Marx on religion

[Led Zeppelin]

It declines when living standards are heightened and secular education is provided, not when class society is overthrown. Marx was wrong, and you ignoring this point of mine doesn't make it go away.

Marx actually wrote of the inevitable clash between religion and capitalism, so it's no wonder that where capitalism is most developed religion is suffering.

Religion would be replaced, in part, by commodity fetishism, which has exactly been the case in the most advanced capitalist nations. The vast majority of atheists in the first world are not class-conscious or even left-wing.

The final victory over religion though could only come about with the destruction of class-society, because a section of the bourgeoisie would always try to sway the masses towards itself using that "opium".

So no, Marx was not wrong, history has actually vindicated him 100%.

[Sentinel]

Marx actually wrote of the inevitable clash between religion and capitalism, so it's no wonder that where capitalism is most developed religion is suffering.

Well, just recently it was: religion is caused by class society and won't go away -- as a significant force, I assume -- before capitalism does. Now, religion does diminish, and just the final battle against it will happen after the revolution -- something I agree with (that's when the Wrecking Balls will be wheeled out if I get my way). He couldn't make up his mind..?

Turns out I wasn't this huge anti-marxist at all then, I guess -- at least I agree with Marx second position on the same issue. :lol:


Religion would be replaced, in part, by commodity fetishism, which has exactly been the case in the most advanced capitalist nations. The vast majority of atheists in the first world are not class-conscious or even left-wing.

Not being superstitious is a great start towards a scientific socialist mindset, however. Also, commodity fetischism just can't, in my honest opinion, be compared to believing in fairytales -- it's a great improvement.

What's actually wrong with wanting a lot of stuff?

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, just recently it was: religion is caused by class society and won't go away -- as a significant force, I assume -- before capitalism does. Now, religion does diminish, and just the final battle against it will happen after the revolution -- something I agree with (that's when the Wrecking Balls will be wheeled out if I get my way). He couldn't make up his mind..?

Turns out I wasn't this huge anti-marxist at all then, I guess -- at least I agree with Marx second position on the same issue. :lol:

He could make up his mind, his mind just worked differently than yours.

Society isn't static, ideologies aren't static, and any Marxist realizes this. If religion diminishes in some historical era due to an increase in wealth, it will probably grow again when that process ceases, as is inevitably the case within capitalism.

So while religion may be decreasing in the first world, it hasn't been a steady decline. It has had its ups and downs, and it continues to have its ups and downs, and that will continue until class-society is destroyed, because there will always remain a section of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois who will use religion to justify their actions, disregarding even the working-class using religion to justify their progressive actions.

And while that may not always be as effective, it will always remain a powerful force in capitalist society.


Not being superstitious is a great start towards a scientific socialist mindset, however. Also, commodity fetischism just can't, in my honest opinion, be compared to believing in fairytales -- it's a great improvement.

What's actually wrong with wanting a lot of stuff?

It isn't just about "wanting a lot of stuff", it's also about ascribing magical powers to that "stuff".

It's just as "wrong" as ascribing magical powers to some entity in the heavens.

They're both part of the alienation process which capitalism causes, and both can't be combatted with "militant ideological action", because both arise out of material conditions, as alienation in genera doesl, and that problem can only be truly solved with a change in the social structure of society, i.e., the destruction of capitalism and consequently class-society.

[TheLuddite]

According to Marx, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make people feel better about the distress they experience due to being poor and exploited. This is the origin of his comment that religion is the ...



“opium of the masses.”

[Abe]

According to Marx, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make people feel better about the distress they experience due to being poor and exploited. This is the origin of his comment that religion is the ...

Marx was not learned in evolutionary biology (ofcoure not his fault). We cannot reduce religion to simply subjugation of people. Our need to believe in morality and agents behind objects (like rain gods for the clouds and sun gods for the light) has gradually brought about the evolution of organised religion.

[al8]

That is of course part of the expanation. I wouldn't be surprised if Marx knew about it and exepted it. Marx knew Darwin, even wrote him letters. And I think I even recal Bakunin (Marx's contemporary) talk about the expanation about religion partly originating from ingnorant 'savages' deifying natural forces they didn't understand. And that now people had science and no longer need supernatural explanations to make sense the workings of the world.

People often selectively quote Marx and neclect the fact that Marx considered religion more than just a dis-active, benign "symptom" that did nothing of itself to foster itself or actively seek lebensraum. He did not mean it exclusively in that restrictive sense. He also thought that attacking religion directly was also in the same instant an attack on the conditions that required and fostered religion. For confirmation read my sig.

[chimx]

opium of the masses.

People usually look at that quotation anachronistically. 19th century doctors would give patients opium for pain. Today's equivalent would read something more like, "religion is the Tylenol of the masses"