A further function of religion as detailed by Marx is that it provides a justification for the powerlessness of man and maintenance of the status quo. In Christianity, God not only represents “what man can become but also what he cannot”. Through religious activity the individual’s potential for controlling nature is transferred to God, which in turn, reduces the actual control he is able to exercise. One comparison between capitalist society and Christianity, positions “as religion robs us of our human merits and gives them to God, so the capitalist economy robs us of our labour, our true expression, and gives it to the hands of those who can buy it”. This Marxian analogy demonstrates the inextricable link between capitalism and Christianity in Marxist reasoning. According to Marx “the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for true happiness”. If this occurred, man’s inner life would no longer be estranged and man would become his own highest being, conditional upon “practical human relations becom[ing] completely rational” and alienation of man’s outer life disappearing.
What is the Function of a Marxist Critique of Religion?
Marx’s critique of religion performed a number of functions, the first of which planned to free ‘alienated man’ from the blinding repression of religion. This was to occur in a number of ways. Initially, through the ‘withering away’ of religion the divine justification for the existence of an unfair status quo that had previously been supported would simply disappear. Subsequently, real distress, injustices and inequalities that had been hidden by religion would be exposed. Additionally, man could retain more for himself, as he did not have to give to God, and no longer could religion be used as excuse for conservatism. Furthermore, men would be free to love one another in appreciation of their real personalities, not simply because God demands they love one another. Marx’s arguments for the cessation of religion were part of a plan to loosen the shackles that religion had over the philosophy of men, demonstrating that religion was unnecessary, freeing them from the illusions it maintained. Even if religion had not ceased to ‘wither away’ as a consequence of Marx’s writings man could take the first steps to realising the detriment he was suffering as a result of his faith.
A further function of Marx’s critique may have been purely egotistical for the purposes of fulfilling his own prophecy. Marx believed that atheism was required for communism to succeed. Furthermore, he noticed around parts of Western Europe during the time he was philosophising that strict adherence to formalised religions such as Christianity had been dwindling. An excellent example of an individual releasing man from religions dominating grasp was Luther of whom Marx wrote, “freed man from outer religiosity because he made religiosity the inner man”. Upon putting these two observations together, along with his theory of alienation, Marx likely believed that he had found a solution to the ills of society. Namely the fall of capitalism which causes alienation, resulting an atheist communist state. His critique of religion although not essential to complete his philosophical ideas regarding alienation, may be considered as a reaction to his own familial experiences relating to religion, or more likely a convenient theory regardless of whether he had completely thought it through.
Interestingly, Marx’s critique of religion creates its own, no less warped, self-fulfilling ideology. Through Marx’s observations alienation and oppression are forced upon men as a result of the state adhering to capitalist policies. These separate the individual from the fruits of their labour. Marx’s ideology provides hope, albeit an ‘economic truth’ that the capitalist system will fall and suffering due to alienation will cease. In Marx’s communist state all humans will be equally treated, work for the advancement of production and society as a whole, and man will become his own highest being. This prophesised state, which is only millimeters short of ‘utopia’ (from which Marx intended to stay well away), demonstrates many features of a quasi-religious state a crucial flaw of which does not restrict the inherent power driven ego of man.
The fact that religion may be the product of human attempts to deal with universal human questions such as the meaning of suffering, life and death is not dealt with by Marx. As Marx only wrote about religion sporadically and primarily in the early years of his career, it can conclusively be stated that he only considered religion as a means of assisting with his concept of alienation. It could be submitted that Marx was in fact striving towards a myth of humanism “a myth that simply replaced God with a homo-faber spirituality and the communal needs of humanity.” Marx submitted that alienated man created religion as a means of dealing with a separation of the process and outcome of the output of his labour; under Marx’s reasoning it would follow that “there was a time in human history before all of these things when humans needed no religion and in fact had none”. However, humans need ideology for purpose, direction, consolation and solace; “we need mythos.” It is irrelevant whether mythos is religious or not, as it performs the same function(s) (especially given that Marx never distinguished religion from superstition), humans require it to strive for something higher. Furthermore, it is unlikely that religion, developed specifically due to alienation of man from his labour, but rather it formed a tidy addition to his philosophy of alienation, and he never returned to spak-filla the gaps.
Finally, although it was not always made explicit Marx only referred to capitalism in the context of Western Europe and religion in relation to Christianity and Judaism. This may influence the interpretation of his writings due to the fact that he had a working knowledge of a range of religions and spiritual belief systems. His silence on other faith systems could be interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly it could be ignored, as has largely been done; Marx never intended to create a comprehensive or complete body of work surrounding the topic of religion. Secondly, it could have been a partial oversight where he stuck to the religions he knew personally. Alternatively, he may have made a conscious decision to exclude other religious traditions as they didn’t fit with his body of work on alienation. If the latter is correct then the question arises, how should this affect a reading of his concept of alienation? Most probably that alienation as he understood it was a concept particular to capitalist communities in Western Europe primarily inhabited by Christians and Jews. What then about the other capitalist communities? It is reported that Marx understood that each culture is unique, and that broad generalisations were only more likely to weaken his message. Each society must be “appreciated in terms of its own indigenous structure” and Marx’s theory could not then apply to the whole world.
In our current society where the meaning of life and death, and the powerlessness of man are ever-predominant questions, and understanding of philosophers such as Marx is more important than ever. The exploration that has been undertaken throughout this essay of Marx’s ideologies and philosophies has uncovered sand traps and hidden truths. These include Marx’s ability to allow the true state of affairs to be seen without false illusions regardless of man’s inability to break away from the blindingness and addiction that religion offers. Although religion may perform all the functions listed throughout this essay, Marx’s fatal flaw was not addressing what is often considered the primary function of religion – to help man reason with the purpose of life and death. This is a question that has been pondered since the beginning of historical records, and it is unlikely that Marx’s theories would be able to explain such an existence without a lot of re-work. It can be concluded that Marx’s theory of religion exists within an interesting and conceptually challenging framework, and hopefully it has been demonstrated that it is worthy of further, more detailed investigation.
Bottomore, T et al., A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. 2nd ed., Blackwell Reference, Oxford, 1991.
Elster, J. Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Hamilton, M. “Religion and Ideology”, Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. August 2001, p.91-97.
Levine, N. “Humanism Without Eschatology”, Journal of the History of Ideas. 1972, Vol. 33, No. 2, p.281-298.
Lobkowicz, N. “Karl Marx’s Attitude Towards Religion”, The Review of Politics. 1964, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 319-352.
Marx, K and Engels, F. On Religion. Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1957.
McKnight, A. “Re-evaluating Marx and Spirituality: Emancipation and the Search for Meaning”, Journal of Thought. 2005, Vol. 40, p.61-78.
McKown, D. The Classical Marxist Critiques of Religion: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.
Milbank, J. “For and Against Marx”, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Jan 2008.
Ollman, B. Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Pals, D. Seven Theories of Religion. New York, Oxford University Press. 1996.
Portus, G. Communism and Christianity: Four Lectures. Morpeth, The St John’s College Press, 1931.
Portus, G. Communism and Christianity: Four Lectures, p.35.
Hamilton, M. “Religion and Ideology”, p.94.
Pals, D. Seven Theories of Religion, p.143.
Marx, K. The Communism of the Paper Rheinisher Beobachter p.83-4 in Pals, D, p.142.
Marx, K. Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right in Marx, K and Engels, F. On Religion, p.42.
Lobkowicz, N. “Karl Marx’s Attitude Towards Religion”, p.320.
Ollman, B. Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society, p.223.
Marx, K. Das Capital I p.79 in McKown, D. The Classical Marxist Critiques of Religion: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky, p.12; and Ollman, B. Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society, p.223
McKown, D, p.11; and Ollman, B, p.223.