Talk:Opium of the People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is the explanation of the quote strictly neccessary? It doesn't seem so to me. Locriani 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"One frequently hears that this statement was a blanket condemnation of religion. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth" - How, exactly?

I'd like to hear how also, since it can certainly be argued that most communist regimes have interpreted it as a blanket condemnation of religion.

"The soul of the soulless" doesn't sound critical, byt "illusary happiness" does.

"The soul of soulless conditions", religion is the soul, the guiding part, of "soulless" conditions, capitalism, feudalism and their ilk. Either he's saying that, or else Marx means that religion brings the soul to those. It could be taken either way, I'm not really sure, though I lean to and prefer the former. Curufinwe 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a quote, this page should be transwiki'ed to wikiquote. <joke>Alternatively, shouldn't it be redirected to religion</joke>. Feco 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a quote right now, but I'd prefer it to develop into more then just that. There's a fair bit more that could be said. Curufinwe 04:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

A cursory look through some of Marx's writings, such as "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law and Critique of Religion," will prove that Marx was an atheist. While I realise that the volumes of clear statements written by Marx on the subject (one of which, I believe, is this one) hold no direct bearing on the meaning of this quote, I find it hard to believe that Marx would repeatedly denounce religion as a method of "enslaving" humanity, and then say something that was "in fact, the opposite" of a "blanket condemnation of religion." AkulaAlfa 22:11, Jul 04, 2005 (UTC)

Move to wikiquote. If there's something to be said about Marx and religion, it belongs at Karl Marx. Rd232 22:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion of the quote, rather than a simple statement of it, it seems to belong in wikipedia (wikiquote doesn't usually discuss meaning). As for the interpretation given, it is, as I understand it, the standard interpretation of that passage in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. In general, Marx was critical of religion (and himself an atheist), but, just as there can be a Communist (or Marxist) ideology (a topic Marx was even more critical of), a Marxist "religion" could, perhaps, be imagined. The key point for understanding Marx is his tactic of "historical materialism", refering to the immediate causes of lived reality, and it is in this context that the quote must be understood. In other words, the quote, while critical of religion as it was used at the time cannot be read as a blanket condemnation of religion (except in the case that it continues to be used as an opiate for des Volkes).

In fact, none of Marxist theory can really be read as a "blanket condemnation" except as a blanket condemnation of a specific functioning (thus, Hegel's "ideology" or "historical idealism" is critiquable as a form of false consciousness, not as in and of itself "wrong" -- of course, anything which gives rise to false consciousness is "wrong", but only in so far as it gives rise to a false view). Hence, there is, perhaps oddly, no contradiction in claiming that Marx, for all his denounciation of religion was not essentially anti-religious (even if it is hard to see what a Marxist religion might look like). Ig0774 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, if any "authority", such as this page, is to make a statement about Marx's thoughts or writings on religion they would be in error to claim that Marx expressed any significant advocacy of religion. One could claim that Marx wasn't strictly anti-religious, and it could be an interesting argument; however, the purpose of this encyclopedia doesn't seem to be the glorification of alternative interpretations over those with more credibility. Perhaps this is ignorance speaking, but it seems that it takes a stretch to read this quote without getting some general condemnation of religion out of it. It seems silly to say this may be pro-religious at all. I fail to see why Marx should be considered such a post-modernist; he did make some blanket declarations, especially with regards to workers' rights, no? --151.118.32.9 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the translation was 'opiate of the massess'. The key element of Marx's philosophy is class divisions. 'of the people' seems to lack an important class distinction - rich 'people' use opium to take solace from the horrors of life, poor 'people' have religeon, both may be religeous but the function for the diferent classes is diferent. I've no idea where I got this translation from but translation is a bit of a nebulous thing as the meanings of words changes over time. --Aach

[edit] Rename to Opiate of the masses

"Opiate of the masses" seems to be the more prevalent translation of this quote. It also gets more google hits. -- Миборовский 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ptcamn 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Opiate of the masses" may be more prevalent but is misleading. The German term "das Volk" means "the people", there is no interpretation of "das Volk" in German that comes close to "the masses". It would be plain wrong to give WP readers the impression that this quote was meant to describe anything else but a criticism of religion in society as a whole, not its affect on any lower class which is sometimes referred to as "the masses". --Johnnyw talk 15:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be translated directly. Any interpretations regarding the word usage can then be made by the reader. VietGrant 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

volks translates to "the people" in german, for example volkswagon traslates to "the people's car" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viper16 (talk • contribs).

There's no such thing as "translated directly"; if a word in English and a word in German have *exactly* the same connotations and usages, it's the exception, and not the rule. Even if two words come from the same root, their usages have evolved separately and they may not have the same meaning at all anymore, let alone the fine points we're discussing here. Translation is an art, not a science. --Galaxiaad 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burgeoisie and Proletariat

I agree that Marx's famous quote is often taken out of context to serve a certain point, but is it really appropriate to say that it's a complete misinterpretation of this statement to view it as a description of religion as a means of control? Marx viewed human history in terms of class struggles, and the work from which this quote was taken was published during the Opium Wars. He says religion is the "sigh of the oppressed creature..." Well, who's doing the oppressing? I understand him essentially to be saying that religion is self-medication for social and economic ills, but that doesn't mean that the ruling class can't benefit from being pushers of religion at the expense of the lower classes, as the British were pushing opium for profit in China at about the time this was written, without regard to the best interests of the Chinese people. Also, why does the quote chosen to illustrate this "misinterpretation" begin right after that phrase, "sigh of the oppressed creature," even though it's an equally weighted part of the same sentence? Someone obviously wanted to avoid the word "oppressed." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.118.87 (talk • contribs) .

Imho, you have to see the quote in its entirety and in context with Feuerbachs analysis of the of religion in society. Try the very interesting short resume at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy: [1]. It says "Marx's explanation, of course, is that religion is a response to alienation in material life, and cannot be removed until human material life is emancipated, at which point religion will wither away." Marx _does_ emphasize the role of the proletariat in the revolution, but he refers to religion being the opiate of an entire society and not a single class. Maybe we should include this part of the story to clarify? Best regards --Johnnyw talk 00:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)