When you see some of the Hindu sects/groups consuming opium as part of the religious traditions, one could almost make a comment that it’s a literal demonstration of Marx’s irreligious observation. It’s as if some people have understood all they need is the stimulation of neurotransmitters to experience god. This psychedelic expression is observed in other religions too.
Sufi Islam’s obsession with wine and women as manifestations of god experience, the trance that is found in many religions, are probably some of the other examples. These are extreme cases of religions but in general every ritualization serves the same purpose. In some parts of India, rituals have been infantilized with activities like keeping the dolls or enacting child’s games with the deity. Some religious people would explain it as the literal expression of the philosophical understanding that the world is a theatre and humans are dolls in a puppet show. Overlooking the fact that gods are part of the puppets(or the only puppets, it’s as if tit for tat puppet show), we may find that (which is true for any explanation of god or ritual) the philosophical understanding itself is limited by the knowledge of man-made institutions. While we can dismiss religious people’s unmethodical explanations, one would wonder whether Marx was thorough in his observation or not.
It probably ambitious of me to criticize Marx without fully understanding his structural-functionality approach to Socialism, but I believe, I can point out the variables he might have overlooked before making the observations on religion.
Before venturing into religion, I should comment on the other area where I feel his observation failed completely, the caste system. According to Marx[2]:
“the caste system of India was based on the hereditary division of labour, which was inseparably linked with the unchanging technological base and subsistence economy of the Indian village community.”
It’s true that many castes are occupation based. However, it’s strictly not division of labour in Adam Smith’s terms. Here the division of labour is intra-caste than inter-caste. Also, the division of the occupation is hierarchical than isolationist. Privileged castes could take up other occupations without the loss of their caste. The unchanging technological base and subsistence economy were the results of the caste system than the foundations. However, the biggest drawback was that, Marx didn’t understand that the foundation was purity and pollution rules as correctly observed by many Indian sociologists. Even Gandhi, with all his casteist biases understood this fact and tried things like cleaning the toilets. I consider Marx’s theory on the caste system is flawed mainly because the dogmatic Marxists of India failed miserably when it comes to the caste system. The class system is part of the caste system, however, in India, the class struggle has no meaning without the caste struggle. I would even say, the class struggle is irrelevant in Indian society. Marx correctly observed how the caste system degenerated the Indian society. However, it should have been up to the Indian Marxists to come out with a proper explanation on the foundation of the caste system based on their direct experience than building upon the Marx’s flawed theory. I believe this lack of direct experience or feeling about the caste system in Marx’s theory can also be observed in his views on religion.
The main variable that Marx missed about religion was ‘identity’. He only talked about ritualization, but failed to notice how religious identity also plays a big part as it is the only basis for pride or self-worth for many people. Marx missed this point as religious identity didn’t play any part in his life.
Marx’s father converted to Catholicism from Judaism to overcome the oppressive limitations enforced by the Christian government. As an oppressed community, many Jews would have strongly clung to the religious identity as an act of defiance. But for Marx’s family, a religious identity by itself was irrelevant. It should be noted that Marx’s father too was a revolutionary for a liberal society. His pragmatism was based on enlightened view about the religious identity than the opportunist turn. With this background, it’s no wonder that Marx didn’t see religious identity as a matter of pride or shame. Religion not only provides illusory happiness but also illusory pride. This aspect is missed completely in his observation about religions.
[1] https://scroll.in/article/972593/rhea-chakraborty-arrest-shows-how-india-sees-drug-addiction-as-moral-failing-not-the-illness-it-is
