Karl Marx on Religion

Posted on Categories Political Processes & Rhetoric, Public

marxReligious people sometimes express disdain for Karl Marx and his philosophies because he supposedly characterized religion as “the opiate of the masses.” It turns out that this isn’t exactly what Marx said. Furthermore, he wasn’t necessarily negative about religion and its role in social life.

Appearing in Marx’s projected but never completed A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy, Marx’s words on religion are of course in German. He uses the German word “Volk,” which usually translates as “the people” rather than “the masses” as his detractors choose to claim.

Then, too, it’s important to remember that opium and opium derivatives were for the most part legal during the period in which Marx wrote and that they were thought of largely as medicinal. Any suggestion that Marx was equating religion to an illegal, addictive narcotic is therefore off-target.

Marx’s actual words regarding religion deserve reflection. My best translation of those words is as follows: “Religion is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.”

Overall, Marx is speaking not as a man of faith but rather as a secular humanist. However, he does appear to suggest a largely positive role religion could play in an exploitative and alienating society. Human beings have the distressing habit of killing one another because of religious differences, and some of our most religious citizens wear the biggest of blinders. But Marx is right that our society can use a “heart” and a “soul” wherever we might find it.

25 thoughts on “Karl Marx on Religion”

    1. He meant that it numbs and distracts the people from their oppressors, and blamed religion for the class warfare and global labor uprising he dreamed of not materializing. He characteristically blamed an outside influence and not his own shortcomings, not least of which being laziness, and the absurdity of his theories ever succeeding. He dreamed up perhaps the best Ponzi scheme of all time, convincing the gullible to invest not money but morality, ambition, responsibility and ultimately their souls to his “the world owes me a living” approach to life. Religion, the nuclear family, sense of self all aligned against poor Karl, thwarting his dream and therefore justifying the abolishment of all but devotion to the state.

      1. But class warfare and global labor uprising HAS materialized– it happened throughout the early 20th century especially, but it’s been happening somewhere pretty much continuously. And didn’t he only have like one guy sending him money, his co-author? I’m pretty sure Madoff’s actual Ponzi scheme was a lot better, and lasted longer than whatever Marx had set up, too. So I’m not sure what you could be referring to by that part.

        Anyway, while England did have the nuclear family in practice, the. And while Marx and Engels saw the abolition of the family as beneficial, they saw it as more of a natural later step unlike Fourier and Owen before them, as they theorized the concept of the family would almost necessarily dissolve were private property successfully abolished.

      2. Organized religion is a means of social warfare. Those in power in religion maintain wealth through that power, and create another separate ruling class.
        Add to that that they are more freely able to indoctrinate their constituents, and the world becomes embroiled in a conflict of ideologies.

        Organized religion is the practice of willful discrimination.

        You want a threat to peace? Walk around saying choose my God or die.

        One world, one people, one pool of resources. To divide that is a detriment to all.

        No man or God has the right to judge an entire population in this way.

        Why would you support something that will never support you?

    2. Perfect interpretation. I am a mental health practitioner and consider religion as a validating psychological process that allows identification with a larger than life healing power.

  1. Opium is a narcotic. It relieves physical and emotional pain as well as lowering blood pressure. What Marx is saying is that the world is cruel and religion helps ease the pain. He did not say religion makes the world a better place. To the contrary; historical facts clearly show religion has often been a motivating factor for cruelty.

    1. AEve, would you not consider that it is implicit in Marx’ words that it DOES make the world a (somewhat) better place, is relieving pain not beneficial, is balm for the soul (or spirit) not beneficial in the face of a ‘cruel’ world? Of course, this was only a qualified endorsement by Marx, as he thought the ‘opium’ merely made people acquiesce in the face of cruel or tyrannical capitalism.

      It is undeniable that religion has been responsible for cruelty, for wars even! (the 30 years war was a blot on the concept of religion- but, even there, religion was used, and unforgivably allowed itself to be used, by the so called ‘temporal powers’. The spectacle of priests on all sides in conflicts blessing their own sides prior to all out war amply illustrate how ‘irreligious’ belief systems can become. But then, consider that all the modern mega civil conflicts, and campaigns of genocide were waged by atheistic despots- Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Despots don’t like religion, with fairly good reasons. Religion did allow itself to support establishments but religiously inspired people were, for two millennia, predominantly the ones who were the beating ‘heart’ of society.
      It is easy in these times, when we constantly encounter anti-religious sentiment, to forget the positives enshrined in the Christian precepts “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” or “turn the other cheek” – the very precepts that guided those who built hospitals, schools, universities.

      I think that that we need the presence of religion if only as a beacon, a lighthouse, to illuminate the way forward, so we do not fall entirely into the clutches of some latter-day despots or wholly embrace the notion that science can answer all our questions, provide all our solutions.

      1. Stalin strongly embraced the Russian orthodox church, Hitler was publicly blessed by german catholic bishops in mass gatherings and Napolean strong re religion. All belief systems are human created, all, no exceptions, all

      2. “all the modern mega civil conflicts, and campaigns of genocide were waged by atheistic despots- Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot” ≠ truth. Really, *all* modern mega civil conflicts?!? What about Israel and it’s illegal occupation of Palestine? Under the banner of ‘‘never again”, the religious Jews have slaughtered Palestinians, established an illegal apartheid system, and are hell-bent on dominating the entire region. There are countless other examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing by highly religious nation-states. Why put it all on your select list of “atheistic” despots? Look at history. Look at evidence.

      3. Absurd for Morgan to suggest the German church was onboard with the Nazi mass murder program. One of their first assassination victims was the Catholic Bishop of Munich, and anti-Nazi resistance by the Protestant “confessing church” is well-documented.

      1. Surely you don’t deny that Arabs attacked Jews, thus provoking the wars that they lost? And you do realize that the Arabs deploy weapon systems behind human shields, thus ensuring that any Israeli counter-attack resulted in the “slaughter” of Palestinian civilians?

  2. Please read the next paragraph. It reads–

    “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.”

  3. Karl Marx might have also thought of religion as a way for governments to manipulate and subject the people to their rule. Somewhat like how Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity to conquer. Agree? Disagree?

  4. The phrase attributed to Karl goes for the heart of philosophy. Let’s look at it again: “religion is the opium of the people.” He is right considering what is happening nowadays with rulers and the way they lead their people. The only way rulers and leaders mislead their people of anything is simply by linking it religion. Who, of the people, could say no to the ruler if it is issued under religion’s cover, which people seem to react as if drug-affected. If you happen to say no you would even face the people themselves standing against you. In my country, dictators continue ruling and oppressing the people by this opium. They bring religion’s teachings to use and interpret them for their own sake. They make use of absolute respect of the people to their faith for their own purposes. The thing that a terrorist is convinced through to commit suicide is through religion. Nothing bad about religion, rather it’s exploitation of the teaching. So Karl never underestimated religion, rather he wanted to reveal such misuse of it by decision-makers comparing the state of people like that of a drug.

    1. I agree with you Migeeb. There needs to be an important distinction made between religion and those who use religion to achieve their own agendas. Religion is only one of many means that governments and individuals use to manipulate people. Such behaviour does not of itself, make religion evil. Now that people do not have so much religion in our post-modern society, they are numbing the pain of injustice and oppression by using opiates – literally. Hence the drug epidemic we currently face in Western societies.

    2. Indeed, even the apartheid regime of South Africa challenged those who opposed it by quoting Romans 13. Quite often some oppressors have used religion for the wrong purpose.

  5. My take is that Marx was simply observing the fact that religions, by and large, attempt to provide sanctuary from the ills of the day. Whether it be a pandemic or despots, religions provide a way to escape the “catastrophe du jour.” The hijacking of religion for political purposes is an entirely separate issue.

Join the Conversation

We reserve the right not to publish comments based on such concerns as redundancy, incivility, untimeliness, poor writing, etc. All comments must include the first and last name of the author in the NAME field and a valid e-mail address.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Marquette University Law School - Contact Us
Marquette University Law School, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 (414) 288-7090
Street Address: Marquette University Law School, 1215 W. Michigan St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233

About the Blog | Comments Policy

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Marquette University or its Law School.