The full context of the "opium of the masses" quote: _"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. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."_ He sounds way more sympathetic towards religion here, he sees what it is used for - oppression. But he also sees the reality for the believers who find comfort and community in "a heartless world" and in "soulless conditions"
Yeah, it is evidently important to note that the context of marx is that religion is being used as a tool to promise a better afterlife that doesnt exist and thereby facilitate the exploitation of the masses.
Above all, he sounds deeply sympathetic to those that are the most devout believers. The same who are, unsurprisingly, also those most subjected to precariousness. Is it any surprise that we associate the image of the poor black mother with a high degree of religiosity and devotion to the church? She is not only poor, she is also black, a woman and with mouths to feed. Other than the church, who and what even pretends to be there for he? As a man you are at least lied to and led to believe that you deserve some sort of position as a leader or warrior or what not and therefore deserve some respect.
Besides the Great wisdom and eloquence of your channel....I also enjoy your exquisite taste in Fine art in your videos!....congratulations , may your channel grow and flower!!
I enjoyed the video, gonna give a sub here, but you DO need to read more Marx (the comments already cover the essential but I would suggest 18 of Brumário, since it show not only Marx classic definition about how man shapes history but its also a somewhat fun read)
I disagree with one of your points: you said that Nietzche's Ubermensch can be seen as a generational progression that should be desired. However, Nietzche's Ubermensch would probably see no to little value in creating any kind of legacy. In fact, the way I see it, a true "ideal" Ubermensch would tear down and destroy hopes for the future for their own personal gain.
Always refreshing to listen to people who place the highest value on trying to understand the world instead of the much more prevalent phenomenon of trying to mold it after ones own political affiliations.
I really respect this comment, thanks! That of which you explained is something I hate in anything intellectual, soon as anyone places themselves into a category or label themselves they instantly diminish their abilities to further their scope of understanding due to biases. I am Marxist, Neo Marxist, Freudian, Hegelian, Kantian and so on. Just be your own category of precociousness.
I think the main thing to remember about Marx and Nietzsche on their critique of religion is that religion is merely a placeholder. They want to say that the metaphysical presuppositions we have based our lives and society on for so long (the biggest example in 19th century Europe was obviously religion, Christianity at that) are actually the product of historical processes, material conditions, social relations etc. It is more accurate in 2020 to replace “God”-in the statement “God is dead”-with “metaphysics” for each of these thinkers. They both call into question the natures of consciousness and illusion, their historical development, contingency, and reflexivity. Thus they offer their own remedies (secular communism for Marx, self creation and life unattached from metaphysical assumptions for Nietzsche).
Hitler and Stalin, embodying obscene exaggerations of these ideologies, suggest that the great thinkers need to reconcile these conflicts if they want to resolve the death of God.
You are missinterpreting Marx. His main intention was to say that the main opression comes from the material world (class social relations of production, and the conflict between man and nature in earlier stages of human developement); and that religion is only a mirror image of those problems originated in the material world.
I have just discovered your channel very recently. I watched one video and I subbed immediately, not only due to my absolute love for philosophy, psychology and all matters intellectual, but also because of the manner in which you discuss your views. It is clear, informative and helpful. Thanks! Keep up the good work. Your channel is extremely underrated but I'm sure it will grow :)
The problem with both Nietzsche and Marx is their understanding of religion. The true value of religion can only be experienced by the "inner circle" of those who have been granted the understanding, either as a gift or by their commitment. Religion is not meant to be utopian - everyone deserves it - experience, although some of the principles of religion can be used to ensure a more or less tolerable existance for all (i.e. Respect they neighbour). By attacking the idea of God in order for all humanity to advance, Marx and Nietzsche have contradicted themselves as the advancement of all humanity is a utopian idea. As they differed from their contemporaries either by iherent gifts or by study, so "progress" is dependant on the individual, and for the individual, not for the masses
I'm one of the new guys. looking into stoic philosophy since i have nothing better to do then sitting in my house and wondering if intelligent life in the universe exists. its already damn hard to find on earth, so chances are slim.
Hey, I'm not saying don't practice stoic philosophy, but before you do, please make sure to read the criticisms. I think they're important to know before you jump into it. Good luck with life 👍
Have you ever read Feuerbach? Marx never necessarily opposed religion. Engels himself even wrote about the emancipatory potential in Christianity. Marx saw religion as the creation of man and understood the material condition that produces religion in the first place. That's why he said in the Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right that even if humanity breaks away from the chain of religion, they would still search for another chain. Hence, the point is to show man the material reality as it is. I mean, just read the introduction to his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. It's the most beautiful description of religion ever: ”The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic 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. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is 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. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
Nietzsche understood that it is not actually possible to rid the world of pain and power games. The reason communism always ends in disaster is because we are simply not capable of organizing our society along any other lines than a hierarchy. This is readily apparent if you study communal living arrangements and the way a power structure invariably emerges. There is obviously no equality in nature but after having been told that we are all equal in the eyes of God for 2000 years we have convinced ourselves this is an indisputable truth, and only then could we produce a thinker like Marx, who uses ideals borrowed from Christianity to promote his vision of a godless society. Even if it were possibly to breed out the status game amongst humans, the result would not produce a world that was nice to live in. We would only become a homogenous mass of mediocrity and unjustified suffering.
Indeed he was a *poetic atheist* [but so is Zizek], though he was also kind of paradoxical. He wanted to re-affirm Plato, but blamed Socrates for the upheaval of Slave Morality [even more than Christ].
A lot of what you said about Marx is actually wrong. 1: Marx didn't advocate the suppression of religion, quite the contrary, he was in favor of a secular state. In his book "On the Jewish Question" (in which his opinions on religion are contained) he openly defended the freedom of expression of all religions, and even defended the political emancipation of the Jews and criticized Bruno Bauer for being against it. He defended the freedom of expression of all peoples, including Christianity. 2: For Marx, Christianity didn't happen because of the economy, quite the opposite. In the same book I mentioned, he says that the formation of religion is a consequence of the SOCIAL environment in which the entity lives (and not the economic one). Marx wasn't deterministic and this is visible in Grundrisse. What Marx said about religion is that during the change of mode of production, a new religion may possibly be created to legitimize a ruling class, but this is not a rule, even if, if he affirms the contrary, this would be anti-dialectical. 3: When Marx says "Opium of the people" he's not only thinking about addiction, but also about the "good side of drugs". What does the user feel besides addiction? The good feeling of being under the influence of drugs. So as he makes clear in the first book quoted, religion is a double-edged sword: it addicts the person, alienates her, makes the person accept the current state of misery and expect something in paradise (which is likely not to exist), but at the same time it is "the sigh of an oppressed creature", because religion gives a reason for that creature to live. The religious sees nothing but his faith, and without his faith, he would be in an empty, aimless life, since he doesn't have the capacity to perceive that man makes his own history, he wouldn't gain anything in return and would only be a fret for society, he'd do nothing that has value. 4: Marx believed that religion would only be overcome based on the form in which it was created: from man's self-awareness. If I told a religious to stop being religious, would he stop? No. If I pointed a gun at the religious and told him to stop believing in God, would he stop? He would say yes to save his life, but he would continue with the same belief. For Marx, man would stop believing in religion as soon as he became aware of the evil that religion does, religion will disappear as soon as man can walk on his own legs without having a "divine crutch". Therefore, because of these things, Marx didn't defend the suppression of religion, but his freedom, because only through the latter would man become self-aware, through freedom. Marx wasn't dogmatic and the theory of Nietzsche wasn't better than the theory of the communist, you that didn't understand what Marx said.
Thanks learned alot from that and thought a how victimizing capatalistic system may take advantage of those who believe, only learned how to do so in an ungodly way. Also about how it's actually that God is the shared spchodelic of the masses. I've not thought alot of this perticular aspect of I've done a round about personal study of alot of social, governing, phylisofical and spiritual/religious aspects. Working on my personal concrete view of things and I'm slowly coming to my own personal understanding. I absolutely love search for new possibly universal views, if that's even possible. Thank you for your input!!!
Thanks for this, what I like about doing these videos is that it is also a massive learning platform for me as well when seeing the informative discussion in the comments and how it keeps me on my toes! To better understand his in depth views on Religion what Marxist writings would you recommend? :)
This was a very informative comment. Marx is one of, if not the most misinterpreted philosophers in history. I am not necessarily a fan of him or his views and I'm trying to find the truth and that, in my opinion, does not translate into believing one philosophy over the others. But I'm tired of the evil picture many paint of him. It is too easy. Thanks for thr useful info!
Actually he did. He said that Chriatianity died under its own sword, because religion encourages us to find truth and Nietzsche, knowing about Renaissance and scientific revolution of previous centuries, knew science (truth) will bring Christianity to an end.
I think you’re right, but it’s worth noting that In The Antichrist he writes something like that. He argues that the story of the flood is not about sin but actually God’s fear of science, which, in a way, kills God.
@John Lariviere @John Lariviere In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche clearly states and believes that all wisdom comes from oneself, one's body. Also, he said that all philosophers must seek solitude if they want to really philosophize. He found refuge in nature because of his health conditions aswell. He was a human who could see beyond his time, there is no doubt about that. Whether he knew that science (as we know it today) would bring an end to religion, I do not believe he would think in such manner because of two reasons: A) Technology and science, they advance in an exponential manner, not linear. I do not think anyone could predict this kind of advancement in 19century. B) Nietzsche's philosophy was not about demolishing religion from the surface of the earth. He knew religion (belief systems more precisely) was a pillar of the human psyche and he was 'scared' that if that would happen, terrible things would occur in the world. He was right: 2 world wars in 20th century. Also, I want to add: He also did not believe that humans were able to achieve the Overman, rather he believed that humans could use it as a reference of the thing that holds the highest value, essentially, God.
So there's just a few things here that I take issue with, but the underlying thread through all of them is just a bit of context surrounding the various statements that I think clarify the underlying points I believe they were trying to make more clearly. One of the primary contexts for Marx is his conception of 'historical materialism', which is that ideology (so religion would be included in this realm) and the material evolve each other in a dialectical feedback loop (this is basically an extension of 'dialectical materialism' which is basically the same thing but at an individual, as opposed to systemic, level). So this is important for the quotes about religion and really everything because basically all of the speculation/analysis he presents is time and space dependent. So in other words, religion doesn't just disappear (there's a semantic point here too, but I think this will make more sense to clarify this with the Nietzsche point), the _material conditions_ have to first exist for it to 'wither away' over time being reinforced over generations. If you check out his stuff on alienation this might become more clear I think (I'll find the specific parts I'm thinking of if interested and if I'm remembering properly ha). Which leads to the next thing regarding China, which is that the 'socialist' and 'communist' political affiliation labels are to indicate _intention_ because of this time dependent evolutionary process. So like China under Deng famously described its socio-political-economic intention as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but would never claim that it has reached such a state of actually existing socialism yet as it is clearly not descriptive of a 'proletarian dictatorship' as Marx put it. Specifically, similarly to the USSR before it, China is following a Marxist-Leninist tendency which declares a 'vanguard party' to wield control of the state apparatus to guide it, and eventually a global workers party, to actually existing socialism (which is global necessarily - see Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for more on this, also tons of historical stuff like the emergence of the international workers party which was an attempt at preempting this and USSR geopolitical strategy before collapse). This is of course not to editorialize as to what they are _actually_ doing as obviously I have no idea lol but it does seem to follow this conception in general with their belt and road thing and their general disposition. And regarding Nietzsche's "god is dead" thing, you definitely hit on much of the context _but_ (at least in my interpretation) I'm not sure if it came through exactly that "god" in this context (similar to Marx) is meant to convey the focal point of ideology from which what is possible emerges. So in other words, what I interpreted as Nietzsche's point is that "god" (the lens of potential and values) in the aesthetic context of religion (the term for the mechanism of ideological social control) is dead, but god still lives on now simply more obfuscated (like through "reason" or "rationality") and will thus manifest as religion with a new aesthetic. This also might illuminate his irrationalist views as he saw the rational as another religious mechanism, and also the other point you mentioned where you interpreted it as a potential spiritual openness, but again I think it may be mostly semantic as "god" is intrinsic to humanity, just that god's form can be that which maximizes human potential to rise to the level of ubermensch or constricts it to the level of slave through a religious social control manifestation. Hope this made sense as it's mostly semantics. So I guess my basic point here is essentially that "god" and religion are distinct terms with both Marx and Nietzsche, where _"god"_ is the ideological goal/potential/imagination and _religion_ is the specific historical mechanism of social control that has restricted a fuller realization of such.
A very interesting analysis. The problem for me personally has always been the manner in which various groups of distinct ideologies treat and interpret marx in accordance to their specific ideological agendas (or maybe, that is in some sense, an act we all unconsciously commit on an individual level). What I mean is that from what I have found in my not-so-long of a search in this chaotic and crazy valley that we call philosophy, everyone seems to be interpreting, and not always as authentically and honestly as one would expect, the worldviews of those who they oppose or support, in such a way that often times constitutes an extra-hard problem for those like me who are in search of truth (or at least we think we are). With regards to Marx and his ideologies in particular, I have been recieving so many mixed signals as to whether his ideas are conducive to the construction of a better, more just society or not, that I cannot say with certainty what portion of what I have researched/read/watched/followed is truth, what of it is mere agenda-oriented interpretation and what portion of it is downright misinformation. It is a shame that his ideas have been used in these political games (and the fact that he himself did pursue this road and aimed at this path doesn't help either lol) to such a degree that it is nearly impossible at this point (at least for the likes of me) to seperate the action from the actor. To identify what of it is "true communism/socialism" and what of it isn't, is a job easier said than done. There are some who claim that if one says "that wasn't real communism", what they truly mean is that "if I had been the person in charge, I would have actually brought about the utopian vision of Marx and ushered true justice" in an arrogant manner. I always found that to be a somewhat unsatisfying criticism, but then again, it is hard to say for sure that there is nothing to it either. It seems a mighty task to find one's way in this entangled web of agendas, idealogies and political games. It also is unfortunate that I haven't had the opprtunity to read Marx's own books yet, and that is really something I look forward to. Do you recommend any videos or books that might be good in finding more about the "true" visions of Marx and possible counter arguments for the criticisms of his views? I've heard plenty of critique but to me it seems to be too easy to simply purport he was just wrong or straight up an uneducated idiot. Thanks :)
Daedric Dragon Just read him like really just try. Anyway, you have to be careful when people say ”the USSR was not a real communist” because theoretically, they are right. You also have to understand that socialism is not just Marxism, but it is a tradition with many different schools of thought. Anarchists would say that the USSR was not a socialist, not because they are trying to make an excuse but because the USSR model was never their model of socialism in the first place, but if you ask a tankie, he will defend the USSR (try go to communism subreddit lol). So you see, it's good to know the differences between different socialist schools. But with regards to Marx, he was a great philosopher no matter what you think about his political cause. Read him, and you would learn a lot.
@@LeonWagg Thanks! I definitely will, even though internet is my best bet with regards to some types of material as I live in Iran, and frankly, here getting an uncensored version of some books is another story. But I agree that he was a great philosopher regardless of the way people look at his views. Have a good day!
10:50 i think you misunderstood marx, i think that marx is saying, because the poor and powerless are much more likely to be religious, because of the promise of an afterlife , that, if there would be no poor and all would be equal in a perfect communists society, religion would die off. I don't think he wanted a ban on religion, or at least thats how i understand it:)
@@ammaromaschlomini6141 and moreover rich may show that they are Religious but they aren't . In terms of fundamental. Trump may hold the Bible but he can never believe that it's easier 4 a camel🐪 to pass through needel than for Rich to go through heaven
6:28 "Marx was a 'rationalist'".😳...😄..😆.🤣 Karl Marx = 'reason' 'logic', and.......'science'. 🤭...🥴..😂.🤣👍! Well....there's one thing he definitely wasn't........ An economist .....🎤drop!....✌
@fynes leigh There's quite a contradiction in your wall of text. You speak of morality, good, evil, right, and wrong as "nonsense". But then you speak of bullying, injuring, intimidating, and killing as if they were wrong.
@fynes leigh Wanton bullying, injuring, intimidating, and killing sure do seem to be held as "subjectively" bad by an awful lot of people. You seem to imply a moral judgement when you say "'cause trouble". Can I still get that cigar?
For anyone reading the comments, let me clarify: China is indeed socialist. However it has few benefits. Venezuela is also socialist but also has few benefits. The only countries that actually have benefits tend to be capitalist countries with socialist leanings, such as western European countries. Even then though, it's because America foots the military and medical research bill
@thela hun ginjeet right but Mao tried a way tuning out as desastrious as the bochévics, as if communism can not be done with rationality, just blind violence and utopic nonsense they just made it to turn people into a new way of slavery, representing it as the only moral possibility to be.
Hey I really love your content so please don't take this as an insult, but the less formal elements of this video really don't fit the format. While I understand the desire to be more personable (especially during the intro), it kind of diverges from the formal nature of your content. I really enjoy the thought provoking, formal nature of you video essays, so the less formal elements only serve to hamper the tone. But alas, it's up to you. So long as you keep producing amazing content I'll happily continue watching. Cheers!
@@ouisellmedia Honestly the informal elements I was reffering to was his introduct (ya boi) and his use of stock images while refering to the antichrist as (creme de la creme). Perhaps these details weren't deserving of a comment. However I feared that they may be the begginings of a turn towards a more widely accessable style, so i figured it would be worth mentioning.
I get what you mean, don't worry I won't be slowly over time dumbing down the content if that's what you think it indicates, I was just being a bit more casual in approach then being constantly analytical and serious.
@@ThoughtsonThinking Yeah thats exactly what I meant. Honestly I just think that it stood out because it broke from the opening I'm accustomed to, and therefore appeared be potentially indicitive of a larger change. Good to know that I don't have to fear for the future of one of my favorite content creators. I love your stuff. Keep up the good work!
Marx,at the time, couldn't educate himself on eastern religions really,his critique is valid when applied to western Christianity and at the time western european christians were those who his works are aimed at.Because marxism is a progressive philosophy nowadays marxists acknowledge that Marx's critique wasn't based on all religions and there are many religious marxists nowadays,Dalai Lama calls himself a marxist.The USSR shouldn't have tried to fight religion but maybe idea communism itself can be a religion,instead of christian "in afterlife you will get rewarded for your suffering" you can say that fighting for a just and peaceful society-communism you will erase people's suffering as much as possible and that whole society will be rewarded.You can also draw a parallel between communism and kingdom of God,as the final stage of the development of human society.Marxism,alongside existentialism is what personally kinda helped me escape nihilism
How could you ever find meaning in both existentialism and marxism at the same time? Existentialism centres on human experience and the creation of autonomous values, while marxism is a rationalist system which imposes moral imparitives onto others. The only existential philosopher who I see as compatible with marxism is Simone de Beauvoir. Even then, her definition of oppression is so broad that it literally encapulates parenting. In spite of all this, I kind of feel bad about critiquing your ideas, because I personally know how hellish nihilism can be.
@@drewmurray4589 Well, Marxism is largely, even in its philosophical aspects, centered around economics. The economy, then, refers to a system (yes), of production and distribution of commodities/services, from those with the ability and means of production, to those who need (though in modern economics an important aspect to consider is also the exchanging capability of an individual, meaning a person in need of certain commodities/services will not necessarily receive them if they lack the purchasing power earned from their own ability). An economy, although it is a rationalist system like you describe, is centered around people and what they do - something which altogether isn't all that rational, and based on the human experience and values of which Existentialism is fond of. As such, an intersection between those forms of thought is rather more common than one might think. But the thing about marxism imposing moral imperatives onto others is a less charitable take. All countries impose moral imperatives through the way of law, and markets, if not outright impose them, can rather heavily and commonly evaluate and incentivize a set of morality over another. Marx's ideals were much less about equality - definitely not equality of outcome, a logical impossibility - and much more about freedom of an individual from hierarchical chains, (unless we're talking about marxist-leninist thought) and to have enough of their needs catered to, so as to produce the most out of their own individual ability. "The free development of each is the condition for the development of all." Can be taken in an existentialist way, no?
@@aykay1468 Yes I agree that "'The free development of each is the condition for the development of all.' Can be taken in an existentialist way?" but only by adopting a Beauvoirian framework. Nietzche would denouce such ideas as a form of slave morality, seeing as slave morality uses appeals to pity and altruism to limit the possibilities of the powerful. He would quesiton why the powerful should have any interest in providing the needs of the weak, when those resources could instead be used to further their autonomously created pursuits. Satre (while himself a communist) focused his thought on the individual's creation of existencial projects. As far as I'm aware, he never laid out a convincing case for why such existencial projects should concern themselves with the needs of others in their existencial pursuits. Only Beauvoir asserted that one cannot will themselves free without willing that all be free. Only through this apriori is one able to entrench communism within existencialism. The issue here is the fact that this argument relies on a metaphysical presupposition, something which existentialism is fundementally opposed to. However I could be wrong regarding Satre. I haven't read enough of his work to be certain that he didn't intrench communism within his philosophy. If you know of anywhere where he did, please let me know as I'd love to read it so that I can make my opinion more sophistocated. Cheers!
15:31 Can I get a link to this one? I like IT Also the Zeus like one too. Thanks in advance to anyone who gives me the link These ones too 15:47 16:09 16:22
Great video as always! Honestly, I think Marx ended up creating something religious in nature when people tried to implement his ideas.I think religion and ideology can be so hard to distinguish in the way they work in our minds. I get the sense that it's just the way we work. And putting Nietzsche's thoughts against Marx's on this subject is like master and apprentice. I actually wrote this on FB not long ago, but I think it kinda goes along the lines of this video. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In some of my previous posts I've mentioned how people will still view symbols and people religiously despite rejecting religion as dogma (myself included in this), "You can take away a man’s gods, but only to give him others in return. The leaders of the mass State cannot avoid being deified, and wherever crudities of this kind have not yet been put over by force, obsessive factors arise in their stead, charged with demonic energy - for instance, money, work, political influence, and so forth" - The Undiscovered Self, page 46 I very much see it being the case with Marx, he's akin to a prophet who delivered the message that we could create an archetypal Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. He created a morality where the good would need to be selfless and give up their property and possessions for all, and the evil was in the capitalists who only work for themselves, stole from the poor, and took all power for themselves. The original sin being wealthy and successful. (There have also been many alterations, including race etc into the equation with intersectionality for example, but it's similar to how it evolved from Judaism, to Christianity, and to Islam in a sense.) It's not to say Marx's criticisms of capitalism aren't largely accurate, however his ideological framework to replace has been far worse in practise. But I would like to get onto Karl Marx himself as a person: Marx was a man who wanted to to abolish all rights of inheritance, but had actually celebrated and hoped for his relatives' deaths to live on the inheritance they left for him to live on. A man who believed in the labour of the proletariat, who didn't work a day of labour in his life, and came from a bourgeoisie family. He claimed ideology was a product of economic substructure that the bourgeoisie used to control the masses, yet he created an ideology to control them too. He wanted the revolution to come so he could go back to Europe from London as a victor. His ideology itself relies on a violent revolution, then for a stateless system to arise from the dictatorship of the proletariat (but the power vacuum ends up being filled by a dictator who doesn't relinquish power). He's the epitome of the man who, "jumps over his shadow in order to hurl himself avidly on an idealistically program that promises him a welcome alibi." - The Undiscovered Self, page 72 He had almost lost his relationship with Engels by not taking his grieving seriously (in a sense bragging about how little those things meant to him), and if his apology wasn't accepted, who knows if Das Kapital would've ever been completed without Engels finishing it after his death. But it's the way it is, and that's the way it is now supposed to be. There's certainly room to separate the wheat from the chaff. Marx's ideas are certainly appealing at surface level for the very least, otherwise why would people still idealise him and his ideas today? Many systems that people claim to be socialist today, are capitalist economies with social benefits and safety nets (which I'm not opposed to). We should work toward a new system (as capitalist systems today certainly could lead to our downfall), or at least continue to find feasible ways to limit it to save the Earth and our souls. We must be vigilant that ideology is not the answer, and that the most important level to cater our laws and prejudices to should be an individual level rather than collectively. Your projection is the enemy far more often than the people who you project it onto are. Feel free to correct me or to give your thoughts and insights. Information on Marx's life was taken from Marx The Man by Thomas Sowell here on YT.
@@thotslayer9914 Yeah, I will eventually get around to properly reading Marx. I wasn't really disputing Das Kapital here, I was just pointing out some of his personal flaws within my own interpretation of Jung's individual and collective psychology. And how his ideas turned into an ideology that was religious in nature. Honestly, I find a lot of people who vouch for Marx or some form of Marxism today will attack the character of others yet neglect who he was as a man. Which I could understand more if his theories worked in practise.
Talking about Marx as a man. It's not black and white, as you think. He's a human and full of hypocrisies just like everybody else. He wasn't born in a bourgeois family; his father was a lawyer and didn't own any means of production. If you want to use Marxist terminology, then you have to get it right. I think Marx’s life is pretty tragic as a father (many of his children died in their infancy, and you can read how heartbroken he was because it expressed in his letters). His love story with Jenny is also very fascinated. If you want to read about Marx’s family life, I recommend you read Mary Gabriel’s masterpiece Love and Capital. Nonetheless, What I admire about Marx as a man is his commitment to his belief even if that means he had to sacrifice his whole life. After he got his PhD, Marx could have become a respected professor, but because of his radical politics, he had to leave continental Europe. Although he faced a difficult time as a refugee, Marx still committed to his cause and organized many worker movements, including the First International. Also, the way you describe Marx as if he hated the capitalists and saw them as evil is total nonsense. Marx rejected the moral argument as opposed to materialism, and for him, the question of economic relationship is rooted in the real-life experience of ordinary people. If you read deep into Das Kapital (especially Volume one), you would probably find yourself sympathizing with the capitalists. ”He wanted the revolution to come so he could go back to Europe from London as a victor” What?? What is that even means? London IS Europe, do you mean continental Europe? And where do you even get the idea that Marx wanted a revolution so he could go back home as a ”victor?” ”His ideology itself relies on a violent revolution.” So how do you think we overthrew the kings and the queens? By asking them nicely? When capitalism broke from feudalism, it was through violent revolutions. Should the Americans be condemned for their violent revolution against the British monarchy? In fact, Marx and Engels always emphasized that they would prefer a peaceful revolution if it is possible. Engels wrote that: ”It would be desirable if this could happen (peaceful revolution), and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it.” I don't think you know what the dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means the rule by the absolute authority of the proletariat. Since the working class is the majority of the society, then the dictatorship of the proletariat itself is a rule of the majority. In the famous Marx and Bakunin debate, Bakunin asked Marx on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat: ”The Germans number around forty million. Will, for example, all forty million be member of the government?” Marx then replied: ”Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune. The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.” So what Marx had in mind is not what you think but, in fact, a radical form of democracy in which the working people directly participate in the decision making in the form of communes. I don't know where you read that Marx nearly lost his relationship with Engels. The friendship between Marx and Engels is something extraordinary and unique. I advise you to read their personal letters, Engels’ speech at Marx’s funeral, and how depressed Engels became after Marx’s death. There are so many things wrong about what you wrote. I mean not entirely wrong, but most of what you said is just based on misunderstandings and stupid propaganda. For example, when you said Marx never works a day of labor in his life, how can you even say that to a dude who wrote one of the most influential philosophical systems ever? He was a journalist, and that itself is labor. Or are you suggesting that journalism is not a real work? Marx also worked closely with working people and other socialists to form many worker organizations. That's also his work. I mean, you should just read Marx. I remember the first time I read Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. I don't agree with everything, but it is one of the most beautiful philosophical texts I have ever read, and at that time, as a philosophy student, I have read many. Marx wrote like a poet, and his language is so beautiful and dialectical, especially if you read it in German. For example, when Marx analyzed the function of money in a capitalist society, he used Shakespeare and Goethe as references. He somehow managed to use the notion of love paralleling it with the concept of money and its alienating power. You can see Marx’s genius in the very words that he used; you don't have to agree with him, but reading him is a pure pleasure.
@@LeonWagg Excellent reply! So many people read other people's writings on another man's writings, without knowing any context or nuance, and think they've got him completely understood!
@@LeonWagg First of all, fully reading Marx isn't a requirement for criticising the systems created with his ideas. Do you think people are reading Adam Smith and John Locke when criticising Capitalist economies? No, they just observe and criticise it (or read other people who criticise it... Marx for example), so don't expect it not to happen for those disastrous attempts for Communism. Honestly, just double standards how people think this is an actual argument. Bourgeoisie is the social middle or upper class, not somebody who specifically owns means of production. Even in Marx's hijacking of the word's use, he would've at least been in the lower strata of the bourgeoisie. He created like five layers of the bourgeoisie, for how much they perpetrated in the class struggle against the proletariat (this isn't going to result in a peaceful movement lol). And people were punished by these standards where the revolutions did come. By creating this division of the classes, you've already created the enemy with us vs them., and one system against another. I wasn't just trying to attack his character with the examples, as I wouldn't say he was free of the responsibility of his childrens' deaths, and he wasn't faithful to his wife (and numerous other things) but my point is that he's happy to apply different rules to the society he creates than he would live by himself. He's stating he's doing this with the best intentions, but he was literally trying to start revolutions and wanted to return to Europe (do you honestly think he thought he'd be ploughing fields afterwards?) His arrogance along with ignorance of the human psyche and himself means that his ideas and narratives are incomplete, and that's the basis of ideology when you have the people you can pin the blame on (especially when it becomes dogmatic). This is very religious in nature, the actual bad parts that anti-theists love to point out about religion but often end up striving for themselves within ideology (ideologues get their opium too). The dictatorship of the proletariat is the process of the people taking power, it's supposed to be a period where they take control control and own the means of production until they can implement true communism; he used the Paris Commune as a prototype example of it. As I said, it always ends up as a socialist state where the ruthless people seize the power vacuum and don't relinquish power. I told you where I got the information from for your questions. It's somewhat biased, I won't deny that, but some of Sowell's assessments were quite fair on the information provided (such as his use of the N word and how he spoke about Jews), but obviously he didn't cover everything. It was one of his letters when Engel's first wife died, as Marx pretty much didn't care that his mum died for example with his mind set. He would complain about his mum not giving him money and got money from Engels to claim his inheritance when she died. Well, labour is labour, manual intensive industrial work for a paycheck. I'm aware he was a journalist, but you can hardly compare that to actual labouring. I'm not saying it's not work, I'm saying it's not labour. That last part actually reminds me of Muslims saying how beautiful the Quran is. I won't deny he is a poetic genius, maybe he is, I know he did a lot of poetry earlier on. It may be beautiful, but the resulting ideas and results aren't. Honestly, thanks for taking the time to write the reply. I know I should honestly read him, as I will get a better understanding. I stand by that it's not a requirement though. Or people shouldn't criticise anything useless they're a master.
I'm not saying you should read everything from Marx. I said that if you want to criticize him, then you should read him enough to know the basic foundation of his thought system. And you have to be specific. Are we talking about Marx’s work or what people did in his name? One must have the ability to differentiate the two. If not, then you would end up in the same position as those idiots who dismiss Nietzsche simply because the Nazis used his Will to Power as a justification for their anti-semitism. Marx did not hijack the definition of ”bourgeoisie.” The term had been used before Marx, among other socialists, to make a distinction between those who own the means of production and those who don't. I have read Marx (a lot as I'm doing a thesis), but I have never come across his ”five layers of the bourgeoisie.” He talks a little bit on the petite bourgeoisie but did not really get into detail. You are saying like the concept of class never existed before Marx, and somehow he invented it. Class distinctions exist, no matter what you think of Marx. Smith and Ricardo talked about class as much as Marx did. Smith hated landlords and went as far as calling them ”parasites.” Going back to the term bourgeoisie, as I said it was not just Marx who defined the term bourgeoisie in that sense, but it was also other socialists, but in case you don't know, apart from the socialist, nearly EVERY continental European economist in the late 19th century up to the mid 20th century used the term bourgeoisie in the same sense as Marx. Read Schumpeter, the great champion of capitalism. Stop looking at Marx through a cheap moralistic lens. Marx’s philosophical system is mainly a critique of political economy and ontological materialism. It was never about how to be a food father or a good citizen. I mean Heidegger was a nazi, but he was also a great philosopher. If you want to cherry-pick the shitty sides of every philosopher, then I have some bad news for you. That's why what is important is not the man himself but the value of his work. Marx never blamed the bourgeoisie. In fact, he didn't really hate capitalism lol. He even embraced capitalism and its innovations. For him, capitalism is a unique chance for humanity to create a more advanced society. ”Human psyche” I don't know what you are even trying to say there. Btw Marx never saw his theories to be something deterministic. I mean, look at the history of the publications of the first volume of Das Kapital; when Marx first published it in 1867, he mentioned in his letter that he already felt the need to change things just not long after the publication. Marx published the second edition in German, which contains a significant amount of changes from the first then, after that, he published the third edition in French. Even before he died, he again felt like he needed to change something. That’s why he never had a chance to really finish all volumes, and most of his work was not published in his lifetime. In his letter to Ruge, Marx emphasized the need for: ”ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.” When he introduced something theoretically new, Marx also provided counter-arguments against his own thesis. For example, in the Grundrisse, where he talks about the law of diminishing returns, Marx provided eight-nine counter-arguments against his own point, and if you read him closely, you know that those counter-arguments, in the end, won over his original thesis. He then came to a totally different conclusion from where he began. It seems like you don't get my point. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a radical form of democracy. The Paris Commune is precisely an example of direct democracy and the self-organization of the workers. That's why Marx replied to Bakunin that all 40 million German workers would directly be involved in the decision making in the form of communes, and that's for him is the definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Did Engels ever complain about helping his best buddy during a difficult time? Engels loved Marx as much as Marx loved Engels. Engels always said that Marx was a true genius, and he intended to help Marx financially so that Marx could go on writing. As I said, Marx’s life would be much more comfortable if he didn't dare to criticize the Prussian state. Btw if you want to go all the way on this bs, you should also say that Engels was not the only friend who helped Marx financially. Many other friends also did. I don't know, dude, what would you do if you become the number one enemy of every government in continental Europe and have to go on exile? Labor IS work. It is the activity people perform to support themselves or others. It doesn't necessarily mean hard industrial work lol. Being a journalist is a proletariat position. Being a journalist means you have no access to the means of production, and you only have yourself to sell for wages. And what would you say to another job of his and that was being a union organizer and worked closely with other workers? Lol, I would say the same thing for some other philosophers (so don't you think I am religiously in love with Marx’s words the same way Muslims are with Quran), but yeah, because I'm German and Marx’s use of language is genius. Tbh it's not just the language but precisely the essence of what he was writing. If you are well-read in western literature, then you would be in love with Marx. In his writing, you would find Balzac, Shelly, Goethe, Byron, Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Dante, Chernyshevsky, Heine, and many others. Marx and Engels had an excellent knowledge of world art and truly loved literature, classical music, and painting. That's what so great about them. As a philosophy student, I like Marx not because I am a Stalinist but because Marx, no matter what you think of him, is a great philosopher. I admire his significant contributions to academia as one of the most influential thinkers who ever lived, but that doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.
I don't think Marx wanted to abolish religion outright in order to reach/establish communism. "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness" - Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Seems like he meant to abolish using religion as a means to happiness in the afterlife(illusory happiness), instead pursue real happiness in this world by creating better living and material conditions
What Marxist or neo marxist material would you recommend for getting up to scratch with its required necessary literature that isn't the communist manifesto?
Marx wasn't for direct abolition of the Church, as well as he didn't exclaimed anything like "religion must perish". Rather, he (as I understand) thought that in the classless society there would be no demand for Church and its instances, because the people would be free to organize their living-material conditions so well that piety and religiosity would have no necessity to prevail. Thus, "opium" is insofar desired as the life is too difficult to endure; "opium" (as "Faith") is a substitution for a cause that enables one to suffer through worst conditions. In classless society, people COULD STILL practice religion, but there would be no RATIONAL BASIS LEFT for it to be practiced in majority.
@Thoughts on Thinking, Read Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, And A critique of German Ideology, that will give you an understanding of the materialist basis of Marx's philosophy.. Then supplement those readings with the articles here: Marx and Engels on religion, from marxists.org
"Religion is the opium of the masses” is one of Marx’s most quoted phrases. However, the full quote is almost always neglected, which explains the position of Marxism far more adequately. Marx explains that religion fills the soulless void found in class society, and, in a sense, even indicates the need to protest against the injustice of this world. However, by seeking mystical and otherworldly explanations and solutions to the injustices of the real world, it plays the key ideological role in maintaining class society. Marxism is about achieving the full realisation of humanity’s powers, the unfolding of our nature without diversion into obscurantist fetishism, be that the fetish for money or for religious symbols. But we can only cast aside these illusions when we directly control our fate, and to do that we need to put the productive forces of society under social control. In other words, we need socialism and a revolution. Religion cannot be overcome by recourse to pure, rational arguments; we must instead attack its social foundation. Marxists are in favour of religious freedom and do not set up barriers to religious workers joining in the struggle for socialism. However, we are irreconcilable atheists and materialists in our own world outlook, and we are in favour of the radical separation between religion and the state." -From Marxism and Religion, by Alan Woods at marxist.com
Wouldn't it be fairer to Marx to assume that he simply meant getting rid of the institution of religion (the power of the bourgeoisie priesthood and a state church, e.i. the Church of England) as opposed to getting rid of an individual's private worship? "In the "Wages of Labour" (1844), Marx wrote: "To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs-they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment."" -wikipedia Doesn't this quote imply, or rather support, Marx's view that abolition of private property didn't mean giving up personal possessions (or beliefs) but it meant the abolition of the institution of private property in the hands of a few. Thus, religion could still persist, just not controlled by a church or any state institution. I think that for Nietzsche we don't need mere "time at our disposal" for creativity, we need our lives, institutions, etc., revolved around creativity and human betterment. But I'm splitting hairs. The end goal of Marxist communism is such an environment of anarchism. I also prefer Nietzsche's method for critiquing religion. My only problem is that Nietzsche's method was not for everyone. The main people with access (but I really mean understood) to Nietzsche's texts were people with sufficient education and means. It works for me because I can understand some of Nietzsche's writings and I have an understanding of how to obtain other sources (lol, like wikipedia, and Heidegger, and other modern writers) that help me better understand what Nietzsche meant. Marx's revolutionary method wouldn't help the individual in the same way, routing out slave morality. Marx would probably affirm some of those aspects. Particularly the communal ones. But the revolution would destroy the church as a state institution. Do the state (supposedly) can't used it as an opiate any more. I can't speak on Leninism or Maoism and how they treated religion. As of right now I trust your interpretation. But that just means that I need to read up more on it. I really like your videos. You seem well read and I'd love to heard your or any bodies response. Thank you.
I also like the distinction you make between Marx's foundation in rationality and the enlightenment (rationality as natural, nature is ultimately rational) and Nietzsche's irrationality as a criticism of this view (nature is the most rational. The will to power, the absurd do not act at the behest of reason)
@@leighfoulkes7297 He wrote comparing Buddhism to Christianity (I think in beyond good and evil, but Im not sure). He basically concluded that they are both attempts to come to terms with the suffering inherent in existence, and are distinct from one another because while buddhism often actually leads to a tranquil mind, christianity usually does not.
@@leighfoulkes7297 Not really. He was pretty harsh on Buddhism, too, though he thought that it (and Islam, too) was better than Christianity. He blamed Zoroastrisanim for creating the concept of "Good vs.Evil." He had a variety of views of different aspects of Judaism. He was fairly critical of Hinduism. He did seem to like one religion: A particular aspects of Greco-Pagism, especially the cult of Dionisiease. If he could be said to have any religion, that would be it.
He romanticized warrior Germanic paganism, and lamented its loss. He blamed and resented Judaism, since it created Christianity, which he viewed as a weaker and feminized version of Judaism. He wrote this very clearly in the Genealogy of Morals.
Interesting how Nietzche uses such words as spiritual to explain dominance and slavery to explain love. He was apparently unfamiliar with the ideals of public service and beneficence. And not only is a quest for dominance "spiritually" (to steal a word) evil but a psychological manifestation of megalomania which is, in fact, a true danger to anyone involved with such a person. No wonder he was bonkers. or needed a slap.
The statement of Nietzsche, that he never knew God is not true, rather an exaggeration to oppose his father's influence as a child (he was a pastor). In his early youth he used to write poems to the christian God. In his mature days he wrote his famous poem "To the Unknown God" , which one could say, proves that he didn't knew him! lol
Marx regarded religion as a private matter. But religion has tended to wither away the more abundant production and consumption have become even in capitalist society (China is capitalist btw), so as production will continue to become even more abundant in communism it seems likely that he was actually right.
I don't believe Marx was saying that religion served no other purpose but control, merely that all religion will inevitably wind up in a place where it can be used as a form of control. Without religion you would accept reality, which is not the same as accepting nihilism. You can admit that you can't answer all the questions that humanity struggles to answer without believing that everything is meaningless. That's how I understand him anyway.
Can it not be that Nietzsche stylizes himself not truefully when he claims never having been concerned with or believed in concepts such as immortality, redemption etc.? If his claims are true, he must have concealed his convictions very effectively as a pupil of Schulpforta Gymnasium (a strictly lutheran highschool), where he was called "the little pastor" by his fellow students. Moreover he initially studied Theology and later shifted to Classics.
"neither does he acknowledge the benefits of religion" the "soul of a soulless condition" part seem that he did acknowledge just that. Very little of Feuerbach's influence either. His humanism is the essence of "realisation of the overman" also, china is not communist.
Marx had a sort of similar concept of the Overman. In his 1844 manuscript and other works he speak of fully developed individual who self actualizes himself through creative free activity. Of course, like the ubermench, this is probably meant to be an ideal.
Nietzsche and Marx regarding religion are only similar in terms of superficial language. If Nietzsche knew what communism was, he would've hated it as much as christianity since communism promotes little more than an alternate form of collectivism
Where did marx say “The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”? Minute 14:27. I can’t seem to google any in marxists.org.
I think you’re taking too narrow a perspective on Marx’s understanding of Christianity in particular and religion in general. Marx and especially Engels’ writings on the early Christian movement, the book of Revelation and the Reformation (which should be better characterized as a cause of the German peasant revolt) complicate the picture you have-thoroughly and in a well-crafted manner, it should be saif-painted here.
Karl was a spoiled rich-kid that grew into a man that couldn't even feed his family. After being deported from multiple countries, his kids started dying, his live-in mistress left him, and he had to move his wife and remaining children in with the co-author of the Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engles. Engles supported them by working at his father's capitalist textile factory. If that sounds familiar, it's basically the same thing that happed to Germany in the second half of the 20th Century. #communismalwaysfails
Enemy of people not god people do not understand what these men say or any philosophy which is the same whith religon , truth hurts and very hard to understand only fear can control people thats the problem
I once read first 2 speaches of Zaratustra. First one about sleeping made me work myself. Second one made me loose my faith. Granted I had to use dictionary and spend at least an hour on each but. Damm boy once I get to reading Zaratustra again after will to power and antichrist. I AM gonna enjoy the full ride of IT Well I always prefered to enjoy the strong.
Well this was incredibly disappointing. Don’t know why you decided to strip all the context and nuance from Marx’s view which was remarkably similar to what you the advocates yourself but gave Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt.
ok , i've seen a huge misunderstanding of Marx's ideas : Marx thought that religion was a part of the syuperstruture , which is a conglomerate of ideas that strenghten the structure , which is the economic system , he would have said that new age individual religions are Liberal in nature meaning that they enforce the concept that the beliver of these religions are atomized individuals in contact with the universe and the world , and that self enlightment is the objective, liberalism works with rational individuals , all of a while they keep living in the capitalist system , maybe getting detatched from politcs and buying more consumer goods ( cristals , books and psycadelic ) that are over priced just because of their fabricated value , daoism has a message of going with the flow so not fight against the oppressive system ( the emperor that basically was both king and pope in anchient china , or modern day capitalist ) , and buddhism has a the stated objective the liberation from suffering , mind you not fisical suffering but spiritual suffering , that gets interpreted as an alienation of the individual suffering " oh you're not suffering because you're working all day in an unfullfilling job , you're suffeirng because you havent reched Nirvana " in that sense buddhism is fairly similar to protestant cristian belief ( swap work with ascending to nirvana ) and in that sense induism is the catolic version of buddhism , with it's cast system justified by karma and enforced to it's logical extreme , also you have to consider the fact that while they both had success in china buddhism and daoism wheren't the main belief system or better yet they wherent the only belief system : confucianism is the belief that following power dynamics is the most ethical act possble ( over simplification ) reason for which it didn't have as much success in our liberal economic system , that uses every trick in the book to disguise itself as anarchy while being just at two steps from '84 , mostly the reason it attempts to disguise itself as anarchy in which everyone of us is it's own special snowflake that has to use it's own special gift from the world for itself it's to devide us and make it seem that conflict is between each other and not between economic classes with common intrest ...
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.922 | 10 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zmV5HRIxIBI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TLBjiHvkKtE/mqdefault.jpg)
The full context of the "opium of the masses" quote:
_"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.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."_
He sounds way more sympathetic towards religion here, he sees what it is used for - oppression. But he also sees the reality for the believers who find comfort and community in "a heartless world" and in "soulless conditions"
Yeah, it is evidently important to note that the context of marx is that religion is being used as a tool to promise a better afterlife that doesnt exist and thereby facilitate the exploitation of the masses.
Very good observation. Very insightful, thank you.
Above all, he sounds deeply sympathetic to those that are the most devout believers. The same who are, unsurprisingly, also those most subjected to precariousness. Is it any surprise that we associate the image of the poor black mother with a high degree of religiosity and devotion to the church? She is not only poor, she is also black, a woman and with mouths to feed. Other than the church, who and what even pretends to be there for he? As a man you are at least lied to and led to believe that you deserve some sort of position as a leader or warrior or what not and therefore deserve some respect.
Besides the Great wisdom and eloquence of your channel....I also enjoy your exquisite taste in Fine art in your videos!....congratulations , may your channel grow and flower!!
I enjoyed the video, gonna give a sub here, but you DO need to read more Marx (the comments already cover the essential but I would suggest 18 of Brumário, since it show not only Marx classic definition about how man shapes history but its also a somewhat fun read)
I disagree with one of your points: you said that Nietzche's Ubermensch can be seen as a generational progression that should be desired. However, Nietzche's Ubermensch would probably see no to little value in creating any kind of legacy. In fact, the way I see it, a true "ideal" Ubermensch would tear down and destroy hopes for the future for their own personal gain.
Thanks for the presentation. Great content! I will definitely follow you in the future.
Hilarious, enemies of God. They are gnats compared to the Creator who created all things.
Very good video
Marxism is the religion of intellectual mediocrities (as well as being a closed system like hegelianism).
I love this!
Always refreshing to listen to people who place the highest value on trying to understand the world instead of the much more prevalent phenomenon of trying to mold it after ones own political affiliations.
I really respect this comment, thanks! That of which you explained is something I hate in anything intellectual, soon as anyone places themselves into a category or label themselves they instantly diminish their abilities to further their scope of understanding due to biases. I am Marxist, Neo Marxist, Freudian, Hegelian, Kantian and so on. Just be your own category of precociousness.
I think the main thing to remember about Marx and Nietzsche on their critique of religion is that religion is merely a placeholder. They want to say that the metaphysical presuppositions we have based our lives and society on for so long (the biggest example in 19th century Europe was obviously religion, Christianity at that) are actually the product of historical processes, material conditions, social relations etc. It is more accurate in 2020 to replace “God”-in the statement “God is dead”-with “metaphysics” for each of these thinkers. They both call into question the natures of consciousness and illusion, their historical development, contingency, and reflexivity. Thus they offer their own remedies (secular communism for Marx, self creation and life unattached from metaphysical assumptions for Nietzsche).
Exactly. I believe they threw the baby out with the bathwater, but yes they
proclaimed bankruptcy of metaphysics as they knew it.
replacing the "god"? which god you are talking to?
Hitler and Stalin, embodying obscene exaggerations of these ideologies, suggest that the great thinkers need to reconcile these conflicts if they want to resolve the death of God.
Wtf are you talking about? They aren’t exaggerations, they’re misunderstandings and Mis-applications.
*Correction* Nietzsche wrote Antichrist in 1888. The book was published in 1895 :)
Nietzsche was more anti capitalist than Marx
How exactly? He preferred neither capitalism nor socialism, he hated both.
You are missinterpreting Marx. His main intention was to say that the main opression comes from the material world (class social relations of production, and the conflict between man and nature in earlier stages of human developement); and that religion is only a mirror image of those problems originated in the material world.
Respect to your channel!
Great channel
Marxism is the religion of the slave.
It's funny how Che Guevara believed true communism would only be achieved by a sort of Ubermensch: El Hombre Nuevo
Nietzsche sounds like prosperity religion from this discription.
Reported for excessive optimism. It's 2020, for Zizek'sake Prepare your channel to be canceled forever .
I would call myself as a pessimist but okay 😂
I have just discovered your channel very recently. I watched one video and I subbed immediately, not only due to my absolute love for philosophy, psychology and all matters intellectual, but also because of the manner in which you discuss your views. It is clear, informative and helpful. Thanks! Keep up the good work. Your channel is extremely underrated but I'm sure it will grow :)
Any philosopher who uses exclamation marks should be immediately discarded.
The problem with both Nietzsche and Marx is their understanding of religion. The true value of religion can only be experienced by the "inner circle" of those who have been granted the understanding, either as a gift or by their commitment. Religion is not meant to be utopian - everyone deserves it - experience, although some of the principles of religion can be used to ensure a more or less tolerable existance for all (i.e. Respect they neighbour).
By attacking the idea of God in order for all humanity to advance, Marx and Nietzsche have contradicted themselves as the advancement of all humanity is a utopian idea. As they differed from their contemporaries either by iherent gifts or by study, so "progress" is dependant on the individual, and for the individual, not for the masses
Love this account and videos so much keep it up man
BOYO ALERT!
Ma man!
I'm one of the new guys. looking into stoic philosophy since i have nothing better to do then sitting in my house and wondering if intelligent life in the universe exists. its already damn hard to find on earth, so chances are slim.
Hey, I'm not saying don't practice stoic philosophy, but before you do, please make sure to read the criticisms. I think they're important to know before you jump into it. Good luck with life 👍
Have you ever read Feuerbach? Marx never necessarily opposed religion. Engels himself even wrote about the emancipatory potential in Christianity. Marx saw religion as the creation of man and understood the material condition that produces religion in the first place. That's why he said in the Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right that even if humanity breaks away from the chain of religion, they would still search for another chain. Hence, the point is to show man the material reality as it is. I mean, just read the introduction to his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. It's the most beautiful description of religion ever:
”The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic 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. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is 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. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
Do you have a Discord?
Morgan Quiles Yeah, I do. Why do you ask?
Nietzsche understood that it is not actually possible to rid the world of pain and power games. The reason communism always ends in disaster is because we are simply not capable of organizing our society along any other lines than a hierarchy. This is readily apparent if you study communal living arrangements and the way a power structure invariably emerges. There is obviously no equality in nature but after having been told that we are all equal in the eyes of God for 2000 years we have convinced ourselves this is an indisputable truth, and only then could we produce a thinker like Marx, who uses ideals borrowed from Christianity to promote his vision of a godless society. Even if it were possibly to breed out the status game amongst humans, the result would not produce a world that was nice to live in. We would only become a homogenous mass of mediocrity and unjustified suffering.
Indeed he was a *poetic atheist* [but so is Zizek], though he was also kind of paradoxical. He wanted to re-affirm Plato, but blamed Socrates for the upheaval of Slave Morality [even more than Christ].
Even the Bagahvad Gita teaches...to 'beware religion'.
=)
The Zen koan “When you meet the Buddha, kill him” may mean to bewere of him too...
A lot of what you said about Marx is actually wrong.
1: Marx didn't advocate the suppression of religion, quite the contrary, he was in favor of a secular state. In his book "On the Jewish Question" (in which his opinions on religion are contained) he openly defended the freedom of expression of all religions, and even defended the political emancipation of the Jews and criticized Bruno Bauer for being against it. He defended the freedom of expression of all peoples, including Christianity.
2: For Marx, Christianity didn't happen because of the economy, quite the opposite. In the same book I mentioned, he says that the formation of religion is a consequence of the SOCIAL environment in which the entity lives (and not the economic one). Marx wasn't deterministic and this is visible in Grundrisse. What Marx said about religion is that during the change of mode of production, a new religion may possibly be created to legitimize a ruling class, but this is not a rule, even if, if he affirms the contrary, this would be anti-dialectical.
3: When Marx says "Opium of the people" he's not only thinking about addiction, but also about the "good side of drugs". What does the user feel besides addiction? The good feeling of being under the influence of drugs. So as he makes clear in the first book quoted, religion is a double-edged sword: it addicts the person, alienates her, makes the person accept the current state of misery and expect something in paradise (which is likely not to exist), but at the same time it is "the sigh of an oppressed creature", because religion gives a reason for that creature to live. The religious sees nothing but his faith, and without his faith, he would be in an empty, aimless life, since he doesn't have the capacity to perceive that man makes his own history, he wouldn't gain anything in return and would only be a fret for society, he'd do nothing that has value.
4: Marx believed that religion would only be overcome based on the form in which it was created: from man's self-awareness. If I told a religious to stop being religious, would he stop? No. If I pointed a gun at the religious and told him to stop believing in God, would he stop? He would say yes to save his life, but he would continue with the same belief. For Marx, man would stop believing in religion as soon as he became aware of the evil that religion does, religion will disappear as soon as man can walk on his own legs without having a "divine crutch". Therefore, because of these things, Marx didn't defend the suppression of religion, but his freedom, because only through the latter would man become self-aware, through freedom.
Marx wasn't dogmatic and the theory of Nietzsche wasn't better than the theory of the communist, you that didn't understand what Marx said.
Thanks learned alot from that and thought a how victimizing capatalistic system may take advantage of those who believe, only learned how to do so in an ungodly way. Also about how it's actually that God is the shared spchodelic of the masses. I've not thought alot of this perticular aspect of I've done a round about personal study of alot of social, governing, phylisofical and spiritual/religious aspects. Working on my personal concrete view of things and I'm slowly coming to my own personal understanding. I absolutely love search for new possibly universal views, if that's even possible. Thank you for your input!!!
Thanks for this, what I like about doing these videos is that it is also a massive learning platform for me as well when seeing the informative discussion in the comments and how it keeps me on my toes! To better understand his in depth views on Religion what Marxist writings would you recommend? :)
@@ThoughtsonThinking As another commenter said, I think "On The Jewish Question" is the best to comprehend his views on religion
Is their a good published book on this on Amazon or is more of a short essay?
This was a very informative comment. Marx is one of, if not the most misinterpreted philosophers in history. I am not necessarily a fan of him or his views and I'm trying to find the truth and that, in my opinion, does not translate into believing one philosophy over the others. But I'm tired of the evil picture many paint of him. It is too easy. Thanks for thr useful info!
“Modern science kills god” Nietzsche never said that.
He didn't have to. 'He said God is dead' and the why was understood.
Actually he did. He said that Chriatianity died under its own sword, because religion encourages us to find truth and Nietzsche, knowing about Renaissance and scientific revolution of previous centuries, knew science (truth) will bring Christianity to an end.
I think you’re right, but it’s worth noting that In The Antichrist he writes something like that. He argues that the story of the flood is not about sin but actually God’s fear of science, which, in a way, kills God.
Simon thanks
I would appreciate it if you quote me part in which Nietzsche said that.
@John Lariviere @John Lariviere In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche clearly states and believes that all wisdom comes from oneself, one's body. Also, he said that all philosophers must seek solitude if they want to really philosophize. He found refuge in nature because of his health conditions aswell.
He was a human who could see beyond his time, there is no doubt about that. Whether he knew that science (as we know it today) would bring an end to religion, I do not believe he would think in such manner because of two reasons:
A) Technology and science, they advance in an exponential manner, not linear. I do not think anyone could predict this kind of advancement in 19century.
B) Nietzsche's philosophy was not about demolishing religion from the surface of the earth. He knew religion (belief systems more precisely) was a pillar of the human psyche and he was 'scared' that if that would happen, terrible things would occur in the world. He was right: 2 world wars in 20th century.
Also, I want to add: He also did not believe that humans were able to achieve the Overman, rather he believed that humans could use it as a reference of the thing that holds the highest value, essentially, God.
So there's just a few things here that I take issue with, but the underlying thread through all of them is just a bit of context surrounding the various statements that I think clarify the underlying points I believe they were trying to make more clearly.
One of the primary contexts for Marx is his conception of 'historical materialism', which is that ideology (so religion would be included in this realm) and the material evolve each other in a dialectical feedback loop (this is basically an extension of 'dialectical materialism' which is basically the same thing but at an individual, as opposed to systemic, level). So this is important for the quotes about religion and really everything because basically all of the speculation/analysis he presents is time and space dependent. So in other words, religion doesn't just disappear (there's a semantic point here too, but I think this will make more sense to clarify this with the Nietzsche point), the _material conditions_ have to first exist for it to 'wither away' over time being reinforced over generations. If you check out his stuff on alienation this might become more clear I think (I'll find the specific parts I'm thinking of if interested and if I'm remembering properly ha). Which leads to the next thing regarding China, which is that the 'socialist' and 'communist' political affiliation labels are to indicate _intention_ because of this time dependent evolutionary process. So like China under Deng famously described its socio-political-economic intention as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but would never claim that it has reached such a state of actually existing socialism yet as it is clearly not descriptive of a 'proletarian dictatorship' as Marx put it. Specifically, similarly to the USSR before it, China is following a Marxist-Leninist tendency which declares a 'vanguard party' to wield control of the state apparatus to guide it, and eventually a global workers party, to actually existing socialism (which is global necessarily - see Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for more on this, also tons of historical stuff like the emergence of the international workers party which was an attempt at preempting this and USSR geopolitical strategy before collapse). This is of course not to editorialize as to what they are _actually_ doing as obviously I have no idea lol but it does seem to follow this conception in general with their belt and road thing and their general disposition.
And regarding Nietzsche's "god is dead" thing, you definitely hit on much of the context _but_ (at least in my interpretation) I'm not sure if it came through exactly that "god" in this context (similar to Marx) is meant to convey the focal point of ideology from which what is possible emerges. So in other words, what I interpreted as Nietzsche's point is that "god" (the lens of potential and values) in the aesthetic context of religion (the term for the mechanism of ideological social control) is dead, but god still lives on now simply more obfuscated (like through "reason" or "rationality") and will thus manifest as religion with a new aesthetic. This also might illuminate his irrationalist views as he saw the rational as another religious mechanism, and also the other point you mentioned where you interpreted it as a potential spiritual openness, but again I think it may be mostly semantic as "god" is intrinsic to humanity, just that god's form can be that which maximizes human potential to rise to the level of ubermensch or constricts it to the level of slave through a religious social control manifestation. Hope this made sense as it's mostly semantics.
So I guess my basic point here is essentially that "god" and religion are distinct terms with both Marx and Nietzsche, where _"god"_ is the ideological goal/potential/imagination and _religion_ is the specific historical mechanism of social control that has restricted a fuller realization of such.
A very interesting analysis. The problem for me personally has always been the manner in which various groups of distinct ideologies treat and interpret marx in accordance to their specific ideological agendas (or maybe, that is in some sense, an act we all unconsciously commit on an individual level). What I mean is that from what I have found in my not-so-long of a search in this chaotic and crazy valley that we call philosophy, everyone seems to be interpreting, and not always as authentically and honestly as one would expect, the worldviews of those who they oppose or support, in such a way that often times constitutes an extra-hard problem for those like me who are in search of truth (or at least we think we are).
With regards to Marx and his ideologies in particular, I have been recieving so many mixed signals as to whether his ideas are conducive to the construction of a better, more just society or not, that I cannot say with certainty what portion of what I have researched/read/watched/followed is truth, what of it is mere agenda-oriented interpretation and what portion of it is downright misinformation. It is a shame that his ideas have been used in these political games (and the fact that he himself did pursue this road and aimed at this path doesn't help either lol) to such a degree that it is nearly impossible at this point (at least for the likes of me) to seperate the action from the actor. To identify what of it is "true communism/socialism" and what of it isn't, is a job easier said than done.
There are some who claim that if one says "that wasn't real communism", what they truly mean is that "if I had been the person in charge, I would have actually brought about the utopian vision of Marx and ushered true justice" in an arrogant manner. I always found that to be a somewhat unsatisfying criticism, but then again, it is hard to say for sure that there is nothing to it either.
It seems a mighty task to find one's way in this entangled web of agendas, idealogies and political games. It also is unfortunate that I haven't had the opprtunity to read Marx's own books yet, and that is really something I look forward to. Do you recommend any videos or books that might be good in finding more about the "true" visions of Marx and possible counter arguments for the criticisms of his views?
I've heard plenty of critique but to me it seems to be too easy to simply purport he was just wrong or straight up an uneducated idiot. Thanks :)
Daedric Dragon Just read him like really just try. Anyway, you have to be careful when people say ”the USSR was not a real communist” because theoretically, they are right. You also have to understand that socialism is not just Marxism, but it is a tradition with many different schools of thought. Anarchists would say that the USSR was not a socialist, not because they are trying to make an excuse but because the USSR model was never their model of socialism in the first place, but if you ask a tankie, he will defend the USSR (try go to communism subreddit lol). So you see, it's good to know the differences between different socialist schools.
But with regards to Marx, he was a great philosopher no matter what you think about his political cause. Read him, and you would learn a lot.
@@LeonWagg Thanks! I definitely will, even though internet is my best bet with regards to some types of material as I live in Iran, and frankly, here getting an uncensored version of some books is another story. But I agree that he was a great philosopher regardless of the way people look at his views. Have a good day!
Daedric Dragon Well you can actually find nearly all of Marx’s work on the internet. You don't really have to buy the books.
Very unclear and pretentious
10:50 i think you misunderstood marx, i think that marx is saying, because the poor and powerless are much more likely to be religious, because of the promise of an afterlife , that, if there would be no poor and all would be equal in a perfect communists society, religion would die off. I don't think he wanted a ban on religion, or at least thats how i understand it:)
With all that said did Marx believe all rich people were not religious? (When many of them were)
@@ThoughtsonThinking no no, but i think he thought that religion is much wider spread amongst the poor than amongst the rich
@@ammaromaschlomini6141 and moreover rich may show that they are Religious but they aren't . In terms of fundamental. Trump may hold the Bible but he can never believe that it's easier 4 a camel🐪 to pass through needel than for Rich to go through heaven
6:28 "Marx was a 'rationalist'".😳...😄..😆.🤣
Karl Marx = 'reason' 'logic', and.......'science'. 🤭...🥴..😂.🤣👍!
Well....there's one thing he definitely wasn't........
An economist .....🎤drop!....✌
are you ok?
@@sguattera I'm fantastic. Thanks for asking.
@@3576alan aight you got me worried for a hot second there
@@sguattera ?..... Why? Is it because I think calling Marx a rationalist is hilarious?
@@3576alan just checking on ya my man life's harsh we need to look out for eachother
Great video man, really interesting! Can you dig into Lacan's ideas for your next video? Thanks!
Most definitely, it should be a good one! 😊
Nietzche wasn't enemy of God. He admired many things of religion. He wasn't happy about the death of God, he was really concerned about it.
Yeah I know, when I refer to him as being an enemy of God it was more directly towards the Christian God.
@@ThoughtsonThinking OK. You mean that he was an enemy for religious beliefs because he was signaling that god was already dead. Great.
He surely did praise islam in the antichrist "atleast islam assumes it's dealing with men"
@fynes leigh There's quite a contradiction in your wall of text. You speak of morality, good, evil, right, and wrong as "nonsense". But then you speak of bullying, injuring, intimidating, and killing as if they were wrong.
@fynes leigh Wanton bullying, injuring, intimidating, and killing sure do seem to be held as "subjectively" bad by an awful lot of people.
You seem to imply a moral judgement when you say "'cause trouble". Can I still get that cigar?
In the end God always wins.
In the face of the last truth, god exists no more.
Care to elaborate
Then why do we have anime? Owned.
Fuck yes, another great vid! Seeing the level and sophistication of your thought, I cannot help but be more curious about you as a person
🙏🙏
Oh hey that was quick, love seeing more of my boy Marx here, keep it up!
Marx was a theologian
Marx= resentment and decadence
the stat about Christianity in China is completely off
Nicolás Silva and China isn’t even a real communist country either
@@UltimateWobbleBoss Because that's not REAL communism, REAL communism hasn't been tried before /s
For anyone reading the comments, let me clarify:
China is indeed socialist. However it has few benefits. Venezuela is also socialist but also has few benefits. The only countries that actually have benefits tend to be capitalist countries with socialist leanings, such as western European countries. Even then though, it's because America foots the military and medical research bill
@thela hun ginjeet right but Mao tried a way tuning out as desastrious as the bochévics, as if communism can not be done with rationality, just blind violence and utopic nonsense they just made it to turn people into a new way of slavery, representing it as the only moral possibility to be.
Hey I really love your content so please don't take this as an insult, but the less formal elements of this video really don't fit the format. While I understand the desire to be more personable (especially during the intro), it kind of diverges from the formal nature of your content. I really enjoy the thought provoking, formal nature of you video essays, so the less formal elements only serve to hamper the tone. But alas, it's up to you. So long as you keep producing amazing content I'll happily continue watching. Cheers!
less formal how?
@@ouisellmedia Honestly the informal elements I was reffering to was his introduct (ya boi) and his use of stock images while refering to the antichrist as (creme de la creme). Perhaps these details weren't deserving of a comment. However I feared that they may be the begginings of a turn towards a more widely accessable style, so i figured it would be worth mentioning.
I get what you mean, don't worry I won't be slowly over time dumbing down the content if that's what you think it indicates, I was just being a bit more casual in approach then being constantly analytical and serious.
@@ThoughtsonThinking Yeah thats exactly what I meant. Honestly I just think that it stood out because it broke from the opening I'm accustomed to, and therefore appeared be potentially indicitive of a larger change. Good to know that I don't have to fear for the future of one of my favorite content creators. I love your stuff. Keep up the good work!
@@drewmurray4589 favourite content creators? Well... Thank you dearly 🙏
Marx,at the time, couldn't educate himself on eastern religions really,his critique is valid when applied to western Christianity and at the time western european christians were those who his works are aimed at.Because marxism is a progressive philosophy nowadays marxists acknowledge that Marx's critique wasn't based on all religions and there are many religious marxists nowadays,Dalai Lama calls himself a marxist.The USSR shouldn't have tried to fight religion but maybe idea communism itself can be a religion,instead of christian "in afterlife you will get rewarded for your suffering" you can say that fighting for a just and peaceful society-communism you will erase people's suffering as much as possible and that whole society will be rewarded.You can also draw a parallel between communism and kingdom of God,as the final stage of the development of human society.Marxism,alongside existentialism is what personally kinda helped me escape nihilism
How could you ever find meaning in both existentialism and marxism at the same time? Existentialism centres on human experience and the creation of autonomous values, while marxism is a rationalist system which imposes moral imparitives onto others. The only existential philosopher who I see as compatible with marxism is Simone de Beauvoir. Even then, her definition of oppression is so broad that it literally encapulates parenting. In spite of all this, I kind of feel bad about critiquing your ideas, because I personally know how hellish nihilism can be.
@@drewmurray4589 Well, Marxism is largely, even in its philosophical aspects, centered around economics. The economy, then, refers to a system (yes), of production and distribution of commodities/services, from those with the ability and means of production, to those who need (though in modern economics an important aspect to consider is also the exchanging capability of an individual, meaning a person in need of certain commodities/services will not necessarily receive them if they lack the purchasing power earned from their own ability).
An economy, although it is a rationalist system like you describe, is centered around people and what they do - something which altogether isn't all that rational, and based on the human experience and values of which Existentialism is fond of. As such, an intersection between those forms of thought is rather more common than one might think. But the thing about marxism imposing moral imperatives onto others is a less charitable take. All countries impose moral imperatives through the way of law, and markets, if not outright impose them, can rather heavily and commonly evaluate and incentivize a set of morality over another.
Marx's ideals were much less about equality - definitely not equality of outcome, a logical impossibility - and much more about freedom of an individual from hierarchical chains, (unless we're talking about marxist-leninist thought) and to have enough of their needs catered to, so as to produce the most out of their own individual ability.
"The free development of each is the condition for the development of all." Can be taken in an existentialist way, no?
@@aykay1468 Yes I agree that "'The free development of each is the condition for the development of all.' Can be taken in an existentialist way?" but only by adopting a Beauvoirian framework.
Nietzche would denouce such ideas as a form of slave morality, seeing as slave morality uses appeals to pity and altruism to limit the possibilities of the powerful. He would quesiton why the powerful should have any interest in providing the needs of the weak, when those resources could instead be used to further their autonomously created pursuits.
Satre (while himself a communist) focused his thought on the individual's creation of existencial projects. As far as I'm aware, he never laid out a convincing case for why such existencial projects should concern themselves with the needs of others in their existencial pursuits.
Only Beauvoir asserted that one cannot will themselves free without willing that all be free. Only through this apriori is one able to entrench communism within existencialism. The issue here is the fact that this argument relies on a metaphysical presupposition, something which existentialism is fundementally opposed to.
However I could be wrong regarding Satre. I haven't read enough of his work to be certain that he didn't intrench communism within his philosophy. If you know of anywhere where he did, please let me know as I'd love to read it so that I can make my opinion more sophistocated. Cheers!
@@aykay1468 I'm not sure if I'd suggest that ML thought is that radically separate from Marx, but otherwise good comment.
@@aykay1468 interesting. Do you have any questions on works that expound Marx's understanding of the individual?
Both are pretty spooky
Ahh Marx..... What a bum
Care to explain a bit?
I disagree with your critique of Marx but otherwise great vid.
15:31
Can I get a link to this one? I like IT
Also the Zeus like one too.
Thanks in advance to anyone who gives me the link
These ones too
15:47
16:09
16:22
I recommend screen capturing and reverse image searching on google.
Great video as always!
Honestly, I think Marx ended up creating something religious in nature when people tried to implement his ideas.I think religion and ideology can be so hard to distinguish in the way they work in our minds. I get the sense that it's just the way we work. And putting Nietzsche's thoughts against Marx's on this subject is like master and apprentice.
I actually wrote this on FB not long ago, but I think it kinda goes along the lines of this video.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In some of my previous posts I've mentioned how people will still view symbols and people religiously despite rejecting religion as dogma (myself included in this), "You can take away a man’s gods, but only to give him others in return. The leaders of the mass State cannot avoid being deified, and wherever crudities of this kind have not yet been put over by force, obsessive factors arise in their stead, charged with demonic energy - for instance, money, work, political influence, and so forth" - The Undiscovered Self, page 46
I very much see it being the case with Marx, he's akin to a prophet who delivered the message that we could create an archetypal Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. He created a morality where the good would need to be selfless and give up their property and possessions for all, and the evil was in the capitalists who only work for themselves, stole from the poor, and took all power for themselves. The original sin being wealthy and successful. (There have also been many alterations, including race etc into the equation with intersectionality for example, but it's similar to how it evolved from Judaism, to Christianity, and to Islam in a sense.)
It's not to say Marx's criticisms of capitalism aren't largely accurate, however his ideological framework to replace has been far worse in practise. But I would like to get onto Karl Marx himself as a person:
Marx was a man who wanted to to abolish all rights of inheritance, but had actually celebrated and hoped for his relatives' deaths to live on the inheritance they left for him to live on. A man who believed in the labour of the proletariat, who didn't work a day of labour in his life, and came from a bourgeoisie family. He claimed ideology was a product of economic substructure that the bourgeoisie used to control the masses, yet he created an ideology to control them too. He wanted the revolution to come so he could go back to Europe from London as a victor. His ideology itself relies on a violent revolution, then for a stateless system to arise from the dictatorship of the proletariat (but the power vacuum ends up being filled by a dictator who doesn't relinquish power).
He's the epitome of the man who, "jumps over his shadow in order to hurl himself avidly on an idealistically program that promises him a welcome alibi." - The Undiscovered Self, page 72
He had almost lost his relationship with Engels by not taking his grieving seriously (in a sense bragging about how little those things meant to him), and if his apology wasn't accepted, who knows if Das Kapital would've ever been completed without Engels finishing it after his death. But it's the way it is, and that's the way it is now supposed to be.
There's certainly room to separate the wheat from the chaff. Marx's ideas are certainly appealing at surface level for the very least, otherwise why would people still idealise him and his ideas today? Many systems that people claim to be socialist today, are capitalist economies with social benefits and safety nets (which I'm not opposed to). We should work toward a new system (as capitalist systems today certainly could lead to our downfall), or at least continue to find feasible ways to limit it to save the Earth and our souls. We must be vigilant that ideology is not the answer, and that the most important level to cater our laws and prejudices to should be an individual level rather than collectively. Your projection is the enemy far more often than the people who you project it onto are.
Feel free to correct me or to give your thoughts and insights.
Information on Marx's life was taken from Marx The Man by Thomas Sowell here on YT.
@@thotslayer9914 Yeah, I will eventually get around to properly reading Marx.
I wasn't really disputing Das Kapital here, I was just pointing out some of his personal flaws within my own interpretation of Jung's individual and collective psychology. And how his ideas turned into an ideology that was religious in nature.
Honestly, I find a lot of people who vouch for Marx or some form of Marxism today will attack the character of others yet neglect who he was as a man. Which I could understand more if his theories worked in practise.
Talking about Marx as a man. It's not black and white, as you think. He's a human and full of hypocrisies just like everybody else. He wasn't born in a bourgeois family; his father was a lawyer and didn't own any means of production. If you want to use Marxist terminology, then you have to get it right. I think Marx’s life is pretty tragic as a father (many of his children died in their infancy, and you can read how heartbroken he was because it expressed in his letters). His love story with Jenny is also very fascinated. If you want to read about Marx’s family life, I recommend you read
Mary Gabriel’s masterpiece Love and Capital. Nonetheless, What I admire about Marx as a man is his commitment to his belief even if that means he had to sacrifice his whole life. After he got his PhD, Marx could have become a respected professor, but because of his radical politics, he had to leave continental Europe. Although he faced a difficult time as a refugee, Marx still committed to his cause and organized many worker movements, including the First International. Also, the way you describe Marx as if he hated the capitalists and saw them as evil is total nonsense. Marx rejected the moral argument as opposed to materialism, and for him, the question of economic relationship is rooted in the real-life experience of ordinary people. If you read deep into Das Kapital (especially Volume one), you would probably find yourself sympathizing with the capitalists.
”He wanted the revolution to come so he could go back to Europe from London as a victor” What?? What is that even means? London IS Europe, do you mean continental Europe? And where do you even get the idea that Marx wanted a revolution so he could go back home as a ”victor?”
”His ideology itself relies on a violent revolution.” So how do you think we overthrew the kings and the queens? By asking them nicely? When capitalism broke from feudalism, it was through violent revolutions. Should the Americans be condemned for their violent revolution against the British monarchy? In fact, Marx and Engels always emphasized that they would prefer a peaceful revolution if it is possible. Engels wrote that: ”It would be desirable if this could happen (peaceful revolution), and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it.”
I don't think you know what the dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means the rule by the absolute authority of the proletariat. Since the working class is the majority of the society, then the dictatorship of the proletariat itself is a rule of the majority. In the famous Marx and Bakunin debate, Bakunin asked Marx on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat: ”The Germans number around forty million. Will, for example, all forty million be member of the government?” Marx then replied: ”Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune. The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.” So what Marx had in mind is not what you think but, in fact, a radical form of democracy in which the working people directly participate in the decision making in the form of communes.
I don't know where you read that Marx nearly lost his relationship with Engels. The friendship between Marx and Engels is something extraordinary and unique. I advise you to read their personal letters, Engels’ speech at Marx’s funeral, and how depressed Engels became after Marx’s death.
There are so many things wrong about what you wrote. I mean not entirely wrong, but most of what you said is just based on misunderstandings and stupid propaganda. For example, when you said Marx never works a day of labor in his life, how can you even say that to a dude who wrote one of the most influential philosophical systems ever? He was a journalist, and that itself is labor. Or are you suggesting that journalism is not a real work? Marx also worked closely with working people and other socialists to form many worker organizations. That's also his work.
I mean, you should just read Marx. I remember the first time I read Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. I don't agree with everything, but it is one of the most beautiful philosophical texts I have ever read, and at that time, as a philosophy student, I have read many. Marx wrote like a poet, and his language is so beautiful and dialectical, especially if you read it in German. For example, when Marx analyzed the function of money in a capitalist society, he used Shakespeare and Goethe as references. He somehow managed to use the notion of love paralleling it with the concept of money and its alienating power. You can see Marx’s genius in the very words that he used; you don't have to agree with him, but reading him is a pure pleasure.
@@LeonWagg Excellent reply! So many people read other people's writings on another man's writings, without knowing any context or nuance, and think they've got him completely understood!
@@LeonWagg First of all, fully reading Marx isn't a requirement for criticising the systems created with his ideas. Do you think people are reading Adam Smith and John Locke when criticising Capitalist economies? No, they just observe and criticise it (or read other people who criticise it... Marx for example), so don't expect it not to happen for those disastrous attempts for Communism. Honestly, just double standards how people think this is an actual argument.
Bourgeoisie is the social middle or upper class, not somebody who specifically owns means of production. Even in Marx's hijacking of the word's use, he would've at least been in the lower strata of the bourgeoisie. He created like five layers of the bourgeoisie, for how much they perpetrated in the class struggle against the proletariat (this isn't going to result in a peaceful movement lol). And people were punished by these standards where the revolutions did come. By creating this division of the classes, you've already created the enemy with us vs them., and one system against another.
I wasn't just trying to attack his character with the examples, as I wouldn't say he was free of the responsibility of his childrens' deaths, and he wasn't faithful to his wife (and numerous other things) but my point is that he's happy to apply different rules to the society he creates than he would live by himself. He's stating he's doing this with the best intentions, but he was literally trying to start revolutions and wanted to return to Europe (do you honestly think he thought he'd be ploughing fields afterwards?)
His arrogance along with ignorance of the human psyche and himself means that his ideas and narratives are incomplete, and that's the basis of ideology when you have the people you can pin the blame on (especially when it becomes dogmatic). This is very religious in nature, the actual bad parts that anti-theists love to point out about religion but often end up striving for themselves within ideology (ideologues get their opium too).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the process of the people taking power, it's supposed to be a period where they take control control and own the means of production until they can implement true communism; he used the Paris Commune as a prototype example of it. As I said, it always ends up as a socialist state where the ruthless people seize the power vacuum and don't relinquish power.
I told you where I got the information from for your questions. It's somewhat biased, I won't deny that, but some of Sowell's assessments were quite fair on the information provided (such as his use of the N word and how he spoke about Jews), but obviously he didn't cover everything. It was one of his letters when Engel's first wife died, as Marx pretty much didn't care that his mum died for example with his mind set. He would complain about his mum not giving him money and got money from Engels to claim his inheritance when she died.
Well, labour is labour, manual intensive industrial work for a paycheck. I'm aware he was a journalist, but you can hardly compare that to actual labouring. I'm not saying it's not work, I'm saying it's not labour.
That last part actually reminds me of Muslims saying how beautiful the Quran is. I won't deny he is a poetic genius, maybe he is, I know he did a lot of poetry earlier on. It may be beautiful, but the resulting ideas and results aren't.
Honestly, thanks for taking the time to write the reply. I know I should honestly read him, as I will get a better understanding. I stand by that it's not a requirement though. Or people shouldn't criticise anything useless they're a master.
I'm not saying you should read everything from Marx. I said that if you want to criticize him, then you should read him enough to know the basic foundation of his thought system. And you have to be specific. Are we talking about Marx’s work or what people did in his name? One must have the ability to differentiate the two. If not, then you would end up in the same position as those idiots who dismiss Nietzsche simply because the Nazis used his Will to Power as a justification for their anti-semitism.
Marx did not hijack the definition of ”bourgeoisie.” The term had been used before Marx, among other socialists, to make a distinction between those who own the means of production and those who don't. I have read Marx (a lot as I'm doing a thesis), but I have never come across his ”five layers of the bourgeoisie.” He talks a little bit on the petite bourgeoisie but did not really get into detail. You are saying like the concept of class never existed before Marx, and somehow he invented it. Class distinctions exist, no matter what you think of Marx. Smith and Ricardo talked about class as much as Marx did. Smith hated landlords and went as far as calling them ”parasites.” Going back to the term bourgeoisie, as I said it was not just Marx who defined the term bourgeoisie in that sense, but it was also other socialists, but in case you don't know, apart from the socialist, nearly EVERY continental European economist in the late 19th century up to the mid 20th century used the term bourgeoisie in the same sense as Marx. Read Schumpeter, the great champion of capitalism.
Stop looking at Marx through a cheap moralistic lens. Marx’s philosophical system is mainly a critique of political economy and ontological materialism. It was never about how to be a food father or a good citizen. I mean Heidegger was a nazi, but he was also a great philosopher. If you want to cherry-pick the shitty sides of every philosopher, then I have some bad news for you. That's why what is important is not the man himself but the value of his work.
Marx never blamed the bourgeoisie. In fact, he didn't really hate capitalism lol. He even embraced capitalism and its innovations. For him, capitalism is a unique chance for humanity to create a more advanced society. ”Human psyche” I don't know what you are even trying to say there. Btw Marx never saw his theories to be something deterministic. I mean, look at the history of the publications of the first volume of Das Kapital; when Marx first published it in 1867, he mentioned in his letter that he already felt the need to change things just not long after the publication. Marx published the second edition in German, which contains a significant amount of changes from the first then, after that, he published the third edition in French. Even before he died, he again felt like he needed to change something. That’s why he never had a chance to really finish all volumes, and most of his work was not published in his lifetime. In his letter to Ruge, Marx emphasized the need for: ”ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.”
When he introduced something theoretically new, Marx also provided counter-arguments against his own thesis. For example, in the Grundrisse, where he talks about the law of diminishing returns, Marx provided eight-nine counter-arguments against his own point, and if you read him closely, you know that those counter-arguments, in the end, won over his original thesis. He then came to a totally different conclusion from where he began.
It seems like you don't get my point. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a radical form of democracy. The Paris Commune is precisely an example of direct democracy and the self-organization of the workers. That's why Marx replied to Bakunin that all 40 million German workers would directly be involved in the decision making in the form of communes, and that's for him is the definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Did Engels ever complain about helping his best buddy during a difficult time? Engels loved Marx as much as Marx loved Engels. Engels always said that Marx was a true genius, and he intended to help Marx financially so that Marx could go on writing. As I said, Marx’s life would be much more comfortable if he didn't dare to criticize the Prussian state. Btw if you want to go all the way on this bs, you should also say that Engels was not the only friend who helped Marx financially. Many other friends also did. I don't know, dude, what would you do if you become the number one enemy of every government in continental Europe and have to go on exile?
Labor IS work. It is the activity people perform to support themselves or others. It doesn't necessarily mean hard industrial work lol. Being a journalist is a proletariat position. Being a journalist means you have no access to the means of production, and you only have yourself to sell for wages. And what would you say to another job of his and that was being a union organizer and worked closely with other workers?
Lol, I would say the same thing for some other philosophers (so don't you think I am religiously in love with Marx’s words the same way Muslims are with Quran), but yeah, because I'm German and Marx’s use of language is genius. Tbh it's not just the language but precisely the essence of what he was writing. If you are well-read in western literature, then you would be in love with Marx. In his writing, you would find Balzac, Shelly, Goethe, Byron, Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Dante, Chernyshevsky, Heine, and many others. Marx and Engels had an excellent knowledge of world art and truly loved literature, classical music, and painting. That's what so great about them. As a philosophy student, I like Marx not because I am a Stalinist but because Marx, no matter what you think of him, is a great philosopher. I admire his significant contributions to academia as one of the most influential thinkers who ever lived, but that doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.
I don't think Marx wanted to abolish religion outright in order to reach/establish communism.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness" - Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
Seems like he meant to abolish using religion as a means to happiness in the afterlife(illusory happiness), instead pursue real happiness in this world by creating better living and material conditions
What Marxist or neo marxist material would you recommend for getting up to scratch with its required necessary literature that isn't the communist manifesto?
Marx wasn't for direct abolition of the Church, as well as he didn't exclaimed anything like "religion must perish". Rather, he (as I understand) thought that in the classless society there would be no demand for Church and its instances, because the people would be free to organize their living-material conditions so well that piety and religiosity would have no necessity to prevail. Thus, "opium" is insofar desired as the life is too difficult to endure; "opium" (as "Faith") is a substitution for a cause that enables one to suffer through worst conditions. In classless society, people COULD STILL practice religion, but there would be no RATIONAL BASIS LEFT for it to be practiced in majority.
@ThinkTrey Freedom and classless society cannot go in the same statement
@Thoughts on Thinking, Read Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, And A critique of German Ideology, that will give you an understanding of the materialist basis of Marx's philosophy.. Then supplement those readings with the articles here:
Marx and Engels on religion, from marxists.org
"Religion is the opium of the masses” is one of Marx’s most quoted phrases. However, the full quote is almost always neglected, which explains the position of Marxism far more adequately. Marx explains that religion fills the soulless void found in class society, and, in a sense, even indicates the need to protest against the injustice of this world. However, by seeking mystical and otherworldly explanations and solutions to the injustices of the real world, it plays the key ideological role in maintaining class society.
Marxism is about achieving the full realisation of humanity’s powers, the unfolding of our nature without diversion into obscurantist fetishism, be that the fetish for money or for religious symbols. But we can only cast aside these illusions when we directly control our fate, and to do that we need to put the productive forces of society under social control. In other words, we need socialism and a revolution. Religion cannot be overcome by recourse to pure, rational arguments; we must instead attack its social foundation.
Marxists are in favour of religious freedom and do not set up barriers to religious workers joining in the struggle for socialism. However, we are irreconcilable atheists and materialists in our own world outlook, and we are in favour of the radical separation between religion and the state."
-From Marxism and Religion, by Alan Woods at marxist.com
SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org
Follow us:
Instagram: instagram.com/thoughtsonthinking/
Twitter: twitter.com/thoughtsonthin3
Patreon: www.patreon.com/thoughtsonthinking
Very good analysis, I enjoyed this video, thanks a lot and keep the hard work
Wouldn't it be fairer to Marx to assume that he simply meant getting rid of the institution of religion (the power of the bourgeoisie priesthood and a state church, e.i. the Church of England) as opposed to getting rid of an individual's private worship?
"In the "Wages of Labour" (1844), Marx wrote: "To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs-they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment."" -wikipedia
Doesn't this quote imply, or rather support, Marx's view that abolition of private property didn't mean giving up personal possessions (or beliefs) but it meant the abolition of the institution of private property in the hands of a few. Thus, religion could still persist, just not controlled by a church or any state institution.
I think that for Nietzsche we don't need mere "time at our disposal" for creativity, we need our lives, institutions, etc., revolved around creativity and human betterment. But I'm splitting hairs. The end goal of Marxist communism is such an environment of anarchism.
I also prefer Nietzsche's method for critiquing religion. My only problem is that Nietzsche's method was not for everyone. The main people with access (but I really mean understood) to Nietzsche's texts were people with sufficient education and means. It works for me because I can understand some of Nietzsche's writings and I have an understanding of how to obtain other sources (lol, like wikipedia, and Heidegger, and other modern writers) that help me better understand what Nietzsche meant.
Marx's revolutionary method wouldn't help the individual in the same way, routing out slave morality. Marx would probably affirm some of those aspects. Particularly the communal ones. But the revolution would destroy the church as a state institution. Do the state (supposedly) can't used it as an opiate any more.
I can't speak on Leninism or Maoism and how they treated religion.
As of right now I trust your interpretation. But that just means that I need to read up more on it.
I really like your videos. You seem well read and I'd love to heard your or any bodies response. Thank you.
I also like the distinction you make between Marx's foundation in rationality and the enlightenment (rationality as natural, nature is ultimately rational) and Nietzsche's irrationality as a criticism of this view (nature is the most rational. The will to power, the absurd do not act at the behest of reason)
0:14 ah shit that picture is so good wich is why its funny
SPENCER! my guy. 👌
😉😂 my pleasure
It would be intresting to see what was Nietzsche's view on other religions.
Hes not too kind to them either but then again he hated most philosophers aswell. hes an eternal critic.
I always thought that I saw a bit of the Buddha in his teaching (not saying he did it on purpose).
@@leighfoulkes7297 He wrote comparing Buddhism to Christianity (I think in beyond good and evil, but Im not sure). He basically concluded that they are both attempts to come to terms with the suffering inherent in existence, and are distinct from one another because while buddhism often actually leads to a tranquil mind, christianity usually does not.
@@leighfoulkes7297 Not really. He was pretty harsh on Buddhism, too, though he thought that it (and Islam, too) was better than Christianity.
He blamed Zoroastrisanim for creating the concept of "Good vs.Evil." He had a variety of views of different aspects of Judaism. He was fairly critical of Hinduism. He did seem to like one religion: A particular aspects of Greco-Pagism, especially the cult of Dionisiease. If he could be said to have any religion, that would be it.
He romanticized warrior Germanic paganism, and lamented its loss. He blamed and resented Judaism, since it created Christianity, which he viewed as a weaker and feminized version of Judaism. He wrote this very clearly in the Genealogy of Morals.
Interesting how Nietzche uses such words as spiritual to explain dominance and slavery to explain love. He was apparently unfamiliar with the ideals of public service and beneficence. And not only is a quest for dominance "spiritually" (to steal a word) evil but a psychological manifestation of megalomania which is, in fact, a true danger to anyone involved with such a person. No wonder he was bonkers. or needed a slap.
And just like that, TH-cam commenter Degrelle Holt just ended this man's whole career!
@@realCharAznable I think death did that.
this is really massive, great work, thank you.
Keep posting
0:18 i need that on a tee shirt
Marx sought to save the proletariat from religion while Nietzsche sought to liberate the
aristocratic from it.
You omitted most of Marx's quote.. I expected better.
Nietzche never knew God because he never chose faith. Marx posited religion as the keeper of pity, a justified class structure.
"Everybody not like me is lame."
bebopbountyhead how are u mate
The Golden Rule of Millinials
@@mjolninja9358 Well, and you?
bebopbountyhead awesome! I’m doing good aswell
How a philosopher thinking and writing so much about power, missed the Elephant known as 'Strength in Numbers' is beyond me.
He was wrong about 1 Christian dying in the cross. Jesus wasn’t a Christian but a Jew.
The statement of Nietzsche, that he never knew God is not true,
rather an exaggeration to oppose his father's influence as a child (he was a pastor).
In his early youth he used to write poems to the christian God.
In his mature days he wrote his famous poem "To the Unknown God" ,
which one could say, proves that he didn't knew him! lol
Marx regarded religion as a private matter. But religion has tended to wither away the more abundant production and consumption have become even in capitalist society (China is capitalist btw), so as production will continue to become even more abundant in communism it seems likely that he was actually right.
I don't believe Marx was saying that religion served no other purpose but control, merely that all religion will inevitably wind up in a place where it can be used as a form of control. Without religion you would accept reality, which is not the same as accepting nihilism. You can admit that you can't answer all the questions that humanity struggles to answer without believing that everything is meaningless. That's how I understand him anyway.
Wolves of being who can climb a tree with one hand and a chainsaw versus nietzsche
Can it not be that Nietzsche stylizes himself not truefully when he claims never having been concerned with or believed in concepts such as immortality, redemption etc.? If his claims are true, he must have concealed his convictions very effectively as a pupil of Schulpforta Gymnasium (a strictly lutheran highschool), where he was called "the little pastor" by his fellow students. Moreover he initially studied Theology and later shifted to Classics.
"neither does he acknowledge the benefits of religion" the "soul of a soulless condition" part seem that he did acknowledge just that. Very little of Feuerbach's influence either. His humanism is the essence of "realisation of the overman" also, china is not communist.
Marx had a sort of similar concept of the Overman. In his 1844 manuscript and other works he speak of fully developed individual who self actualizes himself through creative free activity. Of course, like the ubermench, this is probably meant to be an ideal.
You don't attend your enemy's funeral, Much less write their eulogy.
Nietzsche and Marx regarding religion are only similar in terms of superficial language. If Nietzsche knew what communism was, he would've hated it as much as christianity since communism promotes little more than an alternate form of collectivism
Where did marx say “The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”? Minute 14:27. I can’t seem to google any in marxists.org.
One was hit by a bus and one was not
I think you’re taking too narrow a perspective on Marx’s understanding of Christianity in particular and religion in general. Marx and especially Engels’ writings on the early Christian movement, the book of Revelation and the Reformation (which should be better characterized as a cause of the German peasant revolt) complicate the picture you have-thoroughly and in a well-crafted manner, it should be saif-painted here.
0:16
I AM saving IT.
Karl was a spoiled rich-kid that grew into a man that couldn't even feed his family. After being deported from multiple countries, his kids started dying, his live-in mistress left him, and he had to move his wife and remaining children in with the co-author of the Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engles. Engles supported them by working at his father's capitalist textile factory.
If that sounds familiar, it's basically the same thing that happed to Germany in the second half of the 20th Century.
#communismalwaysfails
Karl Marx is nothing but a false prophet
Reddit bought me here!
Abolishing Religion would free God from the Ubermench(whom is quite alive thank you) having been reborn.
Enemy of people not god people do not understand what these men say or any philosophy which is the same whith religon , truth hurts and very hard to understand only fear can control people thats the problem
I once read first 2 speaches of Zaratustra.
First one about sleeping made me work myself.
Second one made me loose my faith.
Granted I had to use dictionary and spend at least an hour on each but.
Damm boy once I get to reading Zaratustra again after will to power and antichrist.
I AM gonna enjoy the full ride of IT
Well I always prefered to enjoy the strong.
Well this was incredibly disappointing. Don’t know why you decided to strip all the context and nuance from Marx’s view which was remarkably similar to what you the advocates yourself but gave Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt.
You never read marx my friend as you read Nietzsche...unfortunately. you did nt understand Marx
ok , i've seen a huge misunderstanding of Marx's ideas : Marx thought that religion was a part of the syuperstruture , which is a conglomerate of ideas that strenghten the structure , which is the economic system , he would have said that new age individual religions are Liberal in nature meaning that they enforce the concept that the beliver of these religions are atomized individuals in contact with the universe and the world , and that self enlightment is the objective, liberalism works with rational individuals , all of a while they keep living in the capitalist system , maybe getting detatched from politcs and buying more consumer goods ( cristals , books and psycadelic ) that are over priced just because of their fabricated value , daoism has a message of going with the flow
so not fight against the oppressive system ( the emperor that basically was both king and pope in anchient china , or modern day capitalist ) , and buddhism has a the stated objective the liberation from suffering , mind you not fisical suffering but spiritual suffering , that gets interpreted as an alienation of the individual suffering " oh you're not suffering because you're working all day in an unfullfilling job , you're suffeirng because you havent reched Nirvana " in that sense buddhism is fairly similar to protestant cristian belief ( swap work with ascending to nirvana ) and in that sense induism is the catolic version of buddhism , with it's cast system justified by karma and enforced to it's logical extreme , also you have to consider the fact that while they both had success in china buddhism and daoism wheren't the main belief system or better yet they wherent the only belief system : confucianism is the belief that following power dynamics is the most ethical act possble ( over simplification ) reason for which it didn't have as much success in our liberal economic system , that uses every trick in the book to disguise itself as anarchy while being just at two steps from '84 ,
mostly the reason it attempts to disguise itself as anarchy in which everyone of us is it's own special snowflake that has to use it's own special gift from the world for itself it's to devide us and make it seem that conflict is between each other and not between economic classes with common intrest ...
Nietzche by KO in the first round.
marx was degenerate and niteshe was genious thats difference+