People's Democracy

THINKING TOGETHER

Does communism believe in religion? What is the Marxist understanding of religion?

--- Satish K Bagmar & others, Pune

The vast majority of Indian people are religious. By opposing religion and considering it as the "opium," how can the CPI(M) advance in the country?

--- Mohanlal & others, Delhi

AS stated earlier in this column, the CPI(M) does not impose any conditions of being an atheist on anyone wishing to join the party. Religious faith is a personal matter. It is a relationship of the atma with a paramatma. But this choice of a paramatma is purely that of the atma. An individual may well choose to be an atheist. In this relationship between the atma and the paramatma, no one can interfere, not even the paramatma. The choice of the individual is, hence, supreme.  This individual choice to choose his/her religious affiliation and faith is a right enshrined in the Indian constitution and a right that the CPI(M) is committed to uphold. Any attempt, however, to interfere, obstruct and spread hatred against peoples belonging to different religious faiths constitutes a direct infringement of this right. The CPI(M), therefore, respects the individual's choice of a religious faith or that of being an atheistic or an agnostic. This right cannot be misused by attacking or preventing the right of the individual and his choice. In a secular country, the choice of the individual is supreme and will be protected by the state. 

There is often a popular misconception regarding the Marxist understanding of religion. The popular perception is the normally out-of-context quotation that "religion is the opium of the people." In fact, the passage in which this statement finds place is, deliberately, never quoted in the full. Marx had stated: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, just as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people" (Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1844).

Religion is the opium in the sense that it is as potent as opium in creating an illusory world. The intoxication of opium provides an illusory escape and relief for people running away from daily toil and misery. At the same time, it cripples the human being rendering him/her incapable of changing that very situation that is responsible for the misery. As Marx said in a by now famously statement, the moot point is to change the world. For a human being who is oppressed, religion provides the escape for relief, it provides  a "heart in a heartless world, a spirit in a spiritless situation." For this precise reason, it is the opium that lulls people into inaction instead of changing their miserable conditions of existence that appears outside of both their comprehension and control.

The Marxist understanding of religion is essentially integrated with its entire philosophic foundations. In pursuit of the simple question of what constitutes the real freedom of a human being and his/her consequent liberation, Marx proceeded to reject the Hegelian idea of the revolution of the mind as represented by Feuerbach, during his time, to come to a conclusion of seminal importance. That was: consciousness of a human being is determined by the social conditions and not vice versa. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being that determines their consciousness" (Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859).

It is on the basis of such a fundamentally important conclusion that Marx says: "the basis of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man." In other words, like every other manifestation of human consciousness in terms of thinking and the consequent intellectual practice, religion also is the product of human social existence and not the reason or the cause for the same.

Such an understanding at once places religion not as a thing in itself, not as something that exists by itself independent of the driving force of society in history. In fact, precisely for this reason, Marxism does not lay blame for, e g the persecution of Copernicus or that of Ekalavya, on religion alone. It regards all these things as the natural manifestation of social forces and movements expressing themselves in religious terms because religion has been the dominant form of ideology through all recorded history. Progressive and reactionary ideas, the vested interests of the ruling class or the demands of an exploited class equally present themselves in the form of religion in men's minds so long as religion is a dominant form of ideology. Hence Marxism is able to take cognisance of the positive and progressive content of religious reform movements, e g the Sufi and Bhakti movements, but at the same time point out their limitations that they would not be able to effect the desired change in society by remaining only within the limits of the religious fold. Unless they are able to change the social conditions that find expression for domination in a specific religious form, that particular form and associated oppression cannot be removed. Thus, while recognising the positive content as well as the limitations of religious reform movements, Marxism is able to place the history of religion too within the realm of the evolution of human civilisation and the corresponding human consciousness.

Hence Marxism, when it imparts a scientific treatment to history, is able to see the complex role religion played in great social struggles. The origins of Christianity can be seen in the role of mass revolts that marked the decay of the Roman empire. In the rise of Islam, Marx and Engels both drew attention to the internal struggles between the Bedouins and the townspeople, the awakening of Arabian national consciousness for the liberation of the Arabian peninsula from the Abysanians and to recapture the long dormant trade routes. Similarly, the Protestant reformation was seen as a reflection of the complex class struggle taking place between the decaying feudal order and that of the rising bourgeoisie. "The ineradicability of the Protestant heresy corresponds to the invincibility of the rising bourgeoisie" (Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 1888).

For Marx and Marxists, therefore, religion is a product of the social conditions in which man existed and continues to exist. The history of religion, in one sense, is also a reflection of the history of human evolution. Hence, religion is a reflection of the real world and the creation of an illusory world. In so far as human beings are unable to comprehend the forces of nature or of society that appear to determine their day to day existence and guide their destinies, the quest for creating an extra-terrestrial supernatural force arises. Religion, therefore, provides for the human being a sense of comfort, beauty and solace that he cannot find in the real life. At the same time, religion, also being the dominant form of ideology, is an expression of ruling class domination at any point of time.

For this precise reason, having understood the genesis, origin and the continued domination of religion on the human mind in a scientific manner, Marx and Marxism alone stated with authority that the role of religion is contained and determined by the state of social organisation in any society. And, for that precise reason, Marxism does not attack religion per se. Its attack is on the conditions that give rise to religion and the conditions that perpetuate the hold of religion on the people. Marxism seeks to radically alter the conditions that provide the basis and perpetuate religion as an instrument of class oppression.

This, then, is the Marxist materialist understanding and appreciation of religion.  Its humanist content and at the same time its utilisation as an instrument of class rule have to be understood in its totality.