Well there are different ways of thinking about the role of religion in the context of the collective struggle of the oppressed, and Marx's thoughts would have been coloured by his time and place, perhaps his Jewishness (although Judaism has a stronger link with practical actions in this life being associated with closeness to God), as well as his ideological analysis. But I think this rings true -gad-fly wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 11:53 am This statement was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often rendered as "religion…is the opiate of the masses." The full sentence from Marx translates as: "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."
That religion is a "sigh" of relief of the oppressed is very colorful description. The heart of a heartless world? I think it is going a bit too far. The soul of soulless conditions? No, unless soul is downgraded to an unacceptable level.
The opiate of the people or masses? Masses makes more sense. More appropriate to say, some or a minority of the masses. With the emergence of democracy in human civilization, the masses is no longer a single blob of docile whole, even in Marx's time with barricade and periodic rebellions.
If religion is really the sign of relief, from the oppressed or not, it should be welcomed, like giving them a break. But even then, Marx must believe that not only is the sigh far from adequate, it stifles their sense to fight back what should be theirs in the first place.
"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."
I'd say it's true that religion gives an outlet for seeing the world and your life in a non-materialist way which can offer hope and comforts which material things and political systems can't. And the notion that this life of existential travails will be followed by a better eternal life can be a comfort. As you say his point is that such views can also stifle struggle for change in this life, such beliefs become chains which bind the oppressed to their oppression, even if they are attractive, comforting chains. Perhaps bind each individual to their notion of God, rather than to each other in our shared humanity and collective power.
Democracy offers a way to attain collective power for the oppressed, but collective decision-making is a complex thing when you break down the influences and motivations on each individual's decisions. You can't assume it will lead to a better life for the oppressed. Look at how some churches effectively tell their congregations God wants them to vote for political parties with oppressive policies. Religion isn't the only factor, different cultures have different cultural narratives, archetypes and institutions which maintain particular world views which sustain oppression. And the powerful continue to largely be in control of the information voters have to base our decisions on.
But overall, democracy certainly can be a powerful tool for the oppressed as a group seeking change. Essentially it offers a peaceful mechanism for structural change.
Politics can't answer all our questions, hopes and fears, life is about more than social structures and distribution of resources. Philosophy offers intellectualised ways of addressing them, but that has its limits.With the progress of democracy, can the masses be able to finally shake off the opiate, sooner or later? I believe it will be along while, if ever. In the meantime, that opiate must be a serious philosophical challenge worth pondering into.
People find religion meaningful to them in all sorts of ways. In fact you can view religion as an invention created to answer the unanswerable, bring meaning and comfort to inevitable suffering and death. That can be a good thing, but religions tend to have a larger narrative framework within which that comes, the good and bad stuff are part of the same package. Successful religions will evolve to reflect changing culture (of time and place) and a more democratic, egalitarian and empowered culture I think probably gives rise to a sense that we can each interpret or pick and choose our own meaningful bits as the 'true' religion, where-as authoritarian, strictly heirarchical cultures tend to instruct and institutionally indoctrinate.
If we create our religions to address our psychological needs (our need for answers, meaning, purpose, hope, love, forgiveness, comfort, justice, revenge, etc) what we can do is try create societies which address such things too as well as we can in a secular way which avoids religion's pitfalls.
