Writer's Block: Revolutionary Thought

[fajrdrako]

[Error: unknown template qotd]

Why is there any reason to think it's not still religion?

On the other hand, the first thought I had was, "television". But television gets a bad rap it really doesn't deserve.

I guess we need all the opiates we can get.

Comments

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about other peoples, but I firmly believe that Americans have a number of idols that they worship. Their flag is an obvious one, but I'll add at least two that come to mind: the Gun and the Car.

To criticize these two last items in the U.S. is to be likely branded as an un-American "non-conformist." Translation: you just spat in someone's Holy Water. :-)

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

You may also be interested in a post on a related subject I just put up today.

[editrx.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't get called a "non-conformist" for dissing those two items (and religion, as it's been morphed into in the US by what used to be the minority Right) -- I get called everything from a Communist (why, thank you!) to words that we can't say on American TV. :)

This by my neighbors in a state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" and has the second most relaxed guns laws in the US. Hunting for food is one thing; using semiautomatic weapons to blow up vehicles in a field for fun is something else entirely.

To be fair, I think it's still religion.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

and religion, as it's been morphed into in the US by what used to be the minority Right

So annoying, though I think what is frightening is not the type of fundamentalism, but the melding of religion and politics. Religion given power over others.

Hunting for food is one thing; using semiautomatic weapons to blow up vehicles in a field for fun is something else entirely.

Huh. I guess it's all in the scale. No wonder there are so many explosions in movies.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, people pick their worship-objects, some consciously and some not. I don't think that simply worshipping things is bad thing; it's when they are objects of mass control that it becomes a problem.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think people pluck the quote out of context. (I'd also dispute the claim about the Russian Revolution having much genuinely to do with Marx: Rosa had strong reservations about Lenin and his agenda.)

This is what Uncle Charlie says in full:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. 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. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.

Interesting sentence - I wonder why that doesn't get quoted more often?

It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.

That too.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

I particularly like that one.

It is the opium of the people.

Meaning: It comforts them, even though it's based on an illusion. Or at least, that's what I take from the passage. Do you see this differently?

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

I would agree, except that I don't think religion can be abolished. Trying to abolish it usually just makes it stronger.

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

What a great sentence.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yes. I think it's a superb passage. A lot gets lost when people take the "opium of the people" phrase on its own, as if he's talking about it as a 'dangerous narcotic' (which, goodness knows, it can be!), not as a numbing tranquiliser that makes people accept their worldly suffering passively. He's talking about people being deluded into accepting a bad state of affairs on earth because they think they'll get 'pie in the sky when they die'. Living in Victorian London (with his friend Freddie in Manchester), he would have seen a lot of this: the poor counselled to know their place and accept their sufferings because 'Jesus loves the poor' and you'll get a better time when you're dead. Once you abolish that belief in your own mind (which is the abolition he means: freeing yourself of illusion), you can do something about suffering in the real world.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'd say religion in this context is not only a numbing tranquilizer, but one which can make a virtue of suffering and allow wrongs to go unrighted. Makes me think of stories like "The Little Match Girl" - romanticization of suffering. Which is okay, but not at the cost of doing something about it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Exactly! That is his point. It makes people accept their suffering (or that of others) without question ("It's part of God's plan", "Your reward will be in heaven", "It's an honour to suffer as Christ did", & c.). The romanticisation of suffering is morally wrong; it can never be "okay".

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Also remember that opium in 19C (especially as laudanum) was a legal and commonplace sedative/painkiller.

Incidentally, I recommend Francis Wheen's biography of Marx. It's great fun, and includes Charlie and pals getting chased by the police while on a rather riotous pub-crawl in London. There was nothing stuffy and dull about these guys. I don't think he would have liked Lenin one bit: never mind his inhumanity (which would have been anathema to Charlie and Freddie), his sheer bloody humourlessness would have annoyed them.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Also remember that opium in 19C (especially as laudanum) was a legal and commonplace sedative/painkiller.

I have friend who is currently taking a modern opium derivative for pain. Whenever she mentions it, I think of laudanum.

Yes, I think I'll read Francis Wheen's biography. Marx is another of those interesting figures I should know more about.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

There's also a funny story about what happened when the Marxes took Ferdinand Lassalle (a pompous, egocentric character) to the British Museum.