A question for Marxists Communists and or Socialists ?

Post Reply New Topic

Since religious belief existed in tribal societies before economic class societies existed how can it be said that Religion is the Opium of the masses and used by the Bourgeoisie to keep the Proletariat oppressed ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Do any Marxists have an answer ?

My question is should it even matter if religion existed before class society in tribal society can anyone give me an example of something like religion that has been used to keep people oppressed before class society if you know what I mean thank you ?

Ok tell me you all agree pre class society or tribal society was going to become a class civilization or a civilization because of the technology in my opinion religion was bound and going to be used to keep the Workers oppressed by the Upper Class my opinion on religion is that I believe in freedom of religion but I view it as a tool to keep the Workers oppressed my point is that tribal society was never going to remain tribal therefor it should not matter if they had religion ?

The left feels that Religion is the opium of the masses because it, like classism, racism through inequality and slavery, and gender discrimination and gender inequality, are a constructed institution to preserve power for the few at the expense of the many. Instead of rioting and fighting for your rights, some people would prefer to pray their problems away and this did not sit well with the left.

Religion, as with every institution, has been abused before pre-civilization era since the flaws of Man predate any sort of civilization... That said what you describe may be the peaceful times before the forces of capitalism that the left often romanticized. I've heard the ancient egyptians romanticized in that way, same with the native Americans, Hawaiians, Central and South Americans, Africans, much of Asia, etc. In those peaceful times, we were, or so the narrative goes, peaceful, some were vegetarian but those who were not respected the land, we were egalitarian, we took only what we needed, and we shared more, and every other way one can "romanticize" life as a native in a non-capitalist world where very few things are monetized.

Ask any lefty on WP and they can further articulate this nirvana of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect for each other and the environment of ancient times that is largely lost on the suburban driving, cell-phone texting middle-class of today.

Not all leftists hold to Marx uncritically. Plenty of Marxists in Latin America are devout Christians, and are inspired by Christianity to bring about social equality.
Also, it should be remembered, when Boris Yeltsin was the Moscow communist party boss, he was also a devout member of the Orthodox church.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

And I marvel at how many liberals think that government bureaucracy is going to create a better solution than that.

While I wouldn't say that I'm a Marxist, I think that something should be clarified. There is an enormous distinction between the sort of religious beliefs and practices adhered to by those prehistoric "tribal societies" that are being referred to by the OP, with their fertility goddesses and mysterium tremendum before the forces of nature, and greater emphasis on orthopraxy (conformity of practices and rituals), which is all in line with the more egalitarian nature of these societies, and the more modern iterations of religion, with a single, all powerful God, and a greater emphasis on orthodoxy, mirroring the more authoritarian nature of later societies. It is no accident that the power of the church was greatest in the middle ages, when there was a more absolutist, and anti-egalitarian political system in place.

In any case, I think that the original question is rendered incoherent unless it takes account of these differences in the role that religion played in ancient vs. modern societies.

Please don't stereotype. I'm a leftist (albeit a rather unusual one) but I do not admire prehistoric societies. Although I don't like some aspects of modern societies, I view them as superior to the primitive, brutal tribal ones. And I am skeptical about how egalitarian they actually were.

I am both a (non-Marxist) socialist and an atheist, but those two facts are entirely unrelated. I think freedom of religion is far superior to forced atheism. Even if atheism is more likely to be correct than religion (in my opinion). I think a lot of leftists realize that now. As someone said, there are a lot of Christian socialists in South America. And even Cuba is now defined as secular rather than atheist.

Yes, but just because you deviate from the norm doesn't mean that one doesn't exist and that we can't sum up the collective view of most of the far left. They view the human being in a saintly way, only corrupted by man-made institutions that value power and greed over equality and coexistence with each other and the planet. Collectively, the romanticization of weak people around the world who have struggled against what the white man (the architect of most of these immoral institutions) is naive at best, dangerous at worst.

The weak are moral, and the strong are not. That palestine is romanticized and Israel is not is a relevant example... there is no reason on earth that anyone should give that region a second as far as suffering, starvation, womens rights, or deaths are concerned. But it is a preoccupation, whereas the boring cell-phone texting mcdonalds eating gucci wearing suburbanites in Israel are not romantic. The helpless primitives are always romantic.

You did not phrase that as describing the norm, you phrased it as a universal characteristic:


I can't say for certain, but I think you present a rather simplistic description of the far-left. But I can't claim to have read much of their literature--most of my leftist philosophy has come from my own thinking about things.

Why should we ignore any breach of human rights or injustice. They do occur in Israel (although I can hardly claim to have extensively studies the area) so we should be critical. I'm sure you are critical of human rights abuses in Cuba and North Korea, which are left-wing dictatorships, (as well you should be) but we should be critical of humans rights abuses regardless of where on the political spectrum they occur (I can't claim to be infallible in living up to this, but I still try).

I'm probably strange in this respect among leftists, but to me the idea that the weak are by default moral and the strong are by default immoral seems ridiculous. Everyone is immoral to a large degree, regardless of social position, and everyone is moral to a small degree, also regardless of social position. The strong simply have the chance for more of their morality and immorality to shine through. In my mind it is social institutions that are responsible to a large degree for what morality we have. It's just that those institutions are imperfect, so they do also institutionalized immorality as well. Those are just my opinions though, and are probably unusual among the left.

By the way, I classify myself as LEFT (as opposed to centre-left), not far-left.

Well, the leftist's alternative would be redistribution of wealth and the formation of worker's cooperatives. I wouldn't mind trying that out a little, but does it sound good to you?

Politically, I can best be described as a leftist, but I was raised in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and trust me, probably because of my denominational affiliation, I have little illusions of humankind's alleged innate goodness. Beside the doctrine of original sin, I think history backs up this view point that human nature has something just bad about it. So if that doesn't make me conform with the stereotype of leftism, then so be it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Is this a trick question?

The opium poppy, Theobroma cacao, hemp, sugarcane, Psylocybe cubensis, coca, catnip, the fermentation process, and a myriad other plants whose constituents produce strange and often addictive effects existed long before human societies started using Cannabis to inspire warriors and caffeine to improve the stamina of office workers.

You are surely not falling into the pitfall of assuming that the religious impulse, sex, hunger and other such basic humamn drives were INVENTED to apply to the masses?\

The religiouus impulse was there. The religious organizations, built up by the instinctive actions of the Organizers were there. Which would allow Marx's controllers to use the organizations to direct the impulse toward THEIR goals, much as money and tranquilizers have been used.

There never was such a "golden age"

ruveyn

What about the noble savage?

Maybe the Age of Chivalry?

The Renaissance Man?

If we have to give them up, can we count on the Age of Aquarius?