Skip to main content

Rethinking Marx's Stance on Religion

Image may contain: 1 person, beard and meme, possible text that says 'I MAY NOT BELIEVE IN PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT I STILL HOPE YOU'LL BE MINE THIS VALENTINE'S DAY. .riegenerator.ne'

In Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Marx criticizes Hegel’s philosophy (German philosophy) with Feuerbach’s ideas of humans as a material, sensuous, and tactile being. Marx starts with a critique on the German status quo: he believes that Germany is backward in that it is still on the eve of a bourgeoisie revolution, while other modern states, such as France and Britain, are already dealing with the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. And hence, instead of the political present, which Marx describes as an “anachronism”, Marx believes that we should critique German philosophy, for it is al pari with the “official modern present ''.

Marx concerns himself with one important question: can this status quo be changed? If so, how can we change it? His answer in Introduction is that while “material force must be overthrown by material force, theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.” Hence, as long as philosophy is radical enough, as long as it demonstrates ad hominem, it can become the material force needed for a revolution which brings Germany to the apex of history. Marx affirms the importance of philosophy, he praises Hegel for his “resolute positive abolition of religion”, but criticizes his philosophy for abstraction from and losing grip with the material reality. And hence, German philosophy, as it was, could not bring about a radical change in reality, for the material condition for such a change is simply lacking. For Marx, the material reality should be the base for thought, and not the other way around: “it is not enough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strive toward thought.”

On this basis, Marx’s stance on religion can be made better sense of. The famous Marxian quote on religion can be found in the very beginning of Introduction: “[Religion] is the opium of the people.” This is a quote that is popularized by perhaps the self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist political regimes that implement draconian anti-religion measures, and the unfortunate result is that Marx’s stance on religion is seldom understood in a more nuanced way. In fact, preceding that quote, Marx gives a definition on religion that can be read as borderline positive: 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.” Immediately following, Marx remarks on the affective dimension of 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.”

To me, Marx’s criticism of religion is based on his adamant quest for a way to change the status quo. In saying that religion is the opium of the people, Marx is not belittling questions that are asked in a religious manner: questions related to human existence and human suffering. These to Marx are legitimate, right questions to ask. What religious thoughts express are “real suffering and a protest against real suffering”, and it gives humans a way of expression (the sigh), a spiritual safe haven (heart of a heartless world), and an explanation of their suffering (soul of soulless conditions). Religion is what men come up with as a solution to their earthly suffering, which, in fact, stems from material conditions.

Hence, while these are the right questions, to Marx, what is ultimately lacking in religion is a grasp of the real concrete, material human condition. In the quest for a world without suffering, humans have created something that masks the “self-estrangement in its unholy forms”, that is, the material conditions that create these sufferings, the “chains” that bind people to their earthly conditions. Religion provides illusory happiness in putting a screen before human eyes and leads them to be blind to the urgent actions at hand: to rid of the material conditions that require humans to console themselves with fantasies and illusions.  Marx believes that a philosophy that is grounded in material conditions should replace religion as the theory of the world that can become a material force, for religion will not lead to the emancipation of humankind, but the former will.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

沉默的抵抗-寫在巴勒斯坦入聯之後

Source: White House: No plans to withdraw Palestinian aid after UN vote 主場新聞:沉默的抵抗:寫在巴勒斯坦入聯之後 好夢由來最易醒。看投票影片在電視上重播數十次後,對於巴勒斯坦這場難得外交勝仗的感動逐漸散去。取而代之的,是在眼前緩緩鋪展的現實畫面;所謂公義得彰顯即使不是天真無知,都是陳義過高。慶祝過後的巴勒斯坦地區仍然在以色列的佔領下,隔離巴人與他們世代耕種的土地的高牆依然屹立。紙上的勝利像一劑叫人無比亢奮的迷幻藥,但刻下仍然是槍炮﹑病毒與鋼鐵的世界,巴勒斯坦人不會從此獲得一國公民的保護與尊嚴;四散漂泊的巴人不會因此獲得回歸母土的權利。以色列立時宣佈增建三千多間非法殖民住屋。 卻是不由自主的找回薩依德的《流亡者之書-最後一片天空消失之後的巴勒斯坦》來重讀。這些年來一直反芻著書中一句:「寧取前途未卜的世俗成份,莫取直截了當的神聖救贖」。數年前初讀的撼動難以言說。六十五年無根無籍的失所飄零,在民族尊嚴的不可觸下,凡俗種種孕育了更難以屈折的希望。巴勒斯坦地區的出生率一直遠較以色列高,加沙人口幾乎處於爆炸狀態,三百六十五平方公里的土地上住了近一百七十萬人,在斷水斷糧的狀態下還依然高踞世界人口增長率第七位。在世上最大型的露天監獄,人們還是過著平常生活,男人和青年們在加沙海岸捕魚沖浪,婦女搓中東 pita 包子;從微小處可見與土地數百年難解的連結。也許巴勒斯坦人很清楚:既然鍚安主義者要把他們往死裡打,生存就是最好的還擊辦法。卑微如螻蟻但永遠不會被徹底消滅,活著就是最有力的抵抗。相比訴諸上帝,滿嘴聖經與「賜予」的錫安主義者,他們活得更像一個人。 以色列早知在美國沒有否決權下巴勒斯坦必然在聯合國取得大比數支持,刻意淡化巴勒斯坦由「觀察員實體」升格為「觀察員國」的重要性,只道是「微不足道」的變化;另一邊廂卻在會上大肆譴責巴解不尊重奧斯陸協議,跳過和談私自尋求立國,破壞和平進程。如此氣急敗壞,叫人想起八十年代經歷國際社會大舉撤資,仍不肯就範的南非白人政權。以色列一直以中東民主國家自居,以此維持文明﹑西化形象,掩飾其對於「野蠻」﹑「東方」的巴勒斯坦人的制度暴力。但以色列國會卻在去年十一月國會通過了一條「反杯葛議案」 , 容許以色列公民以民事訴訟方式,控告任何響應國際杯葛﹑撤資及制裁(

「Rock n' Roll」:馬克思與愛的條件

看了英國劇作家Tom Stoppard「Rock n' Roll」的劇本,裡面有個主要角色叫Max Marrow,是個劍橋學者,與俄國十月革命同年出生,畢生信仰馬克思主義 (Ma(r)x...),相信唯物史觀,覺得個體是理性的經濟動物,個體與生產資料的關係決定了人的本質,而人類的所謂意識說到底源於物質,亦次於物質。其妻Eleanor是一位古典學學者,專長是研究古希臘文學,時時請學生來家裡跟她討論。故事開始時(1968年)她是已失去一邊乳房的乳癌康復者。 Act 1 最後一場戲,Eleanor的女博士生來家裡找她討論古希臘女詩人Sappho關於愛的作品,(明顯對美女博士生產生興趣的)Max坐在一邊旁聽。當時Eleanor癌症已復發。Eleanor與博士生討論Sappho形容的愛到底是生理反應,還是獨立於身體以外的,對於「愛」的心理認知。Eleanor說,明明人類一早就知道如何形容愛了——「Eros」——只是現在人們又用「libido」去形容同樣的現象。女博士生認同。馬克思主義者Max在一邊強烈反對:人類之間不存在所謂愛,有的只是大腦皮質神經元的激烈運作而已。三人為此爭辯了一陣。最後女博士生(有點挑逗地)送給Max一本書:《禪與摩托車維修的藝術》。 Eleanor看在眼裡。趁Max離開房間,她跟女博士生說:「在我死之前,你都不要妄想跟我丈夫上床。」女博士生含淚離開。Max回到房間,仍繼續滔滔不絕地講他的唯物理論。Eleanor終崩潰大哭(以下為大意,書放在office了):「我的身體已經被切割得支離破碎,我失去了一邊乳房,子宮,甚至腦組織,我正在逐漸步向死亡,但我還是我,我的思想還在,你所謂的不靠物質就不能存在的心靈還在。假如你不在我的葬禮上流真的眼淚,你也不要將你的廢話帶來,I want your grieving soul or nothing。」 這場戲是故事的高潮(只是一場對話但就是高潮了,這套基本上是一群知識份子的聊天戲),發生在全劇中間位置。Stoppard對於馬克思哲學的批評也不是新鮮的。本身極其欣賞馬克思的韋伯對前者的批評就一語中的。他大意是說,馬克思主義將人視為純粹理性的經濟動物,雖然他提出的是從資本主義中解放出來的理論,但他對人的理解和資本主義的假設根本相去不遠。事實是人就是有那麼多不同的動機,生命本身是如此多元,所以除

譯文:訪問賴特(Erik Olin Wright):階級為何重要?

按:此文為中文馬克思主義文庫紀念Erik Olin Wright系列之七,也是最後一篇。再次感謝文庫編輯幫忙校對。這篇不好翻譯,因為名詞很多,但同時很好翻譯,因邏輯非常清楚。單是翻譯也還是從Erik身上獲益甚豐,真好。 原文: Why Class Matters 翻譯:陳婉容(威斯康辛大學麥迪遜分校社會學博士研究生) 賴特(Erik Olin Wright)作為一個認真的激進學者,在1970年代「墮入馬克思主義」是唯一的選擇。 然而,到了1990年代,馬克思主義退潮至學術界邊緣位置,已難說是理所當然的選擇。賴特從未他顧。他視馬克思主義為一組獨特問題,以及回應這些問題的概念框架,而非一堆死板理念或一套特殊的方法論。由此,他開始重建社會學馬克思主義(Sociological Marxism)。 賴特的馬克思主義是正規社會科學,但引領其步伐的,卻是對社會主義的追求。 在四十餘年間,賴特將心力投放於馬克思傳統的兩個核心部份:階級與社會轉型戰略。賴特新作《理解階級》(Understanding Class)(譯註:於2015年出版)對階級的處理方法,直接挑戰了皮凱提(Thomas Piketty)和史坦丁(Guy Standing)等學者。電子書《資本主義的替代方案》(譯註:全名《資本主義的替代方案:民主經濟的提案》(Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic Economy),於2016年出版)紀錄了他和漢內爾(Robin Hahnel)間的辯論,賴特並表明了近年對社會主義可能性的想法。 最近賴特(下稱EOW)訪問澳洲,並在期間接受了《雅各賓》編輯Mike Beggs(下稱MB )的訪問。訪問內容廣泛,他們從韋伯﹑馬克思談到市場,以及賴特對於左翼戰略的看法。 MB 不如先談談為甚麼階級重要的問題。葛魯斯基(David Grusky)曾直言,從宏觀觀點而言,「階級」只是學術建構的產物。你如何回應? EOW 我不認同階級缺乏現實基礎的主張。對於「『階級』概念是否具現實基礎 」這問題,我認為答案是:這個概念有否辨別出那些對人類生活產生因果作用力的現實機制,而不管人作為行動者是否注意到由這些現實機制而劃出的因果作用力或法律範疇的界限。 馬克思主義理論指出,從生產