Talk:Opium of the people

Explanation

is the explanation of the quote strictly neccessary? It doesn't seem so to me. Locriani 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"One frequently hears that this statement was a blanket condemnation of religion. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth" - How, exactly?

I'd like to hear how also, since it can certainly be argued that most communist regimes have interpreted it as a blanket condemnation of religion.

"The soul of the soulless" doesn't sound critical, byt "illusary happiness" does.

"The soul of soulless conditions", religion is the soul, the guiding part, of "soulless" conditions, capitalism, feudalism and their ilk. Either he's saying that, or else Marx means that religion brings the soul to those. It could be taken either way, I'm not really sure, though I lean to and prefer the former. Curufinwe 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a quote, this page should be transwiki'ed to wikiquote. <joke>Alternatively, shouldn't it be redirected to religion</joke>. Feco 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a quote right now, but I'd prefer it to develop into more then just that. There's a fair bit more that could be said. Curufinwe 04:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

A cursory look through some of Marx's writings, such as "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law and Critique of Religion," will prove that Marx was an atheist. While I realise that the volumes of clear statements written by Marx on the subject (one of which, I believe, is this one) hold no direct bearing on the meaning of this quote, I find it hard to believe that Marx would repeatedly denounce religion as a method of "enslaving" humanity, and then say something that was "in fact, the opposite" of a "blanket condemnation of religion." AkulaAlfa 22:11, Jul 04, 2005 (UTC)

Move to wikiquote. If there's something to be said about Marx and religion, it belongs at Karl Marx. Rd232 22:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion of the quote, rather than a simple statement of it, it seems to belong in wikipedia (wikiquote doesn't usually discuss meaning). As for the interpretation given, it is, as I understand it, the standard interpretation of that passage in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. In general, Marx was critical of religion (and himself an atheist), but, just as there can be a Communist (or Marxist) ideology (a topic Marx was even more critical of), a Marxist "religion" could, perhaps, be imagined. The key point for understanding Marx is his tactic of "historical materialism", refering to the immediate causes of lived reality, and it is in this context that the quote must be understood. In other words, the quote, while critical of religion as it was used at the time cannot be read as a blanket condemnation of religion (except in the case that it continues to be used as an opiate for des Volkes).

In fact, none of Marxist theory can really be read as a "blanket condemnation" except as a blanket condemnation of a specific functioning (thus, Hegel's "ideology" or "historical idealism" is critiquable as a form of false consciousness, not as in and of itself "wrong" -- of course, anything which gives rise to false consciousness is "wrong", but only in so far as it gives rise to a false view). Hence, there is, perhaps oddly, no contradiction in claiming that Marx, for all his denounciation of religion was not essentially anti-religious (even if it is hard to see what a Marxist religion might look like). Ig0774 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, if any "authority", such as this page, is to make a statement about Marx's thoughts or writings on religion they would be in error to claim that Marx expressed any significant advocacy of religion. One could claim that Marx wasn't strictly anti-religious, and it could be an interesting argument; however, the purpose of this encyclopedia doesn't seem to be the glorification of alternative interpretations over those with more credibility. Perhaps this is ignorance speaking, but it seems that it takes a stretch to read this quote without getting some general condemnation of religion out of it. It seems silly to say this may be pro-religious at all. I fail to see why Marx should be considered such a post-modernist; he did make some blanket declarations, especially with regards to workers' rights, no? --151.118.32.9 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the translation was 'opiate of the massess'. The key element of Marx's philosophy is class divisions. 'of the people' seems to lack an important class distinction - rich 'people' use opium to take solace from the horrors of life, poor 'people' have religeon, both may be religeous but the function for the diferent classes is diferent. I've no idea where I got this translation from but translation is a bit of a nebulous thing as the meanings of words changes over time. --Aach

I think that "the people" (different from "people") has the same populist/socialist connotations as "the masses". However, I totally agree that some mention of "the opiate of the masses" translation should be made. See my comment below, under Rename to Opiate of the masses. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

I agree that it is a major stretch to attempt to argue that this statement is not anti-religious. Even based on the meaning of "opium" back in the 19th century, the statement is still negative towards religion. Whether opium was illegal or not at the time, or in a particular place, means nothing. Opium has long since been known to be an addictive substance which caused many negative effects on mankind and society in general (as it did in China). This is why so many countries formally banned opium into its territories in the first place. Marx knew this. It was common knowledge in his day, especially for an intellectual as he. The article currently states the 19th century meaning of opium as a painkiller, opium wars, baby doping, and hallucination. Of course, Marx could have easily meant religion was a pain killer to reality, since it prevented the proletariat from rising up against the bourgeoisie in this life instead of waiting for "justice" in the afterlife. The opium wars were not some abstract social problems but were directly related to the opium's ill effects on societies; the fact is the wars were about opium and its ill effects on society, hence the name... Marx could have also used the term as "baby doping" since this is what he believed religion did to people, which gets the proletariat so "doped" up that they are apathetic to society and therefore do not rise up against the bourgeoisie. Finally, Marx could have also been referring to the opium's hullucination effects on the proletariat, which also distract them from the "injustices" of the bourgeoisie. Marx seen "opium" as a tool being used by the bourgeoisie to hold the proletariat down. It is disgusting to see socialists attempt to twist this quote into something positive about religion... And I am sorry for those who could actually believe that. Gaytan 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am a Socialist, and the vast majority of us know better. It is "Christian Socialists" who mostly buy that nonsense, and they are, as you would imagine, a fringe. 76.71.89.241 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a short summary of McKinnon's work on the subject? Why mention it without any summary? I don't have access to it, and i am not paying for it. Gaytan 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point - when I read the quote in context, merely making the opium comparison is not a blanket statement about religion being universally useless. It is rather that what religion does (a positive attribute), can be better done by other means once one rejects religious dogmatism through critical thinking.. I'm a bit confused why the "shake off the chain and cull the living flower" sentence is missing, because I feel the next pararagraph is needed to understand this quote.8DX 22:52 18/04/2011 GMT+1

What even Marx's followers generally don't seem to understand is that his writings, like that of any serious scholar, are intended to be descriptive ("in capitalism, workers/employees are alienated from their humanity"; "religion acts as a painkiller, but is also mind-numbing") and predictive ("capitalism will eventually disappear"), not prescriptive ("overthrow the capitalists!"; "ban religion!"), because scientists (Marx could be said to be a social scientist) are expected to keep research and their personal opinions apart (although their personal opinions will certainly motivate, and to some extent, inform, their research, they should never bias its results, and they should not engage in open activism within their scholarly writing – science is the quest for truth, not politics). Criticism of religion is not a call for religion to be banned (which implies violence); "to criticise" doesn't mean "to hate on", "to fight", "to persecute" or "to oppress". (I'm reminded of how various prominent Nazis were once categorized as "critics of Judaism" on Wikipedia.)

Note that Marx wrote "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", not "religion must be abolished". But this nuance is lost on almost everyone. Even if his view of religion was purely negative, the way he phrased his criticism of religion indicates that he would not have agreed with the enforced state atheism in Leninist states, especially not before the conditions that drew people towards religion were improved, because he saw the purpose of religion and its immediate (but not long-term) beneficial effects. He recognised that religion has social causes, so he certainly thought that abolishing religion without first addressing these causes is senseless and counterproductive. He could be opposed to religion while still acknowledging its purposes and disagreeing with a ban. In short, he thought that religion is the wrong answer to the right question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename to spectacle is the Opiate of the masses

"Opiate of the masses" seems to be the more prevalent translation of this quote. It also gets more google hits. -- Миборовский 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ptcamn 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Opiate of the masses" may be more prevalent but is misleading. The German term "das Volk" means "the people", there is no interpretation of "das Volk" in German that comes close to "the masses". It would be plain wrong to give WP readers the impression that this quote was meant to describe anything else but a criticism of religion in society as a whole, not its affect on any lower class which is sometimes referred to as "the masses". --Johnnyw talk 15:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be translated directly. Any interpretations regarding the word usage can then be made by the reader. VietGrant 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Das Volk" can certainly be translated as "the masses" in English. If you think that "das Volk" does not have this connotation in German, your German is not as good as you think.

Opium was used by the bourgeoisie to numb feelings and escape reality, while Marx's argument was that religion fulfilled an analogous purpose to the working class. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

At the same time the word "Massen" exists in German, if that's what he meant why didn't he use that? Historian932 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

volks translates to "the people" in german, for example volkswagon traslates to "the people's car" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper16 (talk • contribs)

There's no such thing as "translated directly"; if a word in English and a word in German have *exactly* the same connotations and usages, it's the exception, and not the rule. Even if two words come from the same root, their usages have evolved separately and they may not have the same meaning at all anymore, let alone the fine points we're discussing here. Translation is an art, not a science. --Galaxiaad 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete "false friends" are relatively rare (although connotations often differ), but in this case opium = Opium and opiate = Opiat. Historian932 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I recently encountered a place on Wikipedia where someone had changed "opiate of the masses" to "Opium of the people", typing in the edit summary that he or she had "corrected a missquote [sic]". Allow me to point out that the only reason this quotation has a Wikipedia entry and not just some measly appearance at the bottom of Marx's Wikiquote page is that it is *famous*. It is famous because people say it a lot, and they usually say it, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." The word Jehovah was a flat-out mistake, but that doesn't mean there isn't a Wikipedia article on it - it has the cultural significance of being the name of God for millions of people. The alternate (perhaps original) translation "opiate of the masses" is an important piece of information for English-speakers, and should appear prominently in the article even if the title is not changed. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

in what way are the "people" not the "masses"? the only difference is that the latter might have more of a political slant, but then Marx was political Gladstone

I agree that "masses" is better, but at this point I don't think it should be renamed.

No offense since I know everyone is trying to help, but frankly those who don't have some kind of bilingual credentials have no dog in this race, and have no business making comments about what the translation of das Volk is. There's no such thing as a "direct translation" and all translation is contextual. Just having a dictionary or online translator won't help you, I'm afraid, unless you have a decent command of German language, history, and culture.

A flavor of what this "no direct translation" is like for those who haven't experienced it, is the translation of the title of Proust's famous novel À la recherche du temps perdu from the French. My cohort remembers this in English as "Remembrance of Things Past". But an alternative translation that has gained a lot of currency since the 90s is "In Search of Lost Time". What??--you may say--you've got to be kidding, those two don't mean at all the same thing! Well, you're right, but a knowledge of French will lead you to believe that both titles are justifiably correct, though you may come down on one side or the other of the argument based on numerous factors translators have to consider with every sentence they translate. Such are the pitfalls of translation--just imagine if you can't even get the title right, how are you going to translate the whole book (seven volumes)? (For an entertaining discussion/argument on which title to use for the English wikipedia article about the novel, see its Talk page.) This is why no two translations are ever identical, and why there's really no such thing as a "correct" translation for the most part.

I can't, obviously, read the mind of the professional translator who came up with "masses" instead of "people" as the translation of das Volk in Marx's quotation but to my way of thinking reading the original German in context, "masses" was the right choice here. Precisely because words in two different languages are never exactly equivalent, you need to know the context and have some background in the language, the culture, and the topic at hand to make the right word choice in the target language.

This is true even when a word has no particular emotional baggage associated with it, but especially so when a word winds through a language for twelve centuries, embodies core values, and is used often by major political figures and other luminaries. A German translator would have to choose carefully and consider context, when translating an American original containing words or phrases like freedom, liberty, protected speech, integration, right to life, or any phrase having meaning beyond what the dictionary would tell you. The same is true of das Volk, which has a bit of the feeling of "nation"--like in Cherokee Nation, Latino Nation, something like that--that kind of "people", and simultaneously the idea of "masses" in the sense of Volkswagen, the car for everybody, the car for the common people, the masses, or like Henry Wallace's phrase "Century for the Comman Man". But "car for the masses" sounds funny in English referring to a consumer product, and I bet they thought long and hard before deciding not to translate it at all for the American market, probably deciding both that "People's car" just doesn't work in English (sounds vaguely politically extremist in America) and "Car for the masses" sounds silly and extremist. (As opposed to the Renault 5, marketed as "Le Car" in America.) Either the VW execs just gave up, or some genius decided leaving it in German would make it sound different and stand out. So they didn't translate it at all. Maybe Marx's original translator should've just written, Religion is the opium of Das Volk and expected people to get it, but s/he didn't, so here we are. More about the subtleties of the word in de:Volk on German wikipedia.

Having said all that, sometimes translated expressions become known and entrenched, and I may be wrong but it seems like "opium of the people" (or "opiate"--yet another fun discussion about translation) might be one of those (what do others think?). Because of that, even though I favor "opium of the masses" as the best translation in context, I'm not in favor of changing the current title of the article. Otoh, if it is not changed, I agree with MagnesianPhoenix's comment that "opiate of the masses" should be prominently featured somewhere in it.

Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Burgeoisie and Proletariat

I agree that Marx's famous quote is often taken out of context to serve a certain point, but is it really appropriate to say that it's a complete misinterpretation of this statement to view it as a description of religion as a means of control? Marx viewed human history in terms of class struggles, and the work from which this quote was taken was published during the Opium Wars. He says religion is the "sigh of the oppressed creature..." Well, who's doing the oppressing? I understand him essentially to be saying that religion is self-medication for social and economic ills, but that doesn't mean that the ruling class can't benefit from being pushers of religion at the expense of the lower classes, as the British were pushing opium for profit in China at about the time this was written, without regard to the best interests of the Chinese people. Also, why does the quote chosen to illustrate this "misinterpretation" begin right after that phrase, "sigh of the oppressed creature," even though it's an equally weighted part of the same sentence? Someone obviously wanted to avoid the word "oppressed." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.118.87 (talk • contribs) .

Imho, you have to see the quote in its entirety and in context with Feuerbachs analysis of the of religion in society. Try the very interesting short resume at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy: [1]. It says "Marx's explanation, of course, is that religion is a response to alienation in material life, and cannot be removed until human material life is emancipated, at which point religion will wither away." Marx _does_ emphasize the role of the proletariat in the revolution, but he refers to religion being the opiate of an entire society and not a single class. Maybe we should include this part of the story to clarify? Best regards --Johnnyw talk 00:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning unsigned's comment I do believe that it is necessary to point out that he did not directly mean that religion was a way to control the people. I have seen misquotations where Marx calls religion "opium for the people" strongly suggesting that someone was puching it to them for a purpose. When seen in its context it is obvious that that is not what he meant. One of the duties of an encyclopedia is to weed out misunderstandings such as this. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 August 2007.

The duty of Wikipedia, on the other hand, is to accurately report what has been said, with citations. This isn't a place to promote our theories of how to interpret the quote, but rather to describe how existing authorities in the field have interpreted it. Does this article currently summarize what mainstream Marxian theory would give as the quote's interpretation, along with significant alternative/dissenting views? I'm not sure, but it's questionable imo. --Delirium 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate interpretation

This is a possible interpretation of the phrase, however at the moment it is my own. If you can find someone with a similar theory and give a citation, please do. I believe that Marx is referring to opium as what is essentially an empty, false sense of happiness or pleasure, and the following reference to happiness makes it rather obvious to me. The other cases pale in comparison. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While this is completely out of the scope of the talk page, I would like to dismiss that theory as logically, there is no 'false' happiness or pleasure. Happiness is happiness, pleasure is pleasure. The issue I suppose is about how one gets there, but don't consider that just because gathering it one form (religion) isn't a (from my view) desireable way to attain happiness, it's still the same chemicals being released into the receptors in your brain, all the same. No more, no less. People are simple creatures, remember. Anyhow, enough of my bable. 99.173.63.46 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But Marx explicitly contrasts "illusory happiness" with "real happiness". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

I thought the quote referred to 'opium of the people' or 'opium of the masses' not 'opiate' I can't see how they got this from this quote; "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes". Fiendishfish (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the English translation "opiate" be used before, although I agree that "opium" is more in-line with the original German and, to the best of my knowledge, all English translations of Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. However, as with the famous phrase Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!, ("Proletarians of all countries, unite!", "Working men of all countries, unite!", "Workers of the world, unite!", etc.) there may be several English translations.– Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 11:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Original idea by german author Novalis?

I heard that version several times but never properly checked that though. I mean I don't know when and where it happened (if it did) but some people ascribe a phrase 'Your so-called religion is like opium: it transforms and deadens the pain, instead of giving the strength' to that author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.188.179 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A guy from German Wikipedia found this http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=5&xid=4815&kapitel=1#gb_found the exact source of the quotation there 'Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat: reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend. I think someone should add that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.186.196 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead link above; try: this one from books.google.de for Novalis quote. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a Novalis section. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Marx's "opium of the people" vs Lenin's "opium for the people"

This important distinction between the views of Marx (religion is created by the believers to be able to endure bad living conditions) vs. those of Lenin (religion is created by ruling class to enable them to suppress the ruled) should be mentioned and explained. -- 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.0.88 (talk)

"Opium for the people" – is wide-known in Russian variant of Marx's "opium of the people". Author of this variant was not Lenin, but prominent soviet writers Ilya Ilf and Eugene (Evgeny) Petrov (novel «12 chairs»). Lenin in his article «Socialism and Religion» repeated Marx's "opium of the people". But in russian "Opium for the people" is more close to common people's speach and more plain phonetically, so it became popular.

Sorry for my English.

AdmiralHood (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Opium Link/reference dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#Ambiguity_of_.22opium.22

Should this section be removed entirely or properly cited? The link is dead, so there is, in effect, no citation for this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KronosEnFire (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion as a Stupefier

I read somewhere that the context of opium & religion had to do with it's effect of stupefication. [See this quote,] and Google, "Opiate of the masses" + stupify or stupefy. I'd edit the article but am not good at it, thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.135.137 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant quotations removed

Not every quote about religion or opium in the last century-plus since Marx penned his comment, is relevant to this article. Notable quotes by famous people will inevitably have thousands and thousands of later authors, great and small, who make comments about the original. They don't all have to be included here.

Here are two that aren't relevant:

• Guy Debord's marketing quote from 1967
• Czesław Miłosz's 1998 book

This 1967 quote from Guy Debord, which doesn't even have the word religion in it, is completely irrelevant to this article.

Guy Debord

In The Society of the Spectacle, published in 1967, Guy Debord parallels the Marxist conception of religion as opiate with that of marketing:

The spectacle is a permanent opium war which aims to make people identify goods with commodities and satisfaction with survival that increases according to its own laws. But if consumable survival is something which must always increase, this is because it continues to contain privation. If there is nothing beyond increasing survival, if there is no point where it might stop growing, this is not because it is beyond privation, but because it is enriched privation.<ref>Guy Debord. "The Society of the Spectacle"</ref>

Those authors such as Novalis and deSade who had similar quotations prior to the one we're most familiar with, i.e. Marx's, are certainly worth inclusion here. Whether Lenin's quote is worth including is debatable, clearly he's in a direct line from Marx with respect to his political philosophy, so perhaps his later quote should remain. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And the other one, from 1998:

Czesław Miłosz Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz, in an essay entitled “The Discreet Charm of Nihilism”, argues that in order to escape from an eternal fate in which our sins are punished, man seeks to free himself from religion. “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death—the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”<ref>Milosz, Czeslaw. "Discreet Charm of Nihilism". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 4 September 2011.</ref>

Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This page seems a bit sparse.

Currently, most of the page is devoted to a laundry-list of every place the phrase (or one similar to it) was used. Although tracing its origins is probably important, it should be done using secondary sources analyzing these (and especially commenting on whether Marx was drawing on or referencing any of them in particular, or some such thing.) There's probably a bit more that can be said about the quote than just its history, too. --Aquillion (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Some major re-writing of this article is needed. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote farming

I have added the quotefarm template as per WP:QUOTEFARM – the quotations seem to dominate the article, as it is. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as nothing has been done for nearly two years. Any editor interested in improving the article can take note of what is mentioned here on the talk page. 82.4.168.57 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the meaning section.

In the meaning it read "Christians disagree with Marx's belief that religion is opposed to or distracts religious adherents from promoting social justice.[5]"

The source then provides a Mark Woods article in Christian Today.

So I changed it to "Mark Woods disagree with Marx's belief that religion is opposed to or distracts religious adherents from promoting social justice.[5]" until someone can provide a source for which Mark Woods speak on behalf of the entirety of the Christian religion.

I hope that's cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is the full text of this quote?

Where is the full text of this quote, it should be prominently as #1 in the search results Onlyforwikiapps (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Marxism is not structural functionalism,

All the sources cited under this claim are far too general, none of them directly address this claim. 5.56.148.195 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)