertainment, like the circus, to keep their minds of their crumbling empire.

Doesn't it seem like the concept is the same?

[hazard]

G, whut up? just jokin

Rome is the model for every modern empire, regardless of whether it is capitlist or communist. smae thing? you bet. carbon copies.

the idea of the circus is correct if not historically slightly innacurate. too specific. just an opiating diversion for ALL of rome's problems which also had a class system in place. patrician and blebians.

[redstar2000]

Actually, hazard, Marx's remark was technically neither anti-opiate nor anti-religious per se. It was just an observation.

But Marx vigorously and seriously criticized religion, especially in his younger days when he was trying to break away from Hegel.

In his view, the criticism of religious illusions was the first step in criticizing a world that required illusions.

So, I think it certain that he would have been just as critical of modern religions as he was of 19th century religion.

:cool:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from andresG on 4:41 am on April 26, 2003
This reminds me of the times of Ancient Rome, when the people would be offered entertainment, like the circus, to keep their minds of their crumbling empire.

Doesn't it seem like the concept is the same?


It's exactly the same methode, the media always trying to get in favor of the US media and competing each other for as much viewers as possible, a better propaganda system you won't find.

[Umoja]

But Entertainment in America is basically a Religion, and celebreties are walking Prophets and Buddhas that people aspire to listen to or be like.

[redstar2000]

In a way, Umoja, in a way.

But analogies and metaphors are slippery and confuse as often as they enlighten.

For example, I said once in another post: Think of that new $280 million cathedral in Los Angeles as a blockbuster movie.

I was suggesting that the entertainment value of religious ostentation was very much like a major motion picture.

But few people really "worship" celebrities...instead, they identify with them and live their "exciting" lives "by proxy". To be "like" Starname is, in a sense, to be Starname.

People don't look to celebrities for "the meaning of life"...what they look to them for is a life.

:cool:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Hmm, it would certainly explain a lot.

Do people actually tend attention to the priest?

[grantmac79]

Thank you redstar2000, a truly knowledgeable comrade!You just wrapped up this topic in a nice little package.However, I would like to note the irony(and absurdity) of the distribution of wealth as it pertains to the entertainment and arts industries.As Chomsky put it, "It is sometimes argued that constructive and creative work will cease unless it leads to material reward, so that all of society gains when the talented receive special rewards.For the mass of the population,then, the message is:'You're better off if you're poor.'"
This is simply unacceptable.How can one justify paying $150 million to an illiterate ball-player who has never worked a day in his life, when millions of others work their fingers to the bone daily and still must rely on welfare or government-assistance to survive?Or how can one justify this crime when millions world-wide are living and dieing in squalor and poverty?
This should be considered a crime against humanity.
It is both sad and disgusting how misguided and foul our priorities are in America.

[Umoja]

I liked the post to Redstar, but people do care more about Derek Jeters shoulder then they do about what Rev. Bob Jones is telling about Hell.

[hazard]

I think religion itself is too broad to like or dislike. only a certain fool would admit that he or she liked the evangelical nonsense thats being pumped out of the american south. marx's discussion of religious socialism in the manifesto, I think, is about as anti religious as a communist should get. reject the materialistic components of religion while accepting the ascetic principles inherent within them. there is nothing opiating about accepting only the rejection of the material world.

[redstar2000]

"there is nothing opiating about accepting only the rejection of the material world."

Hazard, what does that mean?

:cool:

[hazard]

are you joking? thats as clear as day. isn't it?

here's the break down.
marx said that religion is the opiate of the massess. right? right. now, there are many parts of religion that follow an ascetic principle that rejects, with bitter prejudice, all things material. these things include stuff like food and sleep except when absolutely necessary. this ascetic idea is what I'm referring to when I say "accepting only the rejection of the material world". okay? goood. now, there cannot be anything opiating about such a complete rejection. as such, marx could not have been referring to these types of religions in his statement that religion is the opiate of the massess. for, "there is nothing opiating about accepting only the rejection of the material world."

[Conghaileach]

from redstar2000:
"there is nothing opiating about accepting only the rejection of the material world."

Hazard, what does that mean?

I think he means that there's not wrong with accepting the religious call to reject materialism. Not Marxist materialism, but material possessions.

[redstar2000]

Ok, hazard, I understand what you are referring to now, and I think you're wrong.

Fasting and sleep-deprivation are well-known "techniques" for attaining "visions" (hallucinations) of "other worlds."

For a small minority of people, I see no reason why those "visions" could not be just as "opiating" (what a word!) as Sunday Mass at St. Bollocks of Suburbia.

Illusions are still illusions, whether from mushrooms or from simple malfunctions of the central nervous system due to lack of food or sleep.

Nor am I particularly enthralled with ascetic self-denial as a path to a Marxist outlook or as something we should seek to encourage.

The spiritual ascetic is making an extreme form of Pascal's wager; live like shit on earth while piling up luxuries in "Heaven".

His "rejection" of earthly pleasures reminds me of an American tourist in a pre-capitalist country who refuses to drink the local water...and contemplates instead the fine bottled water he will get back at the 4-star hotel.

I really don't see how any of this sort of thing has anything to do with Marxism.

:cool:

[hazard]

I see the connection. Well, not the ascetic rejection of material for the purpose of visions. Thats not wha I meant.

For instance, the Franciscan sect within catholocism lives life in an ascetic way that rejects all frivolous material. This is not to induce hallucinations, but to combat corruption within the church and send a message to the rich and poor within society.

Communism takes a similiar stance to the franciscan model of christianity. Communal living, redistribution of wealth and rejection of material excess. Virtually identical.

[Sabocat]

I only have 2 points to add.

If TV/Radio wasn't so powerful a tool of control (opiate) then the CIA wouldn't use it the way they do. The first thing they do when beginning a foreign intervention, is set up radio and TV stations.

I've read that American Society is being damaged by people having half hour long relationships with TV characters. The problem is of course that it's completely one sided with no interaction. People are becoming less adept at having relationships with real people because of it. Without real interaction between people, it makes it easier for the masses to be fearful of other real people and cultures doesn't it? It may explain a lot.

[suffianr]

I don't know about you, but my PS2 is my only fucking opiate right now. It's the only mind-control device I would have in my living room. :)

[redstar2000]

"Communism takes a similar stance to the Franciscan model of Christianity. Communal living, redistribution of wealth and rejection of material excess. Virtually identical." -- hazard

This is wrong, but understandable.

Franciscans, like all varieties of Christian monastics, take vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience.

There have certainly been communist groups in the past which behaved as if they had done likewise...but such things are not really integral to the communist cause; they are "add-ons" which some have thought would make communist movements "more effective".

For example, to suggest that communists "must be poor" is redundant...they usually are as a consequence of engaging in class struggle in a conspicuous manner.

To suggest that communists "must avoid sex" is...well, a waste of one's breath. :cheesy:

To suggest that communists "must be obedient" is an intolerable outrage and a complete repudiation of the communist project. :o

It's certainly quite possible that some of the early utopian socialists were influenced by monastic models of self-sufficient communal societies. But I doubt if more than a few would desire such arrangements now or in the post-revolutionary era.

The apparent "identity" is, I think, accidental...and not really an identity at all.

:cool:

[hazard]

redstar:

if you consider the opposite influence of the dominicans, which works at an almost exact negative to the franciscan positive, you might understand better why I'm mentioning them at all.

the dominicans and francsicans were almost warring monastic sects within catholocism just prior to the modern age. it was the dominicans that fueled the fire of the inquisition while the franciscans attempted to douse these flames. the dominicans greatest philosopher was St. Thomas Aquinas who used aristotelean logic to preserve ontology, a preservation that holds even until today. the franciscans greatest philosopher was Occam (spell? ) who preceded all modern philosophy in his rejection of empirical evidence and greatly influenced the cartesian logic model based upon doubt. to group ALL monastics as being similiar does not take into relevance the certain good of some and certain corruption of others.

I did not intend that communists replicate the monastic life as a dogmatic approach to communal living. that is, as you have already pointed out, ridiculous. my intention was to identify the relevence of religious value, specifically as fielded by franscican monks, as having the same ideals and goals as communism.

on an interesting note, as the wasteful practices of capitalism has allowed for the creation of the environmentalist socialist sub set, St Francis, the founder of the franciscans, is the patron saint of animals. he is perhaps the first environmentalist the world ever knew. another indication that SOME religious values are compatible with socialist ones.



(Edited by hazard at 3:33 pm on May 2, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"...another indication that SOME religious values are compatable with socialist ones." -- hazard

In other words, sneaking in a "plug" in an unrelated thread. That's not nice.

Do it properly! Post an essay on why the Franciscans are not bastards like all the others in the sticky thread at the beginning of this forum. Make the best, most coherent argument that you can. I will reply to it in a serious way, I promise.

But if you "plug" religion in unrelated threads, the likely outcome is that many threads could be "diverted" into endless disputes over theological matters...which is not really the purpose of this forum.

:cool:

[hazard]

this isnt really a religious "plug"

its just my understanding of marx's statement concerning opitaion. that is, it is not applicable, even in his own time, to all religion. and also that it is no longer applicable to religion at all.

his argument was against anything used by capitalists to opiate, which, at his time, for the most part, was religion. in this time I think he would call TV the opiate of the massess.