MARXISM ATTACK ON RELIGION

INTRODUCTION
Among the confronting issues, which philosophers have strived to tackle has been the concept of religion. In the ancient era, religion, though in a shadowy manner, formed the basis of the philosophical doctrines of some of the philosophers of that time. Although it is commonly believed that the pre-Socratic philosophers, particularly Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, were the first to resort to reason in their quest for the explanation of the composition of reality as against the traditional mythological belief of the Greeks on the gods being the directors and shapers of the affair of men and reality in general. But it is sufficing to note that even these seemingly critical and rational philosophers had recourse to religion in the analysis of their philosophical positions. Norman Melchert buttressed this fact in the following parlance:
Thales … is said to have held that the cause and element of all things was water and that all things were filled with gods …. To Say that all things are full of gods, then, is to say in effect that in them … is a principle that is immortal.1
Melchert in his analysis, acknowledged the pantheistic ideology inherent in Thales’ philosophical assertion. He also x-rayed the religious import in Anaximander’s philosophical postulation. He emphatically noted that anaximander reinterpreted the concept of the divine in his philosophical theory. The concept of the indeterminate boundless, thus, which is both endless and infinite is what anaximander called the divine, the Greeks’ feature for the gods.2
Socrates, one of the acclaimed radical philosophers and moralists was also guilty of buiding his thoughts within the ambits of religious dogmatism. This is very obvious in the claim that “he …had a divine mission to test all statements, and that a voice guided him in all his acts by warning him not to do things if they would be wrong.”3 This showed that Socrates was very much religious. It was based on this extreme religiosity that he was accused and killed for creating a different god outside the Greek gods.
The radical influence of religion in the medieval era cannot be over-emphasized, since that period was dominated by religious doctrines and theories. Philosophy in this period was only used as a tool to buttress those religious claims. The approach to the concept of religion took a different dimension during the contemporary era. Since religion was linked with morality during this period, thinkers, politicians and scholars tried to reconcile the attitudes of the religious leaders with the doctrines in which they profess. This was basically to ascertain the moral value of religion on man and the society at large.
Amidst all the contemporary philosophers who took interest in assessing the moral potency of religion and its doctrines on man, Karl Marx was the radical of them all. He x-rayed his critique on religion within the ambits of his social theory, in which he envisaged communist era, when there will be no more class division, and religion which has been aiding the bourgeois in perpetrating evil will die a natural death.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The basic aim of this work is to take a critical assessment of the Marxist attack on religion so as to ascertain the success of this attack.


1.2. SCOPE AND DELIMITTION OF THE STUDY
This work is basically on account of Marxist attack on religion. To achieve this task, this work has been divided into three sections. The first section is the introductory part consisting of introduction, purpose of the study, scope and delimitation, methodology and significance. The second section consists of a brief biography of Karl Marx, a concise account of Marx’s political theory, what religion is, and the account of Marxist attack on religion. The third section wraps the whole work with critical evaluation and conclusion.

1.3 METHODOLOGY
The mark of every good research work is the adoption of a relevant and appropriate methodology which suits the research in question. Since this work is not an exception, we would employ the methods of exposition and critique, with the use of primary and secondary materials as guide.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE
Notwithstanding how critical, constructive or rational a theory might be, there are bound to be some flaws, owing to the fact that no one is an encyclopaedia of knowledge. This being the case, this work assesses the flaws and contradictions inherent in Marxist attack on religion, in view of making a rational and objective critique, as a positive contribution to scholarship.
Owing to the systematic and simplified manner in which this paper was written, it could be used as a guide for those who would want to go into research on the Marxist notion of religion.

SECTION TWO
2.0 A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF KARL MARX
Karl Marx, one of the most influential socio-political philosophers of the German origin, and an outstanding socialist of great repute, was born into a Jewish family in 1818 in the town of Treves in the Rhineland, Germany, his father was a respected lawyer, who later abandoned his Jewish belief and towed the path of Christianity. Emphatically, “Marx’s father distanced himself from the local Jewish community and changed the family name from Levi to Marx, most likely for social and business reason.”4
Owing to his flair for education, at the age of seventeen, Karl Marx enrolled into the University of Bonn to study law and later went to the prestigious University of Berlin, where he studied philosophy and history. In this university of Berlin, he became influenced by the philosophical radicalism of the left young Hegelians “Marx … identifies himself with the left wing young Hegelians and was known as a militant atheist.”5 Marx’s stay at Berlin proved to be crucial in his later philosophical growth. He received his doctorate degree from the University of Jena in 1841. His Dissertation was on the philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus.
Since his radical ideas made an academic career impossible, Marx turned to journalism, and in 1842 become the editor of a liberal business Men’s newspaper in Cologne, the Rheinische Zeitung, which was later suppressed in 1843. Owing to the antagonistic nature of the Russian autocratic government of that time, in 1844 Marx went into a self exile in Paris. There he me Friedrich Engel’s, and they began what was probably the most momentous literary partnership in history. “Towards the end of 1847, in Brussels Marx and Engels at the request of A German workers’ club wrote the celebrated Communist Manifesto. They took part in the revolution of 1848.”6
Among the works written by Marx are; The Holy families (1856), The German Ideology (1856), The Poverty of Philosophy (1910), The Communist Manifesto (1847), and so on. Notwithstanding his intellectual radicalism, Marx still had time for romance; thus, he married Jenny Von Westphalen, a girl of a noble family, whom he engaged for seven years. They had seven children, four of whom died in childhood. They both lived and supported each other throughout Marx’s years of poverty and exile.
The most memorable maxim of Marx which critics referred to as his creed was that ‘criticism of religion is the foundation of all criticism’. This ideology formed the backdrop of his antagonism against religion in relation to his theory of emancipation of the poor masses from the bourgeois class, who used religion as a tool of intimidation and suppression. Marx died after a chronic illness in 1883.

2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF MARX’S SOCIO-POLITICAL THEORY
Karl Marx’s socio-political theory, otherwise known as dialectical materialism, is a reformation of the notion of history as proposed by G.W.F. Hegel. Before Marx, Hegel posited that history is an evolutionary cycle governed by an internal dialectical process, in which progress occurs as the result of a struggle between two opposing conditions. The propelling force, however, in this dialectical process is idea, spirit or reason.

Thus, for Hegel, everything is always developing according to the dialectical process…. Reason … unfolds in history. Things can only be understood when they are watched phenomenologically As they develop in relationship to the Whole, the Ultimate synthesis toward which history is unfolding. For Hegel, history does not just happen It is the rational development of progressively inclusive stages toward realization in Absolute Spirit.7
Although Marx endorsed the Hegelian claim that reality or history moves in a dialectical pattern, he, however, rejected the Hegelian notion of idea or reason as the propelling force of this progressive movement. As an alternative, Marx, following Ludwig Feuerbach, claimed that what regulates the dialectical movement is the material condition of the society. So, in place of the conflict of ideas which Hegel saw as the force behind all developments and progress, Marx posited that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class of struggle”8.
Consequent to the foregoing, Marx explained that history is the ongoing result of a constant tension between two classes, an upper class or rulers/owners of the means of production, and the poor or the exploited lower class. So, in each stage of this dialectical progression emerges a new and improved stage. The stages run from primitivism or communalism, Slave Ownership, Feudalism, Capitalism and then to socialism. Capitalism is a more advanced stage in the dialectical process, where the bourgeois, who own the means of production, used the proletariats as tools to achieve their self ends.
The bourgeoisie reduces everything to crude calculations of self interest and personal wealth …. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless Indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.9
Furthermore, Marx noted that although the capitalists frustrated and oppressed the proletariats, who are the working class, these oppressed individuals are at the same time conditioned to value their sufferings. One of the major mechanisms used to achieve this was religion. The effort of Marx, thus, was to illuminate the feeble minds of these proletariats so that they will wake up from the slumber of oppression, and revolt against these capitalists, at the same time, destroying all the tools of oppression and subjugation used by the bourgeois. So, when the proletariats eventually win the war against oppression, a new stage emerges which is socialism.
It is worthy to note that all through the developmental progression of history, which is basically class struggle, Marx was conscious of the triadic movement of thesis, antithesis synthesis. Whereas in capitalism, the thesis is the bourgeoisie, the antithesis is the proletariats, and the synthesis of these is the new stage, socialism. This is not the last stage in the triadic movement. The final stage is communism, in which there is no more class, religion, oppression or conflict of opposites. What rules here, thus, are equity, equality, and mutual co-existence. The material wealth of the society thus would be shared according to the needs of an individual. State would be a thing of the past, that is to say, it would be extinct.

2.2 WHAT IS RELIGION?
Before exploring Marx’s attack on religion, we must firstly understand what religion is all about. Various philosophers and theological scholars alike have strived to give scholarly acceptable definitions, but none of their definitions encapsulates a complete interpretation of what religion really means. This does not demean the definability of religion. Thus, the following are some of the definitions of religion proposed by scholars. Firstly religion has been viewed as recognition of the claim of ultimate reality, a reality worthy of and demanding worship. For J.G. Frazer, religion is understood as a propriation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to control the course of nature and of human life. James Martineau sees it as the belief in an everlasting God that is, in a Divine Mind and Will ruling the universe and holding moral relations with mankind.
J.M.E. McTaggart looks at religion as an emotion resting in a conviction of a harmony between ourselves and the universe at large.
In philosophical thinking, the Beardsleys provide a seemingly careful definition of religion, consistent with most of those cited …. Religion refers to any set of interrelated beliefs, together with the attitudes and practices determined by those beliefs about human nature, the nature of the universe, how people should live, and the best method to seek the truth about reality and values.10
Despite the fact that none of the definitions given above specifies a set of characteristics which is present when and only when we have a religion, or gives us a unique essence, it does seem that they contribute to our understanding of the nature of religion. Thus, it could be said that the presence of any of the features stressed by these definitions could help to make something or an act a religion.
2.3 MARXIST ATTACK ON RELIGION
In his analysis of religion, Marx began by pointing out that religion, particularly Christianity, in its early stage, was basically a form of modern working class movement. It was a movement of oppressed people: “it first appeared as a religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of people subjugated or dispersed by Rome.”11 notwithstanding its liberating nature, it still inculcated into the minds of the oppressed the fact that there is still a world to come where oppression would be no more, thereby reverencing oppression and intimidation. Capitalizing on this fact, the bourgeoisie appropriated religion and all its tenets, using it as the best means to achieving their selfish economic ends. So, in order to emancipate man from oppressed, Marx felt that religion must be destroyed in its entirety.
Marx took a violent stance in his explanation of the nature of religion. According to him, by proclaiming the hope for a future life in which inequalities of this present life would e eliminated, religion makes the present status of workers more endurable. So, forced to endure dehumanizing working condition, human beings create gods to give them comfort. Marx made a systematic outline of the tenets of religion; firstly, he stated that in the ‘Our Father (The Lord’s Prayer)’, we say, lead us not into temptation. And that we must practice towards our neighbours what we ask for ourselves. But our social conditions tempt and the excessive need incites him to crime.12 There is a nonsensical statement on society’s duties of solidarity, with imaginary surpluses and unprovided bills drawn on God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
The social principles of religion justified the slavery of antiquity, glorified the serfdoms of the middle ages. Religion preached the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and all they have for the latter is the pious wish whereas the former has to be charitable towards the oppressed workers.
The social principles of religion also declared all corrupt acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either the just punishment of original sins and other sins or trials that the lord in his infinite wisdom imposes on those redeemed. They also preached cowardice, self-contempt, submission, and so on, as the best option on the part of the oppressed masses.
The painful result of the above is that religion makes man to subject himself to God. But the fact remains that as in the way man is alienated from the product of his labour, and becomes slave to labour, thereby relegating his person, so it is the same in religion. The more man puts into God all his hopes and wills, the less he retains himself.
Accordingly, Marx stated that since religion is used by the ruling class to justify the existing economic arrangement in the society, it serves also to mask the real reasons for the workers’ misery. Things are so bad not because this world is a vale of tears but because the economic arrangements of society are irrational. Religion thus becomes for him, “a means for coping with the harsh inequalities resulting from an irrational economic system.”13
Again, Marx pointed out that religion serves as a kind of opium to weaken the workers’ realization of the extent of their oppression by directing their concerns to a world to come. It also weakened their recognition of the real source of their oppression. Like opium, religion makes the present misery of workers endurable, keeping them from doing anything about their present predicament.
The solution to the question of life’s significance, according to Marx, is not to be found in religion, for religion exists only to make miseries of life more endurable. When we are freed from these miseries, there will be no need for religion. Life will take on the fullness of its meaning only when the exploitative and alienation characteristics of existing societies disappears and everyone finds meaning and fulfillment in satisfying work and in freedom from want. All these will take place when the economic arrangements of the society are transformed.
The tension between the proletariat and the bourgeois will disappear, since society will no longer be divided into warring classes. The workers will be the owners of the means of production, and exploitation will cease.Since religion was only a symptom of an underlying social disorder, when this social disorder is created, religion would disappear, since the economic exploitation that gave rise to religion in the first place would be removed.
Emphatically, Marx posited that the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men is a demand for their real happiness. Religion, in other words, offers only a consolation for economic disorder, and when human existence becomes meaningful as it is destined to be in a classless society, religion will no longer have any function since people will then have real happiness.



SECTION THREE

3.0 CRITICAL EVALUATION
From the description of Marx’s attack on religion, it is very much obvious that Marx was basically concerned about human suffering and deprivation. His list of the inequitable social arrangements supported in the past by religion illustrates why he thought that religion was not only inadequate but would be unnecessary when these social inequalities of society were removed.
It is interesting to note that Marx’s basic emphasis on human dignity and the need to remove forces of oppression is highly commendable, because it gives room to religious institutions and leaders to change their lukewarm attitudes and tenets towards the oppression of the poor masses.
Although to a certain extent religions have been used to defend the exploitation of individuals and to justify inequitable arrangements in the society, but to say as a generalization that this is always the effect of religion would be erroneous, and amounts to a fallacy of hasty generalization.
It is very obvious that for a long time giving an instance of Rev. Fr. Gustavo’s Liberation theology, religion has contributed to the renewal of concern for human dignity, the elimination of dehumanizing aspects of society, and the support of social progress in many forms.
Furthermore, according to Marxist theory, religion should naturally disappear in countries governed by communist principles, for in a truly classless society, there would simply be no need for it. In fact, however, this has not been the case. Religion has not disappeared from Marxist countries, and this poses an interesting dilemma for Marxist theorists. If Marx’s theory of religion is true, then its continued presence in Marxist countries would indicate that an oppressive mode of production still exist in those countries. If, however, it is maintained that in Marxist countries there are just and equitable economic arrangements, Marx theory of religion is inadequate.14


CONCLUSION
Having x-rayed the negative attitude of religion on the proletariats as expounded by Marx, it was glaring that the bourgeois class used religion as a means to oppress and frustrate the proletariats so that these oppressed workers would think that they are meant to suffer, that happiness is guaranteed through hardwork in which the wages to be paid will be heaven.
Notwithstanding the humanistic implication of Marxist theory of religion, the fact remains that Marx was also creating a form of religion, a religion which centres on the liberation of the oppressed proletariats, and destruction of economic exploitation of the capitalists. The Communist Manifesto becomes the Marxist holy book, as from it the proletariats draw strength with the hope of gaining liberation and terrestrial happiness, as against the heavenly happiness promised by other religions, as this later happiness is only an illusion.



REFERENCES
1Norman Melchert, The Great Conversation: A Historical Intriduction
to Philosophy, 2nd ed., (California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1995), p. 8

2Norman Melchert, The Great Conversation: A Historical Intriduction
to Philosophy, p. 9

3Eric H. Warmington and Philip G. Rouse (Eds.), The Complete Texts
of Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. by W. H. D. Rouse, (New York:
The New American Library, 1956), p. viii

4Douglas J. Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to
Philosophy, 2nd ed., (California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995), p. 439

5Paul Edwards (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Vol. V, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), p. 172

6Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and
Philosophy, Lewis S. Feuer (ed), (New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1959), p. i

7Douglas J. Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to
Philosophy, p. 440

8Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and
Philosophy, p. 7

9Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party,
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), p. 412

10Stanley M. Honer and Thomas C. Hunt, Invitation to Philosophy:
Issues and Options, 4th ed., (California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, 1982), p. 157

11Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and
Philosophy, p. 168

12Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, On Religion, (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1955), p. 82

13David Stewart and H. Gere Blocker, Fundamentals of Philosophy,
(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 236

14David Stewart and H. Gere Blocker, Fundamentals of Philosophy,
p. 239