A Marxist Analysis of Religion.
Hallo,
For my next post, I thought it highly appropriate that I offer a Marxist outlook on the nature of religion and its role in society today. Like it or not, religious institutions do and may continue to exercise influence on very important aspects of people’s public and personal lives for the foreseeable future and it is important to understand why this is the case. As I always say, it really is no good to simply blame the symptom of the illness and ignore the actual root of illness. Too often we overlook (deliberately or without meaning to) the root cause of the issues that bother us the most. Karl Marx famously proclaimed that religion is “the opium of the people”. Like a drug, it sedates, it offers an escape from reality, it is powerful, difficult to remove oneself from, and it can cause more harm than good at times, proving to be dangerous in excess and in the wrong hands. Marxists have traditionally called for secularism, but emphasis is put on the divorcing of religion from the state and civil society. Education, government, the courts and all aspects of public service and provision should have no connection with religious practice. That is the only way we will see decisions being taken with a more objective outlook, as opposed to with some religious agenda in the background. It is perfectly correct, as part of an education system based on tolerance and mutual respect, for school students to understand the basic outlines and beliefs of world religions, but they should also be taught the hows and whys behind the emergence of such practices. There is absolutely no need for faith to be taught within the realms of science. We already know of schools in America that teach creationism in a bid to brainwash their school students into becoming militant and close minded fundamentalists.
Today, one of my biggest criticisms of religion is its backwards nature. Humankind has come leaps and bounds and has achieved a level of progress, even just within the last fifty years, that would account for forward steps of a hundred years, and yet we still have church leaders vehemently discouraging women from using birth control and taking control of their lives; pressure groups are terrorising women who wish to abort unwanted children, without taking into account the concrete conditions of each person’s personal situation; so called ‘peaceable’ figures arguing that gay people are still not equal to straight people and, almost worse, that they can and should be changed using ‘scientific’ techniques as though they were some robots, and not human beings, flesh and blood. Despite us being firmly in the twenty-first century, women in numerous countries across the globe are forced to submit to the will of the men in their lives, some may be abused physically, mentally, and emotionally, and others will be stoned to death. In 2012, you still hear stories of religious figures abusing young children, and showing no remorse. And yet, it is the idea of secular society that takes the utmost bashing and constantly needs to be defended against religious attack. Ironically, religion was once a ‘progressive’ method of trying to explain what seemed to be unexplainable. To some extent, it was the ‘science’ of the day – except this day was thousands and thousands of years ago. Christianity, although it came before Islam, might still be considered to be one of the most ‘recent’ religions and yet it is still grossly outdated and ill-equipped to explain the here and now, as is religion as a whole.
Lenin, writing in 1909, said that: “The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparent complete helplessness in the face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extraordinary events such as wars, earthquakes, etc.” (The Attitude of the Workers Party to Religion).
Interestingly and importantly, Lenin points out the fact that the roots of religion, as with other influential phenomena, can and do change with time. Why do we still have so many people insisting on ‘evangelising’ and trying to force their religious beliefs down the non-believer’s throat on a daily basis? As anarchic as it sounds, I believe that religion is used as a tool of mass control. It is no longer a personal thing that a person, or a group of people choose to follow in order to find comfort, help, or answers. People in power use it to control the masses. The ‘most horrible and the most savage torment’ that we hear about in the news daily remind us that the majority of the world do not live comfortable lives like we do. And the reason why is because they are the sacrificial goats on the capitalist altar that has been built, and that has shown that it will destroy itself. Capitalism can only exist when a majority is being exploited, otherwise what would be the point? And in the fight to retain power as the masses start to see the light and react against their oppressors, religious control has never been more important. And fighting it is even more important. What I’m talking about really is materialism. Not ‘materialist culture’ but the idea of working with the material conditions within the material world – looking at things scientifically, as opposed to through rose-tinted – well rose haemorrhaged – glasses. It is not possible to understand the development of organised religion by a discussion on ‘ideas’ alone, but only by an examination of the material roots of religion, as aforementioned. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were consistent materialists, in that they applied their materialist world outlook to history and politics in what became known as Historical Materialism. “Marx and I”, Engels wrote, “were pretty well the only people to rescue conscious dialectics from German idealist philosophy and apply it in the materialist conception of nature and history. The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or estates is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch…” (Anti-Duhring)
John Pickard sums up the debate very well and puts forward an argument for how atheists and secularists can best go about understanding the nature of the forces they are fighting against:
‘The problem with many atheists and secularists is that their arguments are presented as if the whole question of religion is purely an ideological struggle, an intellectual debate in which the followers of religion are charged with harbouring inferior and inconsistent ideas. That indeed may be the case but it is important to see the modern phenomenon of mass support for various religions, as well as their historic foundations as being rooted in the material conditions of society. Religions have not arisen because of ideas that were superior at the time, and which are required to be supplanted at a later stage by even more superior ideas. The origin of all mass religions is rooted in specific sets of social and economic conditions, each at a given moment in history.
These material conditions were expressed ideologically – in politics and, above all, in religion – as a consequence, not as a cause. The inception of a religion owes more to the national and class conflicts of the day than to a clash in the realm of pure ideas. It is as a result of the material and intellectual cul-de-sac in which modern capitalism finds itself that so many millions of people are so ‘spiritually’ alienated from society that they look for inspiration elsewhere, including metaphysics. Likewise, it will be from these economic and material contradictions and the class conflicts they engender that a new social order can be created. It is within that perspective that the ground can be prepared for religious ideas to wither away.’
Pickard emphasises my point about root causes and the material conditions of each person within their current society. Religion must be looked at an evaluated within the historical framework of each period of time, as said framework is not a constant. Atheists and secularists cannot work within the realm of ideas and abstracts – that is the difference between Marxism and religion.
I say a move towards a secular society should go hand in hand with a move away from capitalism. Then we will really have reached the next stage of ‘progress’. You know, I spent two weeks reading about modernism for exam revision and Marx and Engels were key thinkers within the ‘movement’, despite the anti-democractic Baudelaire also being a key figure. That sums up the contradictory nature of ‘modernism’. I mention this briefly because I know that I have spoken about this idea of ‘progress’ and I think that defining what that really is would take a whole other blog post. But I’d suggest not checking the dictionary, but instead picking up some Marxist literature such as ‘Anti-Duhring’ by Engels and ‘The German Ideology’, by Marx and Engels.
So that’s all for now, folks.
To carry on the discussion, follow me on Twitter !
One Love.
Siana.
I have to ask on what grounds you call Christianity the newest of the prominent religions?
Given that Islam appears some 6 centuries later, and if you count Sikhism as ‘major’ it comes later yet…
Equally, while I think it is easy to see that modern corporate capitalism is in trouble, I am and remain unconvinced that socialism is the answer; and I would be interested to see you build a positive case for socialism-in-practice. Social democracy, I’m all in favour – but I am not convinced of the practicality of full-blown socialism.
Hello,
Thanks for stopping by. Thanks to your comment I dutifully remembered to note that Islam followed after. I’m not sure how fair it would be to call Sikhism a ‘major’ religion to be quite honest but we could start employing global statistics. Hinduism and Judaism come (much) before the dawn of Christianity.
Right now to address the most juicy part of your comment:
You know, when the capitalists first came along, the feudalists thought they were radicals. Now in the age of capitalism, many argue that socialism is ‘radical’ and unworkable. Well, have you ever seen it in action? No, we have not because the only ‘example’ is Russia and that was not true socialism. That was Stalinism. I’d definitely recommend doing some general reading about the nature of socialism as many people I’ve debated with refuse to read what Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky actually wrote, and take their arguments from critiques. It is the natural and logical order of things: Just as feudal society allowed for capitalism to emerge, capitalism forms the perfect base for socialism to be built upon. Capitalism was progressive but as with everything, it has reached its expiry date. I find it interesting that people, even NOW, ignore that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The nature of capitalism means it will destroy itself as it is not a sustainable system. No system based on exploitation of the majority can sustain itself forever. EXACTLY because the majority will win.
I’d be interesting to know what you think the answer is if you so adamantly remain ‘unconvinced that socialism is the answer’. And of course I’d argue that it is VERY practical to employ ‘full-blown’ socialism. It’s not a system that can work efficiently if only partially undertaken.
Monies Due:
Christopher Cars – £116.00 – Calling us back
Town Hall – £429 general + £360 kitchen charge – 5th May
Somerville – £868.90 – 21 days prior
Honeymoon Suite – £50 – On arrival (19th May)
Okay, I’ll admit that you’ve got me on one thing – I have not read Marx, Engels et al. Do you have any particular recommendations to give me a good initial grounding?
I am well aware that Stalin’s practices especially were murderous totalitarianism, whatever ideology they came clothed in, and did not intend to suggest “Socialism can’t work because Stalin!”. I apologise if it came across that way.
Where I disagree with my understanding of your argument is in seeing society as a progression, first feudal, then capitalist, then socialist. To try to lay out what I do think will take a little space, and may not be 100% coherent initially, because I don’t think I’ve laid out my thinking in these terms before, so be gentle!
In essence, I think any complex society needs a variety of forms of exchange, so that the members of that society can get what they need from one another.
First and most obvious is that of force; and in feudalism we see force, moderated only by custom, hold pre-eminence. Why give service to your lord? Because he will kill you if you do not. Why is he the lord? Because the men with swords do what he says.
Second is by economic exchange – buying and selling. I expect you will agree that this is pre-eminent at present, at least in the UK. We work at the daily grind because we must earn the money to pay for what we want and need.
Thirdly is co-operation or pro-sociality; giving what is needed purely because our fellow human needs it, and receiving what we need in turn. This is the foundation for the socialist utopia, but in a more limited sense it can be seen in co-operatives and voluntary organisations.
My main thesis based on these categories is that all three [and possibly more I have forgotten] are necessary to a functioning society, and that the means to improving society is finding the best balance between them. As such I am highly suspicious of claims that one or more should be supplanted entirely. To explain, I will consider the modern UK for a bit:
Force – our security, both at home and abroad, is guaranteed ultimately by the threat of force. We as citizens have a responsibility to keep a wary eye on our government’s use of force (e.g. wars abroad, kettling at home, etc), but the fact remains that one of the major reasons to engage in more civilised avenues for dispute resolution such as contract disputes is that threat of force against transgressors.
Economic exchange – this is primarily about the allocation of resources. A properly regulated market is generally more efficient at allocating resources than any central planner, however clever and well-informed. Note the need for proper regulation, however; otherwise market forces advantage the unethical and those who leave externalities to be dealt with by society at large.
Finally socialism – here I am going to consider the NHS as functionally socialist from the patient’s perspective, in that you turn up with a medical need, and it is met without needing to know anything about your ability to pay for it. This is clearly the best way to provide healthcare, especially given the advantages held by preventative care over reactive care, and comparison with the inhuman mess found in the US. The NHS is imperfect, but the principles are sound.
On that basis I believe it is most functional to employ a partial socialism, in a mixed system; markets where their efficiency is our primary concern; socialism where efficiency is less important than say universality or fairness; force where necessary to maintain the other two.
Hello Again!
Firstly, what is the bit right at beginning about? ‘Monies Due’?! Haha.
Anyway, I would be absolutely delighted to suggest some reading for you. First and foremost, anyone who is interested in Marxist Socialism – not necessarily anyone who agrees with it, just anyone who is interested in it – should definitely read ‘The Communist Manifesto’ as that is a great outline of the basic ideas. That as Marx’s manifesto for the society who wanted to see and believed could most certainly exist. Of course, one must remember that he was working with his own conditions and we must use our integrity to apply his method to our situation/s today. But anyway, it’s also worth checking out ‘Anti-Duhring’ and ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ by Engels. I think those three together will be useful to you. I mean, even if you disagree at least you would have read what the originals wrote.
Okay so to address the next part of your comment:
Yes. I absolutely do see society as a progression. Marxism is actually also called ‘Scientific Socialism’ and there is good reason. Just as the scientist looks at the concrete evidence he/ she in front of them and then makes a hypothesis, so too does/ should the Marxist. I hope I’m being clear and not waffling but basically think about evolution? Evolution is necessary. What stays in a permanent state of stasis? Society is really no different, my friend. As I said in my post, defining the precise meaning of the word ‘progress’ is open to lots of discussion. It is quite subjective and sometimes contradictory. But yes, as I believe society is in movement, we have to progress. I really wanna understand how you don’t see it that way, actually? And yes, of course complex society needs a variety of forms and exchanges – but that is still society in motion.
I also wholeheartedly agree with you about force. In fact, surely that contradicts what you said about ‘progression’? Every action has a reaction. Force often leads to change. Interestingly, the example situations you gave sit nicely with something a friend of mine said not long ago. I am about to paraphrase terribly and if I confuse myself, forgive me:
Think about two men deserted on a ship floating in the ocean for weeks then they hit some deserted island. They’ve been friends forever, right, and in their suffering nobody had the upper hand. Then all of a sudden, one of these men makes the other his slave on this island. The slave now does all the work. The guy who is now the slave HAS to follow instruction as this other guy has a sword. Okay, so firstly, how did we reach this shift of power? Well, one guy clearly saw an opportunity, right? With the one thing that gave him the upper hand, he was able to then not have to do any work and why would he when he can have a slave? Now, sort like the lord in your little analogy, this guy has the sword, and then has the power. But how did he get the sword, who made the sword, etc…
We don’t know the background to these guys but perhaps the friend that became the slave could never afford to buy a sword, so he was never ever going to have the upper hand when the balance shifted. In fact, it seems there was never actually a balance of power. And when scarcity hits, people become greedy, don’t they? But one day, this slave will rise against this guy because oppression is like pressure under a lid, like a volcano. You can’t keep things from their explosion when the time comes (Unless this guy dies, but meh).
That’s my very longwinded and silly analogy for the forces of Capitalism, except I don’t think anybody believes that we are all equal under it, it’s just we sit on an okay balance until scarcity hits then people with power use it and abuse it. Capitalism does rule by force – that force is oppressive for the majority.
Okay, one question. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but why would there not be a buying and selling economic exchange under socialism? O.o
Of course there would be! Socialism emphasises the NECESSITY of the international community for all things.
Your third point I agree with absolutely. I think we are social beings really. In nature we see survival of the fittest BUT there is balance. A lioness will look after her children and make sure they have enough. But then she will hunt down the weakest in the Jungle so that she can provide.
The thing is, survival of the fittest isn’t necessary in human society because we do produce enough. The problem is that it is recklessly and selfishly ‘distributed’. I am telling you, there is more than enough basic amenities for each and every person but unfortunately the minority own the majority of the resources. The worker, despite being what the economy is built on, is the lowest paid. That is capitalism.
Balance is indeed necessary, but balance doesn’t mean having a bit of this system and sprinkling a bit of this other system there too. The Labour party is sort of a microcosm example of that happening. The party is supposed to be the party of the worker. it is supposed to be a socialist party. Then we got ‘New Labour’ and all the rest of it. Then we get the ‘right wing of labour’ – I mean c’mon. Look at the confusion that being unclear caused. Arguing for a mixture of socialism and capitalism is akin to claiming that we can employ some sort of ‘sensible capitalism’. You cannot. If you could, it would have been down by now, as the fear or uprising increases. Again, if you read ‘The transitional programme’, this might become clear. Socialism and capitalism are two opposing forces that cannot be brought together. Under socialism, the majority rule for the majority. Under capitalism, the minority rule for and in the interest of the minority. They won’t let that power go easily and decide that we can all work together.
History has taught us this. So I conclude that I totally disagree with the final part of your comment. I see where you are coming from but I am a realist. I’m also looking at historical patterns.
First, thanks for the recommendations; I’ve found two out of three on Gutenberg.org, and I’ll have a google for Anti-Duhring when I’ve had a chance to read the first two.
“Balance is indeed necessary, but balance doesn’t mean having a bit of this system and sprinkling a bit of this other system there too. The Labour party is sort of a microcosm example of that happening. The party is supposed to be the party of the worker. it is supposed to be a socialist party. Then we got ‘New Labour’ and all the rest of it. Then we get the ‘right wing of labour’ – I mean c’mon. Look at the confusion that being unclear caused. Arguing for a mixture of socialism and capitalism is akin to claiming that we can employ some sort of ‘sensible capitalism’. You cannot. If you could, it would have been down by now, as the fear or uprising increases. Again, if you read ‘The transitional programme’, this might become clear. Socialism and capitalism are two opposing forces that cannot be brought together. Under socialism, the majority rule for the majority. Under capitalism, the minority rule for and in the interest of the minority. They won’t let that power go easily and decide that we can all work together. ”
This part seems to show you defining ‘capitalism’ as oligarchy and ‘socialism’ as democracy; I am uncertain if this is intended, or a part of socialist terminology that I’m not familiar with. However, without denying that powerful interests will work to retain their power and influence, capitalism != oligarchy. Yes, the two things are linked; the Gilded Age in the USA was the height of both capitalism and oligarchic power (e.g. Tammany Hall), but that doesn’t make them the same.
My further points have dissolved in a haze of fatigue and Friday-night wine-drinking and bullshit session, for which my apologies.