Marxism and Religion

As you might have noticed, I'm an old lefty with an unhealthy pre-occupation for religious topics.

In recent discussions on religion such as �Atheists/Agnostics/Pagans/Kaffirs are better human beings� and �Is Religion obsolete?, I found that much of the criticism brought against the Abrahamic religions
was derived more from emotional reactions and from a rejection of institutionalised religion, than from a clear analysis of the historic roles these three religions (Judaism, Christianity,Islam) played in the development of the societies they had been adopted by.

Especially the treatment of all these religions, and especially Christianity, as one monolithic block of ideas and institutions without paying respect to the significant developments they have undergone, and without investigating the social and political background on which these developments have occurred, is a fallacy that results in a very narrow view of religion as an intellectual phenomenon.

As Marxism, seemingly by definition, delivers the strongest possible criticism of religion, it would be interesting to see, and to discuss, how various Marxist thinkers have reflected on religion and to what rather diverse conclusions they have come.

As religions, Marxism is far from a homogeneous body of thought, and the possibly most famous Marxist statement that �Religion is the opium of the people� (by the great man himself) is also the possibly most misunderstood and misquoted Marxist statement on religion, and its misinterpretation is not at all representative for the entire Marxist school of thought.

The tenet of a more differentiated Marxist critic of religion is to recognise �the dual character of the religious phenomenon, its oppressive aspect as well as its potential for revolt.�

An outline of the history of the developmentof Marxist critic on religion is given in an article of which I quote a few paragraph here, and which could serve a base for an discussion.



" Ernst Bloch is the first Marxist author who radically changed the theoretical framework-without abandoning the Marxist and revolutionary perspective. In a similar way to Engels, he distinguished two socially opposed currents: on one side the theocratic religion of the official churches, the opium of the people, a mystifying apparatus at the service of the powerful; on the other the underground, subversive and heretical religion of the Albigensians, the Hussites, Joachim de Flore, Thomas M�nzer, Franz von Baader, Wilhelm Weitling and Leo Tolstoy. However, unlike Engels, Bloch refused to see religion uniquely as a �cloak� of class interests: he explicitly criticized this conception. In its protest and rebellious forms religion is one of the most significant forms of utopian consciousness, one of the richest expressions of the Principle of Hope.�


Bloch's view were, to a certain extent shared by some of the German radical scholars known as the Frankfurt School. Max Horkheimer considered that �religion is the record of the wishes, nostalgias and indictments of count�-less generations.� Erich Fromm, in his book The Dogma of Christ (1930), used Marxism and psychoanalysis to illuminate the Messianic, plebeian, egalitarian and anti-authoritarian essence of primitive Christianity. And the writer Walter Benjamin tried to combine, in a unique and original synthesis, theology and Marxism, Jewish Messianism and historical materialism, class struggle and redemption.
Lucien Goldmann�s work The Hidden God (1955) is another path-breaking attempt at renewing the Marxist study of religion. Although of a very different inspiration than Bloch, he was also interested in redeeming the moral and human value of religious tradition. The most surprising and original part of his book is the attempt to compare-without assimilating one to another-religious faith and Marxist faith: both have in common the refusal of pure individualism (rationalist or empiricist) and the belief in trans-individual values: God for religion, the human community for socialism.�

From:

MARXISM AND RELIGION: Opiate of the people?
by Michael L�wy

New Socialist

Maybe it is a good idea to list the different kinds of "religions" that there are of Christianity, and used that as a model to look at other religions.

There is the intellectual Christianity, where God is an abstract force with no form or any way of describing it. This is mainly the Christianity of intellectuals and theologians.

Then there is the mystical Christianity, which deals with spiritual quests, fasting, visions, and magical powers.

There is popular Christianity, which is the one that people nominally belong to due to their ethnic origin. It is highly synchretic, filled with superstitions, concrete representations of god. It often is really a polytheistic religion thinly guised as monotheism.

If one takes popular Christianity and blends it with the current power, the opium of the masses is created. It normally has a conservative slant, but I can see scenarios where a leftist dictatorship can use religion for the same aims.

There is the social activism Christianity, which worries about helping the poor, sometimes empowering them.

both ,the marxism and the religions (here the christian stamped ) suffers under the same symptoms. the idea is obvious and glittering but the performance is lousy. as soon as personal interests affects the acts of the participants the former heroic aims were lost and individual concerns are dominating.

the advantage of marx was ,that he could access of 1800 years of the failures of the christian religions.

the marxian  influenced church, or better some members of these churches, like we had once in latin- america, couldn't achieve their ideas against the

opposition of the dignitaries and other important people.

the same problem had people in marxian /socialistic movements as soon as their ideas touched the interests of the nomenclature .

clergy and fat cats ,there is no big difference. and the leaders of he catholic church and socialistic countries must have reached the same age to assume an  office.

many similarities for those different ideas !!!

 

I don't remember marxists saying something about love, christianity did. Ulrich, is far away christianity from marxism and you know it.

love is in your heart
equality is in your mind
very very far
and wiki doesn't work
there is no reliable source (logical by nature) you can provide
i'm a smart guyy
i think i have the worst english in this forum

The initial question was not so much how the last remaining Stalinist, or better the bizarre Stalinist mutations, regimes in China or else ( which IMO have no the remotest connection with Marxism) conduct their relationship with organised Christian religions, but if the attempt to reconcile Marxist theory with religious thought, or how to integrate religion into the history and current policy of class struggles, as carried out by Neo-marxist thinkers, is a valid and permissible one.

Originally posted by hugoestr There is the intellectual Christianity, where God is an abstract force with no form or any way of describing it. This is mainly the Christianity of intellectuals and theologians. Then there is the mystical Christianity, which deals with spiritual quests, fasting, visions, and magical powers. There is popular Christianity, which is the one that people nominally belong to due to their ethnic origin. It is highly synchretic, filled with superstitions, concrete representations of god. It often is really a polytheistic religion thinly guised as monotheism.