Is Religion the Opium of the People? | Karl Marx's theory of religion | Marx on religion
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Is religion the opium of the people? And what does it mean, after all? This review delves into Karl Marx's perspectives on religion. It also highlights the strengths and weaknesses of his political and economic theories and examines how Soviet ideologists attempted to implement them in the USSR.
Marx on religion
Please, support Religiolog through a one-time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/relig...
Or become my Patron: / 4religiolog
Check out my other videos:
Freud on Religion: • Sigmund Freud on Relig...
Durkheim on Religion: • Emile Durkheim on Reli...
What is secularism? - • What is Secularism? 3 ...
#Theories_of_religion #Marx #Karl_Marx #theory_religion #atheism #atheist #religious_studies #religious #religiolog
Bibliography and Recommended readings:
The review, in many ways, is based on Daniel Pals' “Nine Theories of Religion”
Daniel L. Pals. 2015. Nine Theories of Religion. Oxford University Press.
Smolkin, Victoria. 2018. A Sacred Space Is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism. Princeton University Press.
Friedrich Engels, “Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works, tr. and ed. Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, 2 vols. (Moscow 1951)
Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” in Niebuhr, Marx and Engels on Religion.
Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen. Karl Marx and the Close of His System, ed. Paul M. Sweezy. London, England: Merlin Press, 1974 [1896].
Carver, Terrell, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Marx. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991
Blankholm, Joseph. 2020. Remembering Marx’s Secularism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 88:1 (March 2020): 35-57
Timecodes: 00:00 - Introduction
4:45 - Who is Marx and what was his vision?
9:22 - Marx’s view of religion
19:45 - Analysis of Marx's attitude towards religion
23:55 - Application of Marx’s ideas in practice in the USSR
26:32 - Criticism of Marx’s approach
37:18 - Conclusion
Thank you for you Likes, comments, and support! Check out my other videos: czcams.com/video/3uZqikFYc0s/video.html
Please, support Religiolog through a one-time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/religiolog
Or become my Patron: www.patreon.com/4religiolog
Timecodes: 00:00 - Introduction; 4:45 - Who is Marx and what was his vision?
9:22 - Marx’s view of religion; 19:45 - Analysis of Marx's attitude towards religion
23:55 - Application of Marx’s ideas in practice in the USSR
26:32 - Criticism of Marx’s approach
37:18 - Conclusion
Interesting, I have a documentary on my CZcams channel about the Communist anti-religious and State Atheism campaign in Marshal Choibalsan's Mongolia, where religion was massively repressed. Always wanted to know more about the roots of Marx's ideas and attitudes toward religion...
Thank you for sharing and I'm glad it was helpful.
Very good documentary. I appreciated the objectively presented information and detailed analysis.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you.Damn it!I'll have to improve my English, probably.The simultaneous Yandex translator works poorly in some places.
what are you talking about ?
@@User-jr7vf About the synchronous voice Yandex translator
There seems to be a really huge disconnect between how this video explains Marx's views on religion and what it labels as these ideas being "put into practice" in the Soviet Union. From the description in this video, Marx described religion as serving to ease the pain of the poor by promising a better next life, while also justifying existing hierarchies and making the oppressed less likely to rebel. In his worldview, however, it was just a side-effect of oppression, and didn't need to be repressed itself; it would simply fade away after oppression was eliminated. The Soviet Union's approach, meanwhile, was to use heavy-handed tactics to subordinate religion to the state, without actually eliminating oppression - I think most people would agree the Soviet state was an oppressive force itself, being both an undemocratic police state, and, through state-ownership of industry, maintaining a class division between the average worker and the state elites similar to the gap between workers and capitalists under capitalism. Saying "Marx's [...] predictions about the future of religion did not come true" because "administrative restrictions didn't lead to the inevitable disappearance of faith" seems completely at odds with the fact that Marx specifically called such measures "nonsense," and suggesting that there was no exploitation of the masses just because private Capitalism had been abolished, well... that might be in line with Soviet self-presentation, but clearly doesn't match up with the reality.
The ending part of the criticism section is also off (Marx didn't write anything about "proletarian leaders" making "important decisions on behalf of the workers," that sounds like Stalin's version of the Vanguard Party concept, which is several layers removed from anything Marx wrote), but I can ignore a religion channel getting some political theory wrong.
Thanks for the detailed comment. How do you imagine the political structure in a region after a proletarian revolution? (according to Marx)
@@religiologEng Well, Marx didn't present a super detailed political structure, he was primarily focused on critique of Capitalism and, where he made suggestions for replacing it, largely spoke generally of collective power over government (as well as somewhat more specific, though still often general, economic prescriptions), so I don't think we can necessarily draw any specific vision from his writing (and I'm not a Marxist myself, so I personally wouldn't be overly interested in doing so). Interpretations vary significantly between different schools of Marxism, so while Marxism-Leninism has been the most common approach historically, I think it's inappropriate to regard their interpretation as the automatic conclusion from Marx; Orthodox Marxists, Libertarian Marxists, Leninists, and Marxist-Leninists each have their own interpretations of the Marxist position on certain things, with the biggest gap being between the idea of majority revolution (shared by Orthodox Marxists and Libertarian Marxists) vs. vanguardism (shared by Leninism and Marxism-Leninism, though in somewhat different forms).
I think it's reasonable to speculate that Marx's ideal would have somewhat resembled the political system of the Paris Commune, as he heavily praised this state and framed it as the heart of the Socialist movement to be emulated (though he was also critical of it after its failure, and may have adjusted his personal ideas accordingly). Engels suggested that core to the Paris Commune's status as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was the fact that it instituted universal suffrage and filled all positions in the government, justice system, and educational system with elected representatives subject to recall at any time by the electorate, so I also think it's reasonable to suggest the interpretation of Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" as necessarily Democratic, as suggested by theorists like Rosa Luxembourg, is probably more accurate than Stalin's interpretation that a small, unelected party elite could represent the will of the proletariat. But that's drawing from Engels, who worked closely with Marx but was obviously a different person. Marx also suggested that a dictatorship of the proletariat could potentially be achieved without violent revolution in certain strongly Democratic countries such as the USA, UK, and the Netherlands, which suggests to me that he saw a dictatorship of the proletariat as being fairly closely derived from such democratic structures, and thus probably not a one party state focused on unity of thought among the whole proletariat, though that's just my inference since, again, Marx is fairly light on specifics.
What I find more important than determining exactly what Marx would have wanted, though, is avoiding projecting the more specific ideas of later thinkers who drew from Marx onto Marx himself, as these ideas are often clear innovations, not intuitive interpretations of his writings (as demonstrated by the various strains of Marxism that developed before or alongside Leninism without adopting the same one-party state system that Stalin wrote into his theory, seemingly derived more from the political situation the USSR ended up with after the Bolsheviks' coup than from Lenin's political theory, let alone Marx's). I simply don't think we can reasonably discuss Marx on his own terms if we're bringing in these later ideas, and I think simply focusing on his own words and acknowledging the vagueness where it arises is the appropriate approach to analyzing or critiquing his work.
communism looks like religion because of rituals. But here the similarity ends. Coomunism, as an ideology, is just a theory of building a new society, more just than the previous ones. It acts as a base for doing so and so. We can say, that the western aconomical theory is the same: an ideological base of leading the capitalists society.
23:00 That feels like a contradiction what you said earlier. Earlier, you quoted Marx as saying that religion is irrelevant, even if it's not ideal, because it would naturally decay away on its own after the creation of a just social structure (i.e. in his view, Communism). Now instead, Marx is supposed to see religion as an absolute evil that must be [actively] destroyed? That seems contradictory. Either it goes away on its own and can be ignored, or it must be destroyed.
Thanks for this question. In my understanding Marx thought that religion is harmful and it definitely must go away. In his mind the future world has no room for religion. At the same time, there shouldn't be any organized full-frontal attack on religion. Since it will disappear anyway under the pressure of communist society. Such society eliminates the very foundation that produces religion. But if this function is replaced then there is no need in any religion. However, as the experience of the USSR demonstrated the function of religion was understood too oversimplified by the ideologists of Marxism.
Marx was right about religion being a product of conditions, but it’s much bigger than economics, it’s about existentialism. Humans naturally wonder about life and the universe, and apparently religion is the most comforting answer, but with proper scientific training perhaps this force can be overcome.
@18:18 I disagree with the citation regarding atheism as unimportant. Lenin said that it is either you were a communist or you were religious. And also he said that with the growing number of educated people there will be less religious ones. Communist meant atheist, a person with no church affiliation.
thank you for sharing this concern, Ludmila. In my video review on the history of Soviet atheism (czcams.com/video/E3bwQ956V1E/video.html) I share in more detail how and why Lenin possibly changed/shifted his attitude towards religion and atheism. So, it's hard to say for sure, but we know that there were many religious communists in history. At least its possible
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Marx's base and superstructure theory. It's a common misunderstanding, one unfortunately popularized by early revisionist marxists. The idea that Marx was arguing the base just changes on its own in a vacuum and the superstructure idly follows it is what we Marxists call _vulgar marxism._ Or mechanistic materialism. And that's not what Marx was saying. He was not just simply a materialist, he was a dialectical materialist. And his dialectics applied to the relationship between the base and superstructure as well. So yes, the religion/art/culture/law/morality/etc. initially forms as a reflection of material relations and the productive forces, but the superstructure also shapes the base afterward through practice and implementation of those ideals into the material world.
So it's a false dichotomy to ask "Did Protestantism create capitalism or vice versa?" Both are true. Protestantism was certainly born from the decay of the late medieval feudal system and influenced by the material backgrounds of many of its thinkers, bourgeois intelligentsia, as a reflection of their material struggle against the feudal order represented by the dogmas of the church. But protestantism, once established, also in turn further shaped and deepened the relations of early capitalism providing a spiritual basis for it. The material forces were also shaped by protestantism. Marxism only argue that the base is the first instance in this relationship, not that it only goes one way.
To put it in marx's own words: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."
Thank you for sharing this. It's really important and helpful. Let's say I agree with all of your points and let's put the issue with the influence of Protestantism on capitalism or vice versa aside. Does it really change much? The video isn't solely about this.
Good Gr8 Karl Marx notions narrative, absolutely true in modern world, however most intelligent creature of the planet resented the religious dissolving considerations emerging during those days! The greatest use of life is to use this in something that outlast it....common man use is as about..
Actually Jesus lit said the poor & meak will inherit the Heavens... not the powerful that opress.. so?,
some say that Christianity is a communism with God :)
No. The Bible states that the meek would inherit the EARTH not the heavens in Proverbs. Read your Bible before you quote it.
Marx was ignorant of the religions outside Europe. The Buddha could be considered atheist, as there is no ultimate God to worship in Buddhism. He also taught that all beings suffer, even the rich. The kings of Europe got sick and died, and experienced pain, like anyone else. They could be as religiously devout as any peasant. A Hindu can be great at making money in a capitalist system, they don't need to convert to a Protestant Christian sect. Marx doesn't seem to understand humans or Europeans at all (Europeans are not exactly human). Marx definitely was not human, he was probably some type of demon.
Agree about the demon part. He, along with Darwin were the twin devils of the 19th Century.
Schizophrenia…
Marx was sort of, low-key right, only it also applies to communism.
To me its kinda weird, he believed religion is a way to rule over others (i see it too tho, but it matters i believe how its applied, tho to an extent they all are ig). & then Communism was qt much abt the dictators cult... & still is where it is. Mb Marx didnt see this coming...?
Communism has nothing to do with dictators
"Chance and unforseen occurrence befall us all". The Bible answers the question regarding why some have much and others little and some have good fortune and others fail.
are you sure it's just chance? no favors from anyone?
People living in the country moved to cities to make more money and achieve a better life from the businesses that capitalists set up that provided jobs. Some of the capitalists were greedy and unfair but it was still better than the abject poverty of trying to live off the land.
Well, if you look into the Enclosure Movement, the transition to Capitalism actually involved forcing a lot of subsistence farmers off of common lands, giving them no choice but to move to cities for work, and they went from paying taxes to lords to paying surplus labor value to capitalists, so it's not quite a case of Capitalism just providing people new opportunities. Capitalism is better than what came before it in a lot of ways, but definitely brought it's own issues as well, and not just because of individual greedy Capitalists.
I don't think this video accurately represents Marx's views on religion at all. Actually the claims here don't make sense when taken with Marxist theories of development generally. Since earlier modes of economic development did serve progressive functions, the religions that organised them must have, too. Even in the first four minutes of this video there's too much incorrect to refute... it doesn't really make sense to try to understand Marx's views on religion, or those of Marxists historically, without understanding the dialectical materialist worldview. Without doing that you can only form an outsider's guess.
Please be more specific and identify particular claims that you believe are incorrect
@@religiologEng There's nothing in the first four and a half minutes or so of this that's correct... it's very clear that you approached him for one question that he repeatedly criticised his contemporaries for overengaging with, attributed completely false ideas to him, and didn't take his thought on its own, extensively clarified, terms. You read him like you'd read Weber without really teaching yourself to see thought or the world as a dialectical materialist. You can do that with Weber, you can't do it with Marx.
@@religiologEng If you really want a point-by-point dissection of what you're doing here, read Anti-Duhring.
@@aminakhan703why is it so? I hear such things a lot but normally from religious people. E.g. you cannot teach anything about Christianity if you arent a Christian, or you will never be able to understand Islam unless you are a practicing Muslim, etc.
@@religiologEng I'm not saying you have to be a Marxist, I'm saying you have to understand what Marxism is. Marxism has a much deeper philosophical foundation than Christianity or Islam, and it is whole and integral. Unless you understand Marxist dialectical materialism as a cohesive worldview -- not necessarily subscribe to, but understand -- it won't be easy for a long-dead dialectical materialist to communicate with you. The thing you said isn't even close to what I said.
I would also say that if you're gonna make a longform video essay on Islam you should know what it is, so I am consistent here -- but the wiggle room for interpretation in Islam is much greater than in Marxism, which is a true science which can be "interpreted" only in the same way that, say, Darwinian evolution can. This means there's a very different set of issues here -- but fundamentally, you should understand what it is. Arguing with Marx is more like arguing with Ghazali or Maududi than it is with arguing with the Qur'an.
Imagine knowing so little about religion yet having so much to say about it as Marx, Durkheim and Freud.
Imagine knowing so little about people and having so much to say about them my point is that I'm sure all those men knew far more about religion (and not just your ) than you know about yet you make a comment about their supposed ignorance , I'm thinking that the truth of your comment says more about your own ignorance than any of theirs
@@brovckgemberling2409absolutely. He is just a coward and wants to bE a slave Like all Other religious people