Allow me to begin with a quote by Chairman Mao Tse-tung:
When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle.
We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds.
Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well.
Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.
With this in mind, I will say that this is obviously my own interpretation of the analyzed work. There will always be differing views, especially with a topic so controversial within leftist circles.
I will define religion here as neither inherently oppressive nor inherently revolutionary but a social phenomenon shaped by material conditions and one that should be allowed to exist privately under socialism.
The origin of Marx’s “opium of the masses”
The widely quoted “opium of the masses” originates from Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.1 Communist “purists” often use this to claim that religion itself is incompatible with communism.2
The full quote goes:
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. It is the opium of the people.
Religion as a double-edged sword
From my understanding of this theoretically dense (yet honestly, quite poetic) work, Marx saw religion as a double-edged phenomenon.
It is first a symptom of oppression, a cry of pain from a deeply unjust world. It provides comfort and meaning to those suffering under exploitative material conditions. Second, it serves as a tool of pacification (hence the mention of opium, a common painkiller at the time).3
Religion can be used to dull the pain of economic exploitation and can serve as a distraction from the real, material sources of their suffering. Marx focuses not on abolishing religion itself but on abolishing the material conditions that have made religion necessary as an “illusory happiness.”
The emancipation from religion, further, does not necessarily correlate to actual emancipation within civil society. Marx notes:
Luther, we grant, overcame bondage out of devotion by replacing it by bondage out of conviction. He shattered faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith. He turned priests into laymen because he turned laymen into priests. He freed man from outer religiosity because he made religiosity the inner man. He freed the body from chains because he enchained the heart.
He continues:
[A] major difficulty seems to stand in the way of a radical German revolution.
For revolutions require a passive element, a material basis. Theory is fulfilled in a people only insofar as it is the fulfilment of the needs of that people. But will the monstrous discrepancy between the demands of German thought and the answers of German reality find a corresponding discrepancy between civil society and the state, and between civil society and itself? Will the theoretical needs be immediate practical needs? It is not enough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strive towards thought.
A revolution in a material world must meet material needs, not spiritual ones.
[Where] practical life is as spiritless as spiritual life is unpractical, no class in civil society has any need or capacity for general emancipation until it is forced by its immediate condition, by material necessity, by its very chains.
This is, in my view, the issue with religious conservatives: the promise of Heaven or a similar afterlife upon death to believers offers no immediate, tangible support to wider society (or even the believers themselves, in some regards).
The weaponization of religion throughout history
This very notion has been instrumentalized throughout history by the ruling class to keep the masses docile, promising rewards in the afterlife rather than revolution in this one.
Adjacent to this, Christianity specifically has been (and continues to be) used as a tool of oppression. This was seen during the Crusades, the Doctrine of Discovery, the Salem witch trials, and modern MAGA, among many other instances.4
Similarly, Zionism has cherry-picked aspects of Judaism and Christianity, leading believers astray in their ultimate goal of “reclaiming” Palestine through ethnic cleansing and dispossession.
These atrocities were, importantly, not aberrations of faith itself, but instances where religious institutions and justifications were fused with political and economic power to conquer, dispossess, and control. In all these cases, religion was/is indeed, as Marx says, a tool of oppression—a “heartless world’s” justification for its heartlessness.
Marxism-Leninism is able to fill the gap created, providing a material solution to material problems.
The vision of a socialist state and religion: secularism or atheism?
A socialist state must have no forced or official religion and absolutely no hierarchy of power based on religious beliefs. Regardless of religion, people must be treated equally. This ties into wider ideals of equality: equal rights, regardless of race or ethnicity, gender or sex, etc. China, an AES state, follows this.5
This is the very principle of secularism, distinct from anti-religious sentiment. Socialist states in theory are secular ones, but not atheist ones, as atheism is itself a belief—a belief that there is no god.
Thomas Sankara, for instance, engaged with both Catholicism and Islam, yet emphasized secular principles in governance. Fidel Castro emphasized state secularism as well.
The USSR did not align with this, as they actively promoted state atheism and suppressed all religions. This is one of my only criticisms of Stalin and the union. That being said, if an individual actively works against the State and uses their religious freedom as justification, I believe that they must be held accountable regardless of those beliefs.
Building social harmony across religions
The focus must be on material equality and class unity. The ultimate goal is to build a movement and society in which a Christian worker, a Muslim worker, and a non-religious worker can all work in harmony, recognizing their common interest in overthrowing a system that exploits them all.
In this struggle, differing faiths (or the lack thereof) are simply a source of personal strength and community, not a source of division and hierarchy.
See below some examples of Christian communalism performed by the Early Church in Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-35. Notes are in italics.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings…
Trade and commerce are not inherently capitalist, though they are requirements of and often associated with capitalism.
…and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
This aligns with the line “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
This seems to indicate common ownership; Marx calls for the elimination of individual ownership of production means, aiming to redistribute wealth and resources for collective benefit.
And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the LORD Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
See notes from previous passage regarding trade/commerce and mutual aid/material solidarity.
Of course, this is merely an example, and religion is not a requirement to be communist. Ultimately, class solidarity must supersede identity categories, including religious identity.
The socialist project is about creating a world where one’s religion is a private matter, not a public determinant of one’s fate; this is precisely because material needs are equitably guaranteed for all.
The question is whether religious individuals are willing to live in peace and harmony with those who do not share their beliefs. If this is so, there is no reason to limit religious freedoms. Religious belief can coexist with a political project that demands material analysis and collective struggle so long as it is not weaponized as a tool of oppression.
Further reading
As I have stated in the past, I do not believe anyone can be “100% an expert” on any topic. I do not claim to have “all the right answers.” As such, I welcome you all to join me as I read more about this topic. I’ve listed below some relevant books I am currently reading or plan to read in the near future.
Critical Theology against US Militarism in Asia: Decolonization and Deimperialization by Wonhee Anne Joh and Nami Kim
God of the Oppressed by James H. Cone
The God Who Sees: Immigrants, the Bible, and the Journey to Belong by Karen González
Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide by Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan M. Shaw
Islam and Communism by Haji Misbach (tr. by Sawyer Martin French)
Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez
A Land with a People: Palestinians and Jews Confront Zionism by Sarah Sills, Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, and Esther Farmer
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism by Benjamin M. Friedman
When God Became White: Dismantling Whiteness for a More Just Christianity by Grace Ji-Sun Kim and David P. Gushee
As you can likely tell, my expertise is primarily in Christianity/Christian theology. For more related to Islam, Islamic.Socialist (ML) has a great list of resources here:
As a sidenote, Marx is also discussing Hegel’s work here, and honestly, I truly don’t believe anyone understands Hegel completely. I will note that I am also still catching up on the German history of this era.
To note, and as I’ve said before on numerous occasions and again here, I do not support theocracy, and I think that religion should be wholly divorced from the State to ensure there is no religion-based hierarchy.
Unrelated, but I find it ironic that many of the communists weaponizing the “opium of the masses” are also calling for the legalization and proliferation of drugs in AES states like China.
I’ve mixed a lot of denominations here. Obviously, there are differences between, say, Catholicism and Protestantism, but most, especially those unfamiliar with theology, consider both to be “sects” of the same religion rather than entirely different ones.
I do think that the communist project need not require religion, that should be uncontroversial to say.
I do think that religion however, needs materialist analysis. I am utterly convinced that religion can, has been, and ought to be used for revolutionary impetus, geopolitical positioning, and even ethical reasoning. On the last point, I feel it to be necessary (and quite obvious?) That without a materialist analysis, you cant even begin to understand what is just or unjust. But because religion has historically been weaponized and consequently insulated, it has created a rather static ontology that is impervious to practical material synthesis. This is more a critique I have with fellow muslims, so ill digress on this.
One last thing I'd like to mention is that materially islam has occupied a peculiar position with the advent of capitalism. It has almost always (with the exception of Saudi once wahabbism gained prominence) been the target of neo-colonial, imperialist tendencies. Hence secularism and other western practices has been viewed with suspicion by colonial subjects. If a Muslim country has decided on a secular governance, that ought to be their right. However for many the anti-imperialist project is exactly the fight for reclaiming and reaffirming their religious and historical identity as colonial subjects. Such was the case for algeria. But this is theory I pull from Frantz Fanon so feel free to disagree.
Good read though 👌
Interesting piece, I don't entirely disagree with it but I did quote repost with my comments. Also thank you for mentioning my resource list.