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
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1655
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jul 2011, 09:57
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 30 May 2012, 20:50
I am a Marxist Jew, and I said it. Straight from the horses mouth, my friend.

Tell me what I'm supposed to be proving again? I'm so lost because I go to defend one point and you hop to another. This really confirms that I bet you know little to nothing about Judaism or it's role in Marxism and Soviet History. Sad.
I don't regret burning my bridges. I regret that some people weren't on those bridges when I burned them.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2012, 20:56
Quote:
I am a Marxist Jew, and I said it. Straight from the horses mouth, my friend.

That's all good and well.

Quote:
Tell me what I'm supposed to be proving again?

Nothing. I only asked you to substantiate your argument (preferably with sources) that "there is a place for religion in Marxism".

Quote:
This really confirms that I bet you know little to nothing about Judaism or it's role in Marxism and Soviet History. Sad.

Indeed i don't know anything about Judaism's role in Marxism. Care to provide some sources regarding that issue?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1655
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jul 2011, 09:57
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 30 May 2012, 21:04
Do I look like fragging Google to you? I don't need to provide a source for every sentence I say. Where are your sources at? The ones that prove I'm wrong? Go ahead, I'll wait.
I don't regret burning my bridges. I regret that some people weren't on those bridges when I burned them.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2012, 21:16
Quote:
Do I look like fragging Google to you?

No, but it's you who made that claim, right? Surely you didn't just make it up yourself?

Quote:
I don't need to provide a source for every sentence I say.

No, i only asked you to provide a source for one (our of cca 50) sentences you wrote.

Quote:
Where are your sources at?

Check the previous pages. Lenin's "On the...stance towards religion" etc.

Quote:
The ones that prove I'm wrong?

That's not how a debate works. Firstly, i think, you have to substantiate your own argument. Why does religion have a place in Marxism and so on... Preferably with sources.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 30 May 2012, 21:23
Sources are different than quotations from different leaders. A source would be some sort of scientific or historical proof to substantiate the point you are making.

You never give sources. You give quotations from leaders making unsubstantiated claims.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2012, 21:27
Quote:
A source would be some sort of scientific or historical proof to substantiate the point you are making.

Fine.
Marx and Engels on Religion, 1957
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

Quote:
You never give sources. You give quotations from leaders making unsubstantiated claims.

OK then.
Surely it would be better if i just name you my source here? Ok.
Karl Marx i Friedrich Engels, O religiji, 1976
It's very similar in nature to the previously quoted English source.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 30 May 2012, 21:30
Could you just quote the relevant parts that "prove" that Islam is incompatible with Marxism? Not in Marx's opinion, but using scientific or historical examples.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2012, 21:35
I'm not aware of any souch source in regards to Islam specifically.
As for the second part i guess it would be useful to look at what happened to "Islamic socialism".
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Oct 2009, 09:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 31 May 2012, 07:23
Quote:
Not in Marx's opinion


So,Marx's works are petty opinions now?
I used to think that at least Marxist used to take them as scientific works (we can disagree with the methodology and conclusion) but discarding them as petty opinions?
Another example that shows how religious comrades will go to appalling length to defend their faith even at the expense of Marxist theories and by extension revolution itself.
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 31 May 2012, 08:09
My religion will always come before my party and my bible will always take precedence over any work by Marx. This does not make me any less of a Communist or Revolutionary. We are not in a period of revolution. We are not really in a period of anything significant. Would I tone down my religious attitudes were I to find myself in the middle of an upheaval? Sure, because I believe in a period of revolution, personal aspects that break us into sectors should be eliminated as much as possible in order to promote like-mindedness and prevent squabbling. But, in a time of peace, I hardly see how my religion should be relevant to any other person if I am not using it to exploit or harm myself or others. Does me being a Jew really keep you up at night in fear of a botched revolution or a lack of loyalty to my comrades? No.

You guys really need to lay off. I live my life how I see fit, within G-d's parameters of course. I do not harm others. I do not steal, exploit, lie or violate the rights of any human being, regardless of religious affiliation. I keep to myself and am active in my community. I devote my time to my family. I read and study both Communism and Judaism to a lengthy extent. I always do my best to help others. These are basic tenets every comrade should have. How is it relevant how these values were instilled as long as I have them? How are we so different? What makes your way the right way? Because a dead man with outdated ideals says so? We are in the 21st century. Marxism has to change with the times or it has no hope of ever being successfully executed. My party I'm involved with is full of religious people. Why are some of you so, so critical in your thinking. It's debatable if there's room for G-d in Marxism, what is not up for question is if there is a place for bigotry.

Let's give all this a rest. Please.
I don't regret burning my bridges. I regret that some people weren't on those bridges when I burned them.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Oct 2009, 09:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 31 May 2012, 09:15
^ above post is an example of liberal individualistic thinking 101.

Quote:
My religion will always come before my party and my bible will always take precedence over any work by Marx. This does not make me any less of a Communist or Revolutionary.


Of course it will make you a lesser communist and probably a counter revolutionary, and not to say that how constructive it would be for revolution where one comrade is waving his Bible and other his Geeta.


Quote:
We are not in a period of revolution. We are not really in a period of anything significant


Of course but the current discussion is a theoretical one which exactly deals with the period of revolution and aftermath.

Quote:
I do not harm others. I do not steal, exploit, lie or violate the rights of any human being, regardless of religious affiliation. I keep to myself and am active in my community. I devote my time to my family. I read and study both Communism and Judaism to a lengthy extent. I always do my best to help others


One single person's attitude is irrelevant, to the wider picture and this is exactly why I called your post "liberal individualism".
Beside, let's consider another example following the same logic, I think my nation is above everything but still I read marx and am a communist and haven't harm any one and all that moral shits I have done, then surely it proves that nationality is not something that should be done away with?


Quote:
My party I'm involved with is full of religious people. Why are some of you so, so critical in your thinking. It's debatable if there's room for G-d in Marxism


One problem that I think of is that may be your party is full of religious people of same faith, the problem arises when they are of different faiths.

Quote:
personal aspects that break us into sectors should be eliminated as much as possible in order to promote like-mindedness and prevent squabbling. But, in a time of peace,


Peace or war, no one is stopping any religious people from practicing their faith as long as it is a private affair, the problem arises when it extends into public sphere.

And for the last time, no one is calling up for elimination but for negligence of religions and make it solely a private affair.
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 31 May 2012, 09:21
I posted in another area that I'm done with this religious debate. I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm not going to be responding. I'm growing tired of everyone repeating the same statements, hopefully khlib or Dagoth will address your points.

Have a good night


-CC.
I don't regret burning my bridges. I regret that some people weren't on those bridges when I burned them.
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 31 May 2012, 11:06
Is Islam compatible with Marxism ? On a abstract ideological level probably not BUT being progressive is in accordance with the Quaran. 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. Needless to say this is something that can be exploited by us.

On a more practical level, In the battle against imperialism and for the revolution IMO Alliances with islamist groups are not just necessary but unavoidable. They have already proven they can make a man a selfless machine way better than we ever could. Anyone who is not a spoiled baby would use a man to clear an objective regardless of that mans ideology.

More on the mainstream stage, We cannot afford to alienate moslims form our cause. Particularly in Europe where about all of them are proletarian or lumpen. Most of them are unhappy with the current liberal democracies so it would be stupid not to capitalize on that: Acknowledge their leaders, organize some trips to Mekka and a splendid Halal meat distribution and you’ve pretty much got them in your pocket. The essence of any religion is to be sheep and as long we do not present ourselves as the coming of the ANTICHRIST they will follow us anywhere!
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 31 May 2012, 13:10
What you said here doesn't have anything to do with Marxism.
This is Blanquism, and god knows what else.

Quote:
The essence of any religion is to be sheep and as long we do not present ourselves as the coming of the ANTICHRIST they will follow us anywhere!

Communism isn't about "sheep following the leaders".
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 31 May 2012, 16:16
Quote:
What you said here doesn't have anything to do with Marxism.

No it is revolutionary praxis, You will surely agree with what I said if at some point in our lives being a communist would become more than jerking off to Stalins mustache.

Quote:
Communism isn't about "sheep following the leaders".

Funny to hear that from you but I never implied that!
Fact is many people will just go along passively with whatever political/social change that is happening and the majority of religious people are just like that. ESPECIALLY Muslims since they still have a more religious and less liberal worldview.
If on Soviet empîre, one of the most far left places in the world, people are telling you to frag off I can imagine what the reaction will be of the people that have never analysed the world through an economic materialist lens.
In the 21st century the moslims are oppressed by the establishment so we either make them easily earned allies or have them declare jihad on us because of your douchebaggery.
Communism for me is a change in the mode of production and to reach that point we are often mere populists. For that same reason + the sexual liberation thing we support homosexuals and feminists which BTW is something that IMO has partly outlived its purpose as nowdays we can't offer them that much more than bourgeois society already does. Thus we should move on to other discontent groups!
Religion would wither away after the revolution in a couple of generations and if it doesn't who fragging cares.
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 31 May 2012, 16:31
Quote:
No it is revolutionary praxis, You will surely agree with what I said if at some point in our lives being a communist would become more than jerking off to Stalins mustache.

No, it's not revolutionary praxis.

Quote:
Funny to hear that from you but I never implied that!

Yes you did.

Quote:
Fact is many people will just go along passively with whatever political/social change that is happening and the majority of religious people are just like that. ESPECIALLY Muslims since they still have a more religious and less liberal worldview.

First of all, did you even hear about what happened to communists in Islamist countries such as Iran.
Secondly, no, a revolution is the culmination of class consciousness, not "going along like sheep".

Quote:
If on Soviet empîre, one of the most far left places in the world, people are telling you to frag off I can imagine what the reaction will be of the people that have never analysed the world through an economic materialist lens.

Why does this matter. I'm an individual, not even a party member.

Quote:
In the 21st century the moslims are oppressed by the establishment so we either make them easily earned allies or have them declare jihad on us because of your douchebaggery.

Muslims are not oppresed by the establishment. They're even allowed to have "Sharia zones" in the UK!
And no, you cannot make Islamism ,that, is "political Islam" your ally. You can make Muslims your allies, but not as Muslims, but as communists and workers.
And the masses aren't afraid of no "jihad".

Quote:
Communism for me is a change in the mode of production and to reach that point we are often mere populists.

No. A revolution is the overthrow of one class by another. There's no place for populism in class struggle.

Quote:
For that same reason + the sexual liberation thing we support homosexuals and feminists which BTW is something that IMO has partly outlived its purpose as nowdays we can't offer them that much more than bourgeois society already does.

Yes but that's a question of sexual preference. We don't care what a person does in his own bedroom. We don't care if a person prays to whatever in his own bedroom, but political Islamism is a whole different issue.

"Islamic Socialism" has been a massive failure everywhere.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 31 May 2012, 17:11
Loz"-
Quote:
Yeah but i wanted too see if there existed some Judaist-Marxists and what have you. Apparently not.


Quote:
I don't think Marxism deals with "rights". Of what use are "rights" to communists? Why are they important? Thinking in terms of "rights" is liberalism.
"Rights" can only go as far as class struggle permits, so to speak...

I already cited both Moses Hess, and the Jewish Bunds, as examples of "Judaist-Marxists", in my earlier post in this thread. As for rights, how about the Soviet Union's constitution. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html Among such stated rights, under positive law I take it, is this
Quote:
Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 31 May 2012, 17:58
Quote:
I already cited both Moses Hess, and the Jewish Bunds, as examples of "Judaist-Marxists", in my earlier post in this thread. As for rights, how about the Soviet Union's constitution. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/rus ... ons02.html Among such stated rights, under positive law I take it, is this

I don't know about Moses Hess. Didn't he become a Zionist later, who claimed that "The race struggle is the primal one, and the class struggle secondary. The last dominating race is the German."?
I really don't know anything about him so maybe you're right after all.
As for the Bundists, they were strongly infected with Menshevism and practically died out in the 20s. So much for them.

And yes, these rights you mentioned are legal rights. So, they are written in the law and that's the "right" given to everyone by the state. But that's a legalistic category. We determine who will have what "rights".
The Original poster ,so it seems (and i might be wrong), talked about something else, "the rights that everybody has" and so on.
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 31 May 2012, 18:39
Quote:
No, it's not revolutionary praxis.

An individual can bring more to the revolution by having usefull assets, Blanquism or not.

Quote:
No. A revolution is the overthrow of one class by another. There's no place for populism in class struggle.

Quote:
Yes you did.

Quote:
Secondly, no, a revolution is the culmination of class consciousness, not "going along like sheep"

I think I made it clear that I mean we should not make unnecessary enemies and allienate workers because of some identity politics. Ofcourse you can say that the almighty masses can take Capitalists and their mercenaries, the middle class, the religious freaks, trotskyists and anarchists and maybe even shed off an alien invasion at the same time. But be honest with yourself and try to be a little practical. We stand nowhere at the moment!

Quote:
Muslims are not oppresed by the establishment. They're even allowed to have "Sharia zones" in the UK!
And no, you cannot make Islamism ,that, is "political Islam" your ally. You can make Muslims your allies, but not as Muslims, but as communists and workers.
And the masses aren't afraid of no "jihad".

I am pretty sure you atleast implied that you wanted to eradicate all religion, Nobody will accept that. You see God already enlightented the believer on the end of the world, It will happen when a political movement tries to unite all the world under one banner and publicly renounces God our creator. Ressistance assured if we do not handle it delicately.

Quote:
Why does this matter. I'm an individual, not even a party member.

Because in my eyes you seem to think you represent the one and only true pure marxist way to communism.

Quote:
Yes but that's a question of sexual preference. We don't care what a person does in his own bedroom. We don't care if a person prays to whatever in his own bedroom, but political Islamism is a whole different issue.

"Islamic Socialism" has been a massive failure everywhere.

That is all they want together with a fair possibility to live by their laws.
Political Islamism and Islam are kinda interwinded and confused with each other in many peoples heads. This means we should choose our rhetoric wisely. I do not support political islamism but I think it can be reasoned with to a certain level.
Oh and Islamic Socialism was just as succesfull as any other kind of socialism we have seen.
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: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 31 May 2012, 22:29
fuser wrote:
Of course, but how is this statement relevant to compatibility? From that argument every religion is compatible with communism not just Islam irrespective of them being progressive or not.

They are but only once they've been fully reconditioned by the new economic base.

fuser wrote:
Of course and every religion has thousands of different interpretation which can sound very progressive at least in theory but still they can't neglect the historical regressive role of religions (of course their have been exceptions including the Islam at its birth was very progressive for Arabs at least.)

A. 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. B. 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".

fuser wrote:
For what purpose, why can't religion be a private matter?

Because it far too powerful a social weapon. Privacy in religion is just giving our enemies a root in which to base their counterrevolutionary agenda.

fuser wrote:
Influence of religion has been greatly diminished in communist countries, western world in itself is experiencing the decline of religion without bombs or bullets neither anyone is advocating that. We don't have crystal ball, religion will not be something to be patronized either by an organization of religion or by state itself, whether it will wither away or not is completely irrelevant.

That you think such an important development is irrelevant is nuts. Catholicism proved its usefulness in the Cold War, Political Islam exists at all today because of communist's historical hostility to any religion whatsoever, and throughout the former USSR religion did not die, it got beat back but did not die.

And if you think the tide of fundamentalism is on the ebb you're really not paying very close attention to things.

fuser wrote:
We are going to be enemy of lot of people,

Which is why adding to that tally is unacceptably reckless.

fuser wrote:
no one (at least me) is advocating an militant approach to religion but attack against organized (that is a bourgeoisie institution in itself) religion and leave it to the private hands, religion will have no place at all (either positive or negative) in our revolutionary movement.

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.

fuser wrote:
Beside, hardly any revolution is won or lost by having or not having support of religious people, neither its the primary concern of working class when shit hits the fan, a vanguardist led revolution will always be along the line of "land, peace and bread" not religion.

Now you think I'm saying revolutions should be based on religious slogans? Perhaps you need to re-read what I've said. And lol at land, peace and bread.

fuser wrote:
A common feeling for one's opponent.

Only when your opponent is being illogical. Atheists (militant/fundamentalist) supposedly hate religion yet do all they can to make atheism seem as stuffy and intolerant as your common bible-thumping baptist. That is confusing. It's also confusing to identify on the basis of something that isn't supposed to exist or have meaning.

fuser wrote:
May be you haven't been listening properly, of course their are moderate and extremist position as in every argument but a communist should be able to contemplate that. That being said, I personally won't advocate a militant stand but a stand of negligence while promoting scientific methodology and thinking (they do have their weaknesses, I would accept that though) and will see what happens instead of giving prediction.

We've seen what happened already. Reactionary Religion got only stronger.

fuser wrote:
care to elaborate that?

Religion opposed the new bourgeoisie order until it was systematically reorganized into its modern bourgeois form. This not only reorganized the power system religions are a part of but re-oriented the flavor of the religions even. No more are there God-Appointed Kings and duty to your Lord, but instead personal relationships with God and being bourgeoisie being representative of your faith in God. This is just a small example.

fuser wrote:
I don't understand how that question derived from my statement or was it dodging the question by answering with a question?

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

fuser wrote:
but whatever, to answer your question apart from me being a proletarian, it doesn't take a genius to see the exploitation (and its nature) inherited in the system and fighting against it in itself is a genuine cause but neither I believe that everything will be fairy tale afterwards (after that hypothetical revolution) nor I am satisfying my mind by selective studies just for loyalty sake.

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

fuser wrote:
For what? why is this relevant at all for a revolutionary state?

For the sake of conquering all routes to counterrevolution.

fuser wrote:
oh, please don't put words in my mouth. who is talking about ostracizing? Almost all of Russia was religious, I don't remember only Stalin and his pet cat being in Soviet Union.

What's that even supposed to mean?

fuser wrote:
And now, you talked about confusion but then why theist like you are being so contradictory?

How so?

fuser wrote:
Majority of population practicing religion is certainly not in accordance with your idealistic view of religion,

My view on religion is materialist to the core. Prove otherwise. Besides it does not matter that they don't agree. The vast majority of proletarians do not agree with us either.

fuser wrote:
but still you want only to talk about that particular view of religion dear to you and not in its current form, effectively ostracizing majority of humanity.

You misunderstand me entirely. I do not champion any particular view of religion. I only aim to bring every square inch of culture within proletarian cultural hegemony no matter what that ultimately becomes. I do not presume to know what the ultimate outcome will be.

fuser wrote:
Now why would you do that?

I'm not, so there you go.

fuser wrote:
If you have this grand plan about aligning them to the progressive part of religion (if any exists) why can't atheist comrades have plans for eradicating it (I don't support that particular view exactly btw.)?

Grand Plan? Nothing like that. The only thing I advocate is not agitating against religion while simultaneously promoting those religious groups (not lines) which support our revolutionary movement. The religious wil come to us, our job is to make them communists not atheists.

fuser wrote:
The problem with theists comrades (the grand plans of what after revolution being mostly irrelevant currently) is the amount of irrelevance produced along with chauvinism.

Chauvinism won't die overnight either. Certainly not through atheist chauvinism either.

fuser wrote:
As, dagoth you only pointed about how Buddhism can be so far away from materialism, if I was a Buddhist comrade, I would had provided links to particular schools of Buddhism advocating and propagating materialist life styles over an ascetic one but in the end it would all be fruitless and pointless for any working class movement, this being an online example and hence may not hold much water but there is real world significance of it (as a problem).

Not really. I just don't like Buddhism. It's not like such things will be the basis of government action. You still seem to think I advocate setting religion up as Official when in fact what I speak of is rigorous policing and strict control over religious activities. The so-called "private matter" view of religion will only drive it underground where the most vicious reactionaries will gain a voice.

fuser wrote:
Edit : Also, this "Majority" meme won't fly, people can be classified according to various classifications (apart form class or faith) but still to a Marxist what matters is class difference, or we are supposed to root for a fascist movement because majority of the population in that country is nationalistic?

Ugh I hate the word meme. Also class is the primary contradiction but not the only one. Would you say the American race issue isn't a contradiction?

Conscript wrote:
If anything religion should be discouraged and practiced at home deist-style. No churches, no clerics, because we are not going to 'supervise' them and make sure they're 'progressive' or subsidize their unproductive crap.

You wanna go ahead and give them guns too? How about linking them up with our foreign enemies as well?
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron