Marx & religion

[watermelonygoodness]

Sounds like William Lane Craig.

[etlamortavous]

@watermelonygoodness i was thinking the same thing.

[TheUnknownVisiterX]

Jesus is Lord! He was always and will always be.

[TheRICOROBINSON]

sounds like one big circle

[KumarZimmerman08]

Our governments are communist. that's what the worlds moving towards. no borders. no religion. just slaves and their masters.

[cris750]

@KumarZimmerman08 You are describing STATE CAPITALISM! not communism!

[hxasmirl]

Religion is be the only subject on which Marx was right

[WSWarthog]

I think Marx's predictions probably would have come to fruition if it weren't for the power of technological development and proliferation to sidestep (and dwarf) the systemic issues that were supposed to cause conditions to become so intolerable that communist revolution would be necessary.

[alilapointe1]

you started farting exactly at 5:05.

[dewinthemorning]

6:53, "Religion did not fade away in communists societies." It almost did, though.

[kmb117]

@dewinthemorning ... After years of ruthless persecution and oppression by the Russian regime. And Roman Catholicism is still a huge part of life in Cuba. "Almost" is a big stretch.

[dewinthemorning]

@kmb117 I was talking about Eastern Europe. Although now religion is coming back with a vengeance. Maybe the same thing is happening in Cuba.

[kmb117]

Seems like this explanation is missing some information; It is not completely true that Marx felt that religion was created by the ruling class. Rather, religion is a result of humanities material existence. It is a manifestation of what is wrong with our lives. Therefore, it is not a creation of the oppressor, rather a creation of the oppressed, as a palliative for being exploited. Religion, therefore, will be shed when our material existence no longer requires it.

[headlessprofessor]

@kmb117

You have given a cery clear and humanistic spin on Marx, comparable to Erich Fromm.

[WSWarthog]

@kmb117

If that's the case then why was religion so brutally enforced, from above and from a position of authority? I think you can characterize beliefs concering the metaphysical as either systemic or not systemic, and systemic metaphysical beliefs (religion) is most definitely not a spontaneous reaction to specific circumstances as much as it is a tool for the ruling classes.

[kmb117]

@WSWarthog I find your explanation lacking. While the western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been used by the elite to both oppress and justify their actions, this in and of itself does not explain religion on a global/historic scale. For example, it is far more difficult to explain Buddhism, or animist religions of indigenous peoples, through the limiting scope of power relations. And why is religion still so prevalent, now that it is exposed as a false tool of oppression?

[WSWarthog]

@kmb117

The Buddhist monasteries are well known to have used their religion as a tool of control and opression, so I that point is moot. As far as animist 'religions' are concerned, they are not systemic metaphysical beliefs and I wouldn't call them religion even if the word has common currency for describing such beliefs. If you look at the etymology of the word "religion" you'll come across the idea that to be religious means to be bound together in one belief, which is how I understand it.

[WSWarthog]

@kmb117

As for your question about why religion is so prevalent, people who know much more about the subject that me have been struggling to answer this question for ages, so I'm wary of saying anything concrete about that.

[ESAPandLyrics]

@kmb117 religion is a story that rulers made so exploted people stayed stupid and not see the real world

[kmb117]

@ESAPandLyrics This explanation does not explain the persistence and multi-dimensional nature of religion. It is more than just a tool of the elite.

[TheCommunard]

@kmb117 The opiate in fact acts as filling the gap in spiritual fulfilment created by humanity's alienation from labour. Labour is both subject and object, but as capitalism makes the subject into capital, and humanity into the object, humanity becomes an 'appendage of the machine' alienating their species being (self awareness of humanity). The spiritual fulfilment which labour could provide in the act of creation through labour is destroyed by alienation, and religion acts as a filler.

[kmb117]

@TheCommunard Interesting explanation. However, I think it doesn't encompass the totality of the religious experience. Plus, religion is synonymous with humanity throughout recorded history. Capitalism however, is not. Religion cannot be explained through it's associate with capitalism.

[TheCommunard]

@kmb117 In individual cases I think that one can find spiritual fulfilment, but as a social phenomena, religion does play this role in relation to capitalism.

This is not why religion arises, but how it functions in capitalism. Before protestantism arose, belief and spirituality had little to do with Christianity, which was about works and the sacraments. In the western sense, capitalism certainly gave room for Luther's interpretation. Not to say that religion cannot be directly spiritual.

[epsilon8998]

Was a good video until about 6:40 when he started babelling about the typical tripe of how "communism didn't work". The soviet union was never communist. It was state capitalist with some socialist influences, but it never overcame the fatal flaws of the imperial western design that it was mimicing the whole time.

[headlessprofessor]

@epsilon8998

I have heard this explanation before, that the Soviet Union failed, not because it was too communist, but because it was not communist enough. There is a political party here of that orientation: Partido del Trabajo, and I must admit that they are more sincere and consistent than the other leftist parties: PRI, PRD, Covergenia, PVEM.

[Keysteeze]

Depending on how much Marx read the scriptures, it could be argued that his reading of the New Testament influenced his ideas about a fair society. Jesus was no capitalist.

[kgboy72]

None of the eastern block countries presented themselves as having achieved communism, they merely strived to achieved that level. Of course, with human greed and lust for power, even socialism was doomed, as the centralised political planning of economy could not survive. Ultimately, the communism would paradoxically require people to be selfless... one of tenets of many religions :D I still agree with Marx on one thing - the religion is the ultimate tool for staying in power!

[jimnn2009]

This guy does not understand Marx and Engels philosophy well or he skews everything on purpose.

[cris750]

Both Hitler and Marx believed in the strong role of the state. Marx simply evolved his idea from Adam Smith trusting the STATE more than the CORPORATIONS in establishing a tranquil society. The PEOPLE are totally ignored by all three. People should be ENLIGHTENED first then vote out the parties and establish the new system - Market Foundationalism. It starts first by embracing the method of Thomas Paine who influenced both the French and American Revolution.

[Skippa1986]

i liked this video very much. I had already read all this stuff in college, but you compiled it so well I think I will never forget again. I only have one observation about the comments: did the Soviet Union or any country for that matter really ever had a true communist society as proposed by Marx in the books? Imo Stalinism it's what best defines them. I agree though that it's nearly impossible to achieve the state that this great man envisioned.

[7Lailaheillallah7]

Türkisch Islamischer

Kulturverein Do-Hörde

Konto: 021 028 746

BLZ: 440 501 99

verwendungszweck: Spende für neue Moschee

Sparkasse Dortmund

[ZarosOne]

You were right on explaining until the end. There have been no communist countries. So government could not have faded away. In order for there to be communist, most of the countries on earth have to convert to Democratic Socialism (Dictatorship of the Proletariat). No country has even converted to that yet. So communism hasn't failed, it just hasn't been tried.

[arzoyan]

What Karl marx really meant was that our social reality conditions our social consciousness, its very simple just read any capitalist paper, watch any hollywood or mainstream movies, attend any educational facility, its all about sanctity of private property, worship of money, distortions of our true potential and actual possibilities for a world of cooperation for our collective needs and well being and the role of any religious belief is to distort even more in the interest of the RULERS

[MsLucky443]

dialectal =demonic

[77Merav]

And what a bout radical ideology like the Nazism, where it's stand according to Marx ? Marxism turn to some Kind of religion- opium to the intellectuals... isnt that mean that the Marxism himself( the intellectuals) turn to be the exploited class?

[headlessprofessor]

Responding to 77Merav, I would agree that both Nazism and Marxism have elements of a religion. My video on religion defines it as a system of doctrines, ethics, rituals, myths, and symbols. Both Marxism and Nazism would qualify, if you see their ideologies as doctrines. Both Marxism and Nazism even had apocalyptic aspects. You are right that both turned out to exploit (or at least oppress) intellectuals.

[olympicstyles]

@headlessprofessor Isn't the spiritual side of religion a more crucial element than those you listed. From a materialist standpoint, was or was he not religious?

[Dalambam]

It's sorry that headlessprofessor didn't further the class analysis idea a bit by pointing out that in the socialist states (which by the way were obviously not very socialist/democratic) what happened is that the new Communist Party oligarchy simply replaced the bourgeoisie oligarchy in controlling the means of production and in oppressing and exploiting the working masses, and in indoctrinating them with (new, secular) religions to soothe their pain, lol.

[headlessprofessor]

I like your analysis. Viewing totalitarian communism (or national socialism) as an apocalyptic religious movement is a useful perspective.

[Dalambam]

I like George Orwell. 1984 is a Marxian critical analysis of the Soviet Union, kinda.

[TheMaskhadov]

@Dalambam It is actually aout the future of the world in which everyone is controlled and eveything is seen. In society now a days especially in Britain we are being watched constantly by CCTV. Already microphones have been added so an operator can shout at you if you have dropped litter. This is constantly revered to when talking about modern british culture and the continuing trend of governmental encroachment.

[TheMaskhadov]

@Dalambam The first attempt at Republicain democracy since the Romans in Europe was France. Throughout its tenure many terrible events took place with executions and other things and then to finish this system wasthen turned into the French Empire by Napoloen Bonaparte. Now if we had taken that for what Republicainism is then surely we would not have as many republics as we do today. First attempts may be disatrous but eventually the system will improve.

[DrCruel]

Burnham talks about this, claiming that the synthesis between capitalists and communists would be a new managerial elite. Regardless of who wins, the ability of the loser to make the state unmanageable leads to an increase in the state's allocation to repressive power, and the rise of a class of people that can successfully manage (and increasingly syphon wealth from) both the capitalists and workers - at times, to that end, deliberately keeping them at each other's throats.

[DrCruel]

... which then leads me to another question - if Marxist theory is only important as window dressing, and if Marxists will align with anyone and do anything, no matter how ruthless or nasty, to gain and keep power, influence and the wealth of others, then why bother to study Marxist theory at all? If Marxists themselves don't bother themselves about it, it would seem to be irrelevant.

[TheMaskhadov]

@DrCruel Cuba as very few allies in which case it must like other small states align itself somewhat with terroist groups. The IRA, ETA, PLO and checynen disidents have connections with one another not particularly because they like one another but because it helps them in the long term. Also as Hezbollah is attacking Israel a friend of America it suits Cuba to back that organization.

[DrCruel]

Cuba has gone much, much farther than this, militarily supporting Marxists allies worldwide, and lending their troops and wealth to this cause, in the pursuit of forwarding Marxist revolutions. As well as the IRA, ETA and PLO, the Cuban regime has aided the FARC, ZANU-PF, the Sandanistas, MPLA, and a number of openly terrorist Middle Eastern groups.

They have not, however, aided or supported the Chetchnyan rebels at all. Cuba is a Russian surrogate, and the Russians are at war with Chetchnya.

[TheMaskhadov]

My earlier point states that the Cubans will take any ally thatwill weaken the western ciountries grip on power. Obviously they will not back Checyna because that would weaken someone friendly to their cause. The US allies with dictators in South America to make sure socialist republics aren't formed also Israel is another US backed state which receives its armaments from that country. The middle eastern powers tend to be armed by the Russians. This is just global power plays everyone does it

[DrCruel]

I mostly agree (although I remind that many established Middle Eastern nations are armed by the US, whereas the Russians tend to arm terrorist groups and the states that support them). What I also claim is that Cuba is waging an aggressive "revolutionary" campaign against the US, and that the reverse is not true (or at the least hasn't been so since the Bay of Pigs fiasco).

The US would prefer not to be in conflict with Cuba and her allies, but is not allowed any alternative.

[TheMaskhadov]

The russians armed Jordan egypt and Saudi arabia and Pakistan all these are recognized countries. The Russians were playing the same game as the Americans. Instead of vietnam and Korea Russia backed the middle east and south America. It is the way of the world. America would liketo destroy Cuba but it is been unable to do so but as done a good job in claiming that Cubans are evil which is not true.

[DrCruel]

Actually the American government is on very good terms with the Cuban people. Its government of Cuba that's the problem.Some of the most patriotic people in Florida are Cuban, and their numbers are augmented by refugees attempting to escape the "proletarian paradise" of the Castro royal family.

The Cuban government is an odd group. They insist that the capitalists of the West are to be eventually liquidated, but also demand the right to trade with such people. Never could understand that one.

[TheMaskhadov]

But it is against the people that enjoy Cuba and have lived there. Of course it is on good terms with the rich people that fled. Who constantly are trying to find ways to evict the Cuban government. So why is America allowed to oust a government they have no right. Fair enough the cCastro family seem to be running a kingdom with socialist ideals but America's presidential election was rigged for Bush. Why do we not attack the Americans for this because they believe in freedom of course.

[DrCruel]

No, the US is pitted agains the Cuban government, not the Cuban people - and not by choice. It's the Cuban government that plots to oust the US "capitalist" regime, as they do with other non-Marxist governments in Central and South America.

If the US were serious about deposing the Cuban government, it would take us about a month. All we've done for the most part is refused to trade with the country so long as the government there is mortally hostile to us.

[TheMaskhadov]

The reason the US doesn't attack Cuba is probably to do with Russia but your first pint \America is attacking the government not the people. This is impossible if you attack the countries government regardless of what you feel about the government you are also attacking that people. If the people wished to not be communist they would quite easily gain support but thats the point the people of Cuba like being socialist. Only a few do not like any country their are dissenters.

[DrCruel]

I might add, that trying to claim that President Bush was as much of a "despot" as Fidel Castro is quite a stretch, and rather in defiance of the facts. President Bush is no longer president (not even being able to run for office in 2008 due to our constitutional law, while Castro ruled undisputed and unelected for over half a century - to then be replaced by his brother when Fidel was too sick to continue as dictator.

BDS stuff like this just makes you sound absurd.

[TheMaskhadov]

I didn't imply Bush was a despot I merely stated that in the eyes of international law he should have never been American president. We attack countries like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe for doing this but when it is a global power it is quietly ignored.

[DrCruel]

The election that put Bush in power a second time was overseen by the OSCE, and was judged to be fair. These are the very same standards used to judge the fairness of elections in failed states.

According to international law (in fact, the first US election directly overseen by international NGOs), he did win fairly and legitimately. This is more than can be said for any Marxist leaders, including those in the PRC.

[DrCruel]

If religion is a form of exploitation, why are Marxists so friendly with radical Muslms?

[headlessprofessor]

Great question. Radical Islam and the political left are functional allies against international capitalism and U.S.-style democratic secularism which allows Judeo-Christian values to influence governmental policy.

[DrCruel]

So then, the support of Marxists for groups such as, say, Hezbollah and Hamas, is based on a common struggle against "Judeo-Christian hegemony". Interesting.

Would I then be accurate in assuming that Marxists support the "de-Christianization" of Lebanon by the ongoing persecution and terror killings of indigenous Christians by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon? The behavior of the Ba'athist Assad regime over the last several decades would incline me to believe this is the case.

[headlessprofessor]

Although I am not an expert on Middle Eastern politics, I can see the logic behind this explanation. My area of expertise (Mexican politics) suggests that most political alliances are complex and temporary. In other words, Marxists and Jihadists may soon become enemies given the emergence of a new context.

[DrCruel]

Much as Bolshevik Marxists and German National Socialists were once allied, when there was gain to be had for both factions by way of material conquest and loot. Or why so many Marxist groups in Latin America at present are trying to aid drug traffickers into gettin illicit drugs into teh US (or, in the case of FARC, doing the deed themselves for profit).

I'm quite familiar with the "situational ethics" of Marxists, and how it allows them to do virtually anything, regardless of theory ...

[headlessprofessor]

You are very correct about the Latin American alliances.

[Dalambam]

And why do 80% of the Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah? o_O

I have a wild theory. Let's imagine that, say, Mexico was the 4th military power in the world and the United States was a helpless third world country, and that Mexico invaded the United States, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and that as a reaction a group of American peasants rallied under some religious leader and set up a guerilla force that successfully managed to fight the invading troops out of the country,

[Dalambam]

...may it not be plausible that this group would end up drawing enthusiastic support from Americans of all walks of life for some reason other than the perverse Marxist mind of the American populace? But that's just me, lol.

[DrCruel]

I don'[t know where you're getting your figures - every Lebanese Christian I know hates Hezbollah. It's a Shi'ite Muslim faction operating as a surrogate for Iran, and is well known for persecuting and murdering Lebanese Christians. You must be speaking for Aoun's people.

Following your analogy, if a terrorist group backed by Cuba had taken over the south of the US and was exterminating all the Black people, I'd welcome Mexico to free us from them.

[Saosalvation]

Total equality is too ideal. Though, i do believe in equal opportunities

[rsgrcg]

RY:

Despite being an atheist, Karl wrote in his doctrines to permit religious practice, but saving the rights of 'organized' religion, believing it would result in war.

[No1Spank]

True Christianity is the Communism of Religion, but those at the top use it for their own gain.

Communism and a one world government are the future although it may be used ultimatley to destroy our freedom. The man on the street can never truly be in control, but those in control don't need to exploit.

[JayPhilosopher]

I do not believe Marx ever talked about "perfect" societies.He did talk about societies that were not based on exploitation.

[abuali89]

This is why Im socialist. Communsim is for athiests, socialism is for everyone.

[SupermarketsRevil]

Communism is for atheists? You idiot.. You think all atheists want communism? Poor fool

[Xerriva]

You got them the wrong way round, socialism is the intermediate stage, not communism. marx said the government would deteriate along with socialism to leave behind communism.

[soopersnail]

Revising for my Sociology Revision A-level (England)

Thanks for your help!

[G4MER04]

AS or A2?

[soopersnail]

A2

I meant Religion not Revision!

Revision was so much on my mind!

[Jimisonjons]

excellent explanation!

[iamtheender]

headless professor,

decent explanation, well done.

What I thought was very unprofessional was your brief commentary at the end about the failure of communism.

Just because a handful of revolutions have failed to change society, does not mean history will cont carry out its pattern of progress through class antagonism.

Socialism, and eventually communism is inevitable, and as a Marxist and Dialectical materialist myself, I will continue to fight for the working class.

Good video though.

[aleckzz]

I agree..

it's important not to possess a pragmatic view on what is revolutionary theory coming to practice!

[wjilbert]

Chapter 2 of the communist Manifesto clearly condemns religion as harmful to state, religion certainly was persecuted under several communist states. Why?, why is it so hostile to religion and why are all marxists atheists?, Marx indirectly killed millions of people

And there's no denying that several communist ideologies are a religion, such as Juche, which is based on Marxism. Marxism shouldn't be intolerant of religion as both Stalin and Fidel Castro realized in their later years

[abram730]

I wonder that too wjilbert as Hegel used a dualistic view as in Geist having a duel meaning. Hegal clearly used it that way. That is why Zeitgeist can only be observed by look at the past. If Zeitgeist was just the general cultural, intellectual and moral climate then it would be observable in the present.

[aleckzz]

Religion is an infection that most of the times destroys the mind, since the christian belief in its essence is just a way of simplifying our reality, fueling ignorance at anytime a fenomena that can not be explained presents itself or a lack of knowledge we have not aquired yet.

Ideologies being religions is just what Marx didnt want, its a tool used to analyse with and change things which wa left uncompleted.

unfortunatly people have used this tool to consolidate their dictatorial power.

[bondiwatch]

Great video. Well articulated ideas. Keep up the good work.