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: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 22 Apr 2012, 02:46
Loz wrote:
Explain to me then why the people in Bosnia ( there are probably many other examples, but this one i'm familiar with) were forced to convert when the Ottomans conquered it in the late Middle Ages?


Not even a little true.

"There is no record of a Muslim organization corresponding to the Christian mission system under the Ottoman Empire. According to Thomas Walker Arnold, Islam was not spread by force in the areas under the control of the Ottoman Sultan. Rather, Arnold concludes by quoting a 17th century author:
'Meanwhile he (the Turk) wins (converts) by craft more than by force, and snatches away Christ by fraud out of the hearts of men. For the Turk, it is true, at the present time compels no country by violence to apostatise; but he uses other means whereby imperceptibly he roots out Christianity...'"
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 07:50
OP-Bagration wrote:
Because according to Shi'ism, you have to make the difference between the batyn, which is the covering, and the zaïr, that is to say the hidden meaning. This is quite similar to Marx's approach to ideology. Ideology is the batyn, and if you want to find truth, you must criticize it. This is one of the many features that impressed me when I was a student in Beirut.

The two-meanings of the Quran technically exists within Sunni Islam as well. But I agree the Shia seem to make more use of it.

Loz wrote:
That's not an argument, because you very well know that yours is a very unorthodox Islam most Muslims would probably regard as heresy or whatever.

It's not very unconventional at all. I'm just applying it outside of a liberal framework which most Muslims do not have any access to. Through political repression or indoctrination, whichever their country chose. You're locked into an interpretation of religion from a bourgeoisie perspective, by repeating the rhetoric of far-right fundamentalists. The only people who ever deny my faith are militant atheists and fundamentalists incidentally.

Loz wrote:
Sure it can.

Any examples?

Loz wrote:
Explain to me then why the people in Bosnia ( there are probably many other examples, but this one i'm familiar with) were forced to convert when the Ottomans conquered it in the late Middle Ages?

As has been explained already the Turks were not analogous to christian missionaries. Muslims are allowed only to inform other people of Allah's Word. That is not to say that many Muslims do not flout this central idea and, exactly as most comtemporary Christians poorly follow the message of Christ the Forgiver, they readily display their ignorance in their crimes. Rapists and murderers have called themselves communists too.

Loz wrote:
Because this is anti-Marxism. Workers have no need for "opium" in a socialist country.

This is a perfect example of a Marx quotation gone awry. How is it anti-Marxism to establish proletarian control over every possible social institution? Are you so arrogant to leave positions of power to our enemies? I honestly do not understand how you can be so blatantly unscientific about religion as a material object.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 15:40
Quote:
The only people who ever deny my faith are militant atheists and fundamentalists incidentally.

I don't care about your personal faith.
I'm just saying that the biggest majority of Muslims probably wouldn't agree with "your" Islam (say, eating pork and so on).

Quote:
Any examples?

Albania of course.

Quote:
Muslims are allowed only to inform other people of Allah's Word.

Yes, and Christians shouldn't steal etc. Of course that's irrelevant, and what matters is that Muslims did force people to covert.

Quote:
Rapists and murderers have called themselves communists too.

So? You can technically be both. Che Guevara was a murderer.

Quote:
How is it anti-Marxism to establish proletarian control over every possible social institution?

Lenin, i think, spoke against this.
And it's pointless to "try to establish proletarian control" over totally reactionary institutions.

Lenin:
Quote:
Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[4]

It is obvious that organs of bourgeois reaction can have no purpose in socialism. They have to be destroyed.

Quote:
Not even a little true.

"There is no record of a Muslim organization corresponding to the Christian mission system under the Ottoman Empire. According to Thomas Walker Arnold, Islam was not spread by force in the areas under the control of the Ottoman Sultan. Rather, Arnold concludes by quoting a 17th century author:
'Meanwhile he (the Turk) wins (converts) by craft more than by force, and snatches away Christ by fraud out of the hearts of men. For the Turk, it is true, at the present time compels no country by violence to apostatise; but he uses other means whereby imperceptibly he roots out Christianity...'"

That's because they were philistines who tried to "cheat" their god like some orthodox Jews do.
Sure, they usually didn't make people to choose between converting or being slaughtered, but non-Muslims in Bosnia were forced to pay huge taxes. Of course, that totally isn't "forcing" them to convert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Also ever heard of Jannissaries? Christian children who were kidnapped, taken to Istambul, converted to Muslims and turned into Turks?






Quote:
Unorthodox Islam is still Islam. How the average Muslim practices and believes has no bearing on that.

It does, in a situation where 99% Muslims think and behave differently.

Quote:
The Ottomans bastardized the principles they claimed to profess. Much like your average televangelist or child-molester priest.

I don't care about their "principles", ideas and what not. I'm interested in what they really did.
Last edited by Loz on 22 Apr 2012, 19:49, edited 1 time in total.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 22 Apr 2012, 16:11
Loz wrote:
It does, in a situation where 99% Muslims think and behave differently.


Then "Communism" is nothing more than social democracy, liberalism, and Trotskyism (as I'd say about 90% of today's 'communists' think and behave).
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 16:56
First of all, this "90%" is debatable.
Secondly, communism is scientific (utopian communism and so on has long been discredited), religion isn't. Therefore, if liberalism was a scientifically correct way of reaching communism (if we can ignore the the laws of economic development of society and so on), then that's what modern communism would be about.
Such analogies are not valid because of that reason.

Defining Islam today is, for all practical purposes, not about "choosing" between hundreds of sects and what not, trying to find out which one is the "real Islam". These sects are irrelevant in most cases and have very little to zero influence in the world.
When we talk about Catholicism we don't talk about ,say, Sodalitium Christianae Vitae for that same reason.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 22 Apr 2012, 19:09
Loz wrote:
It does, in a situation where 99% Muslims think and behave differently.


What the majority of Muslims believe is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is whether or not Islam and Marxism are compatible. Dagoth is both a practicing Muslim and a Marxist. Your argument is invalid.

Loz wrote:
Yes, and Christians shouldn't steal etc. Of course that's irrelevant, and what matters is that Muslims did force people to covert.


"Muslims" and "Islam" are two different things.

Loz wrote:
I don't care about their "principles", ideas and what not. I'm interested in what they really did.


That's what we're talking about. The question is about Islam. Not any particular Muslim. Islam, the religion itself. Anything else is irrelevant.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 19:38
Quote:
What the majority of Muslims believe is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is whether or not Islam and Marxism are compatible. Dagoth is both a practicing Muslim and a Marxist. Your argument is invalid.

One individual's eclecticism doesn't really prove anything.
I've yet to see a "Islamic Marxist" workers movement.
The Marxist parties of Iran, for example, are all anti-religion.

Quote:
"Muslims" and "Islam" are two different things.

Islam doesn't exist outside its real-life "application" and practice.

Quote:
Islam, the religion itself. Anything else is irrelevant.

So what "Islam" are we talking about exactly? There are several "variants", from what i can tell. And they're each claiming that "their" Islam is the real Islam.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 20:32
Loz wrote:
I'm just saying that the biggest majority of Muslims probably wouldn't agree with "your" Islam (say, eating pork and so on).

You don't know a lot of western Muslims do you? They're like Jews, they eat pork all the time. I don't drink for instance and I know several Muslims who do. So again how am I unorthodox? In what way am I in contradiction to my faith?

Loz wrote:
Albania of course.

Any proof? The highest estimates I've seen have placed atheism at only 50%. Hardly seems dead to me.

Loz wrote:
Yes, and Christians shouldn't steal etc. Of course that's irrelevant, and what matters is that Muslims did force people to covert.

Oh so now the majority of faithful are bad at following their religions? And you act as though I should care. The Turks were a progressive force in their early era. I don't go around forcing my morals on the past loz, that's unscientific.

Loz wrote:
So? You can technically be both. Che Guevara was a murderer.

My point is that you cannot dismiss a grouping because of certain members. Also no he wasn't. Revolutionary killing is not murder any more than state execution is.

Loz wrote:
And it's pointless to "try to establish proletarian control" over totally reactionary institutions.

The State is a totally reactionary institution until we establish our control over it. What's the difference? Is revolution also "pointless"?

Loz wrote:
Lenin:
Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[4]

Dude are you fuсking with me? This is what I've been saying all along, in fact it's the entire basis for my demand that proletarian dominance be extended to all extant spheres. Explain to me why we shouldn't.

Loz wrote:
It is obvious that organs of bourgeois reaction can have no purpose in socialism. They have to be destroyed.

Every part of the state apparatus that you aim to seize is an organ of bourgeoisie reaction. How is religion different? Religion pre-dates the state, the bourgeoisie, and even property itself.

Loz wrote:
That's because they were philistines who tried to "cheat" their god like some orthodox Jews do.
Sure, they usually didn't make people to choose between converting or being slaughtered, but non-Muslims in Bosnia were forced to pay huge taxes. Of course, that totally isn't "forcing" them to convert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Still sounds better than what the Christians did by quite a bit. And yes taxing people is way different from forcing conversion.

Loz wrote:
It does, in a situation where 99% Muslims think and behave differently.

I'm still waiting for you to show how I'm supposedly so different from other Muslims.

Loz wrote:
One individual's eclecticism doesn't really prove anything

It proves that you're wrong about someone not being able to be a Muslim and a Marxist simultaneously, which I am.

Loz wrote:
I've yet to see a "Islamic Marxist" workers movement.
The Marxist parties of Iran, for example, are all anti-religion.

Bullshit. Tudeh was an outright Islamic Marxist organization and only dropped the Islamic angle to opportunistically appeal to world powers after they got Thermidor'd out of the Iranian Revolution.

Loz wrote:
Islam doesn't exist outside its real-life "application" and practice.

Yes it does inasmuch as communism exists even though we've never seen it or as much as history "exists".

Loz wrote:
So what "Islam" are we talking about exactly? There are several "variants", from what i can tell. And they're each claiming that "their" Islam is the real Islam.

There is only one Islam contained within the Quran. The divisions are more about ethnicity and history than about anything really theological.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 20:51
Quote:
You don't know a lot of western Muslims do you? They're like Jews, they eat pork all the time. I don't drink for instance and I know several Muslims who do. So again how am I unorthodox? In what way am I in contradiction to my faith?

I'm not saying that you are "in contradiction to your own faith" (that would be rather absurd, wouldn't it), i'm just saying that most Muslims i know of take their religion in a different way, and behave correspondingly.

Quote:
Any proof? The highest estimates I've seen have placed atheism at only 50%. Hardly seems dead to me.

Actually, it's closer to 70%. But that's irrelevant since communism there has been "killed" back in the late 80s.

Quote:
Oh so now the majority of faithful are bad at following their religions? And you act as though I should care.

I don't care if they're "bad" or not, i'm just saying that it's irrelevant, when evaluating what Christianity for instance mean today, to look at its sacred books and commands and what not.

Quote:
My point is that you cannot dismiss a grouping because of certain members.

It's a question of "exceptions and rules" i guess.

Quote:
Also no he wasn't. Revolutionary killing is not murder any more than state execution is.

Ok then. Say Lenin raped someone back in 1919. Would that make him any less communist? Hardly so.

Quote:
The Turks were a progressive force in their early era. I don't go around forcing my morals on the past loz, that's unscientific.

No they weren't. The Ottoman empire was notoriously backwards, and as soon as they stopped conquering new lands the country started seriously agging behind the West,eventually becoming the "sick man of the Bosphorus".

Quote:
The State is a totally reactionary institution until we establish our control over it. What's the difference? Is revolution also "pointless"?

Socialism is not stateless. Where does it say that religion is neccessary in socialism?

Quote:
Explain to me why we shouldn't.

You cannot "extend proletarian influence" at stock exchanges for example.

Quote:
Religion pre-dates the state, the bourgeoisie, and even property itself.

Organized religion has always been a tool of the ruling classes.

Quote:
And yes taxing people is way different from forcing conversion.

Yes, if you're a philistine. In reality it's still forcing people to convert, albeit in a less-violent manner.

Quote:
It proves that you're wrong about someone not being able to be a Muslim and a Marxist simultaneously, which I am.

You can be whatever you want. I'm not talking about individuals, i'm talking about an organized, systematical, tendecy of "Islamic Marxism" (with its own theory and so on), which obviously doesn't exist.

Quote:
Bullshit. Tudeh was an outright Islamic Marxist organization and only dropped the Islamic angle to opportunistically appeal to world powers after they got Thermidor'd out of the Iranian Revolution.

Serves them right. Also, pay attention to "was".

Quote:
Yes it does inasmuch as communism exists even though we've never seen it or as much as history "exists".

Correct, no one would talk about "communism" were it not for communists.

Quote:
The divisions are more about ethnicity and history than about anything really theological.

Yeah, maybe, however they're still theological and theoretical nevertheless.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 21:22
Loz wrote:
I'm not saying that you are "in contradiction to your own faith" (that would be rather absurd, wouldn't it), i'm just saying that most Muslims i know of take their religion in a different way, and behave correspondingly.

I don't know about Croatia (or really any of the former SFRY for that matter) but I figure I'm safe in saying it isn't a liberal country yet. It's ridiculous to hold people raised on liberalism to those who weren't. Of course we're different.

Loz wrote:
Actually, it's closer to 70%. But that's irrelevant since communism there has been "killed" back in the late 80s.

I'd like to see a source for that one but 30% isn't dead either. My point wasn't that specific religions could not be killed, the pagans aren't really around anymore, but that another will fill its place just as capitalism filled the place of socialism.

Loz wrote:
I don't care if they're "bad" or not, i'm just saying that it's irrelevant, when evaluating what Christianity for instance mean today, to look at its sacred books and commands and what not.

It's not irrelevant at all. That's like saying what fascists uphold has no relevance to their actions.

Loz wrote:
Ok then. Say Lenin raped someone back in 1919. Would that make him any less communist? Hardly so.

lol yeah it would. Being a rapist and a communist is far more contradictory than any religion is to communism.

Loz wrote:
Socialism is not stateless. Where does it say that religion is neccessary in socialism?

In that part about proletarians controlling everything. Religion is a thing. And what's more is it is a pretty powerful thing. Religion is like nuclear warheads: only a fool would leave them unattended.

Loz wrote:
You cannot "extend proletarian influence" at stock exchanges for example.

Firstly that's not even a valid comparison as stock exchanges are purely a bourgeoisie creation. Religion pre-dates property. Secondly, a proletarian stock exchange would just be a really inefficient distribution system. And the laws confining it would have to be too complex. Neither of these issues are similar to the problems Proletarian Religion would have to endure.

Loz wrote:
Organized religion has always been a tool of the ruling classes.

Which has no bearing on the fact that religion pre-dates agriculture and thus classes themselves. Also why do you think the Proletarian ruling class would be different?

Loz wrote:
You can be whatever you want. I'm not talking about individuals, i'm talking about an organized, systematical, tendecy of "Islamic Marxism" (with its own theory and so on), which obviously doesn't exist.

Why would we need our own theory? Marxism suffices. You want us to become Islamic Marxists when in fact we are Muslim Marxists, just like German Marxists, or Women Marxists. We are Marxists and we are Muslim. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Loz wrote:
Serves them right. Also, pay attention to "was".

Pay more attention to Opportunistically.

Loz wrote:
Correct, no one would talk about "communism" were it not for communists.

Sure they would. If we all died and no one ever picked up our banner communism would be remembered without any communists, even if only as a historical oddity.

Loz wrote:
Yeah, maybe, however they're still theological and theoretical nevertheless.

No they aren't. They're material and ethnic differences covered with theology.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 21:43
Quote:
I don't know about Croatia (or really any of the former SFRY for that matter) but I figure I'm safe in saying it isn't a liberal country yet. It's ridiculous to hold people raised on liberalism to those who weren't. Of course we're different.

From what i gather, Muslims in ultra-liberal Sweden or liberal UK seem to be much more "radical" than Muslims in backwards Bosnia. Generally speaking, of course.

Quote:
My point wasn't that specific religions could not be killed, the pagans aren't really around anymore, but that another will fill its place just as capitalism filled the place of socialism.

I think that religions can be killed. Many religions disappeared because of forced conversions / invasions and so on.

Quote:
It's not irrelevant at all. That's like saying what fascists uphold has no relevance to their actions.

Yes but what fascism "uphold" fits pretty well with what they actually did.

Quote:
Being a rapist and a communist is far more contradictory than any religion is to communism.

I think that this is a rather moralistic argument. You still have to prove that a hypothetical incident where Lenin raped someone would make him any less of a communist. BTW Marx had a bastard son he didn't care for at all. How is that relevant to Marx as a historical communist figure?

Quote:
In that part about proletarians controlling everything.

I'd really like to see a historical example of a "proletarian religion". Lenin wrote against this (bogostroitelstvo).
Also don't bring up "Liberation theology" because it's not a real religion, more like a sect. It doesn't have much influence anyway.

Quote:
Religion pre-dates property.

I don't think so. I also don't think that animistic beliefs qualify as "religion" anyway.

Quote:
Why would we need our own theory? Marxism suffices. You want us to become Islamic Marxists when in fact we are Muslim Marxists, just like German Marxists, or Women Marxists. We are Marxists and we are Muslim. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Fair enought. Give me some examples of Muslim Marxists then.

Quote:
They're material and ethnic differences covered with theology.

Well, that's the underlying cause behind the 1054 Vatican-Constantinople split and so on, however no one denies that it's a question of theology none the less.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 22 Apr 2012, 22:51
Loz, you are bringing up a lot of side points and obfuscating the main question at hand. I would like you to point out (using verses from the Qu'ran and quotes from the foundational texts of Marx) the exact points at which Islamic theology is incompatible with Marxism.

Edit:
There are, of course, many ways you can go about this, as both Islam and Marxism can simultaneously be read as philosophies and economic/political theories. So you can focus on where they differ in terms of philosophy (does anything in Islam go against a dialectical materialist understanding of history?), economics (does anything in Islam specifically advocate capitalism?), etc.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 23:20
Quote:
I would like you to point out (using verses from the Qu'ran and quotes from the foundational texts of Marx) the exact points at which Islamic theology is incompatible with Marxism.

Here's why every theology is incompatibile with Marxism. Islam included.

Quote:
Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.[1] Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.

Lenin: The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, 1909.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... may/13.htm

Quote:
So you can focus on where they differ in terms of philosophy (does anything in Islam go against a dialectical materialist understanding of history?), economics (does anything in Islam specifically advocate capitalism?)

I'll leave that to someone who feels like arguing about (often contradictory) quotes from various Islamic scriptures.
Instead i'd like to ask you to give me one example of Islamic Marxism in action.


Islam also teaches that man is subjugated to Allah, that man is a "slave" of Allah.
And Marxism is about the emancipation of humanity from such reactionary and backwards ideologies.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2012, 23:53
Quote:
Lenin: The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, 1909.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... may/13.htm


Cajo Brendel wrote:
Pannekoek pointed to the fact that Lenin's Marxism was nothing more than a legend and contradicted real Marxism. At the same time he explained the cause: "In Russia," he said "the struggle against Czarism resembled in many aspects the struggle against feudalism in Europe long before. In Russia church and religion supported the existing power. For that reason a struggle against religion was a social necessity." For this reason what Lenin regarded as historical materialism hardly distinguished itself from the French bourgeois materialism of the 18th century, a materialism that, in those times, was used as a spiritual weapon against the church and religion.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/brendel ... munism.htm


Anton Pannekoek wrote:
Lenin’s concordance with bourgeois materialism and his ensuing discordance with Historical Materialism is manifest in many consequences. The former waged its main war against religion; and the chief reproach Lenin raises against Mach and his followers is that they sustain fideism. We met with it in several quotations already; in hundreds of places all through the book (Materialism and Empiriocriticism) we find fideism as the opposite of materialism. Marx and Engels did not know of fideism; they drew the line between materialism and idealism. In the name fideism emphasis is laid upon religion. Lenin explains whence he took the word. “In France, those who put faith above reason are called fideists (from the Latin fides, faith).” (306)

This oppositeness of religion to reason is a reminiscence from pre-marxian times, from the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, appealing to “reason” in order to attack religious faith as the chief enemy in the social struggle; “free thinking” was opposed to “obscurantism.” Lenin, in continually pointing to fideism as the consequence of the contested doctrines indicates that also to him in the world of ideas religion is the chief enemy.

(...)

Manifestly it was unknown to Lenin that the deeply religious Calvinism was a rigidly deterministic doctrine, whereas the materialist bourgeoisie of the 19th century put their faith into free will, hence proclaimed indeterminism. At this point a real Marxian thinker would not have missed the opportunity of explaining to the Russian Machists that it was Historical Materialism that opened the way for determinism in the field of society; we have shown above that the theoretical conviction that rules and laws hold in a realm – this means determinism – can find a foundation only when we succeed in establishing practically such laws and connections. Further, that Mach because he belonged to the borurgeoisie and was bound to its fundamental line of thought, by necessity was indeterminist in his social views; and that in this way his ideas were backward and incompatible with Marxism. But nothing of the sort is found in Lenin; that ideas are determined by class is not mentioned; the theoretical differences hang in the air. Of course theoretical ideas must be criticised by theoretical arguments. When, however, the social consequences are emphasised with such vehemence, the social origins of the contested ideas should not have been left out of consideration. This most essential character of Marxism does not seem to exist for Lenin.

http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/19 ... n/ch06.htm
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 23 Apr 2012, 00:04
Lol, where you cut that quote off is just ridiculous:

Loz wrote:
Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.[1] Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.

Lenin goes on to say:
Quote:
Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.
At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be “more left” or “more revolutionary” than the Social-Democrats, to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering.[2] And in 1877, too, in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion, Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring’s pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society. To declare such a war on religion, Engels says, is to “out-Bismarck Bismarck”, i. e., to repeat the folly of Bismarck’s struggle against the clericals (the notorious “Struggle for Culture”, Kulturkampf, i.e., the struggle Bismarck waged in the 1870s against the German Catholic party, the “Centre” party, by means of a police persecution of Catholicism). By this struggle Bismarck only stimulated the militant clericalism of the Catholics, and only injured the work of real culture, because he gave prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck’s folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion.[3] This view has become part of the very essence of German Social-Democracy, which, for example, advocated freedom for the Jesuits, their admission into Germany, and the complete abandonment of police methods of combating any particular religion. “Religion is a private matter”: this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891) summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy.
...
But anybody who is able to treat Marxism at all seriously, to ponder over its philosophical principles and the experience of international Social-Democracy, will readily see that the Marxist tactics in regard to religion are thoroughly consistent, and were carefully thought out by Marx and Engels; and that what dilettantes or ignoramuses regard as wavering is but a direct and inevitable deduction from dialectical materialism. It would be a profound mistake to think that the seeming “moderation” of Marxism in regard to religion is due to supposed “tactical” considerations, the desire “not to scare away” anybody, and so forth. On the contrary, in this question, too, the political line of Marxism is inseparably bound up with its philosophical principles.

Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social. The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extra-ordinary events, such as wars, earthquakes, etc. “Fear made the gods.” Fear of the blind force of capital—blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people—a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation—such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist. No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.

Does this mean that educational books against religion are harmful or unnecessary? No, nothing of the kind. It means that Social-Democracy’s atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task—the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters.
...
It is from this angle that all side issues bearing on the attitude of Social-Democrats to religion should be dealt with. For example, the question is often brought up whether a priest can be a member of the Social-Democratic Party or not, and this question is usually answered in an unqualified affirmative, the experience of the European Social-Democratic parties being cited as evidence. But this experience was the result, not only of the application of the Marxist doctrine to the workers’ movement, but also of the special historical conditions in Western Europe which are absent in Russia (we will say more about these conditions later), so that an unqualified affirmative answer in this case is incorrect. It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the programme of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our programme and the religious convictions of the priest would in such circumstances be something that concerned him alone, his own private contradiction; and a political organisation cannot put its members through an examination to see if there is no contradiction between their views and the Party programme. But, of course, such a case might be a rare exception even in Western Europe, while in Russia it is altogether improbable. And if, for example, a priest joined the Social-Democratic Party and made it his chief and almost sole work actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks. We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it. We allow freedom of opinion within the Party, but to certain limits, determined by freedom of grouping; we are not obliged to go hand in hand with active preachers of views that are repudiated by the majority of the Party.


Dialectics meet Shigalyov, Shigalyov meet dialectics:
Shigalyov wrote:
The fanatics could squabble in the radioactive rubble (can't think of a better place for them really - just nuke it every couple of years to stop the others from returning) and the semi-rational ones would just go away and get on with their lives.
@Dags: I had a notion I might offend you in that latest Islam/Marxism thread, but it's certainly not my intention - I'm just giving some personal thoughts.


Shigalyov wrote:
They've all got to go though.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2012, 00:50
Quote:
Lol, where you cut that quote off is just ridiculous

How come?
The questions of bourgeois atheism of the 19th century and its flaws and so on are not that relevant because, as "your" own quote says:

Quote:
It would be a profound mistake to think that the seeming “moderation” of Marxism in regard to religion is due to supposed “tactical” considerations, the desire “not to scare away” anybody, and so forth. On the contrary, in this question, too, the political line of Marxism is inseparably bound up with its philosophical principles.

...
Quote:
Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion.


Evidently, Marxism is against religion.
I don't see what's your point here?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 23 Apr 2012, 03:50
Great thread Khlib! I was a little busy yesterday so I'm only responding now.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Bullshit. The Abrahamic religions are the most progressive religions to ever exist. The only other reasonable contender is Buddhism and it advocates too much separation from society to be progressive.
Most progressive doesn't actually mean progressive.
Couldn't you use that logic to say that capitalism is more progressive than feudalism and therefore compatible with Marxism?*

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Yeah religions can be controlled and evolve. Despite atheist rhetoric religious people aren't stupid feudal peasants waiting to be dragged back to the good ol' days. Capitalist Christianity is distinctly different from its feudal predecessor because its ruling class has different interests. But yeah proletarians could never do that.
Why bother though? Loz's Opium quote seems entirely apt here. If people are freed from the alienation of non-socialist economic systems their use for it would be pretty limited.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
You would have been wrong then too. The feudal aristocracy were the problem several hundred years ago. This nonsensical religion-is-the-center-of-all-ill mentality is flagrantly non-Marxist and ignores the function of religion.
I meant in terms of comparing the major religions of the time.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
The only Abrahamic religion that advocates converting Gentiles is Christianity. Islam strictly forbids treading onto Allah's territory, and the faith of others is not our concern. The idea that apostates should be killed, for example, has no basis whatsoever in the Quran.
I'll take your word for that, but it's clearly not the case in practice.

I get the impression that you're going to respond that just as people here are reluctant to lay the faults in the USSR at the foot of Marxism, we shouldn't judge Islam by it's application in various Islamic theocratic states. I'm not sure we'll get anywhere if we judge everybody and everything by their intentions exclusively though.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
lol that's ridiculous. It wasn't like te Germans were the only ones who wanted to kill off the Euro-Jews. The Nazis, if anything, made killing Jews unfashionable.
The Nazis didn't invent anti-Semitism, but they positively redefined the meaning of the word "Jew". Prior to Nazism, being Jewish was a choice. You could be Jewish or you could assimilate. After the Nuremberg laws it became evident that no amount of assimilation would suffice - a Jewish grandparent was enough to ensure that you were a Jew. I think you are seriously underestimating the significance of this.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Nice statement right after you idea that the holocaust reinvigorated Judaism. Why are you so compelled to ostracize people like me? Do you question my committment to communism because of my faith so thoroughly that you think I deserve to be killed off or otherwise disposed of?
I'm not really in favour of having large sections of the population wiped out. As far as the theists go, I'd just go for a couple of particular stubborn and inflexible clerics. You'll be fine.


Dagoth Ur wrote:
So by that token anyone who reaches a Marxist position in a liberal society while others don't is wrong and using a singular interpretation of society?
I'm not following you here. I think that you have a singular view of things. Most people don't have a Marxist understanding because of sheer ignorance and the comprehensive disinformation campaign which has been waged against it. I would hope that a proper education and the practical experience of living under a Communist economy would suffice to enlighten most people that aren't completely closed-minded.
Most theists get something out of religion which they are not getting elsewhere - if we are able to create a society where people are living without these huge voids in their lives and looking to supernatural beings to right the injustices which plague them, their reliance on religion should soon dry up - providing steps are taken to ensure that parents aren't brainwashing their children.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Do you see how this plays into the hands of theist fundamentalists who claim communists want you to forsake your God to join them? Do you fuсking understand how God-damned frustrating it is that militant atheists parrot the rhetoric of the people you supposedly hate so much?
lol
They might be wrong about most things, but it's like telling that dude that he can keep his three houses - I'm not gonna sugar-coat it. He's gonna lose them and be materially worse off.
In the long run he'll be the better for it, but in his little property = happiness mentality it probably sounds unappetising.
Am I expecting too much of people to think that they can transcend these limitations which society has drummed into them?

Dagoth Ur wrote:
So what do you think happens after the revolution? You kill the religious organizations, or they just give up political manipulation? What is your plan for dealing with religion because mine makes a lot more sense and is in line with proletarian cultural hegemony unlike most atheist positions. Why is it so hard for so many Marxists to understand that Religion is just a tool like the State (which no Marxist would ever dream of leaving outside of their control)?
We're not going to leave them to their own devices. Religion would be one of the few things to be privatized. In the short term we're probably going to have to learn to live with them, but they will be strictly controlled and limited by state organs. Nationalising religions sounds too much like the state going into the business of manufacturing drugs and alcohol to pacify the population. Sure, we might have to manufacture quantities of them, but I'm not keen on it being a strategy for controlling and subjugating the masses (the way religion is usually).

I'm not in favour of the sort of alliances with religions which Stalin arranged during the war. Though my suspicions are that it was only because of the dire situations of the time. I can't imagine such a thing being contemplated under anything less than a catastrophic emergency. As to why the state didn't revert to it's militant atheist philosophy after the war that's a separate issue - though I definitely feel that it was a deviation.

khlib wrote:
Dialectics meet Shigalyov, Shigalyov meet dialectics
Hello. How do you do?


Shigalyov wrote:
They've all got to go though.
The religions I mean.


* Maybe I'm looking at this question more as "Is Islam compatible with Communism". To which I would say NO. Marxism is just a tool for that end to me.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2012, 07:14
Shigalyov wrote:
Most progressive doesn't actually mean progressive.
Couldn't you use that logic to say that capitalism is more progressive than feudalism and therefore compatible with Marxism?*

No because religion isn't a particular mode of society. It's just a tool of control like the state. Religion is not a special boogeyman. The authorities who run these organizations are fully bourgeoisie, and their actions reflect this.

Shigalyov wrote:
Why bother though? Loz's Opium quote seems entirely apt here. If people are freed from the alienation of non-socialist economic systems their use for it would be pretty limited.

If you're so sure of this then what harm is there in taking religion over?

Shigalyov wrote:
I meant in terms of comparing the major religions of the time.

I know what you meant. Those religions were agents of the ruling class of their day. Their actions reflect this.

Shigalyov wrote:
I'll take your word for that, but it's clearly not the case in practice.

Oh really? When was the last time you had a Muslim knock on your door trying to tell you the word? Only these salafists retards go out trying to convert people. You have to live in a Muslim country to find these guys because they're more interested in monitoring Muslims than infidels. Islamists are terrible Muslims.

Shigalyov wrote:
I get the impression that you're going to respond that just as people here are reluctant to lay the faults in the USSR at the foot of Marxism, we shouldn't judge Islam by it's application in various Islamic theocratic states. I'm not sure we'll get anywhere if we judge everybody and everything by their intentions exclusively though.

Well no I wouldn't say that because Marxism wasn't the problem in the USSR. Also I love how you like to imply I support theocracy in any way whatsoever. Just because I'm a Muslim doesn't mean I'm not committed to secularism.

Shigalyov wrote:
I think you are seriously underestimating the significance of this.

I hadn't thought of that, but I still don't think it's ridiculous to claim that without the nazis there'd be no Jews.

Shigalyov wrote:
]I'm not following you here. I think that you have a singular view of things.

My view is not singular it's just not really applied very often. Marxists in most Muslim countries are understandably anti-islamic, so it's not likely they're going to apply dialectics to Islam. At the same time you'll never come across such thinking in sermons which is where most religious people get their religious opinions from. There is a very tight system of censorship in religious groups. Athesits claim this is to keep people from becoming atheists but really it just seems to make more atheists.

Shigalyov wrote:
Most people don't have a Marxist understanding because of sheer ignorance and the comprehensive disinformation campaign which has been waged against it. I would hope that a proper education and the practical experience of living under a Communist economy would suffice to enlighten most people that aren't completely closed-minded.

Marxist hostility towards religious people themselves is a large part of why people like me aren't that common. It takes a special type of asshole to believe in a system even though many other adherents think nuking my holy sites is funny. Well it's not really me, that's arrogance, Marxism is just great.

Shigalyov wrote:
Most theists get something out of religion which they are not getting elsewhere - if we are able to create a society where people are living without these huge voids in their lives and looking to supernatural beings to right the injustices which plague them, their reliance on religion should soon dry up - providing steps are taken to ensure that parents aren't brainwashing their children.

Jesus Christ stop acting like childhood indoctrination is the same as brainwashing. Telling people they can't educate their children is unnessecariy obtrusive. But then you've also suggested that people should have to apply to procreate. This is the kind of shit that Zealots scare religious children away from communism with.

Shigalyov wrote:
lol
They might be wrong about most things, but it's like telling that dude that he can keep his three houses - I'm not gonna sugar-coat it. He's gonna lose them and be materially worse off.
In the long run he'll be the better for it, but in his little property = happiness mentality it probably sounds unappetising.

He would be able to keep his houses if he could pay his taxes. Its not like we're gonna go around expropriating every asshole with a couple shitty houses dude.

Shigalyov wrote:
Am I expecting too much of people to think that they can transcend these limitations which society has drummed into them?

I think that's fine but I don't want to impose atheist limitations either.

Shigalyov wrote:
We're not going to leave them to their own devices. Religion would be one of the few things to be privatized. In the short term we're probably going to have to learn to live with them, but they will be strictly controlled and limited by state organs. Nationalising religions sounds too much like the state going into the business of manufacturing drugs and alcohol to pacify the population. Sure, we might have to manufacture quantities of them, but I'm not keen on it being a strategy for controlling and subjugating the masses (the way religion is usually).

I don't give a shit what it sounds like. Privatization has no place in socialism and certainly not for any institution used to control people. It's insane to me that you would think such a thing could be privatized. Proletarian authority must be embodied by all established authorities. It's a necessity in undermining fundamentalist propaganda and actions.

Shigalyov wrote:
I'm not in favour of the sort of alliances with religions which Stalin arranged during the war. Though my suspicions are that it was only because of the dire situations of the time. I can't imagine such a thing being contemplated under anything less than a catastrophic emergency. As to why the state didn't revert to it's militant atheist philosophy after the war that's a separate issue - though I definitely feel that it was a deviation

Then it was a good deviation. And I'm not talking alliances I'm talking proletarianization.

Shigalyov wrote:
* Maybe I'm looking at this question more as "Is Islam compatible with Communism". To which I would say NO. Marxism is just a tool for that end to me.

Religion under socialism would he unrecognizable to us. It's hubris to think you know enough about communism to know it wouldn't be perfectly comparable.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 23 Apr 2012, 09:33
Sorry if this is chaotic... I've jumped around your post a little:

Dagoth Ur wrote:
No because religion isn't a particular mode of society.
Nevermind... I used a bad analogy.


Dagoth Ur wrote:
If you're so sure of this then what harm is there in taking religion over?
I'm finding it a little unclear how this is supposed to work if it's different from a theocratic state. Are there any historical examples of the sort of thing you envision? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Also I love how you like to imply I support theocracy in any way whatsoever. Just because I'm a Muslim doesn't mean I'm not committed to secularism.
Well I'm clear on that at least actually and wasn't making that assumption here, but still not entirely sure what sort of thing you're proposing.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Well no I wouldn't say that because Marxism wasn't the problem in the USSR.
No you might not, but plenty of it's critics would and the analogy is that if someone points to Iran or Afghanistan and uses them as criticisms of Islam.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Oh really? When was the last time you had a Muslim knock on your door trying to tell you the word?...
How is it expanding so rapidly without conversions? Or are you saying that it's solely birth-rates?

Dagoth Ur wrote:
I hadn't thought of that, but I still don't think it's ridiculous to claim that without the nazis there'd be no Jews.
Not "that they wouldn't exist" , but that they would be an obscure minority group who hardly anyone would have heard of... Those that were in the process of assimilating would have done so completely and those that wanted to cling to their old ways would live in their little ghettos the same way they have for centuries. In terms of population they are a tiny group - if they'd been allowed to assimilate when they had wanted to they would be ever more numerically insignificant.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
My view is not singular it's just not really applied very often.
There's no such thing as an original thought... I stand corrected.
Dagoth Ur wrote:
There is a very tight system of censorship in religious groups. Athesits claim this is to keep people from becoming atheists but really it just seems to make more atheists.
Interesting notion although it's difficult to verify one way or another. Strict religious societies aren't very indulgent towards heretics.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Marxist hostility towards religious people themselves is a large part of why people like me aren't that common.
There's this basic dilemma you're either missing or ignoring ... we're competitors and they're our rivals.
Religion offers a particular world-view and explanation for the way things are (as well as a justification for a great many things), while Marxism offers a different sort of world-view which explains the way societies work and tells you that if your life is terrible it's not because of original sin or something similar... it's probably a direct consequence of an economic system which is screwing you over.
Belief in some sort of non-material cosmic order just encourages acceptance of materially unsatisfactory conditions... if social democratic measures (which make capitalism more tolerable to the masses) are considered counter-revolutionary around here, then how can the idea of a divine reckoning (which makes the intolerable tolerable) be any less so?

Dagoth Ur wrote:
It takes a special type of asshole to believe in a system even though many other adherents think nuking my holy sites is funny.
Why I am the one copping all the grief over that gag? Loz started it.


Dagoth Ur wrote:
Jesus Christ stop acting like childhood indoctrination is the same as brainwashing. Telling people they can't educate their children is unnessecariy obtrusive.
It's an abusive cycle that needs to be broken. Once children have religion sufficiently drilled into them it's a very hard thing to undo. What would you suggest? Let parents continue to shit in their children's minds and expect the state to clean up the mess later?

Dagoth Ur wrote:
But then you've also suggested that people should have to apply to procreate.
Didn't you like that idea either? It sounds worse than it is if you really think about it.
Maybe I'll explain it better at some stage.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Its not like we're gonna go around expropriating every asshole with a couple shitty houses dude.
I don't know if it's an issue in your corner of the globe, but in others there are disgraceful numbers of homeless people - until that's resolved every "spare" house will be need to be appropriated. I'm more interested in resolving that problem than letting someone keep a "holiday" house.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Privatization has no place in socialism and certainly not for any institution used to control people. It's insane to me that you would think such a thing could be privatized.
I'm talking about it being an entirely private/personal matter. I wasn't using the term in some "economic" sense. Organized religions would not be welcome, but private religious beliefs would be tolerated.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Proletarian authority must be embodied by all established authorities. It's a necessity in undermining fundamentalist propaganda and actions.
As a short-term strategy I can understand this, but can't help feeling that the theists would resist this just as much as they would resist my proposals.
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Religion under socialism would he unrecognizable to us. It's hubris to think you know enough about communism to know it wouldn't be perfectly comparable.
Maybe so but what would it's function be?
We both see it as a social tool, but you seem to believe it has some intrinsic value; whereas I can't see any need for it under communism.

Religion is a legacy of homo-sapien's superstitious origins ... something to be finally outgrown when man grows up.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2012, 10:50
Quote:
It takes a special type of asshole to believe in a system even though many other adherents think nuking my holy sites is funny.

Marxism is against everything that is "holy" in this, religious, sense.

Quote:
Then it was a good deviation.

How and in what way? Except for the obvious purpose ( to strenghten the spirits of people during these most desperate times) ?
Also "communism" is not a belief or a "system". We're not communists because we "believe in communism", we're communists because we're fighting for it, knowing the laws of historical development which say that capitalism will be defeated and so on and that communism will arise out of this.
All that is completely different from a belief in Jesus' second coming or what have you.

Quote:
And I'm not talking alliances I'm talking proletarianization.

Give us one historical instance where religion was "proletarianized".

Quote:
Religion under socialism would he unrecognizable to us.

Religion under socialism was pretty much the same as it was under Tzarism, except that priests worked for the KGB.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron