One of the most commonly misunderstood and misquoted bits of philosophy in the modern age is Karl Marx's "religion is the opium of the people".
Used as a way to explain the sterile atheism of the Stalinist regime by modern religious pundits, who missed that Stalin had set himself and Lenin up as gods—something made clear by the iconography of that era, in place of the icons of the Eastern Orthodox church of Tsar Nicholas. What these purblind pundits often fail to point out is that Marx wasn't talking about Stalin (Marx [1815-1883] died well before Stalin ever took power) but he was addressing the problem of religion as a negatively addictive social conundrum that impaired people’s ability to find true freedom within their societies.
In his introduction to his “Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right”, in which Hegel suggests that there are three concentric spheres of social life, Marx discusses several points that Hegel misses in his attempt to define social forces in any given society, including and especially the influence of religious belief on people's sense of reality. Added to his overall criticism, Marx suggests that dispelling the illusions of religious belief can only increase the good for the individual.
The full quote is actually quite literate, but taken out of context, it can still be puzzling to modern readers. Below, I've added my own interpretations to more clearly explain Marx's meaning. The translation from German is uncredited, but based on Christopher Hitchens' translation from "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". 2007
"Religious distress is, at the same time, the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.”
People feel that religion helps them cope in a situation that they also feel is hopeless; The distress of not feeling God’s presence in our lives, or at the suffering we experience even though God cares is actually distress we might feel without the religious coloring to these situations. Religious connotations give these distresses a sense of purpose for their suffering and is therefore addictive. Even though people may know that religion is ultimately man-made and made up, they opt for it, because it eases their pain, but, like with opium, becomes addictive with diminishing returns.
"The abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of the people, is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its [life's] condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions [religion].”
Life is hard and we are to accept that, because once we embrace that life is cruel and time is short, we will have a much better appreciation of the time we do have and the many good things life has to offer, and then we won't postpone it until some ludicrous afterlife or delude ourselves with other religious consolations causing us to miss things in the moment.
"The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of the vale of woe [life and its trials, the reverence for suffering fostered by religion], the halo of which is religion [suffer in this life, celebrate in heaven, etc].”
Criticism of religion's lies and addictive qualities is necessary to break people and ourselves from these unhappy mendacities, so that we see both the meaninglessness of thinking that suffering is good or necessary (though it is part of life), and that religion is not the actual solution.
"Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers [lies and false consolations] from the chain [of religious oppression], not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower."
By flowers, here, Marx is saying that the chain of religious oppression has many little fake flowers (salvation, afterlife, forgiveness of sin, etc.) on it. People value these in favor of things of real value (time with loved ones, joy in our day, hope, freedom, etc.) He is saying he doesn't want people to just lose all appreciation for life's goodness (as religion defines it) and continue to hope for the afterlife. He wants us to lose the chain of religious belief and its fake flowers and learn to appreciate the actual true gifts that life offers us as we live ["cull (cut, pluck) the living flower"]. Live in the moment with appreciation for all we have, knowing that we no longer have illusions about our mortality or the afterlife.
Marx's meaning is clear. What Hegel fails to account for is that we are natural self-deluders. It is a perhaps ancient trick by which we can deal with life’s unpleasantness in the moment. Religion is the largest delusion that we deal with, overarching the other, more subjective day-to-day delusions. Marx suggests that, by eliminating the question of religious belief from Hegel's social philosophy, while also acknowledging religion's power over the entire social structure, Hegel's three concentric structures (abstract right [center], morality [middle sphere] and ethical life [overarching sphere]) actually work better, fit better and make more sense. But Marx also, and I believe knowingly, suggests that what we actually discover if we remove religion from the framework of Hegel's philosophy (but also the structure of our social realities, today) that we actually come off better avoiding the tendency for self-delusion especially as it tends to take on a religious quality. Marx was the son of a rabbinical line. In this, he, like Spinoza before him, took a clear stand against the legalism found in Judaism, but also against the many Christian growths in Germany and Europe in his life.
Marx gets a bad rap as the "father of communism" and for—as H.L. Mencken put it,”Hate the one who is better off than you are,” the apparent inability to reconcile his love for the worker and his loathing of the proletariat, generally—but he was actually a proponent of rational stoicism and a prophet of the failures of universal capitalism (as they show themselves, today). Any mention of Marx is automatically dismissed as a communist sensitivity or fascination with Stalin or "the reds''. This, like the blinkered misquotes about the opiate of the people mentioned above, betrays the willful ignorance about the good things Marx said and discredits him and his works without acknowledging their value.
No one thinks that Stalinism is a good political or social solution. Communism, though a fascinating idea on paper, fails miserably to cure society of the infections of greed and complacency, power and oppression, bigotry and repression. It set up a system of universal equality (a virtuous, if naïve position) and was immediately taken over by a power-hungry goon squad. Likewise, no one thinks that Nazism or any of the other fascist regimes were a good idea, either (until recently, I mean, when the far right in America became a meme of Nazi racism and lunacy). The Nazis were huge anti-communists and most far-right political movements echo this distaste enough that one can tell whether or not a political group is headed toward fascism simply by how much it professes to hate Communism. Ask any far-right goon today about Marx, and you’ll know by the ferocity of their response where they stand on fascism, even if they won’t call it that.
For modern intellectuals to discount Marx is to find a pearl discarded through pure ignorance and prejudice. The capitalist dystopia of Marx’s nightmares have become reality. Corporate influence in politics (one of the defining features of fascism) has become a reality and the economic disparities in America are part and parcel of both financial and religious oppression. Obviously, religious ideology and its followers do not and cannot appreciate any kind of thinking that challenges their beliefs, but so are the ‘mind-forged manacles’ of intellectual slavery hammered closed. The ill effects that religious belief have foisted upon American life, most especially the move rightward under so-called Christian Nationalism, cannot be ignored. The good news is that more and more people are breaking away from religion than ever before, which can only be as a result of the connection to other people outside small social enclaves afforded by the Internet and social media.
Marx's theory about workers rights, social dysfunction, moral and ethical imbecility, the illnesses within the political systems and the mill stone-like harness of religious guilt and coercion affixed to the neck of our society are all worth discussion and need criticism. If we want true freedom, we have to be willing to criticize even those most apparently necessary and deeply ingrained prejudices we have. To put words in Marx’s mouth, the rest is a kind of social addiction where we wind up making what we believe part of our personalities, to the detriment of our societies and our freedom.
Ultimately, Marx's position is that of critical application of tough questions meant to remove our addiction to self-delusion. Anyone who is actually trying to use their critical faculties would gladly take the proffered hand of this venerable thinker and pull free of the quicksand of willful ignorance and leave the Vale of Woe. It’s time we shook off the chains and cut the flowers of today with no illusions. Marx, in his wisdom and prophetic thinking, gave us the key.
No comments:
Post a Comment