KARL MARX’S NOTION OF RELIGION AS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE
KARL MARX’S NOTION OF RELIGION AS THE
OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE
Looking
very closely to the lifestyle, opinions and convictions of Marx, one may
mistake him to be a religious leader or one who has strong religious
affiliation and sympathy. But this is not the case rather the opposite. He portrays a sort of righteous indignation
to religion. He is very objective and clear in his criticisms of religion. It
is very important to understand Marx’s critique of religion from the right
perspective and so to place him in the context of his own philosophy.
Karl
Marx is a political philosopher, who vehemently oppose any kind of private
accumulation of wealth and property. This is very well stipulated in his Communist Manifesto, where he gave the
summation of the theories of the Communists as “the abolition of private
property”.[1]
Marx saw the plight of the people and how the ruling class of modern
capitalists (what he calls the Bourgeoisie) oppress the poor masses who feed on
the wage of their labour. Marx was so much overwhelmed with equity in
distribution of goods and equality in property acquisition that he sees owing
private property as a sort of social sin. His work was to see if there can be a
possibility of getting everyone to surrender his/her properties to the public
so that what we will have at the end will be simply public property. He sees
the society as oppressive to the majority of the poor. The bourgeoisie exploit
the labours of the poor, who work for subsistence and by so doing increases the
piles of their wealth on the expense of the masses. He laments and affirms that
“every form of society has been based ... on the antagonism of oppressing
and oppressed classes.”[2]
Having said
these, Marx turns his gaze to religion and sees it as a form of illusory
consolation and happiness of the people and he opines and deems it worthwhile
for people to face their problems themselves instead of converging and finding
shelter under an illusory umbrella. According to him, religion is made by man
and so religion does not make man. He sees religion as a self-consciousness and
self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through himself, or has already
lost himself again. He argues that man does not in fact squat outside the
world. “Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and society
produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world.”[3]
In a very
unsympathetic manner he critiqued religion as the sigh of the oppressed
creature, the heart of the heartless world and the soul of the soulless
conditions. “It is the opium of the people.”[4]
He claims that his criticism of religion disillusions man so that he will
think, act and fashion his reality like a man who has given up his illusions.
So that man can move around himself as his own true Sun and not to the illusory
Sun of religion. Thus he affirms that religion is the illusory Sun which
revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.[5]
“The
foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not
make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man
who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself
again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the
world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion,
which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted
world...
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
[1] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Communist Manifesto (London: Lawrence
& Wishart, 1948), p. 27.
Comments
Post a Comment