The actual non-exegetical interest of the discussion is, I think, in the point that Joanna almost hit, that resistance and religion are linked to the capacity to suffer oppression.
--- "B." <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Part of me thinks discussions like this are
> fascinating; another part of me thinks it's a "how
> many angels fit on a pinhead"-type of thing.
>
> Not a Marxist myself, but admiring a lot of what
> Marx
> wrote, whether he meant "opium of the people" in a
> good way, neutral, or bad way is mainly irrelevant
> to
> me. There are plenty of other socialist thinkers
> from
> his period who saw the influence of religion as
> being
> very, very lamentable. I'm sure Marx was aware of
> their thoughts; for him to chime in dissonance with
> them -- "No, it's actually neutral!" or "It's good
> like the medicine opium is good!" or whatever --
> would
> be odd. But I guess it's not impossible. Wasn't
> Engels
> a fan of "scientific socialism" and put Marx up
> there
> with Darwin, especially accentuating the
> irrationality
> of religion?
>
> And again, whether it's an opiate or not, I myself
> don't like religion because it just isn't true. Lots
> of untrue things can be "helpful," i.e. "If you
> don't
> behave nicely, Johnny, Santa won't bring you toys
> this
> year."
>
> Like I said, I'm more of the "No gods, no masters"
> school than "let's figure out what Marx REALLY
> meant"
> bent.
>
> But then again I have my nerdy fascinations, too. I
> can only complain about debates over holy scripture
> as
> a hypocrite myself, because I like to examine a lot
> of
> things this way, too. But my own "common sense" has
> always told me Marx essentially meant religion =
> mostly a bad thing.
>
> -B.
>
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
> > andie nachgeborenen
> >
> > After the normatively neutral (as far as an
> > assessment of religion goes) caesura, "the cry of
> the
> > oppressed," Marx concludes with the "opium of the
> > masses" clause. It is the sting in the tail of
> > sentence, a negative characterization that
> reverses
> > the ironical, superficially positive thrust of the
> > first two clauses, and reveals them to be
> ironical.
> >
> > ^^^
> > CB: Nice metaphor you use. Actually, Marx's last
> image is the halo 'round
> > the vale of woe (tears), which fits your analogy ,
> though this tail is
> > ironically gentle, not a sting. Nice metaphor
> Marx
> uses !
> >
> > ^^^^^^
> >
> > And it makes to sense to read it in any other way,
> > even just taking the passage on its own, because
> there
> > would be no rhetorical point in returning to a
> > positive characterization after the caesura. That
> > would just be wrong footed, and Marx very rarely
> is
> > wrongfooted. The passage then does not read, 0
>
> ,
> > as you seem to suggest but ( ) 0 -! --the
> > parentheses indicate irony.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/