Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Is Islam compatible with Marxism?

POST REPLY

Is Islam compatible with Marxism?

Yes, completely
8
17%
Yes, for the most part
12
26%
Islam is only useful as a rallying force against imperialism
0
No votes
No, all religions are incompatible with Marxism
13
28%
No, Islam is especially reactionary and incompatible with Marxism
11
23%
Other
3
6%
 
Total votes : 47
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 26
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 May 2012, 05:16
Pioneer
Post 01 Jun 2012, 04:14
Goldfather wrote:
I've been told that the book starts with the word READ or something like that, anyway it is interpreted as 'investigate/do not stand still' and moslims take great pride in it.


Actually, that is from the first surah that was revealed, and the surahs were not listed in their chronological order when the book was compiled during the 7th century. The first words that appear after the short introductory surah ('Al Fatihah' I think) are in the second 'Al Baqarah' (The Cow), and start with:

"That is the Book; there is no doubt therein..." or words to such effect (I'm quoting from memory here), which, if one takes this admonition literally (and many do) is a COMMAND to NOT investigate any further, for the truth is here for all to read.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Oct 2009, 09:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 01 Jun 2012, 09:25
Quote:
They are but only once they've been fully reconditioned by the new economic base.


So? you mean it will be so after execution of some great plans in future, and thus every religion is compatible and the "progressive" argument is irrelevant? lol. Now, by extending that logic nothing in society is reactionary or regressive, everything is rosy, isn't it?

Quote:
Religion has only ever been "regressive" in certain small sects (humans don't like to go backwards), rather they break the old order and replace it with their own that they try to preserve through conservatism. Reactionary yes, regressive no


This is basically semantics or may be I should have been more clear. I meant reactionary only, but went with 'regressive' anyway.

Quote:
The State has played just as reactionary a role historically but we aim to seize it and use its Oppressive Potential against our enemies. No communist, save the loopy left-Coms, would advocate allowing the functions of the State (Oppressing) to be a "private matter".


What a bad allegory, state is by definition exist and can exist in public sphere only unlike religion.

Quote:
Because it far too powerful a social weapon.


Yes, 'social' weapon and that's why we are making it a private affair.

Quote:
Privacy in religion is just giving our enemies a root in which to base their counterrevolutionary agenda.


What are you talking about other than useless paranoia.

Quote:
That you think such an important development is irrelevant is nuts. Catholicism proved its usefulness in the Cold War,


another example of using selective study by a religious comrade. Where did I mentioned that it was totally irrelevant. The point was that role of religion in "western world" has been greatly diminished in recent years on its own in response to your point that, 'it can't be killed'. So, how the frag you came up with the above argument?

Quote:
throughout the former USSR religion did not die


Not died but surely got a severe blow and atheism made a great stride in the society.

Quote:
Which is why adding to that tally is unacceptably reckless.


And who decides what goes to the tally and what not?

Quote:
Unless you aim to restrict membership in the party to atheists yes it will. Religion isn't in a vacuum nor are we. We will be related to one another no matter what.


I am not talking about idealist hogwash but the real material role of religion which will be closer to zero.

Quote:
Now you think I'm saying revolutions should be based on religious slogans?


And did I claimed that you were saying that?
You did claimed about "support" and I made the point regarding that, answer or ignore that instead of inventing my points for me.

Quote:
And lol at land, peace and bread.


Yes, Russian revolution's slogan was stupid and funny, they should have put forward the slogan "Dialectical Materialism ftw".


Quote:
It's also confusing to identify on the basis of something that isn't supposed to exist or have meaning.


May be once again, you are not listening out of loyalty (a loyalty we don't want or need) to your religion, the point is you don't need to identify with anything. The only thing you need to identify with is your class and stick with it, instead of inventing several identities based on nationality, religion, creed and other seemingly false identities.

Quote:
Reactionary Religion got only stronger.


Where? and please remember the context and don't point out to Saudi Arabia.

Quote:
You said that claiming religion will be better under proletarian control by default is a cop-out.


No, I explicitly mentioned that blanket statements like "Proletarian control" without adequate elaboration is a cop out and still, it doesn't follow from my statement that I shouldn't be supporting proletarian cause.

Quote:
If you don't believe things will be better under proletarian control then what is the point?


I remember using the word "fairy tale" in my statement i.e. there's isn't going to be a complete proletarian control overnight after the revolution nor I have any crystal ball to actually predict that how everything in society (basically superstructure) will morph into exactly.
Marx sums up this feeling very well, to quote him "Marxism is not about realization of moral ideas".
In no way I meant that it was the question of being better or not.

Quote:
For the sake of conquering all routes to counterrevolution.


So, religion is route to counterrevolution? very well then, no organizational religion will exist, problem solved.

Quote:
What's that even supposed to mean?


It is supposed to mean exactly what has been said. Soviet Union was formed after a communist revolution (atheist in nature) but still it didn't ostracized religious people (which were a huge majority) in contradiction to your claim that somehow another communist movement (atheist one) will be effectively ostracizing the religious people.

Quote:
How so?


It has been explained on that very paragraph only.

Quote:
My view on religion is materialist to the core. Prove otherwise.


Burden of proof is on affirmative, always. Its you, who will have to prove that instead of blank statements.

Quote:
Besides it does not matter that they don't agree


and why it suddenly matters when they don't agree with the atheist view?
Hypocrisy or contradiction?

Quote:
I only aim to bring every square inch of culture within proletarian cultural hegemony no matter what that ultimately becomes


Above statement is in total contradiction with materialism and is just petty idealism. any "Every", no matter what their material properties are or their relation is with the masses can only be lumped into one category to propagate single course of action for them through idealism only.

Quote:
I'm not, so there you go.


And following your same logic neither does atheists, so your prime concern has become redundant now.

Quote:
The only thing I advocate is not agitating against religion


Neither am I advocating for the same but agitation against the corrupt bouergiouse institution/organization of religion not religious people, there is a clear distinction.

Quote:
while simultaneously promoting those religious groups (not lines) which support our revolutionary movement.


A worthless wastage of resources considering the time of turmoil that exists during revolution.

Quote:
The religious wil come to us, our job is to make them communists not atheists.


We need working class to come to us not religious people(don't fragging care about their faith), again a clear distinction and probably a very worthwhile point that you should remember.

Quote:
Chauvinism won't die overnight either


No one is saying that either but recognizing a problem and trying to rectify it as good as you can is a good exercise neverthless.

Quote:
The so-called "private matter" view of religion will only drive it underground where the most vicious reactionaries will gain a voice.


Why? How?

Quote:
Would you say the American race issue isn't a contradiction?


There is no such thing as "American race issue" at least for communists, they only bothers the idealist scums on center left.

Quote:
class is the primary contradiction but not the only one.


Regardless, its exactly class which is the primary concern of any communist movement, rests are irreverent comparatively.
Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.
Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 01 Jun 2012, 11:04
I voted no. The option that doesn't single out any particular religion.

This doesn't mean that religious comrades are any less valuable in fighting for socialism or that we can't work with religion, or that a proletariat religion might arise during socialism. To me those are completely different points.

But Marxism as the critique of social formations and as the negative movement that uncovers reality as reified processes? That, to me, is wholly incompatible with any essentialism, with any metaphysics, and with any sacred text.

Remeber re-ligio= to bind.

That you can arrive at a sacred or to a concept of trascendence via a reverse-reification (I believe religious people call this kenosis), yes, I concede as much.

In any case, this and the struggle for socialism sounds like apples and oranges, though; and I have to say that it is tiresome to see knee-jerk reactions from people who think they are invalidated as a person because somebody questions a particular argument (which to them should be above any questioning). It really does a weak favor to whatever it is you are professing.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Jun 2012, 14:58
Firstly, there are a number of criticisms which can be levelled with a considerable degrees of success at almost all religions and I don't think that there is any reason for extricating Islam from that group. The chief one being that any system of belief which relies on the concept of a higher power or a higher justice automatically encourages complacency and acceptance of various social conditions which should be rigorously and actively resisted. Religion becomes a spiritual safety-net whereby if you are living under intolerable conditions you tolerate them because your deity will compensate you for the inconvenience. Further to that is the doctrine that the material world is a comparatively insignificant portion of the theist's universe and thus not something which the more enlightened individuals are supposed to concern themselves with. Instead of learning about the world and working to change it, the theists lock themselves away in Koranic and Biblical study societies where they spend their lives dissecting and debating the minutiae of ancient works of literature.

Secondly, there all those excesses and atrocities which have been perpetrated in the name of Islam over a considerable number of centuries now. The impasse we come to here is that its defenders say that these are all perversions of Islam whereas I would say that there is a pattern there and that it is the pattern of Islam itself which tends towards these sorts of extremes.

Of course, not all practitioners are extremist, but there are intrinsic qualities to these sorts of world-views which seem to repeatedly produce this sort of behaviour. If it's not in the the nature of the religion itself it should be pretty straight-forward to point to the sorts of social and material factors which produce this phenomenon to such a strong degree with Islam and yet for some reason do not occur to the same extent with other religions and cultures in other parts of the world where people are oppressed and exploited.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Jun 2012, 16:08
Shigalyov wrote:
If it's not in the the nature of the religion itself it should be pretty straight-forward to point to the sorts of social and material factors which produce this phenomenon to such a strong degree with Islam and yet for some reason do not occur to the same extent with other religions and cultures in other parts of the world where people are oppressed and exploited.

It is not unique to Islam, great atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity when western societies were in similar stages of development as the majority of the societies that subscribe to Islam today. Abrahamic religions do seem to have much stronger emphasis on some forms of absolute morality, represented by their respective gods, compare to other major religions, which may have given them more justification to use violence.

As to the question whether Islam is compatible with Marxism, no, it is not. The significance of Marx is not the specific conclusions he reached, but his introduction of the scientific method, i.e. new knowledge has to be acquired through empirical evidences and logical reasoning, into the investigation of human society. And based upon it are two key components of Marxism, Marxian economics and scientific socialism, they are Marx's explanatory hypotheses on the pattern in the development of human society, they were drawn from the investigation of evidence and logical reasoning and are ultimately falsifiable. They are not easy to test due to the size and complexity of the human society, and may even contain significant errors due the limitation of the evidences available to Marx at the time, but the methodology is there.

As to Islam, I do not believe that the supposed truths obtained from the apparition of Angel Gabriel are reliable means of understanding the physical world.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 03 Jun 2012, 17:53
People that are marxist are either unproductive pseudointellectuals that waste time circlejerking about a future world while refusing to improve the current system from within, not bringing any realistic porposals to the table...just locking themselves away in secretarian political societies where they spend their lives dissecting and debating the minutiae of ancient works of literature.

OR

They are extremists, there all those excesses and atrocities which have been perpetrated in the name of Socalism over a considerable number of centuries now. The impasse we come to here is that its defenders say that these are all perversions of Socialism I would say that there is a pattern there and that it is the pattern of Socialism itself which tends towards these sorts of extremes.

Maybe Islam is compatible with Marxism after all then?
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came!
Soviet cogitations: 8
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 May 2012, 02:49
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 Jun 2012, 19:37
Goldfather wrote:
People that are marxist are either unproductive pseudointellectuals that waste time circlejerking about a future world while refusing to improve the current system from within, not bringing any realistic porposals to the table...just locking themselves away in secretarian political societies where they spend their lives dissecting and debating the minutiae of ancient works of literature.

OR

They are extremists, there all those excesses and atrocities which have been perpetrated in the name of Socalism over a considerable number of centuries now. The impasse we come to here is that its defenders say that these are all perversions of Socialism I would say that there is a pattern there and that it is the pattern of Socialism itself which tends towards these sorts of extremes.

Maybe Islam is compatible with Marxism after all then?


Most people here really do seem to not understand the label they use for themselves.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Jun 2012, 21:58
Goldfather wrote:
People that are marxist are either unproductive pseudointellectuals that waste time circlejerking about a future world while refusing to improve the current system from within, not bringing any realistic porposals to the table...just locking themselves away in secretarian political societies where they spend their lives dissecting and debating the minutiae of ancient works of literature.

OR

They are extremists, there all those excesses and atrocities which have been perpetrated in the name of Socalism over a considerable number of centuries now. The impasse we come to here is that its defenders say that these are all perversions of Socialism I would say that there is a pattern there and that it is the pattern of Socialism itself which tends towards these sorts of extremes.

Maybe Islam is compatible with Marxism after all then?


We don't need to improve the current system from within, except where that benefits the spreading of class consciousness. What we DO need is clear future visions, and THAT is rather short in supply right now.

As far as extremists, sure, socialism leads to atrocities. Don't forget to buy stock.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 03 Jun 2012, 22:10
Being extremists ourselves I find it incredibly hypocrite to act all 'shocked' when confronted with other sorts of extremism.
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came!
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 03 Jun 2012, 22:17
Quote:
Being extremists ourselves I find it incredibly hypocrite to act all 'shocked' when confronted with other sorts of extremism.

Yes i'm sure we totally shouldn't be "shocked" when confronted with fascism.
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 03 Jun 2012, 22:26
especially not as we basically father it.
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came!
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 03 Jun 2012, 22:39
Quote:
especially not as we basically father it.

Yes, well, every action has a reaction, in that sense you're correct.
But fascism is the worst enemy and there are indeed many reasons to be "shocked" by it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 04 Jun 2012, 04:00
Goldfather wrote:
Being extremists ourselves I find it incredibly hypocrite to act all 'shocked' when confronted with other sorts of extremism.
It's their ends which are objectionable.... their means are mainly just a convenient way to criticize them.

And ... as it's been pointed out to me... why should we deny ourselves that powerful rhetorical tool which is known as hypocrisy?


James Kennedy wrote:
It is not unique to Islam, great atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity when western societies were in similar stages of development as the majority of the societies that subscribe to Islam today. Abrahamic religions do seem to have much stronger emphasis on some forms of absolute morality, represented by their respective gods, compare to other major religions, which may have given them more justification to use violence.
I was thinking of other relatively current examples where religions other than Islam are consistently producing such excessive behaviour. Christianity has a disgraceful record (no arguments here), but thankfully it is now in decline in most of the world and it is difficult to see it being such a dramatic and influential element in the future as it has been in the past.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 04 Jun 2012, 05:26
fuser wrote:
So? you mean it will be so after execution of some great plans in future, and thus every religion is compatible and the "progressive" argument is irrelevant? lol. Now, by extending that logic nothing in society is reactionary or regressive, everything is rosy, isn't it?

No because religion, as it stands, is massivly reactionary. That is beyond question. But like most reactionary things, eg The Family, will he reforged in the crucible of Revolution and Socialism.

fuser wrote:
This is basically semantics or may be I should have been more clear. I meant reactionary only, but went with 'regressive' anyway.

Fair enough but regressive and reactionary are different.

fuser wrote:
What a bad allegory, state is by definition exist and can exist in public sphere only unlike religion.

What? Religion wholly operates on a social level just like the State. Both are social organizations.

fuser wrote:
Yes, 'social' weapon and that's why we are making it a private affair.

Why do you aim to privatize weaponry of this type? That's removing the social-responsibility to believe in acceptable things. That's why Mormons can't admit they support polygamy anymore and why violent fundamentalists are so marginalized. Faith being a private matter just hides the problem.

fuser wrote:
What are you talking about other than useless paranoia.

I'm talking about not underestimating religion or its capacity to engender counterrevolutionary activities. Militant Atheism isn't the answer, neither is State Theism, so a middle ground must be met that will solve, once and for all, the Religion Question.

fuser wrote:
another example of using selective study by a religious comrade. Where did I mentioned that it was totally irrelevant. The point was that role of religion in "western world" has been greatly diminished in recent years on its own in response to your point that, 'it can't be killed'. So, how the frag you came up with the above argument?

How the frag have you come up with the idea that religion in the west is near dead? That's nonsense.

fuser wrote:
Not died but surely got a severe blow and atheism made a great stride in the society.

We're not in the business of making atheists, we're in the business of building socialism. Today there is no USSR and a strengthening Eastern Orthodox Church, so how successful was it really?

fuser wrote:
And who decides what goes to the tally and what not?

Communists do. The Capitalists will drive the workers to us, if our rhetoric doesn't appeal to them then we are failures. We don't aim to be philistine communists who appeal to anything blue-collar but driving workers away from the Cause is unacceptable.

fuser wrote:
I am not talking about idealist hogwash but the real material role of religion which will be closer to zero.

Based on what? You presume too much.

fuser wrote:
And did I claimed that you were saying that?
You did claimed about "support" and I made the point regarding that, answer or ignore that instead of inventing my points for me.

Maybe you're not so great at English? You said our slogans should be based on old things like "land, bread, peace" rather than religion. The only implication of that is that I am advocating slogans based on religion.

fuser wrote:
Yes, Russian revolution's slogan was stupid and funny, they should have put forward the slogan "Dialectical Materialism ftw".

Yeah because the propaganda of a backwards feudal shithole from a century ago has any relevance today.

fuser wrote:
May be once again, you are not listening out of loyalty (a loyalty we don't want or need) to your religion, the point is you don't need to identify with anything. The only thing you need to identify with is your class and stick with it, instead of inventing several identities based on nationality, religion, creed and other seemingly false identities.

You seem to think I am not a communist. Please don't make such a fool of yourself.

fuser wrote:
Where? and please remember the context and don't point out to Saudi Arabia.

Across the entire middle east, Latin America, the US, and places in E. Europe like Poland.

fuser wrote:
So, religion is route to counterrevolution? very well then, no organizational religion will exist, problem solved.

Yeah sure worked didn't it?

fuser wrote:
Above statement is in total contradiction with materialism and is just petty idealism. any "Every", no matter what their material properties are or their relation is with the masses can only be lumped into one category to propagate single course of action for them through idealism only.

Are you just randomly using words? Because nothing I've said here can be called idealism. Prove otherwise.

fuser wrote:
A worthless wastage of resources considering the time of turmoil that exists during revolution.

Yes gathering allies sure is worthless.

fuser wrote:
We need working class to come to us not religious people(don't fragging care about their faith), again a clear distinction and probably a very worthwhile point that you should remember.

Ignoring that religion is an important distinction in our world is to ignore materialism altogether. It doesn't matter whether these groupings are valid or whether you care to acknowledge them but that proletarians care and they do.

fuser wrote:
Why? How?

Because that's what religious people do. They don't just abandon their religions because shit changed.

fuser wrote:
There is no such thing as "American race issue" at least for communists, they only bothers the idealist scums on center left.

You're completely our of your mind or entirely ignorant of American culture and society. Our Race issues are extreme.

fuser wrote:
Regardless, its exactly class which is the primary concern of any communist movement, rests are irreverent comparatively.

No they aren't. You're being extremely crude in your application of class consciousness.

Shigalyov wrote:
Firstly, there are a number of criticisms which can be levelled with a considerable degrees of success at almost all religions and I don't think that there is any reason for extricating Islam from that group. The chief one being that any system of belief which relies on the concept of a higher power or a higher justice automatically encourages complacency and acceptance of various social conditions which should be rigorously and actively resisted.

Complacency has nothing to do with the concept of higher justice. Otherwise there would be no attempt to fix anything by these types. You're conflating society's attempts to preserve itself with religious ideas themselves. I understand why, history has shown the latter to be used for this purpose often, but there is nothing inherantly complacentory about Divine Justice.

Shigalyov wrote:
Religion becomes a spiritual safety-net whereby if you are living under intolerable conditions you tolerate them because your deity will compensate you for the inconvenience.

Not really. In Islam sitting by and allowing injustice sends you to hell just the same as those committing them. Even fundamentalist Christians want to dramatically change things. Maybe in the wrong way but it blows your complacency argument right out of the water.

Shigalyov wrote:
Further to that is the doctrine that the material world is a comparatively insignificant portion of the theist's universe and thus not something which the more enlightened individuals are supposed to concern themselves with. Instead of learning about the world and working to change it, the theists lock themselves away in Koranic and Biblical study societies where they spend their lives dissecting and debating the minutiae of ancient works of literature

It's not like most atheists are materialists either. Most of them are just as idealistic. However you're correct this is a real fault and I'd say a significant defiiency. I don't even understand why they aren't materialists. If God gave us a material world it seems like there would be a reason. Although most theist's answer to why we're here is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Shigalyov wrote:
Secondly, there all those excesses and atrocities which have been perpetrated in the name of Islam over a considerable number of centuries now. The impasse we come to here is that its defenders say that these are all perversions of Islam whereas I would say that there is a pattern there and that it is the pattern of Islam itself which tends towards these sorts of extremes.

Oh dear. Try a little materialism yes? Nothing about Islam is more violent, or atrocious, than any otter religion except perhaps Bhuddism. And besides religion has always been a justification for material choices, from birth to death.

Shigalyov wrote:
Of course, not all practitioners are extremist, but there are intrinsic qualities to these sorts of world-views which seem to repeatedly produce this sort of behaviour. If it's not in the the nature of the religion itself it should be pretty straight-forward to point to the sorts of social and material factors which produce this phenomenon to such a strong degree with Islam and yet for some reason do not occur to the same extent with other religions and cultures in other parts of the world where people are oppressed and exploited.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more unstable social setting than that which over a century of Muslims have had to endure. Western Muslim extremists are a product of Liberalism however and cannot be lumped together with ME Muslims.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 04 Jun 2012, 06:51
I like "Dialectical Materialism. FTW!"
It's catchy.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Complacency has nothing to do with the concept of higher justice. Otherwise there would be no attempt to fix anything by these types. You're conflating society's attempts to preserve itself with religious ideas themselves. I understand why, history has shown the latter to be used for this purpose often, but there is nothing inherantly complacentory about Divine Justice.



It seems to me that are two basic schools of thought when it comes to religion:

According to one: Justice and the punishment of wrong-doing are the exclusive territory of the respective deity (I'm paraphrasing here). The believer's duty is to adhere to their respective commandments, but heretic and sinners can be left largely to the deity for their punishment (within certain practical limitations, naturally) - the ones who follow this doctrine are usually the more moderate in their attitudes and readiness to interact with the secular world.

According to the second It's the duty of every believer to punish wrong-doing and to apply the laws of their deity to the world as a whole (Paraphrasing again). This second kind are the ones who are usually fond of bombing abortion clinics and state based Sharia Law.

Now which type are you siding with here, because I'm a little unclear? From my point of view it is the former group who I can envision coming to some kind of understanding with, whereas with the latter I don't think there is any scope for dialogue. They will not rest until every heretic is wiped out. I can't see how you can side with these lunatics on any matter.


Just clear that up for me first and then I might be able to respond to some of your other points.
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 04 Jun 2012, 06:52
Quote:
But fascism is the worst enemy and there are indeed many reasons to be "shocked" by it.

Ofcourse, skin them alive!


Quote:
It's their ends which are objectionable.... their means are mainly just a convenient way to criticize them.

Their ends aren't meterialistic,they have litteraly 0 chance of being implemented. I personally can't help but to find a handfull of men seeking to submitt the world to their will, to reshape it against all odds adorable.

Quote:
And ... as it's been pointed out to me... why should we deny ourselves that powerful rhetorical tool which is known as hypocrisy?

What reason do you have to use rhetoric here
We shouldn't deny ourselves this tool but use it wisely, for alot of people including myself this is a place to learn, no need to confuse your fellow comrades.
They are already get a disporportional big load of shit over them which is closely correlated with the hate of immigrants in Europe and American imprerialism. Besides they haven't wronged us since Afghanistan. If anything we are only validating right wing poppulism speaking out against them, Especially in the manner of extremism being inherit to Islam.
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 04 Jun 2012, 06:56
Religion and science are not compatible. It's as simple as that really. That isn't to say however that religious comrades cannot or should not be worked with.

I voted other. I'm not one who believes that religion should be forcibly eradicated, but rather allowed to exist and encouraged to become friendly towards the state as gradually happened in the Soviet Union after Stalin backpedalled on the USSR's anti-religious policies. I think that religion will become less and less relevant under a such a system until it virtually disappears. We can already see it happening in Western countries and in countries such as China where the state still bans certain religions, but has considerably eased up in recent times. They're only interested in putting a stop to groups which seek to subvert or overthrow the current Chinese state.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 04 Jun 2012, 07:05
Goldfather wrote:
What reason do you have to use rhetoric here
We shouldn't deny ourselves this tool but use it wisely, for alot of people including myself this is a place to learn, no need to confuse your fellow comrades.
Yeah... I tend to agree that amongst ourselves we can drop some of the façade.

It's just that you don't really know who else is listening/reading.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Oct 2009, 09:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 04 Jun 2012, 07:20
Quote:
The Family, will he reforged in the crucible of Revolution and Socialism.


Only, that regarding Family and other bourgeoisie Institution, they will morph into something new/different on their own accord because of the changing material base instead of taking a massive undertaking (as your position is) to change the superstructure.

Quote:
What? Religion wholly operates on a social level just like the State. Both are social organizations.


Point is, religion can exist privately, State can't.

Quote:
Why do you aim to privatize weaponry of this type?


And for how exactly will we use it as a weapon?

Quote:
I'm talking about not underestimating religion or its capacity to engender counterrevolutionary activities.


There is no dispute over this but over the method to control that. And once again mine is, no organized religion, make it a private affair.

Quote:
Militant Atheism isn't the answer


Neither I am advocating that and has mentioned more than once, so you can stop repeating about 'militant atheism' now.

Quote:
o a middle ground must be met that will solve, once and for all, the Religion Question


And I already told you, what that middle ground should be

Quote:
How the frag have you come up with the idea that religion in the west is near dead?


How the frag, you came up with that conclusion?
Are you denying the fact that role of religion has been diminishing in western world? There is an exponential rise of non believers in west?'
'
Quote:
We're not in the business of making atheists, we're in the business of building socialism


Irrelevant as your original point was about religion in Soviet Union and it did got a backseat in there.

Quote:
Today there is no USSR and a strengthening Eastern Orthodox Church, so how successful was it really?


And following that logic, no communist state survives today, then we must abandon communism now.

Really, are you going to argue that it was religious policy of SU which caused her downfall? If not, then above comment is meaningless.

Quote:
Communists do.


Who among communists?

Quote:
Based on what?


Based on your comment only. When I asked for "what role religion can play in a revolution", your answer was "Religion isn't in a vacuum nor are we. We will be related to one another no matter what", that's idealism 101 and not even tries to answer the question.

Quote:
You said our slogans should be based on old things like


I didn't said the "old things" but I explicitly mentioned "along the line of"(you are aware of this phrase, aren't you?), i.e. real material needs of masses facing a crisis (capitalist), that is what will be invoked to get support not religion.

Quote:
The only implication of that is that I am advocating slogans based on religion.


That's not what it implies.

Quote:
Yeah because the propaganda of a backwards feudal shithole from a century ago has any relevance today.


Yes, it is if only you happen to look more in to it and not only the literal meaning.

Quote:
You seem to think I am not a communist.


Its irrelevant what I think of you, neither should you waste your time thinking about, what opinion other people on net have over you.
The point here remains, that you didn't touched my point about identities.

Quote:
Across the entire middle east, Latin America, the US, and places in E. Europe like Poland.


I remember mentioning that "remember the context".


Quote:
Yeah sure worked didn't it?


Yes.

Quote:
Are you just randomly using words? Because nothing I've said here can be called idealism. Prove otherwise.


Of course, you are using idealism and I have already explained it, why I think so, twice.

Quote:
Yes gathering allies sure is worthless.


Our allies are working class. People with grievance with today's capital not people with grievance with today's cleric.

Quote:
Ignoring that religion is an important distinction in our world is to ignore materialism altogether.


Of course, its a important distinction, so is nationality and the point is exactly that, removing that distinction instead of preserving it.

Quote:
but that proletarians care and they do.


Of course and they remain pacified in the process, now why would we want that? May be you should be spending more time on ground as I can tell you from personal experience even poorer of poorest don't give a frag about religion over the real material needs.

Quote:
They don't just abandon their religions because shit changed.


And who the frag is saying that, that we will force them to abandon their religion? Why the frag you have to mention this over and over, if you are really out of arguments, then don't argue instead of creating straw mans.

Quote:
You're completely our of your mind or entirely ignorant of American culture and society. Our Race issues are extreme.


Race issue is irrelevant to the wider class antagonism in USA. As long as you are fighting against racism, you are not fighting for the class. This is a red herring at best.

Quote:
No they aren't


So, now we gonna discuss around these lines, very well then, "Yes, they are".
Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.
Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1655
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jul 2011, 09:57
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 04 Jun 2012, 11:09
I can never make it through even half your posts, man. Keep it simple.

I suppose I would be one of the former of those religious types that someone mentioned (shig?). I believe something like what Sharia Law entails should be a personal decision. Not something enforced by a state. Which is why I'm Jewish and not a Muslim. I retract my statement I made earlier about being in support of Sharia Law. I support it's stipulations, not it's enforcement, but I am not a Muslim so I have no business commenting on that. I am religious but in Communism there needs to be a huge divide between politics and religion. You're right, science and religion are conflicting, however. It is terrible for a Communist to dismiss a comrade based on his or her personal beliefs.

That's my updated opinion.
I don't regret burning my bridges. I regret that some people weren't on those bridges when I burned them.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.