Katie Bailey

Fr. Wathier
20 October 2016
A Response to Marx

Karl Marx provides a stark and well-written opposition to the religious

structures of the 19th century. He unapologetically critiques the theological beliefs of

thousands of people, reducing religion down to a single adjective: the opium of the

people. In his essay, Religion, the Opium of the People written in 1844, Marx

explains Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a

protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the

sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of

the people.1 Marx begins by claiming that God is an entirely imaginative and

subjective projection of human individuals. He writes, Religion is indeed mans self-

consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has lost

himself again.2 Humans invented a God-figure because life is intolerably wretched.

Experiencing both the era of the Kulturkampf and the Industrial Revolution resulted

in a life that was chaotic, unpleasant, confusing, and seemingly pointless. Marx says

that the structure of religion acts as a consolation. The structure promises that one

need only endure the hardships of this life in order to receive an eternally blessed life

in heaven. It offers a way in which humans can more concretely express their real and

unbearable suffering. Religious structures such as Reconciliation, salvation, and

1 Marx, 80.

2 Marx, 79.
 Bailey 2

funerals all provide Christians with the means of consoling those that are dealing with

or fearing death.

Religion is also a protest against distress in ones topsy-turvy world. It

encourages and allows individuals to simply accept unjust situation as unchangeable.

Rather than challenging corrupt and negligible economic structures, Christians will

only suffer in complacency. Marx claims that under the guise of religion, humans will

invariably withdraw from action and avoid their universal responsibilities. 3 Religion is

like an opiate in that it serves to only temporarily numb ones pain. It is analgesic in

nature; it doesnt address the root causes of the pain nor does it demand that the

reason for the initial pain be eradicated. Why eliminate the source of the pain when

one has the ability to distract and numb oneself from it?

While Marx claims that religion is nothing but a stale opiate, James Keenan

offers a considerably more positive outlook. Keenan responds to real suffering by first

considering the element of mercy. Keenan defines mercy as the willingness to enter

into the chaos of others so as to answer them in their need. 4 Marx claims that the

presence of suffering demands outrage and desire to bring about change. In contrast,

Keenan appreciates the presence of the suffering itself. He writes that the chaos and

suffering inherent of the universal human experience, allows human individuals to

experience love and mercy in the most sincere way. Keenans good life is filled with

opportunities to love and enter into meaningful relationships with one another. Marxs

3 Marx, 82.

4 Keenan, 118.
 Bailey 3

good life is coming together to overcome a system of impoverishment, complacency,

and injustice. Both thinkers value the collective humanity; Keenan on a micro level

and Marx on the macro level.

In the novel Young Man in Chains, Mauriacs Jean-Paul attempts to find solace,

purpose, and identity within a religious organization. His failure to do so aligns with

Marxs critique that religion only serves to distract and to numb the masses. Amour et

Foi is but one of many of Jean-Pauls attempts to love and understand himself. Within

the hierarchical and exclusive organization, members were expected to serve fully and

to obliterate their personal identities in order to gives themselves to the organization.

Their subservient members were expected to fully give themselves, to willingly enter

into another structure of oppression, and to placate their discontent souls with the

religious opiate of Amour et Foi. The young workers were expected to cast off their

personal identities entirely and remain in passionate subjection to [their leader,

Jerome].5 This example supports Marxs claim that religion makes one complacent

and dependent rather than courageous and justice-seeking.

5 Mauriac, 30.
 Bailey 4

Karl Marx inherently rejects any form of alienation, particularly from the

community to which he would say we ought to belong. Other forms of alienation

which he choose to focus on were those between human individuals. Marx suggested

that humanity ought to eradicate any structure which causes one to compete with

another, particularly in their line of work. In his essay, Economic and Philosophic

Manuscripts of 1844, he wrote If the product of labour does not belong to the worker,

if it confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some other

man than the worker. If the workers activity is a torment to him, to another it must be

delight and his lifes joy. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this

alien power over man.6 Marx is saying that the worker ought to be able to see and

enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a working individual is never presented with the

opportunity to gain profit, satisfaction, and pride from their own work, they will

naturally become estranged from it and resentful towards it. Marx explains, The

alien being, to whom labor and the produce of labor belongs, in whose service labor is

done and for whose benefit the produce of labor is provided, can only be man

himself.7 If the worker is not in relationship with his work, another man is taking

advantage of the worker and enjoying products not of his own making. Therefore,

there exists a great disconnect between the two men. Wherever there are class

structures that result in inequitable opportunity or wealth, there will be class

opposition. The fact that the wealth of the owners is a result of the workers need to

6 Marx, 64.

7 Marx, 64.
 Bailey 5

work causes distrust, hostile feelings, and estrangement between the proletariat and

the bourgeoisies classes.

James Keenan begins his novel Moral Wisdom by taking time to define the

concept of love and to explain what it actually means for the study of moral ethics.

Keenan explains quite beautifully that love, at its root, is one essence striving towards

union with another essence. He writes, Union has a very deeply felt, passionate,

emotionally invested, human meaning. Union is what we all seek It is deeply

instinctive and existential.8 It is union that humans have been created for, and it is

relationships that they ought to value most in their lives. The greatest discontent and

unhappiness one can experience, therefore, is the purposeful estrangement between

one set of men and the other. For the social classes of capitalism to exist and to

function, the workers must expel more energy, time, and self into their work in order to

benefit and support the lifestyles of the owners. The alien power of the product of

labor to which Marx refers is the failure to deliver the product and compensation one

deserves to the worker that earned it. When there are intentionally created and

expertly maintained structures to perpetuate this alienation, therefore, owners are

striving towards the exact opposite of union. They are seeking to create divides, and to

benefit exponentially from their creation. A joyful delight not equally or justly shared

is an obstruction between two social classes in which a union will never develop. In

this aspect, Keenan might agree that the unjust social classes of capitalism which

8 Keenan, 12 & 13.

 Bailey 6

Marx abhors would need to be eradicated in order to allow for more perfect societal

union.

Marx critiques the social class stratification which alienates individuals of different

wealth from entering into collective union with one another. Jean-Paul, a character in

Mauriacs Young Man in Chains, exemplifies the means which were often taken to

perpetuate the differences and divides between social classes. During the time in

which he worked with Amour et Foi, Jean-Paul was responsible for lecturing young

working class men about the Cause.9 Through this work, Jean-Paul comes to know a

young carpenter by the name of Georges Elie. Jean-Paul, considering himself a

bourgeoisies, purposefully estranges himself from the proletariat Georges Elie because

he considers himself above those struggling in the working class. Georges longed to

enter into a long-lasting friendship with Jean-Paul, and asked after one of their walks,

This is for keeps, aint it- you and me for always, old chap? 10 Jean-Paul, wishing to

see himself as better than those in the working class, agreed at first only because he

takes pleasure in thinking about how kind and generous he is to be associating with

the awkward, poor, and forsaken worker Georges. Once people become accustomed to

seeing them walk together, however, Jean-Paul chastise Georges for asking too much of

him. He intentionally alienates himself from the lower-class worker. He complains of

Georges presence to friends within his social class until he eventually asserts his

societal and intellectual status as above Georges.

9 Mauriac, 47.

10 Mauriac, 49.
 Bailey 7

The fellows a crashing bore! I find him in the hall every morning now,
when I go out, and in the evening when I get back: and a letter comes
from him each afternoon. He wants to talk to me about the Cause. Hes
smothering me under the weight of his friendship That boys getting on
my nerves, and he knows it: but back he comes like a faithful dog ones
thrown into the water.11

Even though Jean-Paul had initially agreed to cross the social divides and enter into

union with Georges, he is later shocked by Georges over-bearing audacity. Jean-Paul

wished only to perpetuate the social class separation and the stigma surrounding the

structure he so frequently benefits from. He exemplifies the alien power of man over

man which Marx wanted so desperately to eliminate.

11 Mauriac, 54.