Marx and Religion

Like any other social category, the meaning and conceptual boundary of “religion” is ambiguous and contentious. Historically speaking, its semantics have been transformed in highly complex ways. What is meant by “religion” reflects the specific norms and imperatives of the classifier. This article critically reflects upon the idea of “religion” employed by Karl Marx in the early 1840s. Marx reimagined the encompassing notion of “religion,” which was predominant in his time, by privatizing it in his attempt to critique the theological foundation of the Prussian state. In this process, young Marx’s discourse siphons what is claimed to be “religious” out of the categories of “philosophy,” “science,” and “politics.” In this way, Marx constructs the realm of nonreligion where he associates his own discourse with natural reason, against the reified notion of “religion” as fantastic illusions.

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. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions. 1

Topoi, 1983

took, the coup d'état of the English element in us, which saw its opportunity at just that time. It was not a revolt against the power of an incompetent, but against power in general. Incompetence at the top level? It is nearer to say that these "revolutionaries," among them not a single true statesman, beheld the mote in the eyes of the men in positions of authority. Did they, at that moment, have anything at all to offer in place of incompetence besides an abstract principle? It was not a popular revolt. The people looked on anxiously and doubtfully, though not without a certain amount of Michel-like sympathy for measures taken against "those at the top." It was a revolution of the caucus rooms. The term "majority party" does not, in our sense, have anything to do with the greater number of the people; it is the name of a club with two hundred members. Matthias Erzberger was tactically the most gifted demagogue among them, excelling at scandal mongering, intrigue, and ambush, a virtuoso at the child's game of overthrowing ministers. He lacked the slightest trace of the English parliamentarian's gift for statesmanship; all he did was borrow their tricks. He attracted a swarm of nameless opportunists who were after some public office or other. These were the late descendants of the philistine revolution of 1848; for them, political opposition was a Weltanschauung.

European Review of History, 2010

History of Political Thought

Marx is famous for uttering that religion is opium of the people and thus he is known as one of modern thought’s most uncompromising critics of religion. In this article I look deeper into the philosophical connotations pertaining to this metaphor by presenting and discussing other prominent thinkers’ employment of similar metaphors. Thus, the article follows the trail of opium imagery in connection with different approaches to the criticism of religion. This leads to a discussion of the influence on Marx by G.W.F. Hegel, Bruno Bauer, Moses Hess, Ludwig Feuerbach and emphasising the influence of Heinrich Heine and Immanuel Kant. The ensuing analysis of Marx’s opium metaphor establishes that Marx’s thinking in A Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction is at a cross road. His dependence on German philosophy in 1843 is highlighted as the context within which Marx’s shift from 1845 and onwards to focus on economic theory takes place. The interpretation also underscores that even though Marx thought the criticism of religion was in the main complete within German philosophy he continued to make use of religiously coloured language in order to further the revolutionary agenda in his writings.

2019

This inquiry seeks to establish that, in his writings, Karl Marx offers his perspectives on religion. The origins of Marx’s conception of religion can be traced to his family history, adolescence, and time at the University of Berlin. Marx’s criticism of contemporary philosophy offers a penetrating account of his views on religion, proving critical of the individualism and idealism implemented by his contemporaries. In Marx’s judgement, religion offers a false sense of solace in a world marked by abuse. Religion rationalizes domination, sows societal divisions, and preserves oppressive institutions. Marx’s materialist approach focuses on the real-life relations and activities within society, without dogma or idealism. Thus, his empirical approach offers practical and rational solutions in the face of injustice. (words: 119) Journal of Economic Literature Classification Codes: B14, B31, Z12

2019

In 1865, the International expanded in Europe and established its !rst important nuclei in Belgium and French-speaking Switzerland. The Prussian Combination Laws, which prevented German political associa- tions from having regular contacts with organizations in other countries, meant that the International was unable to open sections in what was then the German Confederation. The General Association of German Workers—the !rst workers’ party in history,1 founded in 1863 and led by Lassalle’s disciple Johann Baptist von Schweitzer—followed a line of ambivalent dialogue with Otto von Bismarck and showed little or no interest in the International during the early years of its existence. It was an indifference shared by Wilhelm Liebknecht, despite his political prox- imity to Marx. Johann Philipp Becker tried to !nd a way around these dif!culties through the Geneva-based “Group of German-speaking Sections”. While Liebknecht did not understand the centrality of the international dimension for the struggle of the workers’ movement, Marx also had deep theoretical and political differences with von Schweitzer. In February 1865 he wrote to the latter that “the aid of the Royal Prussian govern-ment for co-operative societies”, which the Lassalleans welcomed, was “worthless as an economic measure, whilst, at the same time, it serve[d] to extend the system of tutelage, corrupt part of the working class and emasculate the movement”. Marx went on to reject any possibility of an alliance between the workers and the monarchy...