Not everything is a bourgeois conspiracy to oppress the proletariat.
Where the bourgeois and proletariat come into play, is when I look at the stark differences between someone like MLK and Kenneth Copeland. I'd not expect any MLK type to emerge from a theology like Kenneth Copeland's. And we know that the billionaire class does attempt to distort information on all kinds of things if those things are giving them immense power.
I'm reminded of how they did that with climate change for 50 years and various nutritional debates over the years. And many other things. The intention being to poison the public discourse long enough that they can exploit more.
Does this mean there was a concentrated effort to poison atheist v religion discussion as well? I've never been privy to conversations at that echelon of wealth so I can only point out that the results speak for themselves even if the results were never the goal. But personally if I hated humanity and wanted to keep my power to exploit, I'd do whatever it takes to make sure there's other interpretations of Christianity besides MLK's for example.
I'll put on a serious face: Marx would say that religion reduces the psychological pain of capitalist alienation, so it is bad, because it reduces the impetus for revolution. Whereas scientism would generally help to advance dialectical materialism -- the definition of good and bad in terms of material class interests. So your argument that religion helps class consciousness, while not without precedent (Christianity, notably from Quakers, helping to end slavery; certain parts of American Christianity in the Civil Rights movement; monotheism as a source of universalism more broadly...), is 180 degrees from Marx himself.
Probably religion is better for building solidarity across classes than it is at cultivating one class' resentment of another. You get some voluntary redistribution instead of violent revolutionary redistribution. You get a kind of "we are all children of God" classless consciousness, instead of a class consciousness.
And, in reality, I think you'll find billionaires of varying degrees of religiosity.
But, nice post.
[Edit: Later, I see that you are serious, and not just doing a highbrow kind of joking-around. Well -- then I think you'll see that I basically agree with your point. The only quibble is about the idea of "class consciousness" (or "race consciousness", or whatever "subgroup consciousness" is relevant). Religion creates something other than class consciousness. Rather than dividing people along existing sociological lines, it unifies across them. This isn't free: It can create new conflicts with those outside the religion. But when we consider fault lines of class or race, I would say that monotheism tends to unify rather than to divide. You could call this "solidarity", but not "class consciousness". It's a bigger solidarity than class.]
Well, I would flip that adage and say that "Marx was a follower of Jesus." They overlap enough that it's not uncommon to go on r/atheist and see people saying "Jesus would have been a Marxist" so I think it's fine to flip it this way.
It's possible Marx was just targeting the Pharisees of his time. Or he liked what Jesus' had to say on matters of cooperation and economics enough to base a secular worldview on it. :)
I don't see how serious study of history would lead one to think religions reduce the impetus for "revolution" or social improvements. The printing press was a revolution and it was primarily driven by the desire to mass-print Bibles so that the clergy couldn't just interpret reality for everyone. (Look up the Gutenberg Revolution).
In any case, I'm not sure what the difference is between "we are all children of God" classless consciousness and the idea of "class consciousness." Because on Marx's worldview, things should trend towards a classless society. You may be interested in Acts 4:32-35 which is the economic model followed by the first church.
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
I think you would find many in agreement with your interpretation of Marxism and of Christianity -- ranging from "social gospel" Catholics, to progressive/activist Episcopalians in the US and UK, to Thomasite Christians in Kerala voting for the local honest-to-goodness Communist party complete with hammer-and-sickle flags.
To your Acts 4:32-35 quote, you could also add the end of Galatians 3, or the miracle of the loaves and the fishes (say, Mark 6:31-44).
That said, your interpretation is a departure from Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, and it sands off some sharp edges.
Mainly, I think you discount violent revolution too much. Historical Marxism wasn't only about a "spiritual revolution" that would lead to voluntary sharing like that described in Acts 4:32-35. It was about classifying people socioeconomically and dealing with them accordingly -- using violence.
I actually agree that religion often spurs social "revolution" and material improvement. But I don't think that's what Marx thought, or how either Soviet or Maoist Communism has worked. You say that Marx' "opiate of the masses" quote refers only to "Pharisees", but, in light of the whole development of dialectical materialism (a system of morality that actively rejects the spirit), the dismissal of "sentimental bourgeois morality" in favor of class-interest calculations, and the dogmatic enforcement of state-sponsored atheism, I disagree. Granted, you might blame Lenin rather than Marx for the worst of this stuff. But the fact that there's some overlap with Christianity doesn't mean they're the same thing.
But yeah, I'd definitely ask how much of a role Marx's writing had in what happened in the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Was it Marx's fault, or could those people have adopted MLK's approach instead and seen much more success rather than collapse? I honestly am not equipped to know the answer to this question, but as I study MLK and Malcom X post-Mecca I think the entire discussion around Marxism (at least in the fundie parts of the world I've lived in) conflates Marxism with the Soviet Union and Maoist China too much. MLK and Bernie Sanders and AOCs borrow from the Marxian framework. Even America did - we've already implemented many of Marx's list items in his manifesto, after all. :) Would anyone say MLK or Bernie advocate for violence? Or that they're any less Marxian if they don't?
You definitely know more about the depth of Marxism than I do - I've never gotten into dialectical materialism or the Hegel/Marx beef. Primarily because the Manifesto is tiny and has enough of the vision in it that it is sufficient for my purposes. And also because as an engineer and a technologist I see that material needs will be obviated by technology soon. Does that eliminate the need for that deep dive into dialectic materialism?
But to address your point and the edit that you brought to my attention since I missed it: It does sound like we do agree! I'm limiting myself too much by calling it "class consciousness" rather than "solidarity." I realize now that the vernacular has to be updated to reflect exactly what you said about post-class schisms like race and culture. My view on this is that when understood at their most charitable, religions do accomplish exactly this. A "bigger solidarity than class" like you said. I'm reminded of what Paul wrote when he described the blanket with all kinds of meat on it.
I do like calling it solidarity instead of class consciousness and I will change my approach. Thank you so much, this is immensely valuable and you are a brilliant mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets...
I will not discuss his capabilities as a scientist since I'm not qualified to speak on hard physics at all - but this relationship between these people has me very skeptical of their truest intentions.
But you're right that Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson were not in the same class as Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss in particular. I'd include Sam Harris in this group too.