There's a difference between the working class completely accepting their subjugation and pain, and their fantasizing a world that would be worthwhile to live in.
One could turn the idealism of religion into a demand for heaven on earth, into a dream (in MLK's parlance) that could be realized. It would be much harder complete cynicism or a dog-eat-dog vision into that.
Joanna
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>So Marx would consider a soporific to be maybe
>"somewhat" positive? Really, Joanna. Obviously he's
>not operating on reefer madness assumptions, but he's
>saying that we can understand why people would turn to
>religion, and that this turn has a bad conservatizing
>effect. The anesthetic effects deadens the pain while
>leaving the cause to fester and suppurate.
>
>--- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Your point?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>His point is that it was considered a soporific, an
>>anodyne.
>>
>>Not entirely positive, but not the evil it has been
>>made into since.
>>
>>Joanna
>>
>>___________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
>with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
>http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>